Unity Requires Tolerance and Other Post Election Thoughts

So it is now 5 days post-election and we still do not have an official winner, although at the moment Joe Biden is the presumptive winner.  The media is treating him as the winner and people are beginning to accept that, though that does not necessarily make it so.  If it turns out that he is indeed the official winner, I hope that everyone will accept that just as I hope everyone will do so if the tide turns in Trump’s favor.  

In the meantime, several different but related thoughts and issues are rolling around in my head and I will discuss some of them here.

First, let’s understand that in this country, accepting a victor does not mean agreeing with all the policies or views of that victor or his party.  In America we accept the vote of the people and support the legitimate office holder, but we retain our right to hold our own views and beliefs, and to speak out both for and against various political policies.  If we do not like the policies of the chosen winner, we can work to see someone with different policies elected in the future.  The win of one side does not make the other side’s views wrong nor require them to alter their individual beliefs.

Last night Mr. Biden gave a speech in which he essentially claimed victory and called for unity in the nation.  A nice thought, but I don’t see how we can take that call seriously when we still have the leaders of his party, people like  former President Obama, his wife Michelle, the presumptive Vice President Harris, Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Cortez, and many others, along with most of the Democrat voters continuing to throw a variety of ad hominem attacks against the more than 70 million who voted for President Trump. 

Mrs. Obama just yesterday called that 70 million plus racist.  Others assert they are uneducated.  Some call for the identification of all Trump voters so that they can be “educated.”  Others yelled F**k USA at groups of Trump supporters singing the National Anthem after the press had declared Biden the winner.  Hypocrisy is everywhere when we see such things as Biden supporters celebrating without masks or social distancing when Trump and his supporters were regularly criticized by Biden and the Democrats for the same behavior.

The speeches, but even more so the actions of Mr. Biden and the Democrats seem to make it clear that there will be no tolerance for views of which they disapprove.  And real unity requires tolerance of viewpoints that are not one’s own.  So I see Biden’s words as nothing more than that – pretty words of a politician. 

Another thought is about the election challenges.  We should remember that Mr. Biden and the Democrats all applauded Stacey Abrams when she challenged election results in 2018.  Yet today they condemn the President and the Republicans for their challenges based on much stronger evidence than what was held by Ms. Abrams.  Not only are there serious and verified accounts of widespread voter fraud, there are also very credible allegations of unconstitutional procedures in Pennsylvania and perhaps other states. 

Now I know the Democrats don’t want to hear this, they want to get on with their celebrations.  And many Republicans are just tired and want to move on.  But every American should be very concerned about this because if we do not have fair elections that we can trust, then how are we going to retain and protect our democracy?  And the most concerned person should be the presumptive winner and probably next president. 

These challenges go well beyond winning or losing.  Obviously, if they go forward there is a chance Trump could win and if they end here Biden will clearly win.  But at what cost to the nation?  We should all want these challenges to go forward so that we can know that the final outcome was fair and honest.  And the person for whom this should be cause number 1 is the next president of the U.S., whichever candidate that might be.  And if he is not willing to support that assurance to the American people, then how can Biden claim that he intends to be president of all of America?

I hear many proclaiming that now we will not have a bigot/racist in the White House.  First, while many have called President Trump those things when they did not like his policy or action or his sometimes vulgar language, I have seen no actual proof of real bigotry or racism.  Indeed, I have seen a presidency that tries to treat all persons equally under the laws that exist. 

But I would argue that even Mr. Biden’s VP is the result of a racist act.  You will recall that he promised and did select his VP based upon skin color and sex, thus excluding the majority of Americans and American politicians from any consideration whatsoever.  To base such considerations on two immutable characteristics is the very definition of racism.  And no, it is not OK to be racist just to try to prove that you or your party are not racist.

While they are continuing to throw their ugly and hurtful words toward Trump and his supporters, many Democrats now call for conversations wherein we will learn to “understand one another.”  It is hard to have a conversation of understanding when one half of that conversation has already determined the other half to be guilty of things such as racism or other sins and in need of change.  Without tolerance for other views there can be no real understanding.

People are claiming that with a Biden administration we will see a return to love, kindness, family, etc.  Nice words, but the actions betray them.  It is not loving or kind to call those who do not parrot your views the ugly epithets that Democrats fling at Republicans.  It is not kind or loving to threaten them when they do not accept the Democrat view. 

As to family, the Democrat policies are in so many ways anti-family.  Without even mentioning many social values, just looking at economic policies it is clear that Biden’s proclaimed agenda is not family favorable. 

It was Trump who helped to bring many minorities out of poverty and with that create stronger families.  It was Trump whose renegotiated and USA-favorable trade policies helped not only farmers but American businesses and with that jobs for American families.  It was Trump who reformed criminal justice, who made sure Black colleges would remain funded, whose economic polices created better investment opportunities meaning more home ownership, better retirement savings, etc.  Biden has said he will reverse all this, which I do not see as family friendly.

While hate has blossomed on both sides of the aisle, I honestly see the Democrats as the party of hate.  It was VP Biden who participated in illegal plans to spy against President Trump even before he took office.  It was the Democrats who for 4 years refused to accept Trump as their president and did everything within their power to try to remove him from office, thus working to overturn the will of the people.  It has been the Democrats who, blinded by their irrational hatred of President Trump, have spent the last four years lying to the American people and disregarding any aspects of our system of  laws that do not immediately provide them with what they want. 

It is the Democrats who have removed the boarded-up windows in cities that were placed there to protect from rioting after the election, because it was really to protect against riots by Democrats.  Now that a Democrat is the presumptive victor, there is no fear which implies that the Republicans are not the ones likely to riot and destroy.  It is the Democrats who refuse to condemn violence against the Right by their own people as well as by groups such as Antifa (and yes, despite the media and Democrat narrative, Trump has many times condemned violence and White Supremacists).  And it is the Democrats who just keep on posting their nasty memes about Republicans and Trump, claiming that they are just celebrating.

And Joe?  Does he condemn any of that behavior?  No, he just says we will have unity.   Yet if he is willing to continue to accept the hateful behavior upon which the hateful Democrat campaign was built, if his only tolerance at this point is of the continued hatred from the Left, if the only behavior that he will accept is a blind acceptance of his view, then there really is no call for unity at all. 

And so we wait for an official decision, for challenges to be heard and recounts to be had.  We wait, and if we really want an honest and fair election, then the wait is both valuable and worthwhile.  It would be nice if the wait included a call against hatred from the presumptive winner.

Recognizing Humanity - the Real Win

I understand team rivalries.  I grew up in Michigan where you are either for U of M or MSU – there is no in between.  But, despite what the media and perhaps your neighbors or Facebook friends would have you believe, politics is not a team rivalry.  It is not simply Red vs. Blue.

If one is really going to take a political position, one must understand more than what color their team wears.  One must delve into the issues, understand their history, their facts and falsities, and the consequences both short and long term of any action or proposed action taken in regard to those issues.

What true understanding requires is that one touch the humanity and not just the uniform worn by someone who represents a different side on an issue.  One effective way for individuals to recognize their shared humanity despite policy or political differences is to actually interact with one another.  That is what happens when people have a real conversation.

A conversation is “a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.”  The key word here is “exchanged”; the conversants share and exchange ideas.  They are not in it to win, but to understand the ideas of another and to broaden their own perspective about that person or an issue or whatever might be the topic of the conversation.  A conversation is not simply a game between two different teams in which the players’ primary goal is to win, not to learn.

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have such real conversations on Facebook.  I have followed many and participated in a few Facebook “conversations” and have yet to see or experience one in which there was actually an exchange in the sense of sharing and listening and actually considering one another’s ideas as a springboard to new ideas and deeper understandings. 

No matter how civil the discussion (“I understand what you are saying, but….”) they all really go something like this:  The initial Poster presents something which is open to more than one viewpoint but which takes or at least leans to one view only which is the view in which the Poster believes.  There will be some responses in the form of “likes” or similar acceptance of the view presented.  This of course satisfies the addictive sugar of Facebook for the Poster.  Eventually someone will either disagree or point out additional or contrary opinions or facts, all of which are inconvenient for the Poster and those aligned with the Poster. 

While one might call that an exchange of ideas, it is not.  It is a presentation by the other team.  An exchange requires more than presentation.  It requires an acceptance (though not necessarily an adoption) of the other side’s presentation.  It requires a desire to understand the contrary or inconvenient presentations. 

That exchange does not exist on Facebook.  Rather, once inconvenient information is presented the “conversation” becomes not one of exchange and sharing but one of each side trying to win their point.  People with inconvenient information for that point are sometimes ignored, sometimes deleted, and often called names that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed (things like “you must be a nut job”; “only an idiot would post that”; “no one cares what you think”; “you should get your information from [my team’s news] since [your team’s sources] just lie”; “your offerings are both wrong and worthless”; and much worse). 

The “conversation” becomes simply about showing the other participants how right one’s comments are, as well as collecting those “likes.”  It is about winning.

A real conversation, rather than devolving into deaf assertions of righteousness of each side, grows into a new and shared understanding.  How does that happen and why is it impossible on Facebook or similar impersonal social media venues?

When we meet face to face we are looking at another person, not some posted words on a page.  Recognizing our shared humanity provides the participants with some humility.  In social media posts, even when many posters are involved in a conversation, each poster is really only talking to him or herself.  The addictive “likes” encourage each poster to repost essentially the same view over and over.  Those “likes” solidify the self-righteousness and, like cheerleaders at an athletic contest, encourage each poster to try even harder to win.  There really is no reward for listening on Facebook because the venue obliterates the shared humanity that is essential to any real conversation in which ideas are actually exchanged, thought about, and discussed.

Humanity is “a virtue associated with basic ethics of altruism derived from the human condition. It also symbolizes human love and compassion towards each other.”  If the humanity of conversants is obscured, the compassion necessary to respect and listen to those involved in a “conversation” is also obscured.  Rather than a time of sharing and understanding the “conversation” becomes a contest where participants choose their teams and their sides; it becomes about winning and perhaps also about demolishing the opponent.

It is not just social media that is obscuring humanity with the result of more animosity and hatred.  Indeed, the team spirit of winning at any cost seems to have taken over far too many of our once more human interactions.  Politics:  red or blue and beat up (literally or figuratively) the opposing team.  Identity politics:  the identity group must demolish all other groups (opposing teams) in order to win.  Life style:  no tolerance for anything different because the favored life style must win against all others.  Even history:  its complexities and nuances are no longer allowed as opposing viewpoints each must win rather than use the complexities to elucidate and accept varying views.

I was thinking about the ways that people really help others who are struggling in some way.  Every truly effective help that I can think of involves the helper reaching out and touching the shared humanity of the one being helped.  There is a difference between that and drive by “help” that sees some problem “over there” with this or that identity group or cause and simply throws money or support at it.  That is not that different from throwing “likes” at a Facebook post. 

Such drive by help fails to stop and recognize the humanity of the other.  It is that kind of help that leaves those being “helped” demeaned and dependent.  It does not see those being helped as equal in their humanity.  Causes and drive by help might be based on a positive idea, but they do nothing.

What does help, what does lead to productive conversations as well as productive betterment of society requires a recognition of everyone’s shared humanity.  That of course requires both work and humility.  The humility of accepting that we each are no better than the other.  Yes, different skills, different places in life, different minds, different in every aspect of our individuality, but at the same time no better than others.  That is our humanity.

And it takes work.  It is easy to post something on a Facebook wall or Twitter feed.  It is harder to open one’s mind and really listen to someone who does not think as you do.  It is easy to drive by and throw money or support to a cause; it is much harder to do the actual work to improve a situation or move society forward.

In the end, we can work to win, or we can work to find our shared humanity.  Elections may be about who wins, but the underlying policies, like life itself, must be recognized as far more complex than just some team rivalry.   Life is far more than a team sport and those who are not us are not our opponents against whom we must win.

*Addendum 9/11/20:  Apparently this quote needs some explanation or context.  It was written by Anton Chekhov in 1894 during the height of the industrial revolution.  He was pointing out that those who actually work on things that help to better society for all mankind show more humanity than those (often wealthy or elites) who sit home and proclaim their support of and need to work for particular causes but actually themselves never do anything for the cause or toward the betterment of humanity.  The specific items (electricity, steam, chastity, vegetarianism) are simply chosen from the times (electricity & steam from work of the industrial revolution; chastity & vegetarianism from common popularly proclaimed causes).  The context of an example of love for humanity is the intention of placing this quote here; it is not intended as support of or antipathy toward any of the particular words used.

 

Question Three

 This is the third in a series of questions to consider before casting your vote this November.  Once again let me state that I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  I hope that everyone gives it the serious consideration that it deserves.

Is intolerance of unpopular ideas (not actions) ever OK, and if so, to what extent can that intolerance be expressed?

Intolerance is the reverse of tolerance.  Tolerance is the willingness to allow the existence of opinions with which one does not agree.  Hence, intolerance is the unwillingness or refusal to respect or allow the existence of opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.

The question is a difficult question.  When ideas conflict with one’s own, while one may be curious, it is also easy to become intolerant, especially of distasteful ideas.   No one wants to hear hurtful or repugnant words, racial, ethnic, or religious epithets, or other generally unaccepted views.   We would like to put a stop to hateful, and painful pronouncements.  But the difficulty here is that the inclination to silence offensive views directly implicates our First Amendment.

The First Amendment envisions a country of tolerance in which there is a free and open marketplace of ideas.  This marketplace educates us.  It may cause us to strengthen our own ideas, alter them, or improve them.  Most importantly, when speech is not suppressed, thought cannot be controlled or limited.

Tolerance and the free interchange of ideas also prohibits the suppression so necessary to a dictatorship.  One of the first things that Lenin did following his Russian revolution was to end all opposition by ending freedom of speech and the press and by instilling in the people a complete fear of speaking dissenting ideas.  Communism also denied the freedom to practice one’s religion.  There was complete intolerance of any thought, speech, or idea that did not conform to the State.

Tolerance does not mean or require acceptance of the other view.  But lack of tolerance is a demand that all think as you do.  Note that I am not talking about tolerance of actions which society, through the legislative process, has agreed are not tolerable - things like DWI, murder, rape, and many other crimes against persons or property.  I am talking about a person who has ideas with which others do not agree.  Is intolerance (the suppression of the existence) of those ideas or speech about them ever OK?  If yes, then when?  And what are the consequences of answering “yes”?

Distinguish here the emotion of disagreeing with or not wanting to hear or associate with a particular idea as opposed to actual intolerance (suppression) of that idea.    One can always walk away from an unpleasant idea or one can argue against it.  Argument signals disagreement with, not intolerance of an idea.  If the argument is civilized, everyone will learn because the differing ideas are all brought to the marketplace.  Such disagreement is not intolerance but rather a way of being tolerant of and perhaps understanding the ideas of others. 

The intolerant attempt to silence unwelcome views is often the result of fear or insecurity on the part of the intolerant one, perhaps because their intolerance is an attempt to silence all opposition, or perhaps because they simply do not understand the words of others that they have adopted as their own and thus feel threatened when “their” ideas are questioned.

In the current climate of heated political debate, both sides often accuse the other of intolerance.   But an actual review of the behavior of both sides seems to indicate far more coordinated attempts at actual suppression of ideas and speech on the part of the Left than by the Right.  This makes sense when one considers that the Left is aiming toward a complete remaking of America in a socialist mode.  Socialism cannot tolerate dissent as those in power decide what is “right” for everyone.

A free marketplace of ideas does not coordinate well with the Left’s plans for this country.  Tolerance of opposing views is not acceptable to the Left.  They will not be tolerant of those who disagree, and those who disagree must not simply tolerate the Left’s views, but actually accept them.  Their methods of being intolerant, of silencing all dissent, are many.

People will be called racist, sexist, etc. if they disagree with the Left’s agenda.  This is one method of silencing dissenting views.  Another is to file lawsuits designed to to force others to conform their views to that of the Left, for example aiming to force bakers and florists who, for religious reasons, decline services to gay weddings. 

The Left will attack people for wearing a Trump MAGA hat.  They not only ban Right-leaning speakers from campuses, but also at times assault them.  Having made the decision that intolerance of “wrong” views is acceptable, the Left seems to have concluded that whatever means necessary to silence the disapproved view is acceptable, even the use of violence.

The Left has no problem proclaiming what speech is and is not allowed.  We now have a list of words, phrases, and questions that are not allowed to be spoken about the Democrat VP candidate. 

Yes, an actual memo went out from a group of Democrats to media telling them how they are “allowed” to cover Kamala.  Any criticism will be considered racist and sexist.  Hence, if you say she seems like an angry woman you are speaking a racist code about her.  The Democrats love codes – so often when someone speaks something they do not like, they will assert that the word or phrase is code for racism or sexism or white supremacism or whatever negative -ism fits the context.

The problem with intolerance is that it silences dissent.  It allows the one doing the silencing to eliminate any questioning of, and discussion about the approved or tolerated views.  Being aggressively intolerant of opposing thoughts really has the same effect as Lenin’s secret police.  Eventually it will instill enough fear that others will stop even attempting to voice those ideas.  The hope of the intolerant and the requirement of the socialist is that ultimately everyone will fully conform to and fully accept what those in power assert, even that 2+2=5.

This Country was built on the idea of tolerance, tolerance of other ideas, of others who are different.  This does not mean required acceptance of diverse views, but it does mean accepting that those diverse from us have a right to exist and to express their beliefs. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Those are the words of the FIRST Amendment.  The most important amendment.  It protects the people from a government that would deny them of their very right to free thought.  It demands tolerance, even of views with which we deeply disagree. 

The words seem to be meaningless to the Democrats who cannot tolerate even the slightest question or criticism.  The “thought police” have been around for some time.   But the Democrats seem to have taken it to a new level as they try in every way possible to silence opposing and especially conservative thought.  

The Left would have us all think alike; their purpose is to achieve and hold the power that will allow them to lead us into their socialist “utopia.”  And now we have the Left-supported “cancel culture” with its accompanying violence.  Whatever else the purpose of all this may be, it certainly has a chilling effect on those who would speak out or even question the Democrat mantras. 

Tolerance can be difficult.  But it is key to freedom.  Intolerance, once accepted into society, can be fickle: intolerance by one today may become intolerance against them tomorrow.  With intolerance comes the threat of suppression of thought for everyone. 

Those for whom freedom of thought is important must do what they can to stop the Democrat oppression of ideas that are not theirs.  One thing we can do is to vote Republican in November.

 

 

The Names We Call Things - Some Thoughts on Critical Thinking

Often the Left asserts that the Right, and especially White Conservatives, has been “indoctrinated” with such things as White Supremacy, racial bias and hatred, etc.

In similar fashion the Right often asserts that the Left has been "brainwashed" – to hate Trump and his supporters, to hate America, to embrace Socialism, etc.

In most cases such name calling is the result of someone being faced with a viewpoint that is contrary to their own.  Why does a simple difference of view, stark as it might be, almost immediately devolve into name calling and the hatred that follows?

I submit that this almost knee-jerk reaction is a defensive one resulting from lack of critical thought.  Let me explain.

When one has thought through and chosen to accept a position, rather than simply adopting without thought that of another, the thinker will be certain in their position.  The thinker will know it can be defended.  The thinker will likely also be curious to hear the views of others about the viewpoint that he has formulated. He will always be ready to further assess both his view as well as that of others.

Those who are secure in their positions are not defensive about them.  But, if one, without thought, has merely put on the cloak of another and called it his own, then if attacked he is unable to defend that position and so becomes both fearful and defensive.  He cannot rationally discuss the underlying aspects of the position, so instead of engaging in such a discussion he simply throws negative names and labels at the one holding a differing view in an attempt to drive them away.  

Taken advantage of by those who sincerely promote their viewpoint (whether for the general good or for their own), many simply adopt a view that superficially sounds good to them.  But when challenged, they are left without ability to reasonably respond, discuss, and understand something different or challenging to their adopted view.  They can only react to what they see as and attack and, without understanding of their position they resort to name-calling as their only defense.  And, it is they, the name-callers, who are the ones who in some way have indeed been indoctrinated or brainwashed.

Now, the interesting question is which came first, the indoctrination/brainwashing, or the inability to think critically? 

From the moment anyone is born they face some sort of indoctrination.  Indoctrination is defined as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.”  Of course, there are some things that children must be taught as a basic means of survival – don’t touch a hot stove, don’t eat household cleaners, etc.  Others as a basic matter of civilization.  Relieve yourself in the bathroom, not the living room.  Parents will also teach their children the value system that they believe is good and best for their children.  Some of this early teaching will likely fall into what might be termed a mild form of brainwashing – “the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.”

But, good parenting, and good schooling will teach the growing child the additional and crucial piece of humanity called critical thinking – “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.”  It is this piece that allows the individual to assess the information provided to him and to reach his own judgments - judgments that will determine whom he will be as an individual. 

Note, I do not suggest that children should be left to their own devices without any rules.  Of course some "indoctrination" into the family culture and requirements is necessary just as larger groups and the greater society must be taught certain rules and cultural norms that maintain the civility and civilization of that society.  But indoctrination must be balanced with critical thinking.

Sadly, too many parents and too many educators do not want those they are raising to question; rather they look for blind acceptance of what they offer.  They want the individuals in their care to be and become the individuals whom they would have them be rather than the individuals whom they are or are capable of becoming.  This is not only unfair to each individual; it is also unfair and harmful to humanity as a whole.

Too many individuals hold beliefs and values that are not truly their own; they do not have the strength of a person that has been taught to critically evaluate information and has indeed done so in regard to their own beliefs.  It is only then that they have both the strength and courage to fully engage peacefully and productively with others, some with the same and some with differing or even opposing beliefs and values.

And, without the strength of their own convictions, the uncritical thinkers become open fodder for those who would make one or another particular viewpoint the dominant if not only viewpoint in society.  Such a goal is not for the benefit of the un-thinkers; they are simply used by those who promote a goal for their own end – usually their own power to demand that all think as they do.

It is difficult to raise or teach critical thinkers.  It means teaching them to question everything and that includes the one raising or teaching them.  Most people don’t like being challenged and yet that is an essential part of teaching another to be a critical thinker.  Not easy, but essential.  If someone is not taught the importance of asking “why?” then one is being left to the control of others, a control that usually does not end well for the controlled. 

When critical thinking is not a working skill, others will easily take advantage of that fact.  It is only then that indoctrination and brainwashing on a grander scale becomes possible.  And, when that brainwashing or indoctrination is political, we no longer are able to have reasonable policy discussions, we are no longer able to reach across the aisle and compromise for a greater good.  And we devolve to name-calling and hatred.

Critical thinking – both teaching it and doing it – takes courage.  But it also imbues each and everyone of us the strength to be the individual that we are meant to be, not the useful tool of someone else who would think for us.  And if we would use our critical thinking, rather than simply calling names at those with different views we could perhaps have discussions instead.    With a sharing and a critical, curious, and open-minded examination of both our views, perhaps we can understand both.  We can understand if, where, how we may have similar goals as well as accepting where we cannot.

We are all capable of thinking critically, we are just not often encouraged to do so.  Hence, I challenge everyone rather than accepting political policies, to ask “why?” And again, and again, keep asking why to every answer you get until you just can go not further.  Ask what supports a point, who conducted a study, are there different studies, are there additional facts, etc.  Assess the answers.  How well do they support the policy asserted?  What questions do you still have about that policy?  Is it truly a policy that you wish to adopt and defend?

I realize that most people will not do this.  They will simply accept what sounds good and move on.  But we really must address many of the currently proposed policies more critically, assessing not only the policy itself but its ramifications and consequences, for if we do not question now, we may be giving up our opportunity to ever do so.   With critical thinking perhaps we could replace the names “indoctrinated” and “brainwashed” with “open-minded,” “tolerant,” and “understanding.”  It is those words that are necessary for a truly strong and free society.

Rage

Rage.

Feeling rage after watching the video of George Floyd dying under the knee of a police officer is reasonable.  In fact, anyone who, after watching that video is not filled with rage, has probably lost every shred of their humanity.

But, we can decide how to channel the rage that we feel.  That rage can fuel hate and destruction.  Those who never let a crisis go to waste will use that rage to fuel the flames of revolution.  They will destroy everything in their path, not in memory of George Floyd, not to stop this or similar atrocities from ever happening again, but to further hate and then use it to overthrow everything that is good. 

Rage and destruction are not necessarily equivalent.  One can even understand the emotion behind the rage, find it rational and real, and yet condemn the act of channeling that rage into destruction. 

Everyone should be speaking out about the horrendous acts of four Minneapolis police officers.  Everyone should speak out about any such acts.  Anyone who cannot see injustice when it slaps them in the face is truly blind.  Anyone who tries to justify it is someone whose view and narrative of the world is so closed that they must certainly live in complete fear and hatred every day of their life.  But anyone who thinks that this is an excuse to hate and destroy everyone and everything around them is also filled with a hateful and closed narrative that certainly must make their life a living hell.

Hate.  Fueled by fear.  Creating narratives that hold no hope, no understanding or tolerance, where everyone who is not you is simply out to get you.  This is the world that sadly so many live in today.  People, locked in their narrative, look about them and see everyone and everything around them as an attack on their narrative and ultimately on themselves.  They hate and hate and hate until they explode.  And others will certainly take advantage of that hate, using it for their own political advantage.  People will not stand up to the hate of others if they can use that hate for their own political gain.

Some of you interpret those last two sentences as a slam against the President and his followers, others will see them as a slam against the Democrats and progressive Left.  They are not either and yet perhaps a bit of both.  Seeing them as simply a confirmation of your own political views demonstrates the problem that we have in our society today.

We live in a dystopian world these days.  We are schooled in it from the time we are young.  Compare the original Star Trek series, full of joyfulness and hope for the future, with the most current Trek offering – the Picard series - showing us a dystopian world full of angst and very little hope, and certainly no joy.  We are berated every day with all the problems we might be facing, encouraged to share all the sadnesses and hurts we have suffered, encouraged to see everyone else and even our country as out to get us in one way or another. 

We make sure that children are taught every evil that has or might happen, all the ways that they or their life style or their feelings might be under attack, but we fail to teach them the simple joy of being alive, of having understanding and appreciation for those around us, even those who may seem strange or different.  Actually, that joy is stolen from them as quickly as possible.

Instead of teaching tolerance, we teach hate.  Hate of the other, of the one not like us, of the one with a different value or faith or color or economic status or education.  When that hate becomes real and strong it becomes violent and it engenders fear.  And rage.

I remember the 1967 riots in Detroit.  They were fueled by rage.  A rage similar to that of today’s riots fueled by the death of George Floyd.  After the rage and riots subsided, we could have moved forward seeking understanding.  But instead what we saw was a rise in identity politics and its divisiveness.  Politicians stepped in to turn identity group against identity group as they sought to use a hugely magnified and often manufactured struggle and hatred between groups to further their own power.

Rather than telling inner city people of color that only the powerful politician who needed their vote could help them and then, after getting that vote leaving them with their simmering rage, those politicians and other leaders should have worked to give these people the hope, self-confidence, and skills needed to raise themselves up, not to become a dependent underclass.  Those leaders should have worked for equality and tolerance rather than creating a class of helpless and dependent voters designed to keep their political masters in power.

Identity politics is a political power tool.  It has become more pronounced, more used, and more hateful.  It helps no one but those who use one group or another for their own power.  It dehumanizes and fills people with hate.  And we should then not wonder that life, especially the life of those seen as belonging to a different identity group, becomes meaningless, valueless, and expendable.  We should not be surprised to see hate breed both fear and ultimately rage.

And so, here we are facing that rage for another time in our history.  We can sit back and let the instigators for whom that rage serves a selfish and self-powering purpose prevail.  Or, we can understand the rage but not accept its violence. 

The 1967 Detroit riots are also now referred to as the rebellion.  Some of today’s rioters also hold signs demanding rebellion.  We see others demanding revolution.  And, there are those who march in memory of George Floyd.  We can decide how we wish to channel the rage that our country is experiencing.  We can decide whether we want to turn our rage over to revolutionaries who can use it for their own ends while destroying everything we hold dear, whether we want to revolt against our entire system, or whether we want to demand justice for George Floyd and work toward education that will make similar events less likely in the future.

My rage is great.  I will use it to work for a better understanding and I will direct my intolerance  toward those who seek to use identity of one sort or another to continue to further divide and diminish our humanity.

Let’s Just Grow Up

When I was six and in first grade my older brother would teach me about what he was learning in school.  Often his Jr. High learning went well beyond my first-grade curriculum; nonetheless, I loved learning about the many different things that he knew. 

I can remember when my big brother taught me about our First Amendment freedoms.  I was fascinated by this aspect of our democracy.  I grasped only a very basic idea of the complex concepts that my brother tried to explain but I couldn’t wait to tell my best friend about them.  The next morning I ran onto the playground, found my friend, and told her that we lived in a free society and we could do and say and think what we wanted.  She looked at me like I was a bit nuts, and said, “That’s not true.  I had to pay for my Popsicle yesterday.  It wasn’t free, so we don’t live in a free society.”

That’s pretty good logic for a 6-year-old.  But I knew she was wrong, that living in a free society was somehow still true, despite the cost of Popsicles.  I just couldn’t express why.  I didn’t have the understanding that my brother did, so all I could do was just repeat the “sound bite” from his lecture that had stuck with me: “Yes we do live in a free society.”  I didn’t have the depth of knowledge or related education and learning sufficient to explain what that meant.  So, after a few repetitions of “yes we do” and “no we don’t” our dialogue ended.

We never discussed this again, and we remained friends, but I think that interchange to some extent changed the relationship between us.  I thought she was stupid because she didn’t understand me, and she thought I was an idiot for claiming our society was free when it clearly wasn’t. 

This immature reaction is normal for a pair of 6-year-olds faced with a discussion about something beyond what they at that point are educated to understand.  It is not appropriate for mature adults. Yet, sadly, this is the sort of reaction we are likely to encounter when presenting a political opinion to someone holding a differing view. 

Had we 6-year-olds had a deeper comprehension of what we were addressing, a better understanding of the word “freedom” in the context of our democracy, we likely could have engaged in an actual discussion of the questions raised by each other’s assertion.  We could have both listened and explained to one another.   We would have been able to, without name calling, understand each other’s viewpoints and the issues raised.  Differences, rather than resulting in insurmountable obstacles and irreconcilable name calling would have produced a constructive sharing of information and working together to resolve differences.

That is what mature people do.  Immature people, people who are making statements about things that they don’t understand, act like 6-year-olds.  Because they often are simply parroting someone else’s rhetoric without any real understanding of the complexities of the issue or viewpoint, they do not have the ability to grasp and understand a differing point of view.  They have simply adopted a point of view (or sound bite) superficially, and when that view is not agreed with or is challenged, they think there is something wrong with the one challenging it, and often see it as a personal attack and then respond with either attack or complete dismissal of the challenger. There is no tolerance.

This is not only unproductive; it is dangerous.  When people are willing to accept assertions without their own investigation or critical thinking, without even attempting to hear, let alone understand another viewpoint, there can be no resolution of differences.  Instead, the “conversation” will be some form of my 6-year-old “yes it is; no it isn’t.”

It is only when one really understands the viewpoint that they are professing that they can openly listen to other view points and critically assess those views against their own, understanding the position of the person holding the alternate view point and honing in on where there are places for agreement as well as disagreement.  Only by exploring one another’s viewpoints and rationale behind them can those who seem to disagree come to any sort of mutual understanding about issues raised by those viewpoints.

Similarly, only when one truly grasps the depths and nuances of what they are professing can they explain their position to another.  Until then, disagreements become attacks as mere soundbites are simply thrown back and forth.  Disagreements generate not learning, but name calling or even more violent responses as the 6-year-old type responses escalate into what might be akin to playground violence or rock-throwing.  These are typical responses when one does not have the education or maturity to deal with what one does not, or is not willing to, understand.

It is not unreasonable that two six-year-olds would not be able to have a conversation about different viewpoints when the underlying subject was more complex and profound than they were ready to handle.   But it is less reasonable to tolerate such inability from adults who consider themselves educated, informed, and mature. 

Our political discourse these days is like that of 6-year-olds.  People spout their party line.  If disagreed with they name-call the one who disagrees with what they see as an appropriate epithet:  bigot, racist, deplorable, etc.  I, personally, have been called most of the epithets in vogue by the Democrats simply for holding a position on one or another issue that is contrary to theirs.  I have yet to find a member of the Progressive or Socialist Left who is willing to sit down and have a rational and mature conversation about why we might favor different policies towards an issue that is of concern to us both. 

Had my family not moved, I suspect that at some point my friend and I would have studied the Constitution together in school, developed a better understanding about it and the principles of our democracy, and had another discussion.  I would like to believe that we would listen and learn from one another, rather than simply reacting with complete negativity to the one holding a different view.  I also believe that in this particular instance, once we defined what we meant by “freedom” in the context of our societal principles that we would find that we were not really standing in opposition, or even very far at all from one another.  And any differences we did have would not be insurmountable obstacles to our ability to work together to resolve any issues presented by our differing views.

Such conversations require tolerance.  Tolerance of viewpoints that differ from one’s own.  They also require a desire to reach a common goal – in my example conversation it would have been to understand freedom in the context of democracy, its meaning and its limitations.  Our goal might have been to resolve issues we saw within those parameters that would make are freedoms clearer and more secure.  We would need to understand one another’s viewpoints to do that.

When we have a Democrat party that is focused not on having a dialogue with their Republican counterparts to address and improve problems facing our country, but is instead singularly focused on removing President Donald J. Trump from office, it is impossible to have anything more than the equivalent of the 6-year-olds’ dialogue.  We see this playing out in the impeachment.  The Democrats have their narrative – facts be damned.  If you counter their narrative, if you oppose them in any way, Adam Schiff tells us “you will have your head on a pike.”  Said with the maturity of a 6-year-old.

If we want this country to survive, we must remember that its greatness requires tolerance, wisdom, and maturity.  There is not much of that going around these days.  It is time to grow up!

A Trigger Warning for Christmas?

I’m thinking that maybe I should put a trigger warning* on the Christmas cards I’m about to send out.  They have a picture of the nativity (a reproduction of a 15^th century painting). 

*Trigger warning for those who are not familiar with the term is “a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).”  Teachers and professors are advised (sometimes required) to give such a warning to students when a subject to be addressed in class might prove upsetting to some.  

While my consideration of a trigger warning for my card is primarily in jest, it is also in response to learning that an associate professor of clinical psychology and sexuality studies from Minnesota, posted on his Twitter account that the “virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen,” and “There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario.” He concluded the tweet by writing “Happy holidays.”

So, those of us who enjoy Christmas, for religious or other reasons, can now consider ourselves complicit with those sexual predators called out by the MeToo movement.  We are also not to listen to a variety of Christmas or Winter season songs – “Baby Its Cold Outside” (date rape); “I’m Dreaming Of A White Christmas” (racist); “Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer” (bullying), “Deck the Halls” (homophobic). I haven’t heard complaints yet, but I’m sure “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” is a symbol of elder abuse.  Of course, we already have learned that Charlie Brown is racist from his Thanksgiving special.   And, the movie “Elf” includes the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” so it too must go.  I’m sure there is a long list of other offensive Christmas activities that we will eventually hear about.

Once upon a time in a Children’s story the Grinch stole Christmas.  There are real grinches who would not only spoil the fun of Christmas but put an end to it altogether.  They remind us that it is really a recycled pagan holiday, that we don’t know when Jesus was born, and that the word “Christmas” is not in the Bible.   We already know we should not be using the word Christmas – if we must give a season greeting it should be the generic “Happy Holidays.”

Debates.org has a debate poll asking the question “Should Christmas be abolished?”  The result:  49% yes, 51% no.  Reasons for yes include that the holiday is racist, sexist, and Christian, that it “gives false hope” to children, and that it is for capitalists.

Once upon a time in this country we were more tolerant.  Even if a holiday were not one that we chose to celebrate, we were tolerant of those who did.   We were not offended by, nor did we look for everything possible by which we could be offended in the holidays, beliefs, and activities of others.  I grew up on a street with Christians and Jews.  They did not celebrate each other’s holidays, but neither did they take offense at them.  They respected the other’s views and were tolerant of them.  They did not try to take the joy out of them or spoil them or end them altogether.

Today we do not have such tolerance.  Those who oppose Christmas are not content to let others enjoy the holiday.  Instead they would impose guilt, doubt, hatred on those who do.

In soviet Russia, the State took charge of what people should believe.  The goal was to establish State atheism.  Religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools.  Believers had to worship secretly; public displays of religion were prohibited.

Is that where this over-eager hunt for Christmas offenses leads?  It is certainly in line with the autocratic mind-set of dictatorship.  And with what seems to be more and more the prevalent mind-set of the progressives in this country.  The Democrats (most recently via Sen. Hirono) have told us that they are just too smart for the rest of us.  Perhaps that is why they believe that it is their job to tell us how to think and to act, what to celebrate and what is just too offensive, what we should feel guilty about and why we should just never be able to simply enjoy life without shame and guilt for our many sins and misdeeds.  And, among those, apparently, is the joy and fun of Christmas.

Lenin wrote, “Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.”  Marxism-Leninism advocates the suppression and ultimately the disappearance of religious beliefs, considering them to be "unscientific" and "superstitious”.

That is communism; we live in a country that protects a variety of beliefs and expects others (even those who think they are smarter than our bourgeois working class) to be tolerant of them.  The current war on seemingly every aspect of Christmas joy is simply a part of the war on everything that does not conform to one particular point of view.  It is a war, that if successful, will change this country completely and make it reminiscent of the joyless communism of the USSR.

Expressing and Being Open to Diverse Viewpoints Are Essential for Democracy

“When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen”

                -Ernest Hemingway

Silencing, dehumanizing, and erasing of opposing views are at odds with the tolerance necessary for a free and democratic society.   While many assert that we have to “listen to one another,” it becomes harder and harder to believe that is what they really want.  I am more and more of the belief that the Left’s goal is not just to silence those with more conservative or less socialist leanings than their own but to completely erase all differing views along with those who hold them.

In my experience, those on the Left, rather than listen and learn, often prefer to isolate, shame, and silence those with whom they disagree.  Their methods of doing so range from simple mean-spirited name calling to more aggressive forms of harassment and sometimes even to violence.  All, I believe, are intentionally hurtful.  But all also reveal an immaturity and a lack of self-control in the same way that a schoolyard bully throws a rock at someone who doesn’t do what he wants because he has not yet learned a better way to deal with his emotions and a more civil way to communicate.  He has not yet learned tolerance for differing viewpoints or that simply disagreeing is not an act of aggression to which one responds with an attack. 

Also like a schoolyard child who has not yet learned to probe below the depth of situations to understand more complex ideas, my experience is that many on the Left are either unwilling or incapable of having any sort of dialog that goes past the restatement of buzzwords, memes, and memorized phrases.  That is, the depth of thought needed for adult communication is not apparent.  

In an excellent opinion piece Nolan Finley of the Detroit News, calls out those on both sides of the political aisle. In part of the piece he states:

“Public shaming of [political] opponents is easier than engaging them in persuasive debate. Better to harass them in public, threaten their families, troll them on the Internet and violate their right to privacy than to prevail on the strength of earnestly expressed ideas.

Disagree with what someone is saying? Shout them down. Chase them from the podium. Go after their jobs.

The catch phrase answer to all of our problems is, "We need to have a national conversation."

But we are as far from a constructive dialog as a nation can be. Conversing requires listening. And we don't want to hear what the other side has to say.

Winning is all that matters, and we're so convinced we hold the keys to wisdom that we think it's OK to do so by any means necessary.” 

(See https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2018/10/28/finley-honest-we-hate-each-other/1773954002/).

In what seems to be a futile attempt to have conversations with those of differing, usually Leftist, opinions, I have many times been the recipient of such harassment, verbal assault, and public shaming.  I have written about some of those experiences in previous blogs.  Last week I faced two such incidents, One was in person, during a lunch, and I included that in a blog last week.  The other was an incident in which I was unfriended on Facebook for a fairly innocuous comment responding to a meme attacking Trump.  To summarize briefly: before the serial bomber was arrested, a then Facebook friend posted, in a series of quite hateful and ad hominem attacks on Trump and his supporters, a meme that asserted that asking Trump to go after and arrest the bomber was like asking OJ to go after his wife’s killer.  Later that day, after the arrest was made and Trump had spoken and denounced him and his acts, I posted a comment to the meme which said “But he did, didn’t he – caught him, condemned him, condemned the acts.  Now if only the Democrats would condemn the Democrat who shot and almost killed Scalise, the Democrats who assault Trump supporters for wearing Trump hats/shirts, the Democrats who call for assaults and harassment of Trump supporters and the Democrats who answer that call.”  Without further comment, and without any notice or communication with me, I was unfriended - erased from this person’s world.

Now, while I admit my comment may have been a bit snarky, it was nothing like the hateful speech regularly appearing on this person’s page attacking conservatives.  It was, however, the only comment that expressed any disagreement with the Leftist views on this person’s page.  But, this is simply one more piece of evidence in my growing exhibit folder (and shrinking “friend” folder) that many on the Left cannot deal with anyone who does not parrot their own positions.  There is no room for conversation in their world.  There is no desire to listen to other views.  Rather, many on the Left would simply erase all who do not think like them. 

The Left’s response to anything or anyone that challenges their viewpoint is to shame and silence.  I have previously discussed how this is a brainwashing tactic (See Blog dated 8/19/18, https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/08/a-suggestion-of-mind-reform-are-you.html ).   They even want to silence the President, to turn him into someone closer to the sort of politician that, if not one of them, they can at least control to some extent with traditional political games.  Anything he says which they do not like they claim is adding to the problem of violence in this country.  The unspoken demand is that he simply stop speaking – be silenced.  Meanwhile, they have no problem with their own leaders and their supporters encouraging and specifically directing people to harass and silence those with whom they disagree.  The hypocrisy is truly deafening.   

In this environment it becomes harder and harder for someone to reach out to those with differing positions to try to have a conversation, to try to listen and learn about differing views.  Many on the Left seem unable to deal with differing views.  Simply stating one’s position or asking a fair and legitimate question is often perceived as some sort of attack.   It is far easier to just label those views and those who hold them as one or another form of deplorable.  In the true form of identity politics so favored by the Left, that allows the dehumanization of those holding other viewpoints; and, when dehumanized, one needs no longer be tolerated or understood and harassment or worse of that dehumanized identity group becomes perfectly acceptable and often even viewed as necessary (not unlike the sorts of dehumanization that has led to various forms of “public cleansings” in the past and that is often the justification in one’s mind for hate crimes).

Sadly, fewer and fewer of those whom I once called friends are a part of my life today, simply because they will have nothing to do with one who does not walk in lock step with their views.  I can count on one hand people who hold distinctly diverse political views from mine who still interact with me as a true friend, and, our means of doing so in most cases is not to share and discuss and learn from our diverse political ideas, but to have an unspoken agreement to simply not discuss them.  Yet, without dialog and discussion with those who are not just mirrors of ourselves, we cannot grow as individuals or solve problems that face our community and our world.

It would be easy to retreat to a bubble where I would only interact with those who think just like me.  Sadly, that is what many people do.  I will not do that.  For that only furthers the division of our country into differing identity groups – tribes at war with one another.  Instead, I choose not to be dehumanized by those who would place me into one or another identity group.   I will not be silenced. I will not be erased.  I believe that I, like every other individual in this country, have a right to express my point of view.  I also believe that I have a responsibility to listen to the views of others.  That is a basic premise of our democracy, a premise with which the dehumanizing of opposing views is in direct conflict.

In America, we aim to tolerate and respect one another.  That includes one another’s differing political views.  We listen and we argue and in so doing we learn and we grow and we and our country move forward.  Expressing one’s views is not an act of aggression, it is not something for which one should be attacked, shamed, or silenced.  The unstated premise of those who would do so is that they prefer something other than the democratic republic that has served us well for the past 242 years. 

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.