Don’t Trust the Snippets

History is important because it can guide and instruct us, not because it has all the answers.  Just like with the Bible, people can take snippets out of context and use them to support almost any premise.  Yet, when read in full context and with full understanding, that snippet may mean and support something quite different. 

I am not a Biblical scholar but I have read and studied a fair amount of history and I think that these days there is much misunderstanding and misuse of snippets from history.  There especially seems to be short-sighted and biased uses of the terms Nationalism, and Socialism/Communism. 

 Let’s consider the core themes underlying these terms.  First, Nationalism.  Its basic ideology is that one puts one’s country first.  How that plays out can exist on a spectrum.  On one end is Nazism or things like what we currently see in China as, for example, Muslims being placed in “reeducation camps.”

If you step off the other end of the spectrum there is no nation at all to be nationalist about.  Close to that end is the point that is reached when a country’s borders are so open and porous that there is actually no border at all.   Most forms of Nationalism are far closer to the middle of the spectrum than either of these extremes.

The underlying ideology of Socialism is to make better humans and in so doing make a better society.  (Note that it does not define "better" but leaves that to whomever is in power.)  Whatever form Socialism takes, it advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  Classic Marxism sees Socialism as a transitional state on the way to the realization of Communism which envisions the creation of totally communal humans and with that a totally communal (Communist) society. 

Socialism falls less as a spectrum and more as a movement.  It starts with an existing society and through various methods of control works to re-make the humans therein so that they become, or at least behave like, the ideal that the leaders are seeking.  (As an aside, let’s not forget that part of Hitler’s nationalism was a desire to create a master race; nationalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive).   At the end of the socialist movement the individual and any individual freedom is completely lost to the preconceived socialist society.

Let’s take a particular snippet: “America First.”  There is no question that this phrase was associated with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and has a negative connotation as used there.  But we are not living in 1930 and when that phrase was used by Donald Trump it had a very different meaning as well as connotation.  While Hitler sought his master race via elimination of Jews and others, Trump sought to protect the borders of America by empowering its people while strengthening its immigration laws (not eliminating legal immigration nor diversity).  To say that simply because the same phrase was used in connection with two men that those two men were and their agenda was the same is a disingenuous use of a snippet to support an anti-Trump agenda.

There have been many promises throughout history of the beauty and glory of a socialist society.  These snippets are often shared without the context of what happened to the people who believed those dreams.   On the other hand, some aspects of socialism can have a beneficial effect if carefully implemented and controlled. 

Those who advocate socialism often ignore human nature in their socialist propaganda.  Even with his power from things like the Great Terror and the absolute fear of dissent instilled in the people, Stalin had to pull back and re-grant some aspects of individual freedom and even capitalism to his people:  he realized he could not simply remake mankind into a totally communal animal.

From the dawn of mankind, people have been territorial and selfish.  They also can be humanitarian and idealistic.  They can be all of these things and many more to a greater or lesser degree, and all with individual differences.  It is unrealistic to think that any political philosophy can remake all of mankind.

Nations, which are just the family or tribal unit on a grander scale are made of these same humans.  All nations are nationalist to some degree just as they are all socialist/communist to some degree.  To perceive either of these terms as entirely good or entirely evil is inaccurate.  And to take one snippet or phrase and use it to characterize a person or action in an entirely different context is not helpful to anyone.

A nation requires boundaries.  It usually has certain values and customs that define it.  It also usually welcomes diversity to some extent.   To be a nation, the people within it must want to protect and sustain it and that is nationalism and usually involves some aspect of “Nation First.”  That nationalism can become totalitarianist or evil does not make it in and of itself evil.  It can and more often does just as easily become a positive environment for the nation’s inhabitants.

All groups of people to a certain extent have an aspect of communalism (i.e. socialism).  Programs such as Social Security in which the community as a whole (in our case our elected representatives) has decided not only that a benefit will be available but what the amount and parameters of that benefit will be.  In other, non-representative forms of government other power structures will make the decisions, but in any socialist program the individual loses some individual freedom.

In a democracy the individuals make the choice of when and how much freedom they are willing to relinquish and for what purpose.  But socialism can, and usually does, easily become totalitarian in which the people no longer have the choice but are forced to give up their individualism to the collective.

Absolutes are rare in the daily world.  Realizing that would allow people to discuss just how strong we want our nationalism to be and just how much of our individual freedoms are we willing to give up for communal certainties designed by someone else.  But that requires education about these concepts and their histories; that is something which pulling snippets out of context does not provide.  Snippets are used to support hate and division.  Understanding requires more.

The problem here is that already we have those who advocate for Socialism taking full control of our educational tools.  As such, education becomes little more than state-sponsored propaganda.  So, if we are actually going to have a real conversation about these things, if we are going to choose for ourselves where we are headed, we need to do it now or it will be too late.  

The Hollowness of Show

We seem to live in a world where appearance is everything and there is an emptiness behind the superficial.

I watched a time lapse photo on Facebook of an artificial tree being erected in a family living room.  The video is cute and the “tree” is lovely, but I couldn’t help but feel that something was missing.  The point of the video was (I think) to show the world the “tree”  and that the family had gotten that job done. The time lapse encapsulated removing the "tree" from its box, stacking its tiers, turning on its pre-strung lights and adding the coordinated decorations.  When it was over you imagined the family simply returning to their everyday lives.

But isn’t Christmas and the holiday season not really about the tree or other decorations, but something deeper and far more meaningful?  We can all admire a perfectly erected artificial tree, but I would rather have a less than perfect tree and focus on the time together selecting (perhaps even cutting) it and decorating it (perhaps with homemade decorations or ones that are otherwise individually meaningful).  And, if it is only about the photo op of the “tree” or checking off the box that one put up a “tree” then we have lost any deeper understanding of what that tree might signify to us as an individual, to our family, to our faith, to our culture.

In contrast I recently watched some videos of holiday celebrations in Eastern Europe.  Families laid beautiful tables using special dishes, but the decorations in the homes were sparse.  One family had their celebration around a kitchen table with stove and sink as the backdrop.  Yet, in these videos, the families were focused on one another as they enjoyed the meanings and memories of the holiday.

I can remember birthday parties at our family’s kitchen table.  The table was well set and decorated, but the stove, sink, and cluttered kitchen counter were the backdrop.  I hope my children were not ashamed or embarrassed by this, especially when the typical child’s birthday (including those of their peers) was celebrated at some sort of entertainment center where the parents can demonstrate that they keep up with (or perhaps surpass) the Jones.

Appearances.  They seem to have become important ends in themselves.  Not just noteworthy celebrations, but daily life as well.  New homeowners feel compelled to completely furnish and decorate their new home immediately; no waiting and saving and buying piece by piece.  Slower acquisition results in a décor scheme that includes unmatched but complimentary pieces.  Perhaps not the perfection of a décor right out of a magazine photo, but a décor that one can feel is their own – that has meaning to the one who created it.

Yet, in all of the above, what will people drool over and compliment?  In most instances it will be the perfect artificial tree, holiday celebrations not in kitchens but in elaborately decorated homes, birthdays planned and carried out at some impersonal venue, homes that indeed look like a magazine photo.  The point is not the underlying meaning, but what it looks like to the rest of the world.  It is superficial beauty with a hollow core.

And it is not just our environments; it is ourselves as well.  The first questions asked upon meeting or hearing about someone are usually aimed at identifying where the person works and what their social status is.  Not who they are but what label we can slap on them.   Do we even care if there is anything beyond the surface that we label and then judge?

There is a hollowness in all of this.  An emptiness that reminds one of those philosophies that assert the emptiness and meaninglessness of life itself.  Perhaps that is why there is now so little interest in history or so much focus on making things better and feeling good in the moment with no thought to or concern for how it might affect the future. 

Let’s think about where this attitude leads.  If everything is nothing more than a “tree” to get out of a box, put up and move on, wondering “OK, that’s done, what’s next?”  then we are well on the way to not just denying but destroying our culture and with it our very souls.

There was a time when this country tried to make the many Native American Tribes give up their cultures, their languages, their ceremonies, their very way of life.  When this country came to realize the mistake that was, the Native cultures were only able to restore themselves and survive because the elders had preserved traditions and understood their deeper meanings and were able to pass this on to younger generations. 

Yet, as today’s PC police chip away at anything that is offensive to anyone, they are in effect doing what we tried to do to the Native cultures.  The progressive “inclusive” movement tries to make everyone think, act, and be alike.  That requires individuals and families to give up their personal traditions and beliefs – the things that tie them to both their past and their future.  It requires them to give up their very souls.

As we lose what is individually meaningful, we are losing the understanding that is necessary to preserve individual families and the culture that is their soul.  Some may think this is the way to a better world, to the utopia that is (and by its very nature must always be) a dream.  It is not.  Rather, it is the way to a loss of individuality, of one’s very being.  It is the way to a hollow and superficial world, a world that has no meaning and therefore no respect.  No respect for culture or for the families and individuals from which a culture derives. 

When there is no respect, no understanding, no meaning to something, then there is no need to sustain it; it can acceptably be destroyed and forgotten.  And hollow people can go about behaving as they are told, with no understanding of why and no individuality or meaning to their lives.  And that, at least in my opinion, is not a utopia.  It is instead a hollow world that can very easily collapse upon itself and cease to be.  When appearance – the show – is everything, then we must wonder what happens when the show ends and the curtains close. 

Words, Phrases, Clarity, and Understanding

I frequently notice that attempts at discussion are often marred by confusion of key terms used by the participants.  Understanding of and precision in terms used are essential for good dialog. When a person is using a term that actually means something else, or that another participant in the dialog simply thinks means something else, the ability to truly understand one another tends to evaporate and the discussion often devolves into argument or worse.  And, indeed, when participants are involved in a discussion of hotly contested issues, one may actually have a strong argument for a particular position, but that argument will not be convincing if it is based on or supported by misused words.

So, in the interests of clarity, here is a chart, listing some pairs of words we often hear, but whose definitions seem to have become confused.  (Most of the definitions are taken from Merriam Webster or similar dictionaries)  Please do not use the following words or phrases interchangeably; the terms are not equivalent with one another

Law A very complex topic, but basically, the definition is: A system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior.	Policy Contrary to popular belief, policy is not law.  It, too, is a complex topic, but its basic definition is: a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.
Melting Pot This term is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society.  It is defined as: a place, or the people of a place, where a variety of races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole.	Multicultural This is a society where diverse cultures co-exist and manifest diverse customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.
Capitalism (Also referred to as “free enterprise.”)  The classic definition is: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.	Consumerism This is not a governmental form.  It is: the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable; it also refers to preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of consumer goods.
Immigration This is simply the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.   It does not necessarily mean the immigrant will integrate.	Integration Simply an act or instance of combining into an integral whole.  It is not immigration, though immigration might lead to integration.
Legal Something is legal if it is based on, concerned with or permitted by law. Not liking something does not make it illegal.	Illegal Something is illegal if it is contrary to, forbidden by, or in violation of law.  Wishing an illegal act were legal does not  make it so.
Personal Belief That which someone personally holds to be true and which governs personal behavior.  One can hold personal beliefs that are different from required professional actions and still carry out those required actions.	Professional Action Action one takes in accordance with the requirements of one's profession or career.  Most can competently carry out required actions regardless of one's personal beliefs or preferences as to required professional actions.
Dialog A conversation between two or more people, often to resolve a problem.	Collusion Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Confusion of the above terms, assuming that one equals the other, leads to confusion in discussion and lack of clarity about one’s own or another’s position.  We should all try to be more careful and precise when discussing issues that are of importance.

It would also be useful to clarify definitions of specific governmental forms:

Autocracy: a system of government by one person with absolute power.

Dictatorship: an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders with either no party or a weak party, little mass mobilization, and limited political pluralism.

Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; a theory advocating elimination of private property.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Social Democracy:  a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Republic:  a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Democratic Republic:  a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies.

Anarchy: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

Lastly, there are some additional terms that merit clarification.  These are terms that are often used in the name calling that is so prevalent today. Even if the views of someone are repugnant to another, it does not necessary mean that the person holding those views is any of the following.  Using charged words to label an opponent does nothing to further a productive discussion.  The definition of each term is followed by my comments (in italics) about the use of the term in current dialog.

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

          Being against immigration as currently practiced, or against illegal immigration, or for enforcing immigration law does not necessarily mean that one is racist or anti-immigrant.  Disliking the acts of someone who happens to belong to a particular race, or simply being of another race, does not make one racist.

Fascism
A form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.  A Fascist is one who follows this belief.

            Because Fascism is often based on racial identity, before throwing this term around one ought to consider who it is that plays identity politics, who it is that shouts down or otherwise silences opponents.  But, even that does not rise to the definition of Fascism which was exemplified by Hitler.

Nazi/Nazism

A Nazi is a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party which controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler and advocated totalitarian government, territorial expansion, anti-Semitism, and Aryan supremacy.  Nazism is the ideology associated with that party.  Beliefs include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.

            This term is often used as an epithet against those holding positions with which one disagrees. Mere disagreement, even when strongly advocated, does not make one a Nazi.

Holocaust

Technically this word simply means “destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.”  However, as usually used it refers to the totality of actions by Hitler against the Jews, including extermination of over 6 million.

            Temporary separation of families pursuant to valid immigration law is not a holocaust.  To call it such cheapens what happened to the Jews; by so loosely using this term for anything one finds unpleasant or even abhorrent, reduces the acts of Hitler to being something similarly merely unpleasant, and not the horrendous evil that we should never forget.

Real conversation requires understanding and precision in the language one uses.  The above is a start at defining some essential terms. Hopefully this may help those who are tempted to use these words to use them more carefully. If we all would be sure we understand the meanings of words that we are using in our conversations, then perhaps those conversations would be more productive acts of understanding ultimately leading to resolutions to the divisiveness that is destroying us.