The Danger of Self Evident Truths

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

These words are the most famous ones in the Declaration of Independence. However, there is a problem.  They are not self evident.  

If the idea of rights applicable to all humans been truly self evident then they would have been with us since our first civilizations arose.  However, a look at history shows that they were not.  And, in fact, were largely absent from most of history. You will, occasionally, find glimmers here and there.  But only glimmers,  nothing self evidently true.  Instead, this self evident truth took thousands of years of interacting with other ideas and history for them to become so. 

Fortunately these self evident truths resulted in something positive, and encapsulate what should be the goal of all governments.  Many self evidence truths though are dangerous in one of several ways:  to the individual holding them, to the advancement of knowledge, to needed social change, and to rightful government and societies. 

For example, look at how the self evident truth that trump won the election and that there was massive voting fraud has harmed our country – the attempted insurrection of Jan 6^th, the many new voting laws meant to restrict voting by those who support Democrats disguised as voting protection, and the loss of trust in voting institutions and our system. 

This self evident truth, like all self evident truths – creationism, vaccines are harmful, COVID was not dangerous, etc. – are still fervently believed by many despite the massive evidence against each of them. And it is not that the people who hold these views are lying.  They are not, neither to themselves nor to others.  It is also not due to a lack of intelligence or even education on their part.

Instead, it is because of they believe a self evident truth.  Because it is so self evident to them it is not possible for it not to be true.  All new information and reasoning must be interpreted and put into place around this one central pillar. And because of this, anything that seems to contradict this truth only “seems” to contradict.  Because of this they see no problem or anything irrational or wrong about denying, twisting, distorting and ignoring those facts and arguments that “seem” contradict what they know is true.  Instead, they see themselves as setting thing straight. 

Because of this we have had millions of people die due to not taking vaccines or precautions against COVID.  We have had our political structure damaged for baseless claims of a stolen election.  We have had our science restricted in being taught due to creationism.   Due to similar self evident truths in regards to illegals and immigrants we have hatred of immigrants.  Due to similar self evident truths we have hatred of other races and denial of discrimination.  Due to similar self evident truths we have hatred against gays and transgendered. 

Yes, there can be and are many real and significant differences in views, in values. In beliefs. However, those differences are made worse and toxic when we take one thing as being absolutely true and then construct all other evidence around it, even when it means twisting and breaking it, and ignoring those that don’t fit. 

Firmly believe that which you have tested and thought about, and do not give them up lightly.  But, even more important, always be willing to give them up.

Read Full Post »

Teaching Critical Race Theory in the USA and the Holocaust in Germany

“To accept one’s past—one’s history—is not the same thing as drowning in it; it is learning how to use it. An invented past can never be used; it cracks and crumbles under the pressures of life like clay in a season of drought.”

James Baldwin

Recently the conservatives have been waging war against Critical Race Theory (CRT)  being taught in public schools. 

Texas passed laws meant to prevent CRT being taught in public schools by preventing personal bias from influencing teaching and keep teachers from “unfairly blaming white people for historical wrongs and distorting the founding fathers’ accomplishments.”  This law urges teachers to teach that slavery and racism are “deviations” from the founding principles of the United States. 

To further the goal of eliminating CRT in our public schools the law limits the curriculum, bars students being given credit for advocacy work,  and discourages the open discussion of current events.  And if open discussion of current events must occur then the schools must “give deference to both sides”.  One interesting result of this is that in one school district the teachers were told if they teach about the Holocaust they must also teach the other side.  

Wisconsin has gone even further than Texas in this pursuit of this noble goal.  While its law barring the teaching of CRT is similar to other laws in other states on this subject, they added in a list of words to be banned.

“Wichgers, who represents Muskego in the legislature, attached an addendum to his legislation that included a list of “terms and concepts” that would violate the bill if it became law.

Among those words: “Woke,” “whiteness,” “White supremacy,” “structural bias,” “structural racism,” “systemic bias” and “systemic racism.” The bill would also bar “abolitionist teaching,” in a state that sent more than 91,000 soldiers to fight with the Union Army in the Civil War.  The list of barred words or concepts includes “equity,” “inclusivity education,” “multiculturalism” and “patriarchy,” as well as “social justice” and “cultural awareness.”

The only good thing about this bill is that it is not likely to pass their senate and is virtually certain to be vetoed by the Governor if it somehow does. 

Now, my question is why all this furor and outrage over CRT being taught in our public schools.  After all, it is most definitely not being taught in our public schools.  However, that is not what I am going to discuss.  Instead I am going to go over a more basic question – what is being taught that is causing such grave and angry concerns among many conservative. 

Let’s take a look at why some conservatives say they are concerned. 

Wisconsin state Rep. Chuck Wichgers explained what his support of this bill this way –

“It has come to our attention, and to some of the people who traveled here to Madison today, that a growing number of school districts are teaching material that attempts to redress the injustice of racism and sexism by employing racism and sexism, as well as promoting psychological distress in students based on these immutable characteristics. No one should have to undergo the humiliation of being told that they are inferior to someone else. We are all members of the human race.”

Condoleezza Rice said this about CRT and schools: 

“The way we’re talking about race is that it either seems so big that somehow white people now have to feel guilty for everything that happened in the past.

“…but in order to do that, I don’t have to make white kids feel bad for being white.”

“…but I don’t have to make white children feel bad about being white in order to overcome the fact that Black children were treated badly…”

Along with this is a strong push by conservatives to ban or limit books perceived to be promoting CRT. 

• A new ad for Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial nominee features a local mother, Laura Murphy.
• She fought to get Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” removed from her son’s AP English curriculum in 2013.
• Murphy said the book gave her son nightmares and argued for parents to have more say in curricula.

Another example is Texas State Representative Matt Krause’s inquiry to school districts. This about consists of a list of 849 books about which he wants to know if they are on that school’s campus and how much time is given to them.  As well he wants to find out other books on matters that “might make students feel discomfort, guilty, anguish or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex.”  A small sample of the books being investigated by this representative are ““Me and White Supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor” by Layla Saad and, “The Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears” by Susan E. Hamen., 

This is all part of the common thread and theme woven throughout the outrage over CRT – it is making white children feel guilty and ashamed to be white. 

Ekene and Nene Okolo.

I agree wholeheartedly that no one should be taught to be ashamed of who they based on race. Nor taught to feel guilty about things that happened 50, 60, 100, 200 years before they were born.  However, is that what is actually happening?   

Before I buy into this narrative I want to know what was said that elicits these feelings of guilt and shame on the part of white children.  Are they being told “shame, shame on you for being white” or some sort of equivalent?  Or, are they being taught part of our history, both past and recent, that has been normally hidden and not spoken of. And because learning this feel distress? Or, perhaps more relevant, making their parents feel distressed. 

Let me just state a truth about history – if is often distressing and uncomfortable.  If it is not, then it is not history being taught but propaganda. 

So, my question is are students being taught that whites are inferior and they the student personally responsible for all the wrongs of our nation and that they should be ashamed of being white. Or, are they being taught a more complete and accurate history containing material that is distressing and uncomfortable? 

If the former, it should be stopped.  If the latter though, then it most certainly should continue on.  I have a strong feeling that it is the latter, that students are being exposed to uncomfortable truths about American history.  Truths that can engender guilt. They are being taught about:

• Lynchings.
• The difference between the VA benefits that black WW2 vets received and those that white WW2 vets received.
• The prominent role of slavery in the creation of the United States. 
• The fact that once slavery was abolished by the 13^th amendment other ways were found to bring it back: economic limits, vagrancy statues, preventing blacks from voting, arresting blacks more than whites and using prison labor, and more.
• The 1921 Tulsa race riot.
• The Tuskegee Study.

And the list goes on. 

Of course, when teaching this white students should not be told they should be ashamed of being white. However, this may be one of the results from such teaching no matter how objective and sensitively it is taught.  These are uncomfortable truths. 

Of course, all of this does not occur in a vacuum.  We are in the process of re-evaluating our past and our past heroes.  In deciding who deserves to be honored and who does not.  Confederate statues coming down has caused anger to flare up in the hearts of many conservatives.  The same ones who are so strongly against CRT being taught anywhere. 

I think it might be instructive to take a look at how another country dealt with and continues to deal with a shameful past – Germany and the Holocaust.

Teaching about the Holocaust is mandatory in Germany.  There are often trips to visit museums and concentration camps. 

A reddit comment on this subject.

“I think we began to learn about the holocaust in sixth grade (12-14 years old). It is the single biggest thing taught in history and other subjects. We read multiple books written by survivors (think Anne Frank’s diary) in German class, we visited synagogues and concentration camps and we learn all the gory details of the third Reich in history class. Multiple times in different depth.”

A Slate article on this included the fact that the students were uncomfortable and ashamed and guilty afterwards. Not because they were told they were personally responsible but because they were part of a nation that did this.   

“And when I saw these things that were taken from the prisoners (there is also one room just filled with hair), all the pieces came together in my mind, and I realized the first time on an emotional basis the whole horror. And I think I was not the only one. I found the toughest guy in our group, who would normally never show feelings, standing in front of a display cabinet with baby shoes crying. When the tour ended, we didn’t know how to look our Polish friends in the eyes again, because I think most of us felt unbelievably guilty as it was “our” grandparents who did that to “their” grandparents (together with many, many other innocent people). I remember us even talking about the fact that we were insecure on how to deal with that.”

Here are some various German students experiences in learning about the Holocaust from The Jewish World. 

In this article, in addition to German students telling what they were taught about the Holocaust, they also talk about how the Government and schools were trying to improve their coverage of this horrific part of their history. 

“A 2017 survey of German students found that 40% of students aged 17 and older had never heard of the Auschwitz death camp. Recently, Yad Vashem signed an agreement with the 16 German states in order to improve the state of Holocaust studies in the country and train teachers.

….

 “Some teachers, as with any subject, want to focus on the facts and we try to help them to teach through the prism of who used to live here, not just in Europe but in all of Europe; or to focus on who were these people, because most students never met a Jew,” she continued. “We want to encourage the teachers to recognize the heritage and history of the Jews in Germany. For that reason, oftentimes the curriculum begins from 1933 and examines the Jewish contribution to German society.”

……

She said that she feels that German schools do a good job of dealing with the past, albeit regarding German civilian cooperation with the Nazis, less so. “Sometimes they fail to understand that the story isn’t only about Hitler the murderer, but also about the collaboration of Germans during the Holocaust. Educated people who were involved in the plan and its implementation. Police, who were supposed to protect people but transformed into killers.

“Hitler did not shoot six million people by himself and we see a lot of ignorance in this matter,” she continued. “The expulsions by train did not occur at 3am outside of the city. Many people witnessed these events and the street where it happened still stands today. Therefore, local initiatives to commemorate this are very important. It is also important to connect the students with the places where they live. Sometimes they live in neighborhoods that in the past were populated by other people who didn’t simply disappear.”

Now, contrast this with what is happening now in American schools in regard to our horrific history in regards to slavery and race.  Or, more simply, consider the fact that there are no memorials to Nazis in Germany, no matter how personally honest and wonderful they might have been. There are though numerous memorials to the victims of Nazis.  In the United States the situation is reversed.  And that is indicative of a large problem. 

Bottom line.  From what I can see we are not teaching CRT in our public schools.  We are though trying to teach parts of our history that need to be learned and understood as they still impact those of us living today. Without such discomforting, uncomfortable knowledge we can never improve this country so that it can live up to its lofty ideals. And if it engenders a feeling of shame and guilt on the part of those learning this history, that is as it should be.  From such knowledge and feelings come needed change. 

Read Full Post »

Reparations, Leveling the Playing Field

The idea of reparations to blacks whose ancestors were slaves is once again in the air.  This month, for the first time ever, and after having been introduced in every Congress since 1989, HR 40 cleared the committee and headed towards the House floor for consideration.  HR 40 is titled “Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act”.  Its purpose is to do just as the title suggested – set up a commission to study reparations proposals for African Americans. 

“This bill establishes the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans. The commission shall examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.

The commission shall identify (1) the role of the federal and state governments in supporting the institution of slavery, (2) forms of discrimination in the public and private sectors against freed slaves and their descendants, and (3) lingering negative effects of slavery on living African Americans and society.”

Note, it does not set up reparations but, instead, looks at this many stranded Gordian knot and recommend possible solutions.  But, although not action yet, this is a significant step forwards on this issue, and on the issue of actually achieving racial justice and equity.  

A note here on my opinion on this topic – I am strongly sympathetic to this idea. Whether I support it or not though will depend on the details. But I strongly support this commission. 

Predictably, there is a great deal of resistance to the whole idea of reparations.  Especially from conservatives (but not all).  There are several arguments used against it.  Although as I type these words, I realize that there are not several arguments, but only two. 

The first is that they did not own slaves and no blacks living today were slaves.  It is done and over with, and this is nothing more than creating victims (blacks) when none exist. This goes nicely hand in hand with the denial of systemic racism, and the belief that the present is virgin and has no parentage, a Venus arising from the foam of the present only.

The second, and is the one I will focus on in this blog, is illustrated by the above meme. Whites freed the slaves and should be lauded for doing so.  Their actions and deaths cleanses whites of any responsibility for all the further trials and tribulations experienced by blacks in America.  I just came across this a couple of days ago and was appalled at the remarkable ignorance, an ignorance tainted with a whiff of white saviorhood, of those who argue this.

However, more importantly for me in this blog, is that it highlights a communication failure on the part of us who think HR 40 a good idea and reparations an idea well worth considering.  The communications failure lies in allowing people to think that this is solely about slavery.  While slavery is the start of this issue, it is not the end of it. 

Consider the wording in HR 40:

“The commission shall examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present …”

“…identify (1) the role of the federal and state governments in supporting the institution of slavery, (2) forms of discrimination in the public and private sectors against freed slaves and their descendants, and (3) lingering negative effects of slavery on living African Americans and society.”

This goes beyond just whether someone had an ancestor who was a slave.  It involves looking at how blacks were treated throughout our history, even after they were freed. 

In my original response to this meme I asked the poster the following questions: 

Did the descendants of those whites who died “freeing the slaves” on average own more property and have more money the the blacks they freed?

Were they able to more freely vote than blacks?

Were they better able to obtain better loans for business and homes than blacks?

Were their schools better and could they more easily obtain a good education than blacks?

Could they buy lands and homes in good areas, areas that did not allow blacks?

Were their water fountains and bathrooms better than blacks?

Were they lynched, beaten, and burned as often as blacks?

As a result of all of the above, and more, were they able to then accumulate and then pass on to their descendants more money and land than blacks could?

And the list goes on. This is not just about whether a particular black person is the descendant of slaves or not.  It is about a massive injustice committed against people based on the color of their skin. One that continued well past slavery and from which we still suffer from despite the passage of the Civil and Voting rights laws in the 60s.    

Consider this – how would the status of blacks today have been different if each slave had been given land of his own and some money to start his new freed life instead of just their clothes and a few possessions?  

What if after being freed the laws that were rapidly created to limit the jobs they could take, where they could live, how they could live, were struck down and their rights had been protected from those who would do them harm?  Instead, governments ignored and even supported the efforts of those who sought to limit black voting, black economic success, black movements, black freedoms.  This included most of those descendants of the men who “died to free slaves”. 

What if instead of seeking to push them back into a state as close to slavery as was possible after the passage of the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments, we had, as we should have, and as we actually had started to do after the Civil War, protected these new rights and given blacks a chance to actually live as freely as whites?  Imagine then what the economic, political, educations status of the blacks would have been today.

That is what is being looked at, and that is what the reparations would be about. An attempt to not only make amends for injustices committed during the time of slavery but for over a hundred years afterwards.  Injustices that gave birth to the current economic, educational, and judicial disparities blacks are experiencing today. Injustices that cannot be repaired until we not only acknowledge their source and parentage, but also make attempts to fix it.  Reparations are one such idea that is well worth consideration. 

As conservative columnist Gary Abernathy recognized in his column:

“It is a tenet of conservatism that a level playing field is all we should guarantee. But that’s meaningless if one team starts with an unsurmountable lead before play even begins.”  

While liberals may disagree with Mr. Abernathy on how much that level playing field encompasses, they do fully agree that a level playing field is necessary And that is what we lack in America.

Read Full Post »

Gynecology, Blind Spots, Abbot and Costello, Slavery, History, and Today

I recently came across something that highlights why so many today refuse to see and understand the racism that is still very much present in our government, businesses, schools, and society.  To be more precise, it is this meme along with the response of some to my posting of it. And it illustrates the truth that those – people, governments, societies – who are unaware of history are doomed to repeat it in various ways. This is even more true when they are not just unaware but are so blind as to refuse to become aware.

This meme I am referencing is from Derek Moseley. 

“We don’t know their last names, and many of us have never heard their first names, and our history has neglected them and the role that Black women have played in the advancement of medicine in America. They are Betsey, Anarcha, & Lucy. They were the women whose bodies were used by physician J. Marion Sims for study and experiment. Trials and attempts that would eventually make him the “Father of modern gynecology.” Dr. Sims opened a clinic in Montgomery, Ala. and to stay afloat monetarily, he started doing work on plantations, providing medical care to slaves. But during that time, he came across captive women who had what we now know as obstetric fistulas (an opening , which usually comes after traumatic childbirth). Dr. Sims decided to do tests on three slaves — Betsey, Anarcha, and Lucy. They were painful procedures, often done without anesthesia. Sims did more and more of these procedures, conducting them in front of groups of medical professionals. The women had no say in being naked and experimented on in front of others. To make matters worse, the surgeries were not successful early on, resulting in tearing, and even more pain. Sims did these experiments from 1846 to 1849. After 30 procedures on Anarcha he was able to perfect his technique. This procedure helped him succeed greatly in the medical field. He became President of the American Medical Association and a member of the New York Academy of Medicine. He became a renowned surgeon, and statues were eventually erected in his honor. Invisible in his shadow are the enslaved women on whom he experimented. Today I honor Betsey, Anarcha, & Lucy – The Mothers of Modern Gynecology.”

I had thought this a rather non-controversial post, and something that helped fill in history to provide a more accurate and truthful view.  However, the first hint that I was wrong came when I was told that “there was more to the story”. 

When I inquired what it was, the person started to fill in this doctor’s career and how important his work was in saving the lives of “countless women”.  Including “black women”.  None of which contradicted the meme, and was usually either already within the meme or implied by it.  All of which totally ignored the focus of the post – these women who were experimented on.  

And then it gets really interesting. 

Further conversation revealed that this person thought that the meme was a smear piece upon the doctor, an attempt to denigrate a good man who made real contributions to medicine and women’s health.  Their last word on this subject was that this meme was “a highly biased article implying several issues that are not true”. 

What is interesting here to me is this person’s blind spot.  They were unable to see that this post was not about Dr. Sims per se, but about the women’ upon whose work his accomplishments rested – black slaves.  Its point was not that Dr. Sims was a bad person – indeed, the meme never once denigrated Dr. Sims – but, instead, that like a great deal of our history, we have ignored and even denied the contributions and the work done by black slaves, and minorities in general. 

Instead of seeing that clear message, this person only saw an attack.  And nothing more. An attack that did not use any derogatory words in regard to Dr. Sims and that provided totally factual information. 

This was, according to this person, an attack piece on this good white man despite the meme’s opening words,

“We don’t know their last names, and many of us have never heard their first names, and our history has neglected them and the role that Black women have played in the advancement of medicine in America. They are Betsey, Anarcha, & Lucy. They were the women whose bodies were used by physician J. Marion Sims for study and experiment.”

In defending Dr. Sims this person even saw the factual statement of  “Dr. Sims opened a clinic in Montgomery, Ala. and to stay afloat monetarily,…” as saying that Dr. Sims was solely and only in it for the money.  In other words, they were looking for reasons to see this as an attack piece on whites and nothing more.

This blind spot in regard to race, and to how much of our history is ignored, is something that has always been a part of our history, and continues to exist today.  Not only to our past, but also in regard to how our past impacts our present, and at the present racism present within our society and its institutions.

Instead, whenever such problems are shown, or whenever our past treatment of blacks and minorities is brought up in discussion of what needs to be done to improve and make our society more just, all such people see is an attack upon them, and an attack upon white people. 

It is not so much a conscious decision to deny, but rather a true blind spot. For various reasons they are unable to see the racism still inherent, unable to understand how our society and government today is born of a past, a past in which racism and slavery played prominent and important roles.  

Discussion with such people tend to wind up rather like the old Abbott and Costello Who’s On First Routine.  We go around and around the bases but never leave first base. 

I confess, that I am not sure how to get through this problem.  How to make those with such a blind spot see that there is an issue and that platitudes such as “We don’t see color” doesn’t help and actually support the continued racial inequalities and injustices of our society.   

However, despite the frustration this can create for me, I take hope from the fact that, despite this always existent blind spot, we have made tremendous progress since the founding of our nation.  Showing that while such blind spots can harm people, and hinder justice, they do not have to stop it. 

Read Full Post »

Morality, Effective Action, and Hypocrisy

In this blog I plan to pose a question, one whose answer I am not totally sure of.  The question is one of long standing for me, but one which I had not thought on for awhile.  Until now, when reading the new biography of Jimmy Carter, “His Very Best”  by Jonathan Alter, reminded me of it.

In this biography Mr. Alter goes over Jimmy’s life and, more relevant here, his rise to political power in Georgia.  Throughout his life, Jimmy lived with blacks. In fact, early in his life, he live in an area that was much more black than white.  They were an integral part of his life, with him having many black friends. One black woman even became a formative influence upon him as great as his mother.  And while he was personally against racism in any form, for a long time he was quietly so, rarely speaking out or taking action.

Those engaged in racist speech and actions were often friends and family that he had grown up with.  Also, as he took over and grew his business, the continued success of that  business was dependent upon the good will of the community. A very small town one.  And then, of course, came his political ambition. An ambition that in the beginning would have died an early death had he taken an overt stand against racism and for the Civil Rights movement. 

During this time he would not join in overtly racist actions or join such groups, but he would also not speak out and denounce them either. While not condemning them, he also did not support a local mixed race community when they were being ostracized and the area refused to sell them food and necessities. His church, where he was a deacon, decided to ban all blacks and civil rights agitators from even entering and, while he voted against this policy (his business was boycotted for a short period of time for this), he did not stop attending the church when the vote when against him.  When MLK came to the area, he made no effort to attend any of the rallies or speak out in support of them. Nor any other Civil rights protests.   He was a good friend of a local sheriff whom many in the civil rights movement (Plains was one of the hotbeds of the movement) said was worse than Birmingham’s Bull Connor. 

Jimmy publicly supported George Wallace, the Alabama governor, without endorsing his racism.  In fact, when running against a former governor, Jimmy used his opponent’s decision to stop Wallace from speaking in the state against him in order to get the racist votes.  And while not explicitly endorsing racism during his campaign for Governor of Georgia he often used code words that his audience understood. 

But that changed when he was elected governor. Jimmy came out of the closet.  In his inaugural speech he let Georgia know his true beliefs. 

“The test of a leader is not how well he campaigned but how effectively he meets the challenges and responsibilities of his new office….. I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over. Our people have already made this major and difficult decision. No poor, rural, weak, or black person should ever have to bear the additional burden of being deprived of the opportunity of an education, a job, or simple justice.”

This took most of his racist supporters by total surprise. Many of the state senators who had supported him left during the speech.  Some called Carter “That n… loving bastard”.

Within days of being sworn Jimmy had hired Georgia’s “first-ever black woman senior state official”, “expanded the number of blacks serving on state boards and commissions from three to fifty-five”, appointed “Georgia’s first-ever black county judge” and named a black as “the first African American member of the Georgia Board of Regents”. Jimmy started meeting with and helping civil rights leaders, including the father of MLK and his wife.  He made it a point to bring black state troopers to country club events, forcing them to integrate since he would not force the troopers to eat outside.  And more.  On the environment, on ethics in office, and on many other issues he was ahead of his time. 

My question and quandary here is, does all of the good that he did and the causes he promoted since becoming governor justify all the times he was silent and did little to nothing in regards to race before becoming governor?  Does the harm created by Jimmy’s silence and actions outweigh the good done when he became governor? 

This is, of course, just a particular example of the more general question of “does the ends justify the means?” 

Many people strongly believe that abuses and wrongs should be resisted publicly and loudly whenever they are encountered.  That speaking truth to power, so to speak, is a necessity. Injustice needs to be actively resisted and opposed every time. 

However, in the context of the times and place – Georgia in the 1960s and early 70s – such people would not have been able to be elected.  Not even close. So, in that case, what would be the moral thing to do? 

To my mind this whole question is framed too simplistically.  And too short termed.

In this world there are few absolutes when it comes to human behaviors, actions, institutions, creations. In fact, other than my own statement here, I seriously doubt that there are any absolutes.  And that includes the question of whether the means justify the ends.  Which means that instead of a yes or no answer, a black and white answer, a true or false answer, you need an essay answer. An essay that looks at several factors in making a determination.  

• Do the actions or nonactions taken allow the continuance of the evil or do they actively promote and increase it?
• How evil are the evils going on? And yes, there are degrees of evilness. 
• How good are the ends? 
• Is the evil done a short term evil done in order to gain a long term good? 

Obviously this is all going to result in a large amount of grey, with each action/nonaction having to be determined individually. And with a great deal of disagreements on the conclusion of such. 

A consequence of this that is not often looked at is that we are all hypocrites.  Politicians especially so, but all of us too.  It is almost a part of the human condition in our large complex societies, and perhaps the smaller ones too.  Now, while hypocrisy is something that is wrong and should be avoided, it should not be avoided at all costs. The real question in regards to hypocrisy is are they, and us, hypocrites for the right reasons.   

One final thought here, this is not meant to imply that speaking out at all costs and every time against a perceived evil and injustice is wrong, or that those who do so are foolish or idealistic.  We very much need such in order to keep pressing ahead.  They are the motivators, the gadflies.  The calculating hypocrite LBJ needed the idealism of MLK speaking truth to power in order to pass the landmark Civil Rights laws. Without both, change would not have happened. 

Read Full Post »

Realities on Policing Reforms

After reading several views and recommendations across a whole spectrum of opinions and backgrounds, after watching the protests and riots, after reviewing and thinking about the state of justice and policing, now as well as its history, and about the practicalities of change, I thought I would offer up my nickels worth.

However, this will not be about different possible reforms and the changes needed to improve policing and provide a truly just system (although I will provide an incomplete list towards the end), but, instead, about the realities constraining such changes. Realities which those of us wishing to make effective changes will have to keep in mind if we wish to be effective getting such implemented.

 

First, solutions to our on-going issues with policing are going to be, for the most part, local.  Law enforcement is largely the result of towns, cities, counties, and states.  Policies and procedures, recruitment and training are done at that level.  The National Government can help or hinder (and with our current administration, it will definitely be hinder), but they do not control and administer most of law enforcement.

 

Second, flowing from the above, there is no one solution that will solve this issue.  We have before us a whole smorgasbord of ideas and actions that could be taken to try to make law enforcement more accountable as well as enabling it to provide a more equitable, humane and just enforcement of laws.  Some of these offerings will prove to not work anywhere.  Others will prove to work everywhere.  And still others will work in some places and not others.

As I pointed out earlier, law enforcement is the creation of the local community.  Each community is different – different cultures, different needs, different problems, different weaknesses, different strengths, and different resources.  What might be feasible in one may prove impossible in another.  What may work in one area might fail in another. What might fail in one, might work in another.

In order to fully solve the problems in policing, we will need to look at not only at the national level, not only at the state level, but at the community level.

 

Third, some changes can occur quickly. Some will take longer.  And some will take a lot longer.  In other words, this will be a very long marathon and not a sprint.  It will also be a patchwork, with some areas doing better than others.  Success in one town, city, county or state is not success everywhere.  Failure in one town, city, county, or state is not failure everywhere.

 

Fourth, even if we solve the issues that have plagued policing and make it into what it can and should be, that will not solve all problems and issues – economic disparity, health inequities, educational inequities, and so forth.  It won’t even solve all the problems within our Justice system.  However, without improvement with the sharp end of Justice we will not be able to fully solve those problems either.

 

Fifth, I am sympathetic to the idea of transferring some funds for law enforcement to other areas that would help reduce crime and conflicts and so reduce the need for law enforcement.  In fact, some of the solutions I will list towards the end have that at its base.  However, we need to realize that no matter how good our social, medical, educational, economic and mental health services become, we will always need the police.  Utopias make for good ultimate goals, but they should never be mistaken for being attainable.

There will always be crimes – from burglaries to speeding.  There will always be conflicts – between neighbors, in bars, at sporting events. There will always be a need for crowd control, for monitoring the activities of dangerous groups, for responding to reports of lost children and senior citizens with Alzheimer’s, for responding to disasters and more.

Which means, that the police need to be adequately staffed and trained.  I have a feeling that to do this right will require more money per person than what most have now.  Which means, even if the theoretical benefits of crime reduction from improved social services become real and we are able to reduce the number of police, we still may need more money in order to have the police we need.  In fact, it could be possible that, dependent upon what we wind up with in regards to the best police tactics and procedures, we could wind up actually needing more.  Truth to tell, I haven’t a clue on how that will work out. But, I do know it is something that we need to keep in mind moving forward.  Which now brings me to:

 

Sixth, more money will be needed.  No matter what the changes.  Partially defunding the police to pay for increased social, medical, mental health, educational services will not be enough to adequately get those services to where they need to be to make a significant reduction in crime and circumstances.  Most of these services are already underfunded.  Adding on new roles and increasing their effectiveness is going to mean a large increase to agencies that are more used to cuts than increases.

In other words, be prepared for discussion on the need for increased taxation and fees, and at providing justifications for such.  The old saying that you get what you pay for comes to mind now. In order to create a society in which all its members can receive equal justice we need to be willing to pay for it.  And to see the benefit of doing so in terms not only in lives lost to police violence, but in terms of lives lost to prisons, to gangs, to lack of opportunity to lack of educational opportunities.  A just society cannot be got on the cheap.

 

And now, a listing of ideas I have seen for changing policing in America.  It is not comprehensive by the way.

Ideas for change

I’m actually going to start this with a recommendation I had not seen anywhere else.  It is from my wife, who, for many years worked in HR in a large Texas city, and had, as part of her responsibilities, the responsibility to help select candidates for the Police Department, she noted something during her time there and shared her observation with me.

Currently the criteria used in most police departments in selecting person for police training  is to look for people not afraid of conflict, and who are assertive even to the point of being aggressive. A person who does not back down.  Which can play out very badly in the warrior cultures promoted by many  police departments.

Instead, change the selection criteria to find those who are confident instead of strongly assertive.  To find those who are good listeners and empathetic.

I mentioned the warrior culture present in many police departments. Change from that to a community service mindset.

Banning no knock warrants.

Banning certain ways to restrain people, such as the knee choke hold used George Floyd.

Shifting some of the calls for domestic disputes, mental illness, homeless issue from the police to different social service agencies instead (note, such services should have increased funding first, as well as procedures created).

A variation of the above is to have members of those agencies embedded with the police who go out with them on those calls and take the lead, or to have some police embedded with the social services  to go out with them when needed.

Community based policing

Changes to use of force.

Requirements for police to report when other officers abuse.

Better and longer training.

Make de-escelation a part of the culture instead of just a short training session.

Body cams on all officers

Oversight by citizen committee of any shootings.

Get rid of or modify qualified immunity

A culture that the officer does not have to be in control of all situations, does not have to gain control right now. That there are times when taking the time to understand or to come to a resolution in which no one dies.  And along with this, not being concerned about looking foolish.  I am thinking about some of the videos of British police dealing with a man with a knife, in which several of them maintained distance from the man and would put a car between them and him.  However, the time and effort that this took wound up with no one being killed or hurt, something that likely would not have happened here with most police thinking they have to gain control and compliance now, right now.  Sometimes yes. But, often no.

Along with this, training police not to be so concerned with respect for his authority but instead with what can be done to resolve the situation without anyone getting hurt.

There are more proposals, but this gives an idea of some of what is out there.

 

Principles.  Finally, although the solutions will be local and all of the above might not be used, there are some general principles that any solution has to encapsulate.

First, a recognition that it is not us versus them, but, instead just us.  This includes when having to confront those intent on breaking the law or harming either themselves or others.

Second, a dedication to treating all of those they come into contact equally, whether it be pulling them over, arresting, or talking with them.

 

And that’s it.  Really don’t need a lot of principles.  A few will provide plenty of direction.  Of course, the real trick is in finding the best way to implement them, and then doing so.  That is as difficult as actually following them.  Here’s hoping that we do better at both in the future than we have in the past.

Read Full Post »

Growing Into Words

I had originally meant to write this blog in a couple of weeks. However, given the murder of George Floyd by four police officers and the subsequent national protests/riots, I moved it up, as I saw a link between what I was going to write and the events happening today.  I will be starting this blog with the events and words from 1787 and then move to today.  Let me start though with a quote from MLK, despite these words already getting extensive play.  I want to use them for the same reason they are getting so much coverage, they are as sadly relevant today as they were when he uttered them more than 50 years ago. 

I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorousy as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

In the beginning, the founding of the United States was brought forth with fine words.

Copy of the Declaration of Independence

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”   The Declaration of Independence.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”  The US Constitution

Very inspiring and find words indeed.  Words well worth growing into.  Words proclaiming equality and justice for all.  Words that were subverted by the very documents they appeared on, their growth limited from the beginning. 

The Declaration’s limitations are readily apparent with its selection of “all men” instead of “all people”.  It forgot the ladies.  Although it did include, at least theoretically, all men regardless of race and creed. 

The US Constitution in its beginnings did better with “We the people….” Implying all people, both men and women, regardless of color or creed or economic circumstance.  However, one does not have to read far into the Constitution to find the growth implied by these words severely stunted. 

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States …. according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…. three fifths of all other Persons.”

Nor were the limits created by what was said, but what wasn’t. No mention was made of who could vote in regards to women, nor who could hold office. That was the state. But, no state allowed women to vote at the founding, and when Supreme Court ruled in 1875 that women did not have a Constitutional right to vote, that seemed to back up the implication of the pronoun used to describe the duties of President in the Constitution.  For this blog, considering what is going on today, I am going to focus on just one set of words that we have not grown into yet.  Just realize that what applies to blacks, also applies to women and gays and trans. 

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall…. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall …. He shall have Power…. He shall from time to time …. he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, ….he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors…he shall take Care.”

There were movements afoot to grow into those fine words from the beginning.  However, for a long while they made little progress. And often sustained setbacks, such as the infamous Dred Scott decision.  Also, many of those in the abolitionist movement, although against slavery,  did not consider blacks the equals of white men, nor deserving of all rights and privileges of such. 

In regards to race, we started to grow into these words with the passage of the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendment after the Civil War.  And, although it was a significant growth, it was one that was more limited than many realize. 

The 13^th Amendment passed in 1865, abolished slavery. However, it did not provide blacks with any rights, including the right to vote. It just made them not slaves. 

The 14^th Amendment, passed in 1868, made blacks citizens and provided some protections.  Significant growth, but still states determined who voted and who did not, and there was nothing there to require them to allow blacks to vote. 

The 15^th Amendment, passed in 1870 prevented states from denying the right to vote. Again, some growth, but not as much as might be thought.  It did not give blacks the right to hold public office.  It did not protect their right to vote.  It is interesting, in light of what was happening then and in the almost hundred years afterwards, that the first proposed version of this amendment provided very strong protections against any sort of limitation to voting, such as  requiring literacy tests or fees.  The final version provided no such protections.  Instead, it depended upon a Supreme Court that for almost a hundred years hindered the US growth into its fine words.  Instead of slavery tarnishing those fine words we had  Jim Crow laws, restrictions on black votes the rise of an almost unrestrained KKK and more. 

So, growth, but not as much as would be expected from these fine words and intentions.

Now, to jump almost one hundred years before we had any significant growth into these words, the Civil Rights Movements, with the passage of the Civil Right Law of 1964 followed by the Voting Rights act of 1965 and Fair Housing Act of 1968.  Laws which ended segregation, strengthened voting rights, ended discrimination on basis of race and so forth and so on.  This was indeed a big growth spurt. However, it was still not growing totally into the words at our beginnings.  These changed the laws, but not attitudes and perceptions.  Attitudes and perceptions which, as during the 1860s and 70s, caused individuals and groups to find ways around the intent of these laws, both consciously and unconsciously.

And all of this totally ignores the fact that during the blacks whole time in America, there have been significant barriers to their advancement.  From being slaves to being free but having no money or resources to live on, to having laws which tried to bind them as slaves again.  All of this and more meant that, even were everything to miraculously change with the passage of these laws, the fact it that blacks as a group, were poorer, had fewer resources and were less well educated than whites.  They were starting the hundred yard dash from 130 yards away. 

Our main problem today is that too many people who aren’t black or a minority think that battle done, and that we have fully grown into those words.  They mistake our early adolescence with being fully adult. Because of this, they ignore the disparity in justice given between blacks and whites, the disparity in education given between blacks and whites, the disparity in almost every aspect of life between blacks and white. 

Laws have been changed. The KKK version of racism is condemned and hidden.  Therefore, there is no real problem with racism in America.  We now have a largely color blind country, our institutions provide fair and equal justice and opportunities for all. Race no longer really matters. However, this runs counter the numbers and evidence for justice, for education, for economics. More importantly, this runs counter to the experiences of blacks.  Experiences which are being denied. 

And so, the frustration and pressure builds as no growth occurs.  Pressure that is released suddenly and sometimes violently due to too many triggers – George Floyd, Ahmaud Aubrey, Atatiana Jefferson, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor, and many more.  Bang, bang, bang. 

We need to start growing into our founding words.

Read Full Post »

The Myth of the Irish Slave and Racism

Many people, too many, deny that slavery and the history of discrimination and Jim Crow since slavery have an impact on the current challenges facing blacks.

Let me rephrase that, most white people deny that slavery and the history of discrimination and Jim Crow afterwards are an important part of the challenges facing blacks today.  Most blacks, though, are very well aware of this.

In this blog I am not going to go into the hows and whys of this.  Instead, I am going to focus on one of the “facts” used by those who deny this reality to defend their denial of reality.  It is just one of several arguments used to show that slavery was not nearly as bad and as impactful as is being made out.  The argument is that the Irish were slaves too, and treated horribly in the US and faced discrimination, yet look at those Irish now!  These good old white boys rose above their troubles.  Their slave past does not impact them today. So should the blacks rise above their troubles, and their slave past does not impact them today.  Although not usually expressed so baldly, that is, in essence, the argument.  Which, of course, says something about those making it.

This myth starts something like this, from  “Irish: The Forgotten White Slaves” by Ronald Dwyer.

They came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. Some were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

……

King James VI and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.

By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

…….

They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (£50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than £5 Sterling). If a planter whipped, branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive Africans.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce.

Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish mothers, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as young as 12) with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

 

Wowza. That’s quite a story.  And those white guys came bouncing back after all of this.  So, what are you whining about blacks? it is obvious that slavery then has no effect on how things are today.  Look at the Irish.

The picture on the left is actually that of breaker boys working for a Pennsylvania coal company in 1911.  The picture on the right is of a black man being beaten in the 1920s.

However, while this makes a nice story, it is more story than fact.  What is more, even if every word of this were true, it still overlooks a great many important differences.  So, to start, let me just go over those differences first before discussing what this narrative gets wrong.

First, blacks were slaves for a much longer period of time than the Irish were indentured servants.

Second, after they became free, blacks still faced severe persecution and discrimination – from voting to where they could live, to how they lived, to their education.  Irish, some, for a short period of time. But, when you look at the extent of it, and the time, not so much.  Even the most blatant forms of legal discrimination against blacks continued up until the 1960s and 70s.  The Irish, not even close.

Third, it is fairly easy to tell who is black, even after four or five generations.  The Irish, well, not really.  So, if you can’t identify the Irish from the rest of the white folks, how are you going to discriminate against them?  Blacks, well, that is relatively easy.

Now, let me deal with the article itself. First, here is the historical basis from which Dwyer then uses to pervert history.

Those fleeing Ireland due to extreme poverty did come over in great numbers and did so as indentured servants.  Something many poverty stricken Europeans did.  In fact, half of those immigrating to the colonies from Europe were indentured servants, not just the Irish.  This indentured servitude of many of the Irish in America is the truth at the base of the lies.

Now, I love the neat little verbal trick Dwyer did by mentioning indentured servitude and then implying and dismissing it as nothing more than an excuse for a horrible reality.  However, he does not deny that it is true.  Instead, Dwyer he just says that they were treated like human cattle.  Which is both true and not true.  They were treated horribly, most indentured servants were.  However, they were not treated totally like cattle.  The people who were, were black.

Let me go over some of the differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery, which is what the blacks experienced.  Chattel slavery is when a person is a slave is a slave forever, as are their children, their children’s children and so on forever and ever, amen.  It is an inherited condition, inherited along with that person’s skin color. Chattel slaves have the status of property, not people.  In fact, when lists of property were done up, those lists included slaves along with cattle, chairs, and so forth.  Slaves have no rights, not even the right to life.

Indentured servitude occurs when a person signs a contract to provide work to a person or company for a certain set period of time. During that time they were in a condition very similar to slavery, but one that had limits and in which they still had some rights.  Also, the servitude only applied to them, and not to their children.  Servitude was not inherited. After their period of service was done, they were free, and were often given plots of land too.  Although, during the time of their servitude, they could own no property and were not paid, afterwards they were free but impoverished.

This is a nice article about indentured servitude in the colony of Virginia to provide a bit more information about the history and use of indentured servitude in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.

Let me also note that at the time the indentured servants were sometimes referred to as slaves. However, not all forms of slavery are alike. That of the indentured servant was of limited duration, not inheritable, and did not reduce them totally to the status of property.

As for the specific differences between indentured servitude and chattel slavery;

First, the great majority of indentured servants entered into their contracts voluntarily.  Some were forced into their servitude as punishment for crimes, but those were very much the exception and not the rule.   Blacks had no such contracts. They were all forcibly taken.

Second, the contracts the Irish signed usually lasted from two to seven years.  In other words, there was a limit to their servitude.  It also did not apply to their children.  Blacks were slaves forever, as were their children.

Third, indentured servants had the legal status of human being.  Blacks did not.  They were considered to be nothing more than property, on a par with cattle. Blacks had no rights and could be killed without consequences.  The Irish indentured servants had legal rights, and could even take their masters to the courts if mistreated.  Not so the blacks.

Now, let me state that indentured servants were mistreated. They could not move or live anywhere without their master’s permission. They could not marry without their master’s permission. And the work they did was often long, hard and, occasionally, dangerous, and one often carried out by slaves too.  Here is an interesting thought to think upon. Dwyer said that the Irish indentured servants were cheaper than blacks and so were used more often.  And yet, despite this claimed fact, indentured servitude died out.  Chattel slavery based on skin color did not. Hmmm.

Moving on to the factual errors in this narrative, they abound.  There are more factual errors, in fact, than factual accuracies.

Dwyer states that the Irish slave trade began when King James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to America, and that his Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners to be sent overseas and sold to the English in the West Indies.

• There is no Proclamation of 1625. There is a Proclamation by James I in 1603 that problem people were to be deported beyond the seas. But, it does not specify just the Irish and applies to all people.  This proclamation, though, was used during the English Civil Wars to deport thousands of Irish men, women, and children to America.

The numbers Dwyer provides do not add up.  In the above, he states that King James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners.  He also states that between 1641 to 1652 the English sold 300,000 Irish people as slaves.

• During the whole 100 years of the 17^th century number of Irish immigrants to the West Indies is estimated to be around 50,000 people. The number of Irish immigrants to both North American and the West Indies between 1630 and 1775 is estimated at 165,000.  There is no basis at all for the 300,000 number over just a ten year period.  Even during Cromwell’s time, forced deportations from Ireland to the West Indies are estimated to be between 10,000 – 12,000 people.  Dwyer’s numbers are a mystery, and are very much off from the reality.

Dwyer claims that there were more Irish slaves than blacks were sold than blacks during the 17^th century.

• This one is, as you should be expecting by now, wildly wrong. During this time there were an estimated 10 to 12 thousand Irish indentured servants. According to the Slave Voyages Database, there were over 1.8 million – repeat, million – blacks sold as slaves by European during the same time period.

Dwyer claims that a 1637 census showed the 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

• If you look at the actual census you will find that 69% of Montserrat’s population were indeed Irish. Or rather, 69 % of the white population.  And of that Irish population, the vast majority were not indentured servants.  What, you thought the only Irish in American were indentured?  Nope, many had the resources to immigrate to American without having to indenture themselves.

I am not going to bother going through each and every claim.  That would fill several blogs, as Dwyer’s article, and the claims of those who believe in the Irish Slave myth, contains more errors and lies than truth.  Suffice it to say most of these claims are either made up of whole cloth, or have ignored certain facts – such as the one about Montserrat’s population.   In other words, this claim is bogus and is done to deny the real effects that slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination have on our society and government today, and to also protect the feelings of those whites who feel threatened by this reality.

Final Thoughts on the Forms of Racism

Racist is a descriptor that most do not believe applies to them, even those who are actually racist.  One of the many ways in which those who are racist can honestly believe they are not is due to the many meanings racist can assume.  Some racists are out and out white supremacists who believe all other races are inferior, advocate for limitations on blacks, and often will not associate with blacks. Most Americans are not that type of racist.

However, other types of racists exist; more subtle (in comparison with the KKK and the Aryan Nation) and better able to blend in and disguise themselves as being enlightened.  Yet still damaging to people and society. One such variety has black friends, Jewish friends, Hispanic friends, and strongly believes all people should be treated equally regardless of race.  Which sounds fine, until they go on and say that racism is not a real problem today and then deny its many real world effects.

To better be able to deny the on-going problem with racism we have in the United States, these people often try to downplay the effects of slavery, to minimize its impact on today – they do this too because they feel that they are being personally attacked when racism and slavery are brought up.   This Irish slave myth one such way such people protect their views, and avoid considering the possibility that they actually may be racist.

I once had a discussion with such a person who put the problems that blacks have that I attributed in large part to our racist past and slavery to being a problem with black culture.  When I pressed this person on how did black culture become this destructive, as he saw it, to blacks?  I asked what forces shaped it, what forces maintain it?  I received no answer.  To him, it was all about personal responsibility and had nothing to do with society, government, and history.  And, I would assume, since on average whites do better than blacks, blacks just aren’t very good at assuming responsibility for their actions; whites are better about manning up and moving up.

Yeah. Right.

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Bones of Scoundrel’s Refuges

A competent scoundrel will always build their last refuge upon something that has a bit of solidity, a bit of reality, a bit of importance. Upon something that has great emotional resonance. It is why patriotism is so often used. However, patriotism is not the only last refuge used by scoundrels.  Religion is also frequently used as shelter by scoundrels, as witnessed lately by the actions of AG Barr, Secretary of State “Christian Leader” Pompeo, and trump in their denouncing “militant secularism” as being the source of our ills, and the promotion of Christianity, and evangelical conservative Christianity above all, as being the source of America’s strengths. And of course, them as being the prime defender of this Christianity.

However, I am not writing about this.

Oh, it is worthy of spending a few thousand words on, but many are already doing so and doing so well.  What I want to look at in this blog is why this is  an effective refuge for these scoundrels; at the bit of solidity, that bit of reality, that they have constructed their refuge upon. Let me start by quoting a bit of AG Barr’s speech given to Notre Dame law students last Friday.

“We must be vigilant to resist efforts by forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon our exercise of our faith.”

The truth that this sentence launches itself from is the feeling of many on the conservative Christian side that their views, their beliefs, their lives are being hemmed in, limited, and are in the process of being destroy. In a way, they’re correct. Their lives are being hemmed in, to an extent. They are in danger of being, not destroyed, but in having their numbers dwindle and their influence wane.

They feel this way, semi-correctly, for three related reasons.

First, their views and beliefs were the dominant ones for most of this country’s history.  Yes, we had religious freedom, but some religions were more equal and prominent and powerful in public affairs than others.  Others had a sort of secondary status.

Second, despite the Constitution being a secular document and the founders having purposely created a secular government, they conflated their version of Christianity with the United States so that, in their minds, what helps one helps the other, what harms one harms the other.

Then there is the fact that once upon a time, not so long ago, the social values shared by these Christians were also held in common by most others too. This was especially true in regards to race, a women’s role, and homosexuality. However, change happens.

First, blacks became free citizens. Then women became voting citizens. Then both fought to overcome the laws and attitudes that held them back from becoming fully human and equal citizens. Along the way, the LBGQT that were always among us spoke out and started to fight for their right to be considered as, and treated as, fully human, with all the rights attendant upon such status. This fight, although having some notable victories, is still very much on-going, and, though the road is shorter than it was, it is still long. And treacherous.

These changes were sparked by many forces. First was the innate sense of fairness and justice that is part of our evolutionary heritage.  First and foremost, among those suffering from this lack of fairness and justice, but also upon a growing population of some who were the beneficiaries of such inequities.

Then there is science, a two edged sword (like religion) that both struck for the status quo and injustices and also against them. However, due to the nature of science, it started to tilt towards those who were relegated to being inferior or dangerously different. Blacks were not different in ability or anything else than whites; not lazier, not more violent. Women were not emotional and frail creatures incapable of complex thoughts and deep responsibilities.  Homosexuality was not a choice but the result of genes and environment, just like heterosexuality. Sexual identity is determined in our brains and not in our genitals, and that there are differences within the brains of those who believe their genitals and sexual identity do not match. Along with this were the social sciences developing tools needed to show, in conjunction with history, the inequalities that still exist in our system, and the damage done by these inequalities.

Along with this was the changing demographics of the United States and the impact of better education, improved communication, and travel. People of different religions and philosophies were coming to the US and becoming citizens. People learned about other religions and societies and had to think of the implication of such things. And more people started traveling, coming into contact with other societies and people not the same, and finding them good.

This led to conflicts, inevitably. It led to stress and fear, inevitably. And it led to a gradual changing of government and society which, to those who had been privileged, was seen as a taking away of what was rightfully theirs, and as a threat to society in general.

The fact that there were those of many different religious faiths and belief in the United States meant that the United States had to more fully implement religious rights. For example, instead of all having to participate in a conservative Christian prayer led by teachers and principals, school staff could no longer do so. Individual students could still pray, but they could not be led in prayer or encouraged to do so by any school personnel.

Being the one favored by previous policies and understandings, many conservative Christians saw this as an attack on their religion instead of treating all religious belief equally. Even more concerning to them is that, since they believed that their Christian beliefs were the bedrock of all morality and good government, they saw this as being an attack on the very foundation of good and moral government.   This belief was confirmed in their eyes by other societal changes they saw going on around them.

What had been stable norms were being attacked, and successfully so. White privilege no longer being seen as good and the norm.  Gender roles and gender interactions changing, with many of these Christians now thinking that a woman could and would ruin a man with just a word, rape. The recognition of what was once seen as perversion as being normal, and legal, and a threat to the institution of marriage and to women and girls in bathrooms everywhere.

And it was also seeing their numbers dwindle, even among the religious. Religions change too, sometimes lagging society, sometimes leading society. They looked at the demographics and what was happening to religion and society and came to the correct conclusion that their days of domination in the public square were numbered.

There is one final piece to be considered here. Such views would be acceptable if it was limited to individual views. Everyone is entitled to believe as they wish, no matter how reprehensible others might find those beliefs. However these views do not stay individual. Using their past dominance in our country, and then using religious freedom as the reason, these conservative evangelicals are attacking back to harm the rights and lives of those they consider threats to,not only them but the country.

Religion has always been an integral part of society since large societies first arose. They have communicated and enforced the social norms of societies and governments. And, occasionally, changed them. Most people consider their religious beliefs among the most important to them, and the conservative evangelicals especially so. And so, the scoundrels are taking advantage of this and using their “defense of freedom of religion to motivate these evangelical conservative Christians to continue to support them, no matter what.

Read Full Post »

Hope and Dream, Redux

For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper — that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

Senator Barak Obama’s 2004 Democratic convention speech

 

Change happens.  It  always happens, with only the type of change and its pace  varying.  Today we are in the midst  of a terrible change, one that is harming the people of the United States and the world.  Black is now white, up is now down. What was wrong is now right and what was right is now wrong.  So it seems from reading the comments and words of many of our leaders, including the President, and their supporters.  Reason is no longer important, only the emotions of fear and anger and hatred and the policies they lead to.

The following are just a very small example of the white is black and wrong is right mentality in ascendancy today.

• Opposition to the display of the Confederate Flag and to Confederate Heroes Day is denounced is “rooted in bigotry”.
• Hate crimes against blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims, and other minority groups are mainly hoaxes.
• Hate crimes against whites are the real problem and are increasing.
• Asylum seekers are an invasion and an active threat to the United States since they consist mainly of thugs, rapists, human slavers ;  even the families, even the children.
• Separating children from their parents unnecessarily is moral and good.
• Nuclear weapons are good, and we shouldn’t be limited by treaties.
• In fact, we shouldn’t be limited by any treaties.
• Our once friends are not really our friends.
• The United States can go it alone in the world.
• Money is more important than people.
• The environment is worth nothing, other than what big business can get out of raping it.
• Scientists are not worth listening to.
• Any and all immigrants and refugees are an active danger and should be deported.  Even those who served honorably in the military. Even those married to spouses who died while serving our country.  Even 11 year old children.
• Our fellow citizens are our brothers and sisters, but only if they are the same color, the same religion, the same income, the same as me. Otherwise, they are not.
• The only thing that matters is business and its growth.  Especially big business.  All else is not important.   Well, except the politics of staying in power, even at the expense of the Constitution.   The welfare of the citizens, the quality of the environment, the safety of our liberties and lives – not important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that in these dark times in which we are witnessing on going efforts to dismantle all of that which has made the United States a great country – a concern for others, including those outside our borders; a care for our environment as a positive good for the soul and not just for economic benefit; a desire to leave our world better for our children; a desire to create international relations and institutions aimed to reduce war, to reduce poverty, to improve the lives of women, children and men everywhere; an eye on the moral– we need to find words that will carry us through these times and to the creation of a better.

Obama’s quote opening this blog is, to me, something that all of us who live in the United States, and who want to see our country continue to grow and prosper and become better for all should make an article of faith. One to be believed in firmly and absolutely no matter what truth we think the evidence is showing us.

Now, most who know me know that I am a strongly evidence believing sort of person.  For me to say to believe something despite what seems to be evidence against it is really quite unusual. But, in this case I do.

First and foremost, this is not really a statement of fact.  It is a statement of belief on what American society should be.  It is one that has some evidence for it, but its chief value is as a goal, and a reminder of how we are all intertwined so that what affects one affects all.  It is a goal, a statement of human reality, and a reason to hope.  This last, hope, is important, especially during the hard and dark times. Without hope, without a goal to hope for, perseverance becomes more difficult, perhaps impossible. And that is what is needed, especially today.

Mandela had gone to jail for his principles. He’d missed seeing his kids grow up, and then he’d missed seeing many of his grandkids grow up, too. All this without bitterness. All this still believing that the better nature of his country would at some point prevail. He’d worked and waited, tolerant and undiscouraged, to see it happen.

“Becoming” Michelle Obama, page 369.

 

I see our current situation as a continuance of the unrest, protests, riots, civil disobedience, state and city rebellions, general divisiveness and even violence and bloodshed during the 60s and 70s.  From all of that we changed laws in ways that were long overdue, providing better and more equal protections and rights for all of our citizens than we had before.

We have had a period of relative quiet during that time as we debated and adjusted to these new legal realities and worked to find ways to best implement them (or try to).  We consolidated the ideas behind those laws and applied them to our society and culture.  We used those laws and those ideals to create a greater sense of urgency for making our country fair to all people, to provide equal treatment and equal justice for all, and expanded our definition of who all are. Now though we have come to the next part. Changing cultural and societal norms. Changing hearts and minds.

Changing laws is relatively easy, although it did not seem so at the time.  However, changing attitudes and culture is much, much more difficult to do.

We have had some progress between then and now, as witnessed most strongly by the expansion of rights to now include the both gays being able to marry and to openly serve in the military. But now the pushback has come in the form of a most unlikely representative – Donald J. Trump.  He is not the force leading the pushback though, and he did not create it. Trump is merely (yeah, I know that this adjective seems to downplay the damage his election is doing, but it still is accurate) the man who managed to take advantage of this force, and continues to do so.

This force consists of millions of people who are comfortable with the norms as they were. Those norms defined them and provided a place for them. It provided their right and wrong.  It provided their identity, one that they now see is being attacked as evil. They are afraid that they will not be allowed to remain as they were, that their views will be outlawed, that they and their families will lose out.  This group includes overt racists and card carrying KKK and Nazis.  It includes those who denounce both but whose views about races and gender and gender identity are close to those groups.

However, it also includes many more who denounce both the groups and their ideas, but are unaware of how their own attitudes and views are shaped by such, and by history.   They are usually absolutists in the sense that they know their views about sexuality, about gender, about the races are true and look at anything that contradicts them as being threatening, even evil.  And they are not interested in questioning those views.

Societal and cultural change are always more divisive than changes to the law and often more violent. Yet from that, often better things emerge. Not perfect, often far from perfect, but better; something that can serve as a seed for future change.   A good example is the Reconstruction after the Civil War.

Immediately after President Andrew Johnson took office due to the death of President Lincoln, Congress adjourned for a period of several months.  Johnson, a southern Democrat, used that opportunity to create a Reconstruction that he thought was just and right. It consisted of having the Confederate States recognize that blacks were no longer slaves. And nothing else. No recognition that they had rights of any sort – no right to vote, to hold a job, of speech, or freedom of movement.  None.  And then he allowed the Southern states to elect and put into office the same people who created the Confederacy to begin with.

The result of his reconstruction was that blacks were required to sign a paper saying that they had a job from a white person.  If they did not then they were classified as vagrants and they could be given to a white person who would pay them a nominal amount.  Or, they could have their children taken from them by reason of being too impoverished to properly cared for and then given to whites for the benefit of the children, so that they could learn a trade or housekeeping.  Even worse, since blacks had no rights, they were still not really people.  Mass killings of blacks occurred in several cities.  One black woman was brave enough to publicly testify before congress on this, and to name many of the white men who she saw shooting down blacks. She then testified that when three white men broke into her home, she begged for her life saying that she was alone with her two children.  They did not kill her. They did rape her though, as they did many others.

While the Republicans were working against what Johnson had done, refusing to recognize and seat the Congressmen elected from the Confederate states for example,  they might not have created and passed the 14^th amendment had not this violence and these gross injustices occurred. It was the moral outrage generated by these actions that led to the creation of the 14^th amendment, the 14^th amendment from which so much good would eventually flow.  Sobering to think that had Johnson’s version of Reconstruction run smoother, an amendment so integral to our rights might not have ever come into existence.

So, we live in dark times. I fervently wish we didn’t. But, they come and always will come. It remains to us to look at history and see that this is the pattern, that this has happened over and over again. And that we have eventually worked through the darkness. It almost seems as if we need these periods of darkness with its pain and suffering to provide the moral energy needed to bring forth more light and progress,

I think and believe that Trump and the regressive forces he represents will lose eventually.  When he and they do though, it will take decades to recover and move forward again. But, just as Andrew Johson’s Reconstruction and the 60s and 70s yielded something positive and a positive direction, so too do I hope history repeats itself.  This is, by the way, a never ending process.  We will never be perfect. Every advance will be met by a reverse. But, we have taken every reversal in our history, overcome it, and wound up the better for addressing it. We have already improved upon what we were, and will improve more.  As long as we have hope.

And a dream.
No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

……

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

Martin Luther King Jr.  1963 speech,  “I Have a Dream” .

Read Full Post »