Trying to Make Sense of Horror

I write this with some trepidation and beg forgiveness in advance. The situation in Israel is well above average on a polarization scale that continues to recruit members at both ends of the spectrum at a frightening rate. Keeping in mind (Berndt) Rule #31: “If you’ve never offended anyone, you might ask yourself if you’ve ever said or done anything worth thinking about”…

At the invitation of one of my dearest friends, I attended a solidarity event last Tuesday at Temple B’nai Amoona, the synagogue at the school where I ended my teaching career. Ever since I have been trying to refine my thoughts about the multiple human tragedies unfolding daily since October 7 in the Middle East.

U. S. citizens have zero business judging the leadership of any other democracy, especially not since 2016. The similarities between Netanyahu and Trump, with a touch of Putin for flavor, are both glaring and frightening. Wannabe autocrats actively sabotaging freedom share many qualities, none of them admirable. 

Jews know their history, not just their history in Europe during World War II. For the current hostages in particular, but all Jews in general, how familiar must the events of October 7 feel? Innocents murdered, tortured, rounded up and hauled off to an unknown fate by people openly dedicated to their complete annihilation. Blatant anti-Semitism has emerged from its closet, not just recently but over the past several years, and it must create a frightening sense of déjà vu.

Listening to the reading of the 240+ names who have been abducted – and still remain – as hostages in the dark tunnels of Gaza, one family stood out for me (though it was just one of several). Two parents and three of their children were taken from their home on a kibbutz near the border, and dragged off to what is, essentially, an underground concentration camp, where they remain.

We all want simple solutions, simple answers to incredibly complex problems. I know enough, have read enough, have studied enough, to realize such a desire is completely delusional. No one, certainly including me, knows how this tragedy will play out, how it will end, and in some cases has already ended, for the many thousands impacted by it. All the analyses of causes and effects, all the political posturing, nothing will change that. Unfortunately. Abducting and holding innocent hostages only inflames an already open sore.

Poisonous hatred, and anti-Semitism is only one potent ingredient, has been steeping in the boiling darkness of our world for much longer than any of us are probably willing to admit, and the resulting concoction is, and, sadly I fear will remain, a bitter brew, with a polluting aftertaste that will last for years. 

Hostages. Did I mention Hamas continues to hold innocent civilian hostages? Over a month after their initial attack. Yeah, pretty sure I did, but it’s a fact that must neither be forgotten or ignored.

Beware of They!

Although I suppose it would be easier (read, simpler) in many ways, we do not live in a black and white world.

Them! They! Certainly not US!

Originally written 9/21/2017, updated & edited today.

Do you ever wonder who “they” are?

I was perusing FaceBook, something I admittedly probably spend too much time on, and I stumbled across a post about them, which was to say not the poster, wanting to do something that seemed snowflakey. Snowflakes and triggers come in both red and blue, incidentally. Then I ran across another post about how they were hateful.

And I began, as I often do, to wonder, “Who is this they?” If you consider yourself a conservative, “they” is probably liberals. If you consider yourself a liberal, “they” is probably conservatives. If you’re a (true) libertarian, you get to alternate “theys” between both the liberals AND conservatives! Lucky you!

But I would ask you, before sharing, reposting, tweeting or retweeting, that meme or article, to ask yourself who that they is to whom you’re referring.

Because the fact of the matter is, unless you’re talking about a very specific (and generally small) group of people, there really is no “they.” Of course there are Nazis; of course there are anarchists (who, almost by definition, are a less than cohesive group); of course there are Kluckers; of course there are, well, you get the picture. And yes, there are true-believer Republicans and Democrats, and while frequently those who have been elected by their party will follow the party-line, it is often as much out of a desire to stay in office than any real commitment to a particular bill or even philosophy. Even those who do claim a philosophical affiliation with one party or the other (or some other) will often be loyal only to a point. Only the wonks actually know or follow the platform of their party, and even then selectively. (Note that the GOP didn’t even bother with a platform in 2020.)

But all generalizations, like all stereotypes, will seldom be accurate when describing any individual.

I’ve been called a liberal, a socialist, even a communist (that was a long time ago). I’ve previously expressed my scorn for labels, because labels are too simplistic. I lean left, no doubt, so in the eyes of a staunch conservative (including my own family), that makes me a liberal. Even if true, guess what? We don’t have meetings to decide what we believe, because there is no consensus.

My brothers lean right. But they don’t, at least as far as I know, meet up for lunch to define the weekly positions for a true-believer conservative. Or at least they didn’t invite me when you could still do lunch. Nor do any other conservatives, or liberals. Those terms are only marginally useful because there is no organized group. But if you want to rile people up, get them excited about fake issues (like removing statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson), feel free to talk about how they are doing whatever.

No Fan of Big Buts

I’m not a fan of big buts, because “but” contradicts the initial premise. Have you ever heard, or perhaps even said:

• I’m not prejudiced but …

• I’m not a racist but …

• I’m not sexist but …

• I don’t want to hurt your feelings but …

• No offense but …

• I don’t have anything against gays but …

• I believe in freedom of religion but …

But… Wait for it …. You are now going to hear (or say) something prejudicial, racist, sexist, hurtful, offensive, homophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, etc., etc., etc. So, in fact, whoever starts with that phrase is, in fact, what they just said they’re not.

The “Big But” is an easy trap to fall into, trying to deny reality when it’s inconvenient. We’ve all done it, although I hope not in exactly the ways described above. A disturbing number of people have used, and continue to use, the “easy way out” by sharing, liking, retweeting, etc. to express racist views. Most would, of course, deny being prejudiced; after all, they’re just nodding at or reposting something someone else said. 

Sorry, not sorry: if you endorse a position you are also, by extension, endorsing the person(s), for better or worse, who offered the opinion. You can’t take a single quote from Adolf Hitler (or Vladimir Putin) and pretend that nothing else he said or did matters.

Charlottesville is my Rubicon. I’ve tried hard, really hard, to give people the benefit of the doubt for the last year and a half. No more. Put me in coach, I’m ready to play. Appropriating an appropriate phrase, “Never again.” Because, when you say, “I’m not defending the Nazis but….” and it’s followed by deflecting to another group or minimizing criticism of those hateful people and groups, wait for it, YOU ARE DEFENDING NAZIS. No, there are no good Nazis, there are no good people who accept or associate with Nazis. Those who defend Nazis are Nazi collaborators and no better than Nazis themselves.

I’ll go even further. I will never again use the phrase “alt-right,” because it’s nothing more than a euphemism to sanitize evil. Instead I’m going for the more accurate phrase: “fucking Nazis.” Because that is what the alt-right is.

If you, in any way, defend the the bullies of the so-called alt-right, you dishonor my father who fought them in World War II and was wounded working to defeat that evil. You threaten people whom I hold dear and are part of my soul. You threaten society as we know it. If you defend, or rationalize, or mitigate evil, you, too, are evil and stained in the same way.

I will, tepidly, and fighting back nausea, defend your first amendment rights (as well as those who use those same rights trying to block or counter the hatred you spew – and should you show up in St. Louis, I will be there with them), but know this: you are a despicable human being and I won’t bat at an eye or lift a finger when karma pays you a biting visit. There is no big but. I’m done.

Tributes to Traitors, Terrorists and Treason

To Say Nothing of Slavery and Racism

Because getting bent out of shape has become a national pasttime to which so many are addicted, I find lots of people complaining about the removal of symbols giving tribute to traitors and treason.

Yes, monuments to the Confederacy are, at a minimum, exactly that. The CSA was created to preserve the enslavement of human beings for the benefit of the landed aristocracy in the South. Armed insurrection against their country followed, creating a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and ripped our nation apart. Even sewn back together, the divide remained and the traitors, years later, erected monuments to honor their treason (plus honoring those who terrorized the new black citizens) and attempting to reshape the narrative. That revisionist history of the “Lost Cause” conveniently discounted slavery and attempted to transform sedition to nobility.

Monuments and flag worship have been part and parcel of that public relations coup. The virulent racism that continued and even grew in the post-war years exemplifies the statement, “The North Won the War but the South won the Peace.” Don’t believe me? Do some basic research about the corrupt deal settling the election of 1876 and preserving the presidency for the Republican Party. (Note: neither the Republican nor Democrat parties of 1876 are the parties of today.)

Does dismantling a monument or lowering a flag solve any of the pressing problems facing our nation? Of course not. Do those actions deserve the seemingly high priority assigned to them? Seems doubtful. But make no mistake, maintaining those artifacts of racism carries a price tag, both in terms of state and municipal treasuries but also in reminding those (or their ancestors) who were victims of that attitude that many people, and their state and local governments, considered them inferior, even subhuman. You need no more than a hint of empathy to understand how that feels, how that discounts the value of a significant number of Americans. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Just because it’s not YOUR problem doesn’t mean it’s not A problem.

All that being said, I could never support the destruction of art (including today’s destruction of a 10 Commandments monument in Little Rock by a nut job with a history of such actions), no matter how offensive it might be to some people. (Not surprisingly, what offends me might not offend you, and vice versa.) I’m not suggesting we try some Orwellian erasure of history; it must be preserved (and analyzed and evaluated and debated). But such art (or history) needs to be displayed and maintained in museums or by privately funded entities. That apparently will be the case with the St. Louis monument to the Confederacy (created in 1914, long after the Civil War, but during the hey day of Jim Crow), as it is now in the custody of the Civil War Museum.

So if you want to get upset, you can add this piece to the list of things about which to fret. Or you might invest your energy in working to discover common ground and find solutions to problems that affect us all.

Stink Test II -- Walking Out, Closing Minds

As the outrage swirls on social media and elsewhere over the commencement walkout by Notre Dame students, I’m reminded of an incident with some paralells when I was at Hamilton College in 1967 (one that I’ve recounted before but as an example for a different topic). That anecdote might better apply to the Ann Coulter kerfuffle or others where students objected to the presence of a speaker whose views they find abhorrent. But I think the point is essentially the same.

I’m neither defending nor condemning their actions, their exercise of a civil liberty. Was their action disrespectful to the Vice-president? Perhaps, but do THEY feel disrepected by this administration? Probably. That they chose to reply in kind accomplished little, in my opinion, except to drive the dividing wedge between us painfully deeper, and for that reason I think I would have chosen to sit quietly but respectfully, and find a way to make my counter opinion known. But I don’t know for sure.

Before I get to that, however, I’d ask those who are somewhere on the spectrum between mildly upset to outraged to honestly apply the “stink test.” Had students walked out on President Obama, would you have had the same reaction, or might you have (at least silently) cheered, or at least defended, such an occurrence? Only you can answer that question and I don’t need to know it, no matter how you might rationalize it. Remember, the Notre Dame students can rationalize their actions, as well.

To the anecdote from my past:

“George Lincoln Rockwell, the (late, totally unlamented) American Nazi leader, ... claimed to not be a racist. He spoke at Hamilton College during my sophomore (and final) year there. His invitation, and presence, in 1967, was, to say the least, controversial. I’m not sure who thought having him give a speech was a good idea. There was some debate over boycotts, protests, etc. In the end, the semi-organized response was that we students would attend but sit quietly and then walk out at the end in silent protest.

I can’t tell you if that was really a brilliant idea or not. I like to think I’d do something, anything, different today. However, what happened made everything moot, because he revealed his true nature and sabotaged whatever goals he may have had without any help from us.

Rockwell was, like his idol, a pretty accomplished speaker. He had a rhythm and cadence that worked to dampen the resistance of his audience’s intellect. As I recall it, he was about a third of the way through his speech, trying to convince us that American Nazis were somehow different than the old-fashioned kind, and that they weren’t racist but just good Americans concerned about the deterioration of American life [please note this was almost 50 years ago and the theme still plays to certain audiences] the way the Founding Fathers had intended (conveniently forgetting how most of those same founders had been slave owners, of course). He was on a roll, gaining a modicum of momentum, when, as he talked about crime, he used the word “nigger.”

The change in atmosphere was palpable; I remember a collective gasp. He knew that whatever minor traction he had gained had immediately vanished. His car careening on the ice, he desperately tried to recover, to justify his use of, what even then, at least in educated circles, was an unacceptable racial slur. He failed miserably, in the same way so many others have failed. They fail because it’s not true; they are, in fact, bigots, who, while they may be able to single out, even perhaps admire an individual or group of individuals [who fit their world view], cannot, in general, see past the stereotypes that enslave their opinions.”

However, the same could be said about the reaction to Vice-president Pence. He is the former governor of the state which is the home to Notre Dame. He was a reasonable and appropriate choice as commencement speaker. By refusing to listen, those students failed to get past THEIR preconceived view of the man who might well become the next President of the United States (for better and worse, sooner or later). When we stop listening, or confine ourselves to the echo chamber of our own beliefs, we just perpetuate divisive stereotypes. That’s not good for any of us.