Revisionist History: No Shades of Gray Here

 

I’m generally a “shades of gray” kind of guy. Very little is black or white for me, because, as Jimmy Buffett sings it, life is “simply complicated.” But not always and not everything.

For example, I’d prefer to be far less familiar with child and sexual abuse than I am. I’d prefer to know less, but about five decades in education, as well as some personal friendships, have made that impossible. What I don’t know, however, is anyone, ANYONE, who tries to defend child abuse, in any of its forms. No one says, “Well, it wasn’t that bad.” No one says child abuse was just “kind of” or “mostly” evil, or that it’s not so bad because it’s so common. What constitutes abuse may generate some gray area discussions, but once we’ve reached agreement that someone is/was the victim of abuse, no one, other than a defense lawyer, attempts to discount the life-long damage or minimize the evil. 

Or Nazis. There is no gray area with Nazis, even if they dress it up with a “Neo” prefix, or try to disguise it as “alt right.” Evil, pure evil. Indefensible.

Slavery is similar. The (peculiar) institution of chattel slavery in the United States was evil, pure black, no shades of gray. Its development, growth, spread, all are certainly subject to analysis and explanation – but not justification. It.Was.Evil.  It.Was.Wrong.  It.Was.Ugly.  And there is no excuse for it having hung on in this country as long as it did. Nor is there any excuse for the treasonous war that attempted to not only prolong it but expand its reach. It needs to be taught as such.

That many slaves endured, that some managed to develop the survival and other skills that allowed them to overcome such evil, to even achieve, changes nothing. Florida and other states are attempting to minimize the long and short term damage done to men and women who were seen as less than human, as less than equal persons, based solely on the color of their skin.

Don’t believe me? Think I’m over-reacting? See the annotated standards below from Florida’s state-mandated curriculum, referenced by cartoon art above:

Florida’s State Academic Standards; African American History   

• SS.912.AA.1.1 – Prior to any lesson on American slavery, Florida kids will learn about African slavery, Asian slavery, Muslim slavery, Native American slavery, Arabian slavery and more, just so we’re all clear that everybody ELSE was doin’ it, OKAY?! And it would be fair if we didn’t get our turn.
• SS.68.AA.2.3 — “Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” This one has gotten the most blowback. The FL Ed. Dept. then offered “proof” of their “slavery with benefits” theory, providing the names of 16 slaves who benefitted from mad job skills they picked up during their unpaid lifetime internships. Unfortunately, of these 16, 9 were not even slaves, 9 had their line of work misidentified (including 2 accomplished inventors identified as blacksmiths, a guy who founded a shipping company identified as a shoemaker, etc.), and at least one was born after emancipation. And one was the free white sister of George Washington.
• SS.5.AA.1 — Slavery shouldn’t be a big Debbie Downer buzzkill, so the standards look for slavery’s silver linings, such as how escaping slave catchers, dogs and guns taught slaves resilience.
• SS.912.AA.3.6 — “Instruction includes acts of violence perpetrated against AND BY African Americans but is not limited to 1906 Atlanta Race Riot, 1919 Washington, D.C. Race Riot, 1920 Ocoee Massacre, 1921 Tulsa Massacre and the 1923 Rosewood Massacre.”✬

Nothing justifies an evil institution; anything, or anyone, endeavoring to discount, minimize, or whitewash slavery is perpetuating that same evil, and must be opposed with every fiber of our being.

✬ Credit Kirk Anderson for the research and cartoon.

I'll Have a Bud Light

Not really. I no longer drink beer, my lifetime punch-card having been completed by my quarter-century mark, due to maximum (legal, mind you, no fake id for me*) usage in high school, college, and early “adulthood” (which, as Carolyn will attest, is perhaps debatable). And it doesn’t matter if Bud Light actually qualifies as a good beer, or beer at all as some people whose judgment I trust in this area have opined. In any case, that rambling preamble is to make clear that I have no pony in this race, either beer-wise or financially (do not own AB/InBev stock).

However, lately I’ve been in places where beer is clearly the default beverage (at least for those who imbibe,. and I’m tempted to order a Bud Light (which I wouldn’t drink), just to make a point that the I’m not offended by a well-intended but strategically inept marketing decision. (N.b., That “offensive” can was never meant to be offered for sale to the public. Again, according to those I assume have some expertise, the can wasn’t nearly as offensive as what was contained therein.)

What I’ve noticed, however, is that even had I WANTED to drink Bud Light, it is seemingly unavailable, nor (perversely) could I even make some kind of boycott statement, because a skittish bar/restaurant owner/manager has decided not to offer the product rather than risk offending some customer(s). I don’t blame them for that decision; it probably isn’t worth the hassle when there are so many other options that have yet to offend patrons, any more than it’s worth it to me to order it to try to make a point.

If you’ve decided to be offended by the Bud Light trans-supportive campaign and not buy that product at the store, fine by me. I.Don’t.Care. But your boycott has, either inadvertently or, more likely, advertently,  removed MY freedom of choice in a bar/restaurant, making me an unwitting and perhaps unwilling supporter of your manufactured outrage (because, really, what possible difference could this can have made to you personally?). Kind of mutes the whole “freedom” argument, n’est-ce pas? 

And thus my objection, because the culture warriors claim to want freedom, but only if that freedom aligns with THEIR cultural values. Mine are not only less important, but UNIMPORTANT. That dismissive attitude is what I find most objectionable. Not sure what I can boycott to express myself, though.

* Not exactly true, because in Belgium, where I went to high school, you were old enough to drink beer/wine if you could hold the glass; but you DID need to be 18 to see certain movies (e.g., The Prize with Paul Newman & my first celebrity crush, Elke Somer) or go to a club to dance (Beer good, dancing bad; I DO get that the combination can be dangerous under certain circumstances, although if you’ve ever seen me dance, well whatever aphrodisiac qualities might be associated with the activity….). In any case, I did have a crudely forged ID from an altered temporary visa that somehow passed muster with those who recognized the absurdity of the rule in that Catholic country.

 Short version: Being gay and proud ≠ Proud of being gay

Pride — As Pride Month drags to a close (sorry, couldn’t resist) and SCOTUS offers a “Get Out of Jail Free” card to discriminatory businesses (although, tbh, I do not think I would WANT to patronize any business that marginalized me or my friends, and there are too many options of providers who are either friendly or neutral; for me it’s like flying a Confederate (or Trump) flag on your business property, a guarantee that you won’t be getting any of MY money), I want to visit the bigger picture surrounding the word, Pride.
Because I’ve stopped following most Neanderthals and the proudly “unwoke,” I saw only a few anti-Pride, “Straight Pride” memes. I am proud of my success in achieving my goal of no longer tilting at the Windmills of Ignorance without compensation, so I didn’t respond, thus neither “wasting my time nor annoying the pig.”*
Still, there’s a bigger point that needs to be made, and it’s not one that I have seen anywhere else, so I’ll offer my take (it or leave it).
The word “PRIDE” has more nuance than some understand (nuance, like empathy, seems increasingly endangered). Of course there’s the initial thought, having PRIDE in some accomplishment, skill, developed character trait, action, etc. Something deliberate and/or mindful. None of my gay (or Black or….) friends tout their identities a source of pride, however, because identity is intrinsic, not a choice, certainly not an achievement. That’s NOT what the marches, t-shirts, buttons, posts, etc. are about.
For full understanding of a word, we need to know its antonym. The antonym for PRIDE is SHAME; marginalized groups have long been expected to be (or least act) ashamed of their innate identities, that they are somehow unworthy of love or respect. Pride means refusing to accept the shame, refusing to remain out of sight, invisible. “In the closet,” if you will. Pride is about sharing the courage, opening the doors of acceptance, demonstrating, “You are not alone.” 
Pride movements are people demanding to be seen, refusing to be disrespected, cancelled, marginalized, or viewed as somehow “less” than the majority (read “in power”) group. Having once seen a friend, neighbor, or relative proudly display their authentic identity forces people to confront the discomfiting realization that maybe someone they love might belong to that group they hate, dislike, discount, or marginalize. Unless they’ve embraced the blinders of prejudice and bigotry, they can never unsee that person’s authenticity. The courage of PRIDE movement pioneers sends exactly that message, and the spread of that message is why society is slowly, grudgingly proffering acceptance, despite backlash and obstruction from those who fear change, who fear those who are different. That is the beauty and value of Pride movements, validating the right to be proud of who you are, no matter who approves or disapproves.
If you read the comments supporting the anti-LBGTQ+ legislation (both passed and proposed), the sub-text (and occasionally, in a burst of accidental honesty, literal text) is: “You are not welcome here. If you insist on staying (or, heaven {their version only, of course} forbid, advocating for your rights to be seen and treated like everyone else), you’re not going to like the atmosphere.” 
Ameristan, Love It or Leave It. PRIDE offers another, wider, more inclusive, path.

*Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

A Logical Mind in an Illogical World

I didn’t yell at anyone, didn’t make anyone feel bad. I know that someone, somewhere, at some point in time, had a perfectly good reason for making the rule…. 

I went to our pharmacy to pick up the printouts of our prescription expenditures from 2022 for our tax return. (Let me note that I walked the 1+ miles at 20°F to accomplish this task.) At the pharmacy desk I was informed that while they had the reports ready for both of us, I couldn’t get Carolyn’s, it had to be given to her in person.

Never mind that I can pick up her prescriptions without her being there, but not the report of having picked up those prescriptions. I do this without showing ID except to verify our street address. Incidentally, I was not asked to show ID to pick up my report, nor was she upon our return trip. Why not? Maybe because the pharmacy staff knows us. But wait, if they know us…. 

Navigating an illogical word is an ongoing and especially frustrating challenge for those of us with logical minds. At least I closed my exercise ring.

Mindful Maintenance

Relationships may develop organically, but they don’t survive without work. 

I’d like to blame COVID…. 

....but the fact of the matter is that, as an introvert, I’ve never been very good at the friendship thing, at least not in the way I always thought friendships were ‘spozed to be created and developed. For a long time some of my closest friends had to overcome their initial dislike of me. That journey from antipathy to acceptance was nudged  along by the fact that those (eventual) friendships mostly developed from professional relationships. Apparently I became more tolerable if you had to work with me — or if you knew or spent time with Carolyn. I appreciate that she represents a perpetual stock boost  for my reputation. One colleague (although not a friend on any level) only tolerated me because of my wife, and she died never  understanding how Carolyn could possibly put up with me. I’m sure that’s still a challenge. 

With Ken Trammel

    Nevertheless, despite my multiple shortcomings, I have managed to not only make, but keep, friends I cherish, and what I’ve learned over the past few years  is that those few friendships need nurturing and attention. If they’re going  to survive and grow, it takes work; it takes commitment. (That’s true of family relationships, as well, of course.) 

    I’m not complaining, not one bit, about having to do that “work.” Work, at least for me, is a positive word. Carolyn and I loved our work, our professions. It  doesn’t mean our jobs weren’t hard, often challenging and frustrating, but we loved them. 

With MaryAnn & Bob McGrane

    In the same way, I’ve come to understand that if our love for our friends is going to stay alive and grow, it takes work; it takes regular maintenance. I schedule (monthly) lunches with dear friends, and we do not leave “our” restaurant without putting the next date in our calendars and sending an invitation. Life being life, “stuff” (to paraphrase the old bumper sticker) happens, but we never just cancel, we immediately reschedule. None of this, “We’ll call you,” or “Call us” or “I’ll get back to you.” Surely friends deserve the same level of commitment that we give to our self-care appointments. 

With Norm Berkowitz

     To be sure, I’m still a work in progress. I want to be better with the maintenance of more friendships; I want to expand my friendship pond into at least a small lake with regular connections. I need to be better with checking in on my out of town friends, where the lack of proximity means a lack of opportunity to connect in person. But even there I’m working, working at staying connected and even reconnecting with people from my past I cared about. 

     Yes, it is work, but it’s work that brings me joy and contributes to my, and, I hope, their well-being.

Lessons From the Past

• It’s no secret I was not a good student, especially as a college undergrad. So when I actually read an assigned book…. One of those resonated so strongly from the late ‘60s and is on my “20 Books that Changed Me” list.

• As I’ve observed history unfold over the past few years (as much as we can really see it in the moment), the nagging feeling that our path resembles that of Nazi Germany kept tapping me on the shoulder. Was I being an alarmist, overstating the danger because of the anathema I had toward Trump? Maybe my memory was selective. 

• Which is why I ordered the book calling me from over five decades past, Allan J. Bullock’s historical masterpiece, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. It took only a few pages to confirm that the parallels I thought I remembered were, in fact, actually there, that the rise of Facism in Germany under Hitler is frighteningly similar in many ways to the rise of Trumpism, that Hitler and Trump are kindred spirits, conclusions ignored at our peril.

The underline at the top is From Hitler’s own writings, 

followed by Bullock’s analysis. 

Only willful blindness prevents a comparison to Trump.

• You don’t have to take my word for it, of course. Although out of print, the book is readily available, no doubt through your local library. Because it is an inconvenient narrative, however, I doubt that those who reject this observation out of hand will bother to actually do the reading. I can only urge them to remember that it wasn’t just Germans who, after the fact, wondered how such evil could come to power. 

Trump is not a Republican, never was until it was convenient (for him). 
The Party is just the means to an end, and that end is autocratic power.

As I progress in my reading, I may drop in other parallels and similarities. But for now, I’ll leave you with this: 

A Modest Non-Binary Proposal for Them

 Like most everything, language evolves. If you doubt that, just read Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Canterbury Tales, etc. 

I remember when, almost 50 years ago, women (rightfully) objected to being categorized by honorifics that designated them by marital status. Thus the birth of “Ms.”, almost universally accepted now. But there was resistance in the beginning, although not from me. “Ms.” became my default, even if I was happy to accede to requests from those who preferred Miss or Mrs. 

Fast forward to today and a growing, not insignificant number of young people are objecting to gendered pronouns, resisting the inevitable stereotyping that they believe they project. Our English language (as well as others) fails them in this regard. I get, and respect, that. “Masculine” and “feminine” are both continuums, and not wanting to be pigeon-holed into someone else’s preconceived image is a worthy goal. 

I confess, however, that my grammarian soul struggles with the contortion of forcing “they” into the singular. And it’s not just that, to these old ears, “they” as singular, even if gender neutral, is akin to fingernails on the proverbial blackboard, even if the young people who want to use it that way have perhaps never seen, much less written on, one of those vestiges of days gone by. It’s also confusing, because now “they” can refer to either a non-gendered group or one member of that group, to say nothing of its traditional usage. Nor does the pronoun roll off my tongue or out of my brain, so even though I want to be supportive, I will inevitably fail more often than not, due mostly to 70+ years of usage (to say nothing of teaching).

So I offer an alternative, a new set of gender-neutral pronouns. There may be other options out there, and I don’t claim mine is better than any others that I haven’t heard yet. But I’m going to try to use mine, and welcome you to join me if you’re so inclined. Allow me to introduce, to any accompanying xylophone crescendo....

“Xye” (pronounced either Zee or Djzee, like the soft “g” at the end of garage): third-person singular human, nominative case.  I particularly like this because it also incorporates the genetic “x” & “y.”

Objective case: Xyem (“Zem”) 

Possessive case: Xyair (“Zair”)

I’m less enthralled with these (and they could be spelled with the “Z” for the sake of clarity in pronunciation and since when has the English language worried about consistency?), because they’re still kind of them and their, but I don’t see a better solution. Others might.

This modest proposal will no doubt be criticized, probably both kindly and unkindly, by those who see gender as immutable and binary. But I think that view is swimming against the tide and I’d prefer to find a solution that respects both the language and the people who feel constricted by it.

Language, and, consequently, grammar, will continue to evolve, and the pronoun battle is one we don’t have to fight, at least head-on. 

I will, however, resist to my dying breath, making “a lot” into one word!