Question Everything

(This relates to a video on the Mic Facebook page where Mr. Darnell Moore "lays down the definitive take down of All Lives Matter everyone needs to hear.")

First, few are interested in a thoughtful nuanced response to complicated and emotionally fraught topic. It is my premise that many of the people whom I consider to be my ideological brethren are in such a scramble to be on “the right side” of an issue they may fail to question and consider. I know this because I have, more often than I would care to admit, been in that fray. All of us want things to be, dare I say it, black and white. This is understandable. Things are tidier if we can put them in a discrete box, label it, and move on.

As to the video, the speaker is entitled to his opinion but his rant is, at minimum, logically flawed. A red flag went up in his first sentence. "Here is the problem with everyone who says all lives matter, they don't really mean it". Everyone? Really? This gentleman knows what is in the hearts of others? He presumes to sit in judgment of, and lumps into one group, all those who have a different or simply more nuanced position than himself?

I am confident I could ask any high school class the following question and expect a high percentage to arrive at the correct answer. Be assured, in any class I taught or was responsible for it would be one hundred percent. What is the word we use to describe the situation where a person draws inferences about an entire group of persons based on little or no evidence? We call that bias or prejudice. Furthermore, we know from scientific evidence, prejudice is a condition to which we are all prone. Luckily it is also a condition we can learn to manage with some training. Because this tendency is part of the human condition, it behooves us all to be on the watch for evidence of this behavior_— in ourselves. Sadly, too many of us, after having been taught about the negative effects of prejudice, have come away with the idea that prejudice is a condition of those “other people”. Rarely us. In fact, I would argue, one of the ways to gauge whether or not a person is deluding themselves is if I hear from them some form of the expression, “I’m not prejudiced”. 

Special note here. I am trying to eliminate the words race, racism, racist from my vocabulary. Why? For several reasons which I will briefly touch upon here. First, the words are outdated as the classic ideas of race have been obviated by science. Second, but perhaps more important is my assertion that these words have become angry epithets or cartoon-like bombs we throw at each other. To be clear, there are a very real and sobering set of problems here but these words, at best, are not helping us understand nor solve those problems. In fact they tend to accentuate our differences rather than our overwhelming similarities. Some will remember the old saw, “How do I get out of this hole”? To which the answer is, “First, stop digging”.  

So, let’s go back to the beginning. If the argument is, there have been and continue to be marginalized populations in America and that is a problem with ramifications running the gamut from inconvenience to some really heinous behavior then, without reservation, we are agreed.

However, what exactly does the gentleman mean when he says, all lives didn't matter when this or that bad thing happened? I am not certain if this is more sad or ironic. His story is one broad brush painting America. In one swipe he attempts to negate every example of the good and decent. Such rhetoric turns a real and serious problem into a cartoonish version of itself. The speaker refers to hurricane Katrina during which there were systemic failures, the burden of which fell more heavily on the majority black communities. It was also true that the moment people were allowed in, folks of every type and color (both individuals and government workers) were risking life and limb to pull people from rooftops and flood waters and provide them with life sustaining supplies. While one might reasonably argue it was all too little too late, I did not see the television footage of first responders in helicopters flying past black people to save the white people. So, if we want to tell the story, let us tell it. It is all true. The good and the bad. The color of a person’s skin too often has an negative effect on the outcome of various interactions both on a personal and systemic level. That is vile and we should not stand idly by as it persists.

With that preface, it appears our speaker has confused certain bad events or actions with the "ideal". It may seem a bit of a non sequitur but allow me to give an example.

Some folks get their panties in a twist when somebody burns an American flag. The offended parties seem to feel that burning a flag has somehow hurt the ideals the flag represents. Now, I am not into flag burning myself but, I am proud to say that I can distinguish between the lofty ideals, to which I also subscribe, and a piece of fabric. Am I keenly aware that my country has fallen short of those ideals? No question. I suggest it is a very good thing for us all that ideals are not flammable. In fact our ideals do not exist imbedded in some material thing. A situation for which we should be thankful as objects are corruptible and subject to decay and destruction. To our great good fortune, our ideals reside inside us, prompting us to be our better selves. And while each of us is also subject to decay, those ideals are passed from old to young like a beneficial virus. In past generations the belief was in heavenly spheres where goodness and truth resided eternally. Now our better understanding of the world shows us both the fragility of our truths and ideals, as when tyrants attempt to stomp them out, and how amazingly persistent and hearty they can be when we nurture them through generations.

If the argument is, The ideal of Black Lives Matter is good thing. Done and done. Likewise, All Lives Matter. If the argument is, too often the lives of minority populations are assigned less value either implicitly or explicitly, sadly true. 

However, I think it begs the question. If we are responding to prejudice/inequality/injustice (and we should be) and our efforts are leaning toward more unity and more fairness, how is that served by dividing ourselves up into smaller and smaller “tribes”? How does this apply to BLM? First, I do not accept unquestioned and in toto the BLM narrative. Further, I suggest some of the BLM tactics and rhetoric promote tribalism and eschew help from allies by attempting to quash thoughtful critique. The gentleman in the video has the audacity to say, What people are saying when they say all lives matter is, those lives matter only rhetorically. While that may apply to some, I wonder how the gentleman came to accept this statement as some sort of truism to be applied in this blanket fashion. Where is his evidence for this? I came away from viewing the video with the distinct sense that because bad things happened to certain people at some point, everything now being said must be swallowed whole. The video didn’t welcome me into the struggle or ask me for my thoughts on how to advance the cause, it assaulted me. And I am an ally.

Though it does not seem to fit here, I am open to saying more about my resistance to the BLM narrative at another time. Hint, skin color is only a part of it.

In short, to the extent that BLM calls attention to problems and advances thoughtful policy (noted in Washington Post piece below), I am supportive. On the other hand, when BLM as an organization or people speaking on its behalf are bullying others by taking questioning and criticism off the table, I can not support this. That sot of rhetoric promotes a tribal Us v. Them attitude thoughtful people are working to attenuate. 

Do not be fooled. I, like other thoughtful observers, see the dangers that are cause for legitimate concern. It is clear there are some people who will use inclusive language as a veil in an attempt to cover their hateful ideology. Some will use the phrase All Lives Matter as a way to deflect attention from their politics of anger, division, and hate.  However, we do not want to color everyone with that brush. Good ideas (ideals) can be turned to bad purpose. This says more about the twisted intention of the user than the idea.

My assertion is, the last thing we want to do is to say: ideas can not be challenged or questioned. Can this lead to a messy business out in the public marketplace of ideas? Absolutely. Of course we wish the road to a better world was straight and smooth and we were all pulling in the same direction and people were without duplicity.  But, as messy as the public marketplace of ideas can be, it is, by far, preferable to the alternative where thoughts are dictated from above by some form of thought-police and are not to be questioned. I am by no means a qualified historian but I seem to recall we have tried several versions of that scenario (kings, queen, pharaohs, dictators, warlords, priests, and thugs of every variety). I do not recall the chapter where everyone lived happily ever after.

Finally. Well, okay, what’s the word for almost finally?

I considered putting this bit at the beginning but I had concerns. I worried that some would be moved by emotion and therefore be unable to evaluate my arguments based on their merit. I later considered not saying this part at all. In the end I decided I needed to say it because it is true and it informs my thoughts on this topic.

The issue of prejudice and inequality in the wider world, but especially in America, is a very personal concern for me. My immediate family includes black and mixed race persons.

I would like to conclude by saying that we have pressing problems as well as thoughtful policies and solutions. Anything from any quarter that inhibits us from getting on with that business is something about which I will continue to raise my voice. I will make every effort not to be disparaging with those I disagree with except in the most extreme case and I will keep my criticisms pointed. It is not to our advantage to shotgun the whole business because we disagree over this or that point. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/25/the-black-lives-matter-policy-agenda-is-practical-thoughtful-and-urgent/

Now for the quiz. Aw, go ahead, just for chuckles.

**For our purposes here my use of the word questioning does not mean cavalier dismissal either of a person’s ideas or the struggles of a group of disadvantaged people. It merely means that one might wish to evaluate what is said and apply critical thought to the topic in the same way one does (hopefully) with other issues in life.**

First, these questions are intended to be answered in your own head and you may then choose to share the answers here, somewhere else, or not at all. Second, this is not intended to embarrass anyone or hurt their feelings. It is simply about self awareness in a way I think we do not often consider. Please feel free to partially or entirely disagree with me. However, if you feel this way and would be kind enough, I request that you tell me the argument for your position. This way, I can check to see how others view things and how I may come to a more thorough assessment of the topics rattling around in my brain.

1) In the third paragraph where I mentioned prejudice, how many were comfortable applying that term to the speaker in the video even after I had clearly shown how he had exhibited that behavior?

2) Did you feet comfortable owning the fact that we are all prone to bias and prejudice?

3) Who, upon seeing the video for the first time, questioned nothing about it and basically walked away thinking, yup?

4) Who did not even consider questioning anything that the speaker said because he was black man speaking about prejudice in America? 

5) Who essentially felt like whatever a black person says about prejudice or the events surrounding that sad fact in this country, I as a white person, need to simply listen to uncritically because I am of a privileged class and therefore I have nothing to think or say about this except what I am told?

6) Who, upon hearing words like racism and prejudice thinks, they must be referring to white people?

7) Who believes that a person who has been the object of prejudice is somehow immune from prejudicial thoughts/behaviors in their own lives?

8) Who, when they they hear words like prejudice, immediately infers the speaker is talking about skin color? And why do you not think about mental or physical disability, whether a person is considered too fat or too skinny or too short etc., social status, sexual preferences, or other reasons for which people are maltreated?

And finally, you might wish to take a deep breath before this last one. On second thought, bartender, make that a double.

9) Is there anyone who thinks it is remotely possible that we have gone from recognizing a set of problems then quietly arriving at the unspoken idea that solving the problems would be very difficult so, instead, we began to fetishize the problems?

**I know, that last one is a weird one and you do not need to accept it. But just for giggles, let it roll around in your head awhile. Even if you eventually arrive at the opinion that it’s just plum crazy, I submit it might be an interesting journey.

  

Prejudice, Race, and Science

I thought if might be helpful to provide a link for those who have not had occasion to read as much about the so-called "race" issue (or as I prefer, the prejudice issue). According to the scholar Duana Fullwilley and most others in the field of genetics research, "There is no genetic basis for race.”

To put it another way, the ideas we hold about race are human inventions. We made this up to explain things as best we could with scant knowledge. This can be a bit tricky to wrap ones head around as most of us have grown up in a society that has programmed us to believe the exact opposite.

To be clear, nobody in their right mind is denying the existence of prejudice or bad behavior based on the color of a person's skin. Also, no scientist denies cultural differences. What the scientists are telling us is, there are groups of people whose ancestors came primarily from certain areas but this does not make them a distinct group on a genetic level. Our differences merely reflect the fact that people adapted to places with differing conditions, such as levels of solar radiation. Obviously the people whose ancestors came from very sunny places near the equator needed more melanin to protect their skin from an over abundance of sunlight. Also, people in the far north would begin to lack vitamin D if they failed to adapt to the lower light conditions in their region.

For those who are new to this line of thinking, all this may sound like a mere technicality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence now clearly shows there is no foundation to  automatically attribute either positive or negative social traits to groups of people (we once called races of people). Therefore differences in skin color, hair texture, etc. have no deeper meaning. The old expression people's color is only skin deep, turns out to be exactly right.

The implications of this information are huge and will not be absorbed by the general public for some time. However, I feel it is incumbent upon those who do understand, to plant the seeds of this knowledge in a compassionate way. One thing that will help move the change forward is to leave the old language behind. In short, one can’t easily “play the race card” (for good or ill) when people understand there is no race card. I understand this will not be easy. Everywhere we look the old ideas and the old language persist. Often even educated people who really should know better are mired in old habits. My assertion is, we should derive hope from the fact that in my lifetime social convention has changed dramatically. In my youth it was common for many Americans to  openly use slurs against various groups with impunity. We have not made those words disappear but now there is often a social cost to such language. Also, whether it was a result of, or coincidental with, the advancement of civil rights may be debatable but the change is undeniable. 

For myself, I will talk about the struggle. I will talk about tolerance. I will talk about justice. But when I do, I will use terms like prejudice and tolerance, equality and inequality. For me it is not merely semantics. It is not about being a liberal or progressive. These terms are based upon a clearer view of the world made possible by the scholarship of our best and brightest. Furthermore, using these terms will make it more difficult to think of the world in terms of us and them. In the end, there is only us.  The evidence points clearly in one direction. There is only the human race and its members. Each one of those humans is capable of being more or less tolerant, more or less kind, more or less inclusive.

Abused by Race

It might be good to have a look at this first:
The Enlightenment’s ‘Race’ Problem, and Ours

I have been championing this idea for quite awhile now. My efforts are met with a range of responses from bemused stares to outright hostility toward the idea (and occasionally toward me). It seems clear that every time scientists look for "race", they don't find it. There are a number of limitations that inhibit our ability to absorb this fact. One is so obvious that it might be too easily dismissed. We are quite at the mercy of our limited sensory perceptions and the visible differences between humans (skin, hair, facial features, etc.) are very compelling. This tends to ensnare our brains in outmoded thinking. 

The other major difficulty we encounter is a bit more subtle. It relys upon a basic understanding of human psychology/motivation. It is clear to those who look at such things, that historically, one key to survival in humans was and remains our ability and inclination to detect and focus on difference. This includes novelty in our environment as well as our ability to detect "the other". That is to say, those not of our group. When we consider this ability/compulsion, we are right to ask, is it adaptive for survival or an ancient trait that can run amok? In my view, both is the correct answer. 

We all carry the seeds that can produce behaviors we label, "prejudice". We all carry the seeds that can produce behaviors we call "racism". We are all subject to a sense of our own superiority and the resulting behaviors that lead us to act dismissively towards another person or group. Further, I would assert, the single greatest obstacle to our improvement is our seeming inability to honestly confront ourselves. Why? A quirk of human behavior ensures that we most often reserve terms like racism and prejudice for use as verbal bats with which we can strike others for their presumed morally deficient behavior. Not surprisingly, we feel quite uncomfortable when presented with the idea that those same "low urges" reside in us as well. To be fair, many of us have reasoned our way through to a much better place in terms of expressing (or avoiding the expression of) these baser urges. I suggest it is also true that our moral evolution is fragile and requires regular maintenence.

There is, at minimum, one more constraint on reaching a more perfect assessment of ourselves. This requires a very brief (I promise) bit of history. As a citizen enmeshed in the milieu of American culture in the twenty first century, one might be forgiven for inferring that the "victims" of racism/predudice/etc. are people "of color". For those so deluded, allow me to suggest reading some history. One would be hard pressed to explain to an Irish immigrant to America during the last bit of the nineteenth century that she could not possibly be an object of prejudice due to her pale skin color. Likewise, one would also find frustration explaining to an African tribesperson residing in one area of that continent that she could not be a victim of prejudice or hatred by a tribesperson living in an adjacent area, because the persons inflicting injury were of similar skin tone to hers. Try telling Chinese people that Japanese people could never have treated them in a barbaric manner because, after all, the Japanese are also Asian. In short, I would suggest that there is no place one could visit on planet earth where there are no abusers nor victims. If this behavior is a condition of "race", it would be the "human race".

With the history out of the way, I feel compelled to give some thought to the practicalities of our current circumstances. In all our "philosophizing" it is important to keep sight of the fact that many injustices and injuries have been done and continue to be done. No person in his right mind denies that acts ranging from rude to vile and heinous are part of our history and our present. With that said, I would assert it is always better to call a thing what it truly is and face it in the most rational way possible. Why is the name so important? There is a longer answer but, for this moment, suffice to say that if we start with an incorrect premise our efforts to change/solve/better our position is compromised from the start. Also, if I suggested that a person in the abuser "role" had a stake in keeping the status quo, most would consider it a statement of the obvious. However, if I suggested the person in the vicitm role also has a stake in the status quo, that is judged as tantamount to siding with the abuser. I want to suggest this is not the case. To be clear, I do not imagine the victim is hoping for their pain, humiliation, etc. to continue. I am only postulating their resistance to changing the "roles" of the participants and therefore the "rules" of the game. Why?

Imagine if you were totally unfamiliar with sexual assault and the related wisdom that is now commonly understood from listening to our news outlets. Now imagine if I told you that after a sexual assault, a woman often questions her own behavior and blames herself in some way or begins experience a shattered self-worth, as though she deserved what happened to her.  Many of us would intuitively grasp this type of reaction. Why? Almost all of us have found ourselves assuming blame for some random tragedy that has befallen us. We ping pong back and forth in our minds. One minute we are convinced that we are blameless and a bad thing simply happened to us. The next moment we are equally convinced that if we had just done something different we could have or should have sidestepped the event. When something bad happens, we've all that the feeling that somehow this has happened to us because we were not good enough, smart enough, quick enough, strong enough. Also, if it were not sufficient to blame ourselves, we often worry that others at looking at us with blame in their eyes. We just "know" what they are thinking. "How could you let that happen? Are you not good enough, smart enough, strong enough to have prevented this?" In short order, we find ourselves on a path from a loss of self-respect to an imagined loss of communal respect. In other words, the victim blames himself and it is mentally consistent to believe that others are doing the same. Any psychologist will attest that this can easily become a viscious downward spiral of self-doubt, blame, depression, and worse.

It is my assertion that similar thought processes take place in persons abused by, what we have in the past termed, racism and prejudice? Further, given the inherent nature of human psychology, the anger and outrage that naturally results from being abused, appears justifiable only if everyone remains in his "role". From the perspective of the victim- I need to see myself as a victim to be outraged by my victimization. My anger seems internally jusitifiable only so long as my victimizer also remains in his "role". 

Note: Referring to hurtful hateful actions as racism, prejudice, or something else entirely does not excuse bad behavior. A change in terminology will not erase the resultant physical/mental scars of bad treatment. The point here is simply getting our terms and motivations assigned properly, such that we can look for an appropriate way forward.

We are all potentially the abused and the abuser. If we feel sobered and/or horrified by this realization, it's because we should. 

*The journey of a thousand miles does not begin with the first step. 

*It begins by knowing where you are.

Judgment or Prejudice?

After hearing/seeing two different but somewhat related stories recently, I found myself as troubled by what was not said as by the troubling issues raised. One was an NPR story about the writer and human rights activist Ms. Eltahawy in Egypt. The other was a TED talk given by Mrs. Melinda Gates (yes, that Mrs. Gates). Links provided below.

My first thought was, both were brave and thoughtful women. However, I would add that the two women shared another thing in common. They both tried, in my view, to argue both sides of an issue. Mrs. Gates was simultaneously arguing for condoms and other aids prevention in Africa while admitting that she considered herself a practicing Catholic. What is the largest most powerful organization suppressing condoms and other thoughtful aids prevention in Africa? If your answer was the Catholic Church, give yourself one point. Thus the poor woman (yes, I considered the irony of that word) was reduced to arguing for something good and noble in this world (the reduction of pain and suffering) and at the same time being an apologist for the organization working hardest to counter those efforts.

Ms. Eltahawy, was laboring under the same difficulty in my opinion. She argues that there is a culture that treats women in these horrible ways and at the same time can't bring herself to lay the blame squarely at the feet of Muslim culture as it is practiced currently in the Middle East. Her dodge is the use of the terms misogynists and patriarchs. It's true that the people who employ these suppressive behaviors are displaying the attributes of misogynists and patriarchs (the latter in its worst form). But to say these are the root causes is to appear disingenuous.

These stories make my point for me. We have been frightened into submission. We no longer feel confident to make the distinction between prejudice and judgement. Prejudice is to judge first in the absence of facts. Of the two, this is the bad one. Judgement is another animal altogether. It presumes that we have amassed evidence and thought through to a conclusion. This is not only the 'good one', it is the one upon which we depend to sift though the information and make sense of the world.

Finally, let me say that I have no wish to be sharply critical and, in fact, have great empathy for these women as they attempt to find justice for women in this world. The difficulties are enormous and I'm certain they (and many others whose names we do not know) are trying their best to 'say what must be said' while giving consideration to 'what safely may be said'.

Here is the often cited criticism: This is a different culture and a different religion and you are just trying to impose your outside or western values on this region. I think any of us would have difficulty answering this more in a more eloquent or concise manner than Ms. Eltahawy, "I don't think that rights or living a dignified human life are Western. We are no different from anyone else. We want to be free and we want to live dignified lives."

https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/24/151239696/mona-eltahawy-explains-why-women-are-hated-in-the-middle-east


https://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html