Never a More Pyrrhic Victory

Victors

  

I wanted to follow up on my last post about Cliven Bundy, where I alluded to something critical in our national character that lies at the root of much of what has consumed this country for the last 150 years.  This is something I have been working on for the last year or so, and had threaded through a number of posts, but I wanted to put the disparate elements into one coherent piece and actually start to draw some conclusions.

Simply put, you can explain a lot of the tensions in this country down to this simple set of facts:, the South knows that it lost the Civil War, but does not want to accept that fact; and the North knows it won the war, but fears that it actually lost it; and the West just wants to run away from the war.  I have detailed some of the reasons for this in previous posts, but I will sum it up in a brief statement, "Gone with the Wind" changed a nation's attitude towards the Civil War, and completely rewrote the sentiments on that conflict.  Simply put, a single book reframed the entire discussion, and tilted the weight of sympathy towards the South, and causing the North to be viewed as the unwarranted aggressor in the conflict. 

Let me explain.  The South overtly and obviously lost the War on the Battlefield.  They were virtually obliterated militarily by the Union and for almost a decade treated as an occupied country.  There are facts that everyone knows, however, the South, on some level, still lives in a state of denial which stops them from fully processing the reality.  Similarly, the North knows that it certainly won the war, but with the collapse of Reconstruction, it fears that it didn't achieve any meaningful victory.  Compound that with the shift in national perception initiated by Margaret Mitchell's book, and you shift the history to favor the South.  Then there is the West, which was founded by people, North and South, who were fleeing the war.  Perhaps not literally, but they could no longer live with the memories that confronted them everywhere they went and in everything they did and they had find a fresh start.

Before I fully explain this, and how it impacts our national character though, I would like to talk about the experiences that I had that led me to begin to develop this hypothesis.  I understand this is anecdotal, but there is quite a bit written on this subject to back up my observations.

It began to scratch at the back of my awareness when I first moved to the South.  Before moving to Savannah, the sum total of my experiences with the South were visiting my Great Aunt in Cape Coral Florida.  (and I realize that Southern Florida is NOT culturally the South, at least it hasn't been for a long time)  Other than those trips, I had never set foot in any part of the South.

When I was moving down to that part of the country, I stopped for gas in Murfreesboro and saw a T-Shirt that said the following; "It is better to have fought and lost than to have never have fought at all - the South shall rise again."   Later, I was lost in the backwoods of Georgia and came upon a compound surrounded by Confederate flags and fronted by a sign stating "And the Children of Ham shall ever be servants of Man.  Genesis 9:25."   Asking around, I discovered things like the fact that lists are still maintained in some quarters of the South that list who belongs to who, so that someday they can "reclaim their property."  All of this fleshed out the idea of Southern denialism.  They flat out couldn't accept that they lost the war, at least not on some fundamental and vital level.    

I do want to state here though, despite my serious problems with the South and Southern Culture, it is equally wrong to paint the entire region and everyone from there as illiterate, racist redneck Bible Thumpers.  There are many Southerners who don't idealize the Confederacy and slavery, and who utterly reject those atrocities, just like there are many Northern Racists who idolize the KKK.

But that stereotype lead to my realization about the North.  This also starts with an anecdote that occurred after moving back to the North.  One of my friends, at a social gathering, went into a complete diatribe against the South and everything Southern, painting with that broad brush that I just described.  Even though this person did not have any relatives with firsthand memory of the Civil War, it was still as personal an affront to him as it was to some of the Southerners I met in Savannah.

Then I went to Boston and Providence last summer.  This was the first time I had really been  in New England.  Although I lived in New York City, that isn't the North, nor really anything related to the Civil War.  In New York there is the attitude that there are two parts of America, The City, and then the Rest.  North/South issues are irrelevant there.  (I have also been to Hartford, but that was for a job interview so there really wasn't any chance to explore, and it didn't spark any thought)

What shocked me when I went to Providence was the fact that they proudly displayed two cannons from Gettysburg.  I found this odd, given Gettysburg had nothing to do with Rhode Island, other than possibly supplying troops and such.  But, this was significant.  Gettysburg was the definitive turning point in the Civil War, the point at which Northern Victory really became inevitable.  In a sense, displaying those cannons was as clear public statement about the Union Victory as the T-Shirt showed Confederate Denial.

As I processed these revelations over the course of the summer, I really got angry, especially when at another social gathering, there were both Northerners and Southerners, and they began criticizing each other's part of the country.  I just basically wanted them to both shut up and stop wearing the War on their sleeves.  Seriously, it was a century and a half ago.  There isn't a single person alive today who even heard firsthand accounts of the war.  It is dead and buried., its over, done, finished, and it's time to move on.

That's when I realized that I, as a Westerner, am perpetuating the Western escape from the Civil War.  I, like most people in the West that I know, are sick of hearing about the war, sick of the recreations, sick of the tensions, sick of the TV shows, and just generally want everyone to shut up about it.  The war is over, we don't need to keep re-litigating it. 

But, being me, I couldn't just figure this out and move on from it, because I knew that this was a very important realization about the country, and why things are what they are, and why we are so polarized.    Before I go any further here, I want to say, the polarization of the country is no better or worse than it has been at any point for the last century and an half.  The reason we think it is worse is the result of two aligned factors. 

First, we see and hear about the tensions more now than previously.  This is partially because of the 24 hour news cycle, and partially because of the great internal migration of the last 30 years.  Before about 1970, if you were born in the North you generally stayed in the North (unless you moved to Florida, which is why Florida hasn't been "Southern" in a generation)  It was similar with the other regions of the country, except for people continuing to move West.  But, as with all of the Western migrations, North/South allegiance disintegrated at the Colorado/Kansas state line.   However, with the recent migrations across the nation, we are living in regions ideologically opposed to where we were brought up.  We don't like it one bit, when we have to live in places that give us culture shock, which is a typical ex-pat lament.  It is even worse when we are forced to think, "This is America and it's my home too, I shouldn't be feeling this way in my own country."  I know that firsthand, as it was a serious problem for me in Savannah.

The second reason that we think polarization is worse is because of the proliferation of news; in our media saturated environment we hear more and we know more, and most of it upsets us severely.  This works two ways.  First we hear a lot of voices condemning the other side for their essential evil and sharing all of the immoral, unnatural or even evil things that our opponents are doing.  Second, we hear what our government is doing, specifically, we hear when they are treating with the enemy.  And because we hear so many outrageous things that the enemy is doing, we hold our politicians feet to the fire in such a way that they cannot broker the kinds of deals that pasted the country together and created the illusion of a "United" States of America.

Now for my point after this lengthy exposition.  Much in this country can be explained through this filter:  the South rejects any political ideology espoused by the North, the North rejects any cultural ideology tied to the South and the West just wants to be left alone.

First, to look at the South, and their part in the play.  The South rejects Northern political solutions.  This stems from the Carpetbaggers and the Reconstruction, where Northerners tried to turn the South into their own little marionette, where they pulled the strings and made the puppet dance.  This may sound like I sympathize with the South, and perhaps I do a bit.  We made the same mistakes after World War I in Europe, which directly led to Fascism and Nazism, and ultimately to World War II.  Had we not punished the South, and instead embarked on an American version of the Marshall Plan, American might be a much different and more unified place.

By humiliating the South, the Union guaranteed inter-generational hate of the North, and anything that came from there.  Progressivism, Unions,  Equal Rights, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, all of these things were Northern political solutions, pushed through by the Federal Government, and more of less imposed on the South.  Further, other than some brief anomalies, Northern politics and policies, regardless of party, have dominated in the Federal Government.  It is no surprise that the South is rabidly anti-government, and that disdain is the core of the Tea Party Ideology.  To the South, the Federal Government has become the symbol of Northern Aggression, and anything it does is therefore wrong.

But then, there is the Northern rejection of Southern Culture, that engenders equal derision and even hate in the Union States.  Southern Culture, specifically, their innate cultural conservatism and resistance to change, is what spurred the Civil War.  Rather than accept that slavery was rapidly becoming immoral, not just in the United States, but across the globe, the South stubbornly clung to the institution, to the point of tearing the country apart to try to preserve it. 

But this isn't the only cultural touchstone that the South has imposed on the North.  Religiously based discrimination, Segregation, Creationism, distrust of Science, conservative religious morals, and all that follows from Confederate Culture has equally been imposed on the North.  This has been through both churches and through control of things like the Texas Board of Education which heavily influences textbook content for the entire country.  And just like most of the country's political solutions has been Northern Impositions, most of the nation's cultural development has been restrained and molded by Southern Culture.  Just like in the end, we have fairly strong Northern Federal Government model, most of our morality is Southern Christian.

And this creates a situation where the South hates all political solutions to problems, regardless of where that solution originates, and the North hates all Southern cultural impositions, again regardless of what type it is.  The Southerners still paint all politicians with the Carpetbagger brush, believing them to be fundamentally corrupt creatures, and the Northerners stereotype all Southerners with the Slaveholder image, considering them to be backward, ignorant racists.

And then there is the West, which really hates both sides of this fight and just wants to be left alone.  Many in the media conflate Western Libertarianism with Southern Tea Partyism, but they are actually quite different, although sometimes their goals align.  But sometimes the Western though aligns with the Northern Ferderalism as well. 

The Southern Tea Party wants to get government out of people's lives, so that religion can take over the guidance of the country.  It isn't anti-authoritarian, it is anti-government.  On the other hand, Western Libertarianism just wants to be basically anarchic to a greater or lesser extent.  They are not really pro-government, but they also aren't particularly sold on religious authority, or any sort of over-arching system of control.

Remember, the West was born out of escaping the conflict that tore the East apart.  It was also founded in a strong individualism because there wasn't much out here to rely on until recently.  In point of fact, even when I was a child, you pretty much kept six months of food, a good supply of water, and candles handy, because, in an emergency, you needed to be able to take care of yourself and family.  This has led to a kind of survivalist mentality among Westerners. 

But in even in that independence, there is something important wrapped up in it.  Even though you needed to take care of yourself, you still helped the community.  In the West, the community, whatever that might be, is far more important than it is back East.  Back East, you help the people you know, in the West, you help the people around you, even if you don't know them that well.

The other aspect of the independence of the Western mindset is basically, if I'm not hurting anyone, leave me the Hell alone.  Legalization of Pot, prostitution, gambling, isolationism, gun rights and anti-regulation are part and parcel of this worldview.  We have no problem with being left to our own resources, but we really don't like being told what to do, even if it is in our best interests. 

This leads to the West being relatively volatile in terms of national politics.  Our allegiances shift with the winds, sometimes we side with the Northern Politics, sometimes with the Southern Culture, but no one seems to realize out East that these are temporary alliances, because this group or that group just happens to be going in the direction we want to go.  We have no sense of commitment to either side.  Right now, because the politics of the North seem to be more about freedom, i.e. legalization, gay rights, etc, we tend to vote in that direction, sometimes.  But if Southern Culture seems to give more freedom, i.e. gun rights or reduced regulation, we will go that direction, sometimes.  And in the end we will go for whatever freedoms we want more at that moment.  We are a very fickle date, which neither party seems to recognize.

But in the end, I think this really frames what is going on in this country.  Northern Political Solutions vs. Southern Cultural Solutions vs. Western leave me alone solutions.  It will be interesting to see over the next decade if we can solve this, and overcome the bitter legacy of a War that honestly has been over for a century and a half.  Of course, that is just the Westerner in me talking.

The Revision of Cultural Nostalgia

Blindness

So, I haven’t blogged in quite a while, but recent events with Cliven Bundy have prompted me to write a sequel to my last post on the structure of racism.

Before I begin, I want to state clearly that I completely disagree with Bundy’s insensitive and inflammatory racial comments.  In no way is what I am saying a defense of him or his view, rather, it is an examination of Southern culture.  (And yes, he isn’t from the South, but his views are typically Southern none-the-less.)

So now for the kicker, Bundy most likely does not view his statement as racist.  He is probably confused and bewildered by the very accusation.  And at the root of that confusion is “Gone with the Wind,” and the re-imagining of the myth of the Antebellum South.

Despite popular belief, the South actually won the Civil War.

Oh, they lost the battle, and lost it decisively.  However, the Civil War didn’t end with Appomattox.  It didn’t actually end until Margaret Mitchell won the war, completely and decisively.

“How?” you might ask.  Easy, she completely recast the story of the Civil War.  She painted a picture of a noble and oppressed South, devastated by the tyrannical forces of Lincoln.  She depicted happy, contented slaves, who needed their wise masters to teach them how to live.  Most importantly, although subtly, she recast the war in terms of State’s Rights instead of being about slavery.

These three depictions turned public opinion toward the South being the victim, not the aggressor in the conflict.  No longer was the story that the South was willing to tear the Union apart simply to keep owning other humans, instead, it was a noble fight for local government taking precedence over an overreaching and monstrous Federalism.

One hundred and forty nine years after the formal peace accord, the Southern Myth of the tyranny of “Big Government” is now the prime paradigm in the land.  For all intents and purposes, the Federal Government is paralyzed and neutered.  They are so frightened they can’t actually enforce a just and valid law requiring nominal grazing fees for running cattle on public lands.  And, believe me, it was fear that stopped the removal of the cattle; had they proceeded, it would likely have sparked an actual rebellion in Nevada.  Probably not a revolution or civil war, but certainly a conflict on par with Shay’s Rebellion.  Worse, that rebellion could have spread out of control and into other states and regions.  It might have taken years to calm the turmoil in the country, sparked by a single act.

Further, you can see the actuality of the victory in the fact that many Americans hate and fear the Government.  They view the government through the Regan filter of “the scariest words in the English Language are ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.’”  When you view Federalism and a strong central authority as the most dangerous thing in the world, the Union has ultimately lost the war.

But to return to the original point, in addition to fully buying into the Mitchellian myth of the tyrannical Feds, Bundy has bought the story of the “happy slave” hook line and sinker.  This is a common trope in the South, where people cannot wrap their brains around the abject horror of American Slavery, which was actually the MOST abominable version of slavery the world has ever seen.  Period. 

The reason for that is, in American Slavery, not only did you own people, but you had the right to sell families apart from each other.  You could sell a small child from his parents, a wife from her husband.  In fact, actual marriage between slaves was a criminal offense.  No where else in history was this ability to split families allowed.  Further, it was punishable by death to teach a slave to read or write, or give them any education.  Both teacher and pupil faced this punishment.

But people in the South, and even in the rest of this country refuse to own up to this reality.  They like to think that it wasn’t in slave owners interests to abuse their slaves and that they would obviously care for them as a valuable asset.  It’s natural, because this is such a horrific time in American History, and it comforts us to think we were kindly masters.  However, that is a lie we are telling ourselves.  We were brutal, vicious and evil at that time, and no amount of whitewashing will ever erase that fact.  The reality was not “Gone with the Wind,” it was “12 Years a Slave.”

But Cliven Bundy is a product of the myth.  He is a person, like many others in America, who actually believes that the African American population was better off as slaves.  Thanks to Margaret Mitchell, we think the slaves were well cared for, maybe as well as a pampered pet, or something like that.  And as such, he probably genuinely believes that his statement shows compassion and caring for the Black population of Nevada and of the USA.

Further, mix in the idea that federal assistance is akin to slavery, and you have a view that many Americans are still slaves; slaves to a nameless faceless bureaucracy intent on draining away all that is good and right in the world.  Suddenly you have a picture that Bundy thinks the benevolent Plantation Owner who loved his slaves like a person loves their pets is a far better slavery than slavery to the evil that is the Federal Government.

In his view, slavery gave the people purpose, skills and a reason to live, and welfare takes away all of that and replaces it with a godless communism.  And in that view, communism is far less free than actual slavery.  (Ignore the fact that the social safety net is not communism, and isn’t really even socialism, the Far Right and Tea Party refuse to see the distinction, so I will paint the world through their filter.)

And by this token, he is, to his way of thinking, being compassionate and caring.  He thinks that people were actually better off as literal property, as opposed to virtual possessions.  And he isn’t the only one.  Many politicians and even average Americans hold this view.

And ultimately, this is the danger of nostalgic myth.  Because we like to paint the world of the past in a coat of rosy happiness, we do not learn the actual lessons of the past.  People, even educated people, in refusing to come to terms with our atrocities, and coloring history with a haze of nostalgia pop off and make claims like Bundy did.

And when that takes full root in society, we repeat the sins of the past, and have to again suffer the punishment for those sins.

The Structure of Racism

Reverse-Racism

Yesterday, my friend Marc posted a fascinating article about how Reverse Racism literally cannot exist because of the actual meaning of Racism.  (You can view the original article here.)  It unleashed a firestorm of vitriolic commentary on Marc's news feed that included a mind-blowing comment that I will reprint in full, because it floored me so much.

            "See I'm being discriminated racially right now.  Proof that blacks have too much power:              we haven't rolled into the ghettos in force to make them stop their genocidal war against              whites."

Seriously?  The Blacks in America are conducting genocide against white people?  The 1950's called and they want their racists back.   

But this horrific outpouring of venom displayed by some of the people in Marc's feed got me to thinking about things that I haven't discussed in a blog post in a while.  Being the quasi-social scientist that I am, I felt the need to write about this because people today conflate two different terms. This conflation further inhibits any valid  discussion about race or privilege. 

To begin, I would like to summarize some of the points of the original article and expand on them.  The author makes the very correct point that there is actually no way that "reverse racism" can even exist; the term shows complete ignorance of what racism is, which is a system, as opposed to prejudice which is a personal trait.  Further a person who is a racist is both (highly likely) prejudiced and a subscriber of the system of racism, much like a communist believes in communism.  And to further hammer home the point, "ism" is a suffix that denotes a ideological system, therefore, racism is a system of racist beliefs.

On the other hand, prejudice (derived from the Latin prae-judicium or literally "judgment before the facts") occurs when one individual or group pre-judges another, typically a minority or otherwise un-empowered group. It can be used to create a prejudicial stereotype, as we have seen in abundance in all groups. 

Prejudice can exist in anyone, and in fact most people have some sort of prejudice in their personal make-up.  Whether they fight this impulse or act on it is up to them, but the core of prejudice is there in a wide range of the population.  Further, prejudice can lead to discrimination on an individual basis or in a systematic manner.  Regardless of this, prejudice can be seen at it's base level as a personal failing, and one that can be held by anyone regardless of their status as majority or minority.

The article, however, did not address prejudice, it discussed racism.

Racism is the systematic discrimination of a group of people based on an actual (as in skin color) or perceived trait. (as in religious orientation.)  Racism holds that one group is naturally superior to another, by right of something inherent in their genetic makeup.  Although this concept predated the understanding of genetics, it came into full bloom at the end of the 1800's, when science discovered genes.  Taken further, racism, at it's most extreme leads to Eugenics, which is the attempt to excise the inferior "genetic material" from the gene pool.

Further, although this is not addressed in the article, Racism can hold two flavors, although they are often intertwined.  The first type of Racism is Systematic, where one group is specifically targeted for differential treatment.  Police racism, as seen in the "Stop and Frisk" policy that is so controversial, falls into this typology. 

"Stop and Frisk" is a perfect example of Systematic Racism.  Certain people, namely young black males, are determined to be a group that is more likely to commit a crime, and therefore should be stopped and searched any time they are doing "something suspicious," like buying an expensive belt at Barney's in New York City.  Muslims are also the victims of systematic racism when they are profiled as terrorists.  On the other hand, white people, even when actually doing something suspicious, are rarely stopped by cops.  Further, they are even less likely to be taken in for questioning, charged or convicted.  Because of this, a disproportionate number of people in prisons are African-American.

I would also like to note that Systematic Racism is more closely rooted in prejudice and stereotype than the other type of racism.  It often derives from sweeping generalizations such as, "young black males are far more likely to commit crimes" or "Muslims are more likely to be terrorists."  Sometimes there is a small shred of truth at the core to justify the beliefs, which is then thrown out as a justification of Systematic Racism.  But it should be noted, even when there is some truth present, it usually is distorted and taken out of context. 

For example, while white boys commit as many crimes on average as black youth, they are far more likely to get probation or juvenile hall where their black counterparts are often sent to adult prison.  Similarly, while there are quite a few Muslim terrorists today, in the 80's the world's largest and most powerful terrorist organization was actually the I.R.A., so by the reasoning of a certain group tends to terrorism, people with red hair should be subjected to much more intensive searches than any other group, including Muslims.  Further, since so many people in this country helped the I.R.A., Americans should be suspect whenever they travel abroad. 

The second sort of Racism can be termed either Institutional or Structural.  This occurs when the entire system is structurally set up so that a minority group is denied the opportunities afforded to the majority.  Although prejudice can inform this type of racism, it is generally rooted in a sense of entitlement; "I am better than you, so therefore it is natural and appropriate that I have more opportunities than you do."  Most of the Deep South is founded on a Structural Racism core.

What is interesting about this fact is that there may not always be direct prejudice in this system.  When I lived in the South, there were many people I met that did not claim any sort of prejudice to African-Americans, and yet vehemently defended the system that kept minorities politically un-empowered.  The typical answer when confronted with the atrocities of the system was, "You have to understand, that's just how things are done here."  Another statement that I heard a lot was, "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black." while they voted for politicians who kept the discriminatory apparatus locked in place. 

However, if you support a system that is Structurally Racist, sorry, but by definition, you are a racist.  What you are not necessarily is prejudiced; you're just entitled and oblivious.  And yes, you can be racist without being prejudiced. 

To return to Structural Racism, it is very clear in the educational system in many places in the South.  The schools down there have re-segregated, and have done so in a way that cannot be easily undone.  There will not be an ability to forcibly desegregate them, and have the National Guard enforce it, as there was in the Civil Rights Era.  The reason is, most of the white people have pulled their children out of the public school system and placed them in private schools, either religious or secular.  The ones who can't afford this option are more and more resorting to home-schooling.  This leaves the public school system overwhelmingly populated by "minority" students.

This is even worse than the old "separate but equal," where a thin veneer of comity was attempted.  Now they just pull the kids out of the public system and defund it so that there is little actual education left in the schools.  The public schools have become poorly funded warehouses and day care centers where only the most basic skills are taught.  In no way does a public education in many places in the South prepare students for any sort of higher education.

And this is where the Institutionalization of Racism can be easily seen.  Without the ability to get a quality education, doors to greater potentials are closed.  Not completely of course, there are always ways for the occasional lucky or brilliant kid to escape the trap, but for the most part, most of the children who start and end in the public school system are locked out of many opportunities, thereby not competing with the more entitled white children.  Worse, in this system, help for "disadvantaged" children becomes a form of patronizing charity, further embedding the structural racism into the scheme.

Now on to the reason why "reverse racism" cannot be a thing, at least for the most part.   Given that the system is not set up in such a manner that minorities have the ability to engage in systematic discrimination, there is not the ability to for them to engage in actual racism.  In other words, because they do not control the levers of power, they cannot set up an opposite system to block white people from achieving in life.  They do not block whites from good jobs, nice housing in safe neighborhoods or any of the other trappings of life that the entitled white population expects.  

As a side note, I do want to point out, there has been one group that has been able to actually create a form of reverse racism on the structural level, and that was the Irish.  The Irish, having all normal pathways to assimilation closed to them took over the New York and Boston Police Departments, and in doing so, blocked many non-Irish from entering the force, hence the stereotype of the Irish Cop.  They also took over the Catholic Priesthood in America, but that was a much less powerful position.   Through their power on the police force, they then insinuated themselves into the political machines of several major metropolitan areas.  By doing that, they forced the doors open for their brethren.   However, as I noted earlier, the Irish have long ties to terrorism, so this power play shouldn't be surprising.

Other that that instance, and quite possibly because of it, "reverse racism' has never actually taken hold in this or any other country.  Even when "minorities" are actually the numeric majority, they have not been able to move the levers of power in their direction, even today. 

Systematic and Institutional Racism are on full display today in the frantic efforts of the Far Right in attempting to disenfranchise minority voters through a host of laws designed to suppress the vote.  Cloaked in the sophistry of "voter fraud" these laws are designed to make it harder and less likely for minorities to vote, thereby structurally maintaining a white majority in votes cast, even if the actual percentage of eligible voters skews the other direction. 

By weakening the number of votes of people of color, and concentrating those that remain into isolated districts, the white power system can continue to exert a chokehold on power.  And the worst part of it is, short of violence, it becomes almost impossible to weaken that grasp, as we saw in the 1960's.   Part of the reason that the Civil Rights movement turned so ugly at times stemmed from the need to shake the edifice of control down to its roots.  Even then, the institutional and systematic racism continued, albeit in a somewhat modified and cloaked form.

Therefore, by definition, "reverse racism" cannot exist, and even if the power structure flipped and African-Americans and Hispanics took control of the country, and further oppressed the white population the same way that we oppressed them, it would still be just plain racism, not reverse racism.  Racism can only really exist among the ruling class.

That said, what can, and does exist is prejudice, and it does exist on both sides;  I have met some minorities who were prejudiced against whites.  However, even though any form of prejudice is wrong, it is understandable that minorities might hold ill will against whites.  It is unfortunately a natural reaction to oppression that people come to hate their oppressors.  It is also natural to extend that hate via stereotyping and projection to everyone of that ethnic group.  When you are accustomed to being hated for what and who you are, you tend to hate everyone who is not like you.  However, this is not reverse racism or even reverse prejudice, it is simply standard issue prejudice.

To illustrate this, I would like to return to my experiences gained from living in Savannah.  While I was there, I witnessed the day-to-day, almost casual, racism that was on display there. I saw first hand the fact that blacks were shoved off into a school system that did not in the least prepare them for life, while white people sent their kids to private schools that did so. I saw cops stop and harass black people, who were doing nothing wrong, for the simple crime of being blatantly black in public. I witnessed people with advanced degrees working in menial jobs, simply because the color of their skin prevented them from attaining a better position.  I also saw people being told to "know their place and not try to rise above themselves."  Further, I saw people unable to leave this racist system because they had no economic ability to do so.

In addition, I saw people who were actually angry every time they saw a black person who did not wear shackles on there ankles.  I heard people say that they would like to see slavery put up for a vote among white people, because they would re-institute it in a heartbeat.  Worse, I found out that they still maintain lists in the South of who owns who, in the hopes that they can someday reclaim their property. THAT is racism.

As a natural response to this racist system, some people become very prejudiced against their oppressors.  I'm sorry if some of you get hurt feelings when a black person gives you a dirty look, or acts prejudiced towards you, but given what I witnessed with my own two eyes while living in Georgia, I can completely understand and support their position.

In my next post, I will examine how the discussion of "reverse racism" not only stops honest discussion of racism in America, but actually contributes to the problem. 

A Recipe for Revolution

Upheaval

Right now, the far Right Wing of the Republican party is sowing the seeds for a revolution in the United States.  It is not, however, going to be the revolution they think, nor want.  They want a revolution to eliminate the Federal Government, roll back civil rights, equal rights and gay rights, define Christianity as the national religion, and completely unfetter the financial markets.  But in short, they want a revolution that puts old white rich men inextricably in charge of this country. 

That is not the revolution they will get.

They might get it in the short term; the game might be rigged enough by 2016 to elect a President Cruz.  Riding high on his election, and the probable control of both houses of congress that electing him would bring, they will unwind all of the social safety net programs that they hate, disenfranchise millions so they can't protest, and try to set up a permanent hegemony in the governmental apparatus.

Even if they don't get the big prize of the presidency, they can work toward their revolution piecemeal, creating government shutdowns and debt ceiling threats so regularly that the Democrats eventually acquiesce to some of their demands, just because they are worn down from the fight.  And if you think this isn't on the horizon, Ted Cruz spoke in Iowa and claimed that his path was the path to victory.  This movement is not going to be derailed by real facts.  The Ministry of Truth will continue to feed the true believers delusions.

But this is were actual reality rears it's ugly head.  If they actually get their revolution, they will likely spawn a real insurrection.  History is our guide on this.  When people are utterly without recourse, they rise up against the government and attempt to overthrow it.  Most recently, this happened in Egypt and Libya, and is still moving along in Syria.

But before I talk about how this might happen here, I would like to take a moment to explore the policies of the Right that will lead us to the cliff.  (I am going to refer to them as the Right, not the Republicans, because not all Republicans are on the bus that the Right is driving off the cliff.)

First, they want to drastically cut, or in their wildest hopes, eliminate food stamps.  The problem is, a majority of people on food assistance are not the unemployed, they are actually working.  In short, they are not working for wages high enough to feed themselves, and still take care of the other necessities like shelter and clothing.

The minimum wage across most of this country forces people to make choices in their day to day life.  But the unfortunate reality is, those choices typically are things like, do I eat, or pay my rent?  The minimum wage is no longer a living wage, and people earning it must turn to government subsidies to survive.  Without food stamps, there would be a lot of employed, but still hungry, people in this country.

Which leads to the second thing that the Right wants to eliminate, the minimum wage.  Michelle Bachman, with her perfect grasp of economics, called for the elimination of the Federal Minimum Wage.  She claimed, in a bizarrely correct way, if we eliminated the minimum wage, we would drastically cut unemployment.  This is true in the sense that companies would be willing to hire massive numbers of people if they didn't have to actually pay them. 

The core idea of the minimum wage is that slavery is outlawed; people have to be paid for work.  Without it, do you really think companies are going to pay their employees well?  You will see places like Wal-Mart drop employee pay to pennies, because that will cut their overhead and raise their profits.  And then Wall Street will reward them for increasing profits by ballooning their stock prices, which will incite another round of pay cuts, that will be rewarded in turn.  Eventually, wages will bottom out at Chinese levels of compensation, which will be just a few dollars a day for most employees.

The third thing that the Right wants to eliminate is the Health Care Act.  While I disagree with the ACA because I don't think it went far enough because there is no public option, it is our only hope currently to try to get a handle on health care in this country.  Having Emergency Rooms be the primary care provider for a good chunk of the people in this country is very bad for the economy.  Yet the Right sees no problem with the Emergency Room handling the majority of health care.

But people need health care, or they will die, even from easily treatable things like infections or the flu or a broken leg.  Like food, heath care becomes an unaffordable luxury for millions of low paid people in this country.  The ACA helps get people medical treatment.

Finally, the Right is attacking pensions, not just Social Security, but actual Defined Benefit Plans earned through long term employment in a single place of employment.  (And in this one, even some on the Democratic side are complicit, for example Gina Raimondo, the Treasurer of Rhode Island) The primary target are those who are drawing government pensions, but the entire system is under attack.  Even social security, that once unassailable bulwark of the social safety net is being assaulted with things like the chained CPI and means testing.

The largest group of people in this country living in poverty are not minorities or single mothers, it is the elderly.  And unlike the other groups in poverty, these people are literally unable to work, even if there were jobs available.  A person with advanced Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease is not going to be able to hold down a job, so pensions and social security are there to take care of them at a point in their lives when they desperately need care.

To sum this up, if you make people be hungry, even when they are employed, cut the ability to work for a wage that might make ends meet, increase the number of people who die from easily treatable conditions and cause the elderly to live in squalor, you set the stage for massive unrest.  And to make matters worse, you are doing this to widen the profit margins for billionaires, a group that already is not one that people inherently  feel sympathy towards.

This sets the stage for rebellion.

Martin Luther King said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."  Even more, the arc of humaity bends towards fairness.  And it isn't fair when people see starvation in their lives, while the rich get richer; when people can't afford even the basics of life; when they watch their children die from simple health issues, while the wealthy get extraordinary treatment; then they watch their parents be unable to care for themselves, while the wealthy live in luxury.

I'm not here to give a moral debate on this, I am simply stating the facts, whether you think it is right or wrong, when people perceive this sort of inequality and unfairness, they become enraged.  And the worse the disparity, the worse the rage.  Both Roosevelts saw this and as a result, Teddy broke the Trusts and brought down the Barons, and FDR instituted the broadest social compact that we had seen in this country.

They didn't do it because they were Communists or even Socialists, they did it because they were pragmatists.  Not to say they didn't believe strongly in their actions, they did, but they also knew that action was necessary.  They both knew that if something was not done to change the course of the country, eventually, the disparity would lead to despair, and the despair would lead to revolt.  This is history's lesson that we have forgotten.

In the blind hatred of entitlements, we have ignored that, at the end of the day, it is far better for a government to be loved than feared. 

The reason that totalitarian societies fall is that the government is feared.  But fear cannot be maintained indefinitely, it may take decades, but eventually fear turns to anger and anger turns to hate.  Once people hate their government, it's all over.  They WILL rise up.  And this is another piece the Right does not get, they are stoking hatred of the Federal Government to get what they want, but once they have achieved their ends, they will have a country full of people who hate the government.  This will not end well.

Governments, by their very nature, do a lot of things that people don't like.  We generally don't like laws or restrictions or regulations, unless we see personal benefit in them  We all like laws against murder, but laws against Marijuana?  That is harder for a lot of people to see.  You have to step outside of your personal system to see a societal benefit in order to see good in a lot of the laws even a "good" a government passes.

So to keep people working together, and have a strong country, you have to get them to love their government, or at least like it.  In order to be viable, a government needs to produce tangible benefits for their citizens; they need to provide a service.  Otherwise, they have no reason to be supported.

The inherent nature of the human race tends also toward anarchy.  For the most part, we only work together well in small groups, because that is what our genetic programming designed us to do.  We function in larger groups because we have to, and we see the reasons to, not because we exactly want to.  We see the benefit of a State Level society, but many of us yearn towards a simpler life, with less interaction with large apparatuses of control.

So for a government to work, the benefits of it's existence have to outweigh the burdens.  And in America, that has always meant a government that stands up for the little guy, that protects the helpless, and provides actual help to people in need.  It builds roads and schools, keeps the peace, and provides for the helpless.  Without that, most people don't see any real reason to have one.

And this is where the Right has led us to a precipice.  They have gotten most of America to hate the government, for their own selfish ends.  What they don't realize is history's lesson.  When people hate their government, they don't make government go away, as the Right hopes, they replace it.  They may replace it with something bad, or they may replace it with something better, but they will force a change.  

This is what happened in Eastern Europe, and what is going on right now in the Middle East.  People hated their government, saw the government as a destructive force in their lives, and they overthrew it.  Simple citizens, often even unarmed, can do a lot of damage to the system when they put their minds to it.  If the system is extremely well armed, the conflict will drag on for years, as we are seeing in Syria.  But eventually, if people are determined enough, they will eventually win.

The reason that Egypt fell so quickly was not arms or even that the military abandoned Mubarak; it was because of the sheer size of the population that rose against the government.  In a country of 80 million people, the military cannot enforce the system for any length of time.  It would be even worse in a country of almost 400 million.  Short of carpet bombing our own citizens, there is no way any sort of martial law would stop a revolution in this country.

Wise leaders like the Roosevelts knew this, and made government a force for good in people's lives.  That is enlightened leadership, and for two centuries, it was the guiding force in this country: how can we make life better for people?

Once government stops doing this, the stage for revolution is set.  And the ultimate irony is, the Right is dismantling government to increase profit margins, but the worst thing for profit is revolution. 

Dead Man Walking

Toast

John Boehner is in an absolutely no win scenario; no matter what happens in the coming weeks, he WILL lose his Speakership.  Let me examine the possible scenarios and look at why this is going to happen.  The Tea Party, and the magical thinking crowd are driving the bus, and they want no compromise.   For his part, Boehner thinks that going along with them will preserve his station as Speaker of the House,  so he is refusing to buck them. 

Of course, this entire post is predicated on Boehner's pride, and desire to retain his Speakership.   There are other possibilities: his family is being held hostage, and he has been informed that if he refuses to play along, they will be killed; he has a REALLY nasty skeleton in his closet that they are using to blackmail him with; or they have some sort of equally horrendous thing that they are holding over his head to get him to do what they want.  There is another possibility, that he is actually crazy himself, but I tend to discount this, because, as bad as he is at his job, he has still seemed fairly rational, and not ridiculously hyper-partisan.

So to look at how this could all play out:

Scenario 1: They blow up the Debt Ceiling and it is as bad or worse than the experts believe it will be.  At the moment, this is unfortunately the most likely scenario to happen.  (And I hate to say that, but the rhetoric on the Right seems to really want this to happen)

In this case, there are two further possibilities.  First, we are plunged into a world wide Great Depression that will make the one in '29 look mild.  In this case, everyone in leadership will be expelled from Congress in the next election.  We might even have recalls for the senators not up next election, and maybe even an impeachment.  (Not that I think it would be Obama's fault, I'm just saying how we would likely react to this.)  In this case, Boehner is out in '14.

The second possibility here is even worse, that the Debt Ceiling Breach actually spurs a revolution, rebellion or national breakup.  This could happen quite easily as well, because if the country can't pay the military forces, we are headed to implosion.  We saw this happen in the Soviet Union, (albeit for a somewhat different reason) and there is no reason it can't happen here as well.  In this case, no one is Speaker, but most notably, John Boehner isn't.

Scenario #2: We breach the Debt Ceiling, and it isn't the end of the world.  Although this is highly unlikely, if we patch it fast enough, perhaps we wouldn't spark another Depression.  Still, the breach would, regardless, spur high interest rates, and likely high inflation as well, because the value of the dollar would fall.

This is a scenario we have seen in the past, during the 70's with Stagflation.  In that case, President Carter, and a lot of other Democrats, paid the price for the country's financial woes.  This time, the blame would be placed firmly at Boehner's feet, and trust me, the discredited Republican Party would throw him under the bus to save themselves.  They would claim it was all Boehner's idea, and he is at fault for the mess.  Again, Boehner is no longer Speaker, and he also get Tarred and Feathered by his (former) compatriots.

Scenario #3: Boehner capitulates and allows for a clean debt ceiling vote.  This is also a possibility, although one that I put at less than 50% right now.

In this case, Boehner is excoriated by the Far Right and the Rightwing media as a traitor to the cause and country.  He will be primaried by a Tea Party candidate who will likely win the primary, and then possibly lose the General.  We have seen this happen time and again.  Although the Tea Party can motivate enough people to win a Primary, they tend to do poorly in a general election, unless the district or state is an utter conservative stronghold like Utah.  The mainstream Republicans are not likely to vote for crazy, especially after going through this shutdown.  They will very likely quietly vote for the Democrat, and move on with their lives. 

This scenario will likely ripple across the country, destroying any moderate, or sane conservative Republican who votes on a clean CR and Debt Limit.  This actually will lead to an additionally difficult problem, because most of the Republicans who will be left in Congress after this are likely to be as crazy as Yoho and Cruz, so we will have one functioning party, and a group of people howling in the wilderness.

And as before, Boehner does not return to the House.  And further, Nancy Pelosi likely returns to the Speaker's chair.

Scenario #4: Obama and the Democrats capitulate and give in to Republican demands.  Unfortunately, this is also a high likelihood, given the past performance of the Democrats. 

This scenario would seem to be a win for Boehner, and the way to preserve his job, but that is doubtful, because several other things would play out in this scenario.

First, it would galvanize the Republicans, who would be seen by both their constituents, and the media, as being at the height of their power.  Second it would demoralize the Democrats, who might even sit out the next election.  Regardless, it would greatly strengthen the hand of the Republicans going into the next election, and they would see it as vindication of their agenda.

This means they would probably run more Tea Party candidates, because the Far Right would be empowered.  Even if the Democrats were pushed to fight to win back the house, the media narrative would be against them, just as it was in 2010.  In this scenario, Boehner might be Primaried, but he would certainly be challenged for the Speakership by a Tea Party type, because they were at the seeming apex of their power.  And given that Boehner is not popular, even in his own party, he would likely lose to his challenger.

So no matter what, Boehner is highly unlikely to keep his position, therefore, out of love of country, he should let it come to a vote.

The problem with this entire situation is, when you hold the government hostage, like the Republicans are doing, and then the other side capitulates, like Obama might, you set the stage for this to become common practice.  This time, Obama gives in on the ACA, next time, what will it be, a complete ban on abortion?  An end to Welfare? Defunding of the Department of Education?  Once you open the door to these types of threats, there is no closing it.  And it won't matter who the party in the driver's seat is.  You could have a Republican President and Senate, and a Democratic House blowing it up unless they put into place a single payer health care system.

And even worse, once the bullet is in the chamber, it will eventually be fired.  If not this time, then in the future.  The demands become ever more extreme, and sooner or later, the bomb will be dropped.

We saw this with the hijackings of the '70's.  As much as it pains me to say this, if they had attacked the first hijacked plane, and risked the lives of everyone to end the hostage situation, it is unlikely that there would have been any more hijackings, because the technique would not have been viable.

The same thing here, if this hijacking of democracy succeeds, expect it to become a regular occurrence.  If it fails, it is unlikely that we will see it again.

If Boehner actually cares about democracy more than he care about a position that he will not hold on to in any case, he needs to allow a vote.

Unless, of course, they actually are holding his family hostage.  Then at least his behavior might make sense.  Otherwise, it doesn't. 

The Authentically Divine

Authenticity

In my previous posts on this subject, I have introduced the idea of the Divine Supplement, and touched on the question of the authentic in religious experience.  I would now like to fully explore this important question: which experience is the authentic, the Divine or the Human?  To partially answer this question, I would like to examine two aspects of Christianity, the Crucifix and the Miracle of Transubstantiation.  In the process of doing this, I will also examine whether each of these things are in themselves authentic.

The Crucifix is a very interesting and complex artifact.  It is a symbol, a metaphor, an allegory wrapped up in a concept of being a holy object, and ultimately a fetish.  As such, this object cannot be easily classified or fully understood through a single frame.

First, I will examine the symbolic nature of the object.  Each crucifix, which is made by people, typically in factories no less, is still a manifestation of the True Cross upon which Jesus was crucified.  It is a symbolic link to a physical object that (probably) was destroyed almost two thousand years ago.  (I’m not going to get into the idea of relics of the True Cross here, I am simply going to assume that it was probably destroyed once it was finished being used.)

As a symbol, it represents an actual object without actually having a physical tie to that object.  In this aspect, it is certainly not authentic, because it has no direct connection to the original.  It is not even formally connected, because the crucifix is much l smaller than the source, nor is it normally made out of wood.  It is only a representation of another object, a reminder of it.

It is also a marker, a form of positional good, marking a person’s position in society as a Christian.  In this manner, it becomes somewhat more authentic, because it signifies something specific about a person.  (A Star of David does the same thing.)  In terms of absolute authenticity, it shows that a person follows a belief system, and an honest display of fact can be considered to be authentic in at least a certain sense of the word.  This makes the Crucifix authentic in the human world.

The second role that the Crucifix fills is that of a metaphor.  It represents an entire conceptualized worldview.  It communicates a myth of a Father God who sent his only Son to Earth to die for the sins of mankind.  I am using Lakoff’s interpretation of metaphor here, where a metaphor is verbal shorthand that we use in society to communicate a much larger concept in a manner that everyone in that culture understands.  Even non-Christians know the story that the Crucifix represents.

In this sense, the cross is authentic, albeit, again in the human realm.  It is representational of a shared myth, although not necessarily a shared belief.  The authenticity of the object is absolute here, because this object is a functioning metaphor for virtually everyone on the planet.  Even if they do not believe, they do understand the metaphoric content.  (I do realize that there are some people who wouldn’t recognize it, but they are also typically removed from many of the other shared aspects of a global society, so this does not impact, in my mind, the authenticity of the object as metaphor.)

Then we move to the idea of the Crucifix as an allegory.  An allegory is similar to a metaphor, but it is a literary device that communicates a complex idea or concept.  In this case, the Crucifix becomes allegorical for the New Covenant, as laid out in the New Testament.  It becomes an allegory for Salvation.

In this aspect, we finally see the Crucifix as representing authenticity of the Divine Experience; it becomes a symbol of personal Salvation.  It connects the person who wears it to God, and I would like to note, a person wears it as an article of faith, and not purely as a positional good.  In this regard, it is Internalized Hierophany, as I outlined in the previous post. 

I would also like to note here, the wearing of the Crucifix is an outgrowth of the Reformation.  Prior to Martin Luther, a Cross was forbidden to a non-ordained person; it was viewed as an utterly sacred object.  In fact, in Scotland, in the 15^th century, the pentagram was often worn as an article of faith, because it was viewed to represent the 5 wounds of Christ.  The Divinity of the Cross was absolute up until that point.

This leads us to the idea of the Crucifix as a holy object.  Even when worn by a person outside of the church hierarchy, and in that, profane, the Cross retains its sacredity.  To destroy a cross, or any holy object for that matter, is an act of desecration.   It would be highly offensive, even to some people outside of the religion.  (We can see this when Christians and Jews become outraged at the burning of a Koran)

So in this case, the Crucifix has the authenticity of a Divine Experience.  Taken together, the idea of the Cross as metaphor and the Cross as allegory, mixed with the belief that the Crucifix is an actually holy Object, it becomes the Divine Supplement.  It represents God, both as a metaphor and as a line of connection.

So in the end, is the Crucifix actually authentic?

The answer in this case is contextual.  If the Crucifix is an object worn as a positional good, to mark someone’s standing, to show off in a certain way, it is not actually authentic.  This is because it only exists in one dimension of authenticity, that of being a symbol, and an empty one at that.  A Cross around the neck of a person who does not actually live the allegory of what that Cross substitutes for renders it inauthentic.

On the other hand, a Crucifix worn by a person who devoutly believes in what it stands for, and further lives that belief system daily, is an authentic object.  The Divine Connection renders it authentic.

I have looked at the authenticity of an object, now I would like to examine the authenticity of a ritual, that of Transubstantiation.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, Transubstantiation is the miracle that occurs in a Mass.  In this miracle, the wafer literally becomes the body of Christ, and the wine literally becomes his blood.  (They still taste like paper and cheap red wine, because apparently the Savior was not particularly tasty.)

In this sense, there is no symbolism here; this is literal, not symbolic, ritual cannibalism.  I realize that I may upset some people with this, but this is the actuality of Catholic Communion.  I would like to also note, the Protestant faiths, who on the whole don’t have Transubstantiation, engage in symbolic ritual cannibalism.  Because this is literal, there is also no metaphoric content, at least in terms of the religion.

This means that there is no authenticity on the overtly human level, as there is with the Crucifix.  The human authentic does however exist here in the sense of tying the community together.  It becomes a shared experience for the congregation, and through that shared experience creates an identity for the participants.   

However, despite lacking symbolic or metaphoric content, Transubstantiation is still allegorical.  It communicates a whole host (pardon the pun) of concepts.  At its core though, this is a Theophany, not a Heirophany, if the miracle is believed.  The intercession of the Priest actually causes Holy Spirit to manifest in the bread and wine.  As with the Crucifix, at the core is a Divine Experience, and in this case, a miracle.

However, as with the Crucifix, the authenticity is based in intent.  For a person who does not believe, there is no authenticity here, simply a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.  It might tie them to their community, make their parents happy or a whole range of other things, but at the core, if there is no belief in the miracle, it is simply a wafer and wine.  It is a fake.

So through this exploration of both of these, I would like to propose an answer to the question I posed earlier, which experience is authentic, the Human or the Divine?  The answer is neither, at least in isolation.

The Divine is not authentic without the Human, and the Human is not authentic without the Divine.  A Crucifix worn without living the belief system is just ornament.  However, a Crucifix in isolation is divorced from the world.  Similarly, Transubstantiation without belief in the miracle is simply a silly ritual, but without the community sharing in it, it is equally hollow.

You must have both sides for the authentic.  You must have connection to each other, and you must have connection to the Divine.  You must have the authenticity of the human experience, and the authenticity of the Divine experience.  In this we see two of the aspects of the role of myth as outlined by Joseph Campbell, Man to Man and Man to God.  However, in this we also connect Man to Self.  By understanding the former two relationships, the last relationship is better understood.

And this is the final core of authenticity in religion; it must tie all three aspects of our relationships together.  If it does, then it will resonate and be authentic, if it does not, it rings false.