I spotted this post on Facebook today written by a Trump supporter in response to the women’s march, a woman with an Hispanic-sounding last name.
I am not a victim. I don’t need to march for any rights. I have the same rights as anyone else. I’m not raising a victim either. So let’s call today’s activities what they really are, an anti Trump rally for prochoice people. What a bunch of bullies and so much hate speech (scarlet johansen verbally attacking a woman – Ivanka Trump and Madonna talking of her fantasies to blow up OUR White House). I don’t want my daughter looking up to any of those nasty women.
Anyone involved in this farce, I am disappointed in you for being a part of such hypocrisy. You are not victims. I would have so much more respect for you if you just called it ‘Women marching against Trump in fear of losing (abortion) choice.’ I stand behind your right to march for that. Just be honest about what you’re doing.
I want to discuss this point-by-point, so I’m including the entire thing. I’m also going to write about some things that are at least implied by her profile.
Point one: A woman wrote this. Women only slightly older than I am have told me about rights they only gained within our lifetimes. She seems to assume that, because she has these rights now, that she’ll always have them. Many, many, many women and men have fought for over 200 years to get to the point where she can feel confident that she has the same rights as the men around her. I don’t think it’s overstating the case to say that she has these rights in part because ‘nasty women’ stood up to social pressure to fight for them.
Point two: A person with a minority last name, Hispanic in origin, wrote this. There are American citizens of Hispanic descent in the US today who face daily discrimination, including being subject to unequal policing and discrimination in the workplace. She lives in an urban area in North Carolina, so it’s possible she herself doesn’t see such discrimination, but I suspect that it would be an eye-opening experience for her to drive through some of the states along the Mexican border. Even in North Carolina, though, it’s probably only her economic status that’s shielding her. I hear people casually referring to Hispanic folks with really ugly racist terms, and assuming/implying that “the Mexicans” are only capable of being roofers, landscapers, or house maids. I wonder if she’d be comfortable being addressed with any of those terms, or lumped into those assumed limits.
Point three: “I am not a victim” she says. That’s great. I’m glad that she feels safe in her life. I’d never wish any ill to her. But many of our fellow citizens are not so safe. I am able to see that just because I’m not personally being victimized, the incoming administration is putting many more of those citizens into precarious situations or outright danger.
Point four: “I don’t need to march for any rights.” Nice. Apparently she doesn’t have the slightest sense of gratitude for everyone who has marched and fought for those rights.
Point five: “let’s call today’s activities what they really are, an anti Trump rally for prochoice people.” I can’t call the marches that, because it would vastly understate the reasons I’ve seen my friends list for why they marched.
- Yes, some are pro-choice, but not all.
- Yes, nearly all the marchers are anti-Trump, but that wasn’t exactly a hidden motivation.
- I’ve seen people who are also marching against the incoming vice president and Trump’s choices for his cabinet and other administration posts; let’s not pretend Trump is the marchers’ only concern
- I’ve seen people marching in support of LGBT rights, which they see as being at risk with the new administration
- I’ve seen people marching in support of minority & immigrant rights
- I suspect the list is a lot longer than this.
Point six: “What a bunch of bullies” The dictionary definition of ‘bully’ is: A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people. It’s essentially impossible for someone out of power to bully a person in power. I’ll ding her here for poor word choice at a minimum. Given the tone of the rest of the post, though, I would prefer to list this as a biased word choice. People are often cruel, and if the speakers were, in fact, being cruel, then I wouldn’t support that. If they were, rather, speaking emotionally and emphatically, then I totally support that.
Point seven: “I don’t want my daughter looking up to any of those nasty women.” That’s fine. I hope that she models really good behavior for her daughter. I’d suggest she look carefully at her Facebook posts to see if she’s doing so. I’m also really curious as to whether she thinks Trump’s behavior is a good model for her offspring. Would she really feel comfortable sending her daughter out on a date with a young man who spoke about women the way Trump does? I think she’s exhibiting a double standard by defending Trump, but accusing the speakers at the march as being nasty.
Point eight: “You are not victims.” How can she know that? Her assumption — that everyone at those marches is as safe in their lives as she is in hers — goes beyond simple privilege into territory I find offensive. She is invalidating the concerns of millions of other Americans just because those concerns aren’t hers. Outrageous.
Point nine: In her second paragraph, she accuses the march of being a farce, and the marchers of being hypocrites. To use the word “farce” to describe hundreds of thousands of people taking (in many cases) days out of their lives to express outrage and concern about a long list of political and social issues is just plain slander. It makes me doubt her claim that she would stand behind the right to march against Trump and for reproductive rights. She reinforces my doubt with her accusation of hypocrisy, because, again, the marchers have worked really hard to list their concerns on social media, on the signs they carried, and in innumerable blog posts, speeches, and interviews over the last two months. I see no hidden agendas, no hypocrisy.
Final point: I saved this for the last, because it would have been redundant to make it for each point above. To assume that — because you have a right — you will always have that right, is to ignore history and ignore all the people who fought and sometimes died for these rights. Rights, once gained, need to be actively protected for many years, and jealously guarded from attempts to diminish them.
To return to the subject line of this post… Why are people marching? People are marching to keep and extend the rights that this woman takes so much for granted.
Most of us know — or suspect — that we don’t always buy things because we need them, but because we think we’ll feel better/more complete. Advertisements and reviews can hint that you’ll be better looking/cooler/more manly/more well-liked (or whatever) if you just had this watch, or that jacket, or the new car, blender, book (OMG the promise of books…).
Then we buy it, and often experience buyer’s remorse, or just a vague sense that it just wasn’t right. In any case, the promised perfect future isn’t here.
Most people either run out of cash to keep trying again or go deep into debt to keep buying more/ better quality/faster/bigger/more expensive things. Some people with more money actually buy stuff and then give it away soon after to make room so they can buy the latest stuff.
Some recognize the futility and try to find other paths to personal fulfillment, or try things like volunteering instead of purchasing.
These are really hard paths, not least because our whole society is set up to keep us hoping the next gadget or guru will be The One.
Even volunteering to help people can lead to the same disappointment; “oh, look, there are still homeless people, I’ve failed again.” (I’m not trying to discourage volunteering, by the way. 🙂 I just suggest that you meditate a little on why you’re doing it. Being really clear on your motivations will probably keep you focused for longer and prevent burnout. Heck, it might even keep you from being badly used.)
But now imagine that you are so rich that you not only have marketing people manipulating you to think “this is it!”
you also have hangers-on manipulating you to keep spending money because their chance for wealth depends on you thinking that.
If you’re not particularly self-aware, it’s not even likely that you’ll recognize what’s going on.
It’s certainly easy to see this pattern in Trump. If he can just build the best resort, the biggest tower, the fanciest golf course… he’ll get the adulation and satisfaction he craves.
Picture Trump in 2015: his 70th birthday is looming. He may not have many years left. He has his name on towers, golf courses, luxury resorts. It’s all a bit flat.
He sets his sights on a new project; running for president. It’s absurd, over-the-top… it’s classic Trump. Ahh, now the hangers-on are really excited. This next vanity project is one that they can not only make serious money on, but maybe even get serious power, which is the ultimate prize at this level…
It’s easy to see Trump as a buffoon; it’s less easy to remember that nearly all of us have similar base urges; we just have more obvious limits. If you make $30,000 or $100,000 a year, you’re pretty likely to run into your limits fairly soon. If you make $10,000,000 a year, your limits are probably less obvious.
I’m not saying that understanding that we have something in common with this guy means letting him off the hook. We absolutely have to fight him; and even more importantly, we have to fight the manipulators who helped him get to the point of being elected as the President of the United States, but we should at least be aware of our similarities, even if… or maybe particularly if… looking in this mirror makes us uncomfortable. I suspect that it’s hard to fight efficiently and effectively if we are in denial about our own weaknesses.
- People who confuse the flag and the concepts the flag stands for.
- People who promote something close to worship of the American military.
- There are MANY people who risk everything to help others. Why aren’t you in awe of those folks as well? If you can’t figure it out, you may want to contemplate whether you’ve been taken in by an elaborate marketing scheme. (Corollary: not all veterans are combat vets. I was in the Navy. I washed floors and managed storerooms. Probably most military jobs are at that level of ‘glamorous…’ keeping things running so the small minority who are fighters can be ready to do their jobs. All of these jobs are important to keep the organization in a ready state, but don’t assume every person who was in the military had some deep combat experience)
- Any organization is made up of people. People who are given large amounts of money and power are at grave risk of being corrupted by the attractions of money and power. We should be as critical of the U.S. military as we are of any other organization, to make sure that they’re not falling into abuse of power or theft/mismanagement of resources.
- Supporting the troops shouldn’t mean blindly supporting everything the military does. How about supporting the troops by not sending them into danger for stupid reasons? How about supporting them by taking care of them when they get home?
- People who think freedom of religion should only apply to their particular faith.
- People who assume that if you are religious you’re more moral than non-religious folks… against much evidence to the contrary.
*prompted by current threads I’m seeing on Twitter, of course
PS: Get off my lawn.
I’m not sure I have the skills or knowledge to turn this into a decent blog post, but I keep finding myself mulling over these ideas so I figured I’d write them down, trying to clarify my thinking.
During the summer of 2015 I was reading the news about the attempts by various activists to get the Confederate battle flag removed from official government locations, including from in front of the statehouse in South Carolina, where I live. The conversations on social media during that time also frequently included a message along the lines of “check your privilege.”
A Twitter poster whom I generally enjoy reading posted several angry comments, saying that he didn’t want people to yell at him any longer about “privilege” because it was a concept that included no path for taking action. He said that he didn’t mind being told that he needed to treat people more fairly, or stop doing something that caused distress …whatever… but that there seemed to be nothing that he could do about privilege. If we white men are privileged in America just by accident of birth, he said, then there’s nothing he could do to change it. He wasn’t going to stop being male nor white, so everyone should just shut up already…
I knew right away that I disagreed with him, while also sympathizing with him to some extent. After all, being blamed for something you aren’t even aware of benefiting from isn’t much fun for anyone.
My problem was that I couldn’t figure out — any more than he could — what to do with this concept of privilege.
A few days later, it occurred to me that a great use of being aware of social privilege is in checking assumptions for things like… oh… the idea that police treat everyone fairly. I saw posts this summer that were variations of the old “hey, if you don’t like being mistreated by the police, maybe you shouldn’t do any crimes, then the police won’t have an opportunity to mistreat you.” This can only be spoken by someone who has never had to fear that they’ll be pulled over while driving just because of how they look, stopped and searched just because of how they’re dressed while walking through a neighborhood. If you know that privilege exists, then you can, perhaps, pause while reading a news story about someone being arrested and not automatically assume that the person deserved to be arrested. You might start realizing that there are people who ‘do the time,’ even if they haven’t ‘done the crime.’ There is value in this not only in the sense of your being a more discerning consumer of news, but even in a larger sense of perhaps supporting changes to some future legislative efforts to bring about police reforms.
I think that one of the reasons privilege is so hard to think about when you’re a beneficiary of it is that it spoils you, and no one likes to give up comfort. It’s like someone who is sound asleep in a warm bed on a cold night, and their partner steals the blanket. Without even waking up they grab the edge of the blanket and grumpily pull it back into place. Feeling the cold air outside your cocoon is uncomfortable.
Here’s a real-world example. I know mature, responsible adults; upstanding members of their communities; valued employees; parents… who did drugs in their 20s. It would strike them as completely absurd if you tried to explain to them that the world would somehow be a better place if they’d spent the last 20 years in jail for their indiscretions. It’s obvious that punishing them for something that hurt no one would not have helped the world. Their current lives clearly enrich the world, and strengthen the fabric of society. But somehow they manage to ignore the fact that our prisons are chock full of people who committed no worse crime. People who will have no chance to ever turn their lives around, because very few businesses are willing (or even able; it’s often against the law) to hire anyone with a felony conviction. These people don’t see that having an entire underclass of people who can never hope to contribute to society weakens the country. Some of these prisoners didn’t even commit the crimes they are in jail for.
You don’t even want to get me started on the subject of the way that prisons have systematically removed proven programs for educating and reforming prisoners over the last few decades, essentially ensuring the profit structure of the prison industry (all in the name of being tough on crime).
Then, just this morning, several more pieces fell into place in my mind.
I recently listened to a podcast profile of the “father of PR,” Edward Bernays. The podcasters described how Bernays helped create the consumer culture we live in today, but they also touched on his forays into politics, including his involvement in the overthrow of legitimate governments in Latin America. This clicked with a complaint that was popular a few years ago among right-wing columnists; the idea of “historical revisionists” who were re-writing the history of the US and, for that matter, all the history of western civilization. I doubt that any real historian would use the term revisionism, because the practice of history involves (or should involve) going back and checking assumptions, checking the work of other historians, making sure that we try to describe what really happened.
The columnists, of course, were upset because their cherished mental images of glorious, flawless founding fathers were being shown as the figments of imagination that they actually are. Great men and women are never flawless (which is not to say that they were not great).
Where does public relations and marketing come in? All of this hinges on the old idea that history is written by the winners. I’d take it further; I’d say that history, perhaps particularly so in the US, has been written by marketing experts, often in the guise of the writers of heroic stories and songs, but just as often by patriotic textbook authors and newspaper columnists. It’s very easy to buy their product’s authenticity when their stories are providing the warm blanket that reassures you that all is well with your world. That the USA is a glorious bastion of freedom, that your religious leaders are moral paragons, our soldiers clean and upright young patriots, and our police firm- and fair-minded defenders of justice.
This is why the argument by poor, disenfranchised white men — that since they are poor and disenfranchised that they clearly are not privileged — doesn’t hold water. Privilege doesn’t imply that you have all good things in life. It implies that you’re able to continue to believe the comforting stories that you’ve grown up with. That the police only arrest bad people (of, if they make a mistake, our justice system will correct the problem), that our military only serves to protect our shores from evil men, and our leaders have our best interests in mind. I’ll grant you that the fabric of this mythology starts looking more than a little thin when you’re poor.
Becoming aware of the layers of unreality you live behind… in other words, becoming aware of your privilege… won’t, in fact, directly change anything. You can’t stop benefiting from it. But becoming aware of it might help you see through some of the illusions and, if nothing else, help you make decisions based on something closer to reality. Who knows, perhaps you’ll even help someone struggling under an unjust system somewhere.
(First draft dashed off without edits on Dec. 20, 2015… I reserve the right to edit for content (as I learn more), clarity, grammar, wording, or anything else…)
“The history of a nation is, unfortunately, too easily written as the history of its dominant class.”
– Kwame Nkrumah
Possible essay topic I’m mulling over.
I’m not gradually moving left on the American political spectrum because I have some love for governmental intervention (rather the opposite, I suspect).
No, I’m moving left because most of the kindest people I know seem to be on that end of the spectrum.
I have, with a little luck, a few decades left alive. I’d rather spend them working toward solutions to problems than being told that I need to be afraid of other humans who are also dealing with really bad problems.
I can’t ignore the legacy of political maneuvering and disastrous political experiments of the last 100+ years, but if you can hold that legacy to one side and look at the people involved, I keep finding the bravest and kindest ones (the people I want to hang with) seem not to be on the far right.
I know this isn’t much of a basis for making decisions on, but it feels… at least honest to the person I want to be.
I’ve been seeing posts and articles claiming that “everyone is offended these days,” with the implication, at least, that everyone should just get over themselves. I agree to a point, but I also think that some of this is a passive-aggressive way of saying “stop pointing out that I’m a bigot.”
Here’s my take on the ‘plague of offense’ that we’re apparently suffering through. Subject to revision/refinement as I think this through…
I don’t expect to get through the day without being offended
(I’ll try not to whine about it beyond posting a snarky comment).
I don’t expect to get through the day without offending anyone, but I don’t go out of my way to do so. I think people who do are just showing that they’re jerks. If I cross the line from expressing an opinion to being deliberately offensive, call me out on it.
My “being offended” is different from pointing out discrimination and bullying behavior. If you think that you can silence me by telling me to quit being easily offended, you’re wrong.
There are problems that won’t go away by being ignored; if someone points out racism, sexism, or any other social issue that they think is a problem, don’t imagine you can shut them up by claiming that they just need to grow a thick skin.
(cross-posted from FB)
Many of the complaints I see from the conservative side of social media seem to boil down to “I hate that the world doesn’t look like it did when I was a kid.”
For the most part, the good old days were not so good for most people. We’ve lost good things, I won’t deny, but some things are better, and equal rights for more people are on my list of those better things. I’m not asking anyone to agree, but I’m probably not going to spend much time talking with you if you disagree.
I was reading a book on Aikido recently. The author of the book mentioned how nearly everyone he met in Aikido over the years had been a decent person. I have had an interest in Aikido for over thirty years, and finally got a chance to join a dojo last year. In my very limited experience, I think that his observation is correct. I’ve visited two dojos in addition to my home dojo, and I’ve attended two seminars where people from other dojos visited to train with us. They’ve all been incredibly helpful, friendly, gentle, and patient people.
Even more recently, I was reading an article about Esperanto, and this section caught my attention:
Invented at the end of the 19th century, in many ways it (Esperanto) presaged the early online society that the web would bring to life at the end of the 20th. It’s only ever been spoken by an assortment of fans and true believers spread across the globe, but to speak Esperanto is to become an automatic citizen in the most welcoming non-nation on Earth.
Decades before Couchsurfing became a website (or the word website existed), Esperantists had an international homestay service called Pasporta Servo, in which friendly hosts around the world listed their phone numbers and home addresses in a central directory available to traveling Esperantists. It may be a small, widely dispersed, and self-selected diaspora, but wherever you go, there are Esperantists who are excited that you exist.
It sounds hokey,* but this is the central appeal of Esperanto. It’s as if the initial Utopian vibes of the World Wide Web had never reached a wider audience. There’s no money, no power, no marketing, no prestige — Esperanto speakers speak Esperanto because they believe in it…
I mention this not because I’m interested in Esperanto, but because I was pleased to see someone praise the no money/no marketing/no power/no prestige angle instead of mocking it.
…and then there’s my local knitting guild. And my wife’s lace guild. All filled with wonderful, helpful people. I also recently attended my first Toastmasters meeting. I think by now you’ll have spotted a trend, and won’t be surprised to learn that in addition to the stated goal to “…provide a supportive and positive learning experience…” the folks at that meeting actually modeled that behavior.
All of this positivity bubbling up in my life at once got me thinking yesterday, including realizing that this might sound as if I’m turning into a Pollyanna.
I concluded a couple of things right away. One: I don’t really care if I sound like a bit of a goody-two-shoes. After all, I don’t make a very convincing sinister character. Two: I like the “me” who participates in these groups better than other versions of me that I’ve been in the past.
Then I remembered something that I’d figured out a few years ago, but forgotten (or at least, not had much reason to ponder) since then. It was a hard thing for me to admit to myself, and I’ll try to explain why…
Somewhere along the line in my childhood, I’d gotten the impression that… well… good people are good because they hew to concepts of goodness. You know… the good man has this code of ethics and never varies from it. That whole thing. The trouble was, I kept disappointing myself. I kept not being the person I wanted to be. I was selfish, self-indulgent, prone to irrational rages, full of self loathing, often giving up on goals, bailing on commitments to other people… yeah, not the person I wanted to see in the mirror.
It took me a long time to admit that I wasn’t a stand-alone paragon of virtue. In fact, if I hung out with people who also were self-indulgent, selfish, and tended to bail on commitments, my virtue would be hard to detect. I had to admit that I’m one of those horrible people who are “easily swayed.” I’d rather not be. I want to be a paragon. But the reality is, my environment matters a lot.
It turns out, when I associate with people who exhibit the kind of behavior I really admire, I’m rather more admirable myself.
I’ve decided not to worry about being a paragon. If if takes being selective about how and who I spend time with to make me a better person… and heck, if it turns out that I like those people a lot better than the average, then where’s the downside? That I don’t get to be the Mighty Individualist? Perhaps, but in addition to not playing the sinister villain, I’m also not cut out to be John Galt. Sorry, fans of the American Rugged Individualist!
So, it seems that being with supportive people leads me to be a better me. Then a natural question might be “how do I find the groups that help me?” On the surface, knitting, aikido, and public speaking don’t have much in common, but there is a thread; or even a series of threads. These things all take time to do well; constant practice is mandatory to improve. There’s not much room for people who need constant ego boosts. One of my fellow aikido students noted that people who like to be overnight successes tend to drop out of aikido training after a few days or weeks. It’s just too humbling to be constantly at the level of total beginner.
I’ve learned to be at peace with the concept of needing lots of support and I like knowing I’m supporting others in striving for goals that seem to recede in the distance. You can always work to be a better knitter, a better aikidoka, or a better speaker, but it is probably not sensible to strive to be the best at any these crafts or paths. How would you even measure such a thing?
And now it’s time to get ready to go to the dojo. Peace.
*I love that he used the word hokey here… 🙂