June 12, 2009
Getting Angry at the Wrong People
This foolish person who attacked the Holocaust Museum is an idiot. We all can be idiots from time to time. Heck I do my share of idiocy from time to time. But a real idiot digs a hole, constructs a box, climbs in it, and then starts poking with his shovels at the side of the hole. I don't feel sorry for him. He hardened his heart and made himself a tool of forces of hate and greed, a long time ago. I do feel sympathy for those he killed, and for those he terrorized.
Racism is garbage. Tribalism is "divide and rule." Classes exist largely because they are convenient to the wealthy and powerful. Overthrow the rich and powerful without changing attitudes and laws just makes it easy for new wealthy and powerful people to emerge and dispossess and take the place of their predecessors. War is the work of people trying to get wealth and power. War is politics by violence. It is also lose lose. It literally burns the pie and singes it so that nobody eats well except for the few profiteers who profit from it.
This jerk who attacked the Holocaust Museum was waging war because his own heart was at war. All around him things changed and he couldn't adapt. Fighting for this fake group? His concept that "white folks" have to defend themselves against "black folks?" Since when have "white folks" done much for other white folks, much less deserved to set themselves up as superior to anybody else? Individuals are good or bad. Groups can act benevolently or vilely. This is a universal fact. Nevermind that the only color that matters in our modern world is green or gold.
This guy was in his 80's and had nothing. He fought in World War II and was destitute. And he was angry at blacks and Jews? Sorry, but it's been (us) mostly white WASPY (I'm part WASP -- I have relatives who are Millenialists and can't understand the things I've done) folks, maybe friends of his, the people he wanted to protect, who have been blocking real reforms while recarving up our pie so that all we have left is the crust. They weren't doing anything to help him -- and so who was he angry at? Folks he barely knew? Why? Displaced anger. It's easy to get angry at people who seem alien.
If he was fighting (figuratively) for health care, for better benefits for veterans, for a better world, maybe his anger might have been transformed into something useful. Anger can be a good thing. It's just important to be angry about the right things so one can transform the energy of anger into something more useful. Anger is blinding, it makes us stupid. Anger combined with enlightenment, or with the higher emotions, can pervert them -- or it can be transformed into a motivation to seek justice. It can be transformed into love.
But what is justice? Is it finishing the work started by the Nazis, while denying that the Nazis did anything? Is it really the fault of Jews that our economic system is such a mess? No. We done this to ourselves. This guy probably hated Roosevelt. All these comfortable "Chamber of Commerce Types" have been busy claiming they could run the government, should be the Government, and should be left alone to do whatever they want. The result was what? Free Enterprise raising the admin costs of health care and funnelling money into a few corrupt pockets. Free Enterprise borrowing money to dump our manufacturing overseas and deciding that they could live on the interests from leveraged income. Admittedly many Jews have taken advantage of the system, but the numbers are much exaggerated, and they aren't the ones perverting it. They have plenty of help. Most Jews are like me, barely getting by. It's not our fault.
And nobody has any cause to get on a high horse. Jeremiah Wright sounds like this guy when he expresses his anger at Obama not calling him. We've moved into a world where class, cast, race and money interweave in complex ways. Getting angry at groups is stupid.
No, Anger has to be transformed into love. Why do away with bankers when they help so many people? We need to transform banking into something that really helps people, not do away with bankers. The problem isn't banks, it is the banking system. It is the greed of the bankers, but that isn't going to be done away with except through changed policies and individually and generally applied law changes.
No, we all need "truth and reconciliation," all around. Folks need to see that play that jerk interrupted. We need a society that takes care of its poor and doesn't dispossess anybody. We need to stop unreasoning hatred, and direct our oppobrium to its practitioners.
Posted by cholte at June 12, 2009 07:01 PM
I wonder how much of the problems in the world are caused by people who think they are white or black or jew or arab etc. instead of seeing that we are all human beings. That is the truth that can set us free from this type of nonsense.
I don't think there is anything wrong with constructing an identity around being a Jew or an Arab. The issue is that all these identities are constructions. An identity can be a sacred place (a Cathedral) or a prison.
The issue isn't whether we are human beings. That is a term that describes a fact. It is how we treat each other and the constructs that we use to justify that nasty behavior.
As soon as you see different groups of people as being something other than yourself. There is a problem with constructing yourself as a jew or an arab as made manifest in history as we have seen.
One could say it is all fine as long as we can all get along, but somehow I think these false designations contribute a great deal to that not being the case.
One cannot but see other people as other than oneself. Failure to see this is as destructive as making the definitions extreme. Without the ability to create boundaries, to differentiate this from that, that from that other, there is no ability to navigate the real world. Metaphysically we are all interdependent and interconnected, but we aren't all the same. Instead there is a panoply of variations, repetitions, patterns that seem to repeat, but always differently.
Finally there are many problems with constructing oneself as anything other than from the materials available. The Nazis could try to hearken back to Atilla the Hun, or the Vikings, but it was an insane thing to do. At a party it might be harmless as long as the axe is made of foam rubber and everybody knows it is play. The Germans are much better off following Goethe, Mozart, and modern writers than getting mesmorized by Wagner and his fantasies. Germans were paragons of culture and civilization, but the forces of reaction destroyed all of that for a generation.
The issue isn't making designations, it is making false distinctions. For example it doesn't hurt to know that Avaerroes and Maimonides had more in common than being Physicians, Philosophers, and having influenced modern European Philosophy and thought. It helps to know that Avaerroes, despite being an upstanding and outstanding philosopher and physician was persecuted for his writings. He died in exile.
It helps to know that Maimonides was so persecuted in his youth that for a time he was a Moslem Crypto Jew and forced to attend the Mosque. Later in life he was able to reconstruct the oral teachings, write some wonderful philosophy, and become a standard for the survival -- and redefinition -- of Judaism. He was able to do this because of religions toleration in Egypt -- while Avaerros only had the last word on this death when a donkey carried his books and his remains back to his home. Maimonides was able to make a home in exile. Avaeros to return home.
All cultures wax and wane. I used to think that the waning was driven by the forces of ignorance and intolerance, but now I see that the waning is usually driven by the forces of authority, reaction, and fear; which stoke ignorance and intollerance, often by burning truth, truth-tellers, and their teachings. Avaerroes was persecuted by fundamentalist Moslems.
These forces of reaction are driven by fear and established comfort. The comfortable fear change, and react to criticism with violence, suppression and censorship.
This in turn often stokes reaction in people who might otherwise have followed a peaceful course to change. Revolution and change which occurs fast and radically only amplifies the forces of reaction. Therefore seeking to stop Arabs from being Arabs, Jews from being Jews, or the various other peoples of the world from being who they are, only amplifies the forces of fascism -- which is the force of authoritarianism and hierarchy (the fascii), corporate-elite power, and oppression; which in turn drive ignorance and intollerance.
Maimonides was able to accommodate Islam. He spoke to Moslems as much as to other Jews. Thanks to people like him Jews were able to make a home in the Moslem world in a way that they never could in the European world, despite facing the same kind of oppression, codified in the Dhimmi rules rather than the "Christ Killer" charges.
Until well into the 19th century European Culture was in no way superior to other Eurasian cultures. The French did honor killings (only of the suitors more than the wives).
Women were oppressed in all the Christian Countries far worse than in Moslem countries. The shawl was a religious requirement in Europe. In Moslem countries the shawl requirement was never codified in the Koran. It is simply an expression of a requirement for a certain modesty on the part of women. A woman led a rebellion against the first of the Calliphs, and because that rebellion failed, early Moslems began repressing them using arab (pre-Moslem/Christian) traditions. There is nothing in Islam that supports genetal mutilation of women for example.
The fight against the forces of religious intollerance has been a difficult one, and what has hampered that has been the force of fear, misunderstanding and reaction. Driving that is that the religions and their doctrines get turned into dogmas by people with political-religious ambition and authority.
It is also plastic. The doctrines themselves all have wiggle room for interpretation and change.
Chris
I'm of course not saying that everyone is the same being, although ontologically that is what I believe. I'm only saying that seeing others as belonging to a different group than you, being other than what you are are is a problem. If someone is black and I'm white then their problem is not my problem, or a human problem, but a black problem and it doesn't concern me because I'm not black. That's one way of looking at it. But if I see all people as being the same then it is a human problem and it is also my problem.
All racism and national identies serve no purpose other than to define and in group and and out group so we can abuse each other and kill each other, regardless of whatever heart warming feelings these identiies may engender in the people who believe in them. Nations and races vie for supremacy exhibiting their stupidity.
I don't see it that way.
Example "If someone is black and I'm white then their problem is not my problem, or a human problem, but a black problem and it doesn't concern me because I'm not black."
This may or may not be true case by case specifically. But generally this is a problem for everybody. Specifically blacks get discriminated by whites, but that is a reflection of a general reality that people discriminate against people different from themselves by prejudice and in most societies "black" has been used as the discriminator. In some countries it is used differently from others. So while this may be a problem for black people it also can be a problem for white folks in places where prejudiced people who happen to be black live. One doesn't do away with prejudice by pretending it doesn't exist.
"But if I see all people as being the same then it is a human problem and it is also my problem." And of course the issue is that all people aren't the same, so pretending that they are the same can cause prejudicial behavior. Each person is different, case by case. But more importantly each person comes from an environment with different norms, different customs, and so even groups behave slightly different from one another on aggregate -- even though on the whole they are all reflecting the same general realities, and each person is individual.
Racism, national identity, reflect family and place. Racism exists because people turn their family relationships into policies and behavioral constructs. Family and place are facts of life. They aren't going to disappear if people merely pretend they don't exist anymore. A system, to be fair, must consciously weigh the merits of family membership and seek ways to extend those merits so people see their overall relationship as a human family and a Earth-placehood. But there is nothing wrong with taking pride in the "home team" and rooting for one's own place. We have to think globally but act locally.
There's nothing wrong with rooting for the home team when you are playing a game for fun.
When you're playing with people's lives and livlihood though I would asy know.
And I think being prejudiced in favor of members of your own family is also wrong unless you are talking about a game for sport.
Giving preference to your family in hiring is nepotism and I think most people view it as wrong. (unless they are doing it ;) )
It's great that love and affection exist between people in their lives.
But it's the lack of respect for people that you see as somehow other that leads to attrocities.
I meant "say no" where I wrote "asy know"
sorry!
"There's nothing wrong with rooting for the home team when you are playing a game for fun."
In the long run most of what we are doing are various kinds of games. In the short run those games are often win/lose. In our present day reality when our neighbor starves we starve. Rooting for the home team doesn't preclude rooting for the happiness of everyone.
"When you're playing with people's lives and livlihood though I would say no."
The goal should be to build win/win games rather than play win/lose games. However, if I play "selfless person" in a world where nobody else is behaving charitably or selflessly, all that happens is that the other people take advantage. We've been doing this for years in commerce. We've been playing the "reverse mercantilist game" that destroyed China and India in the early modern period. Principles are important, but the principle of equality is important too.
"And I think being prejudiced in favor of members of your own family is also wrong unless you are talking about a game for sport."
Confucianism posits three debts of gratitude. One is to our families (parents). I think it is perfectly ethical to favor ones family and friends, and to take care of them.
"Giving preference to your family in hiring is nepotism and I think most people view it as wrong. (unless they are doing it ;) )"
Nepotism is wrong when the company is funded with Other People's money and technically belongs to other investors and stockholders. But family transmissions were a way of life prior to the rise of coupon clipping and massive corporatism. Parents inspire their kids to become Doctors. Lawyers often train their children. No, nepotism is bad because it is done with other people's property, not because helping ones family is bad.
"It's great that love and affection exist between people in their lives."
True.
"But it's the lack of respect for people that you see as somehow other that leads to attrocities."
True, but not related to the previous conversation. On the contrary, love is an expanding circle.
Well, I see that being part of a group is not just a matter good relations within that group, but a reason to discriminate against people perceived as outside that group.
The further out you go from your group the less outrage at acting immorally.
Amp it up a little and you can torture or commit genocide. Nobody said it was wrong to kill the native americans, after all they had no soul.
Just one more thing. The part about family sounds good and rasonable but at the same time I think that's what turns into monarchies and caste systems.
"Well, I see that being part of a group is not just a matter good relations within that group, but a reason to discriminate against people perceived as outside that group."
On the whole you are mostly right. However, the nature of people is to band together for correction. That is an attribute of human existence, whose construction is dependently originated. It can't be avoided. It is also a feature, neither in itself good nor bad.
People develop bad intentions and use groups to discriminate. People also battle those intentions, actions and results by forming groups to resist those other groups. Groups can be formed to do good things, or to do bad things, depending on the intentionality and resulting words, deeds and results of their members. It can't be avoided without severe dilatory unintended consequences. It is a necessary reality for sentient humans. Change it and we probably will simply die.
"The further out you go from your group the less outrage at acting immorally."
True. The Japanese did a study of their people who lived in villages. There was a "village people" mentality. Nobody could understand how the Japanese (or Germans), two of the most civilized people on earth, could act as such brutes when they went to war. Well the answer was a "village people" mentality. Folks morals are determined by the moraes of their perceived associates.
So Villagers, tribal members, family members, groups with strong internal bonding tend to see outsiders as fair game, when internally they have strong moral codes.
Ikeda used to talk about this. Which points out the ridiculousness of arguing against an abstraction, since he would talk about this and then launch diatribes against the Priests.
"Amp it up a little and you can torture or commit genocide. Nobody said it was wrong to kill the native americans, after all they had no soul."
Obviously, concepts kill, since it was the demonization, degradation, and dehumanization of non Europeans first (then of non-Anglo-saxon-German Europeans), that enabled such vicious behavior. It also was "fear of the other."
But this is a plastic thing. Groups also promote sound ideas. Executing those ideas is where those ideas are tested. Communism sounded like a good thing -- and at the village level it might be. But in reality property, rights, and freedom are like yin and yang; they interpolate. Power and property are related also; wealth expresses power. Redistributing power just moved power from old elites to new ones.
And this fool in the main post, blamed the wrong people for what was going on in his own life -- in the process ruining and poisoning himself.