To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes an article by Roger Kimball which talked about Ben Franklin’s admonition about America being a Republic. But Clark quoted some of that article to talk about the closing of the American mind. This appeared in Heidelblog.
When one reads the full article that was cited, one realizes that it argues against a couple of straw men. For example, in terms of confusing equality with egalitarianism, no one is arguing for the latter. What is being argued is what was warned about by Jefferson in his inaugural address of 1801. That the rule of the majority must never be used to oppress minorities.
When talking about Black Lives Matter (BLM), no one is arguing against the concept of all lives matter. Instead what is being asserted is that Black Lives are being, and have been, made more vulnerable in a number of ways than the lives of others. So there is an urgency in saying that Black Lives Matter to a system and society that has denied that truth for 4 centuries.
And while Kimball rightly argues for the rule of law. When he quotes Martin Luther King Jr., he forgets that King cited Augustine when talking about unjust laws. Such laws, according to King, are no laws at all. He also seems to forget what King said about property rights. King said the following:
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
Note that King stated that when things like property rights are counted as being more important than people, then we will continue to have the 3 inseparable evils of racism, materialism (which he sometimes substituted economic exploitation for materialism), and militarism. Property rights are important, but we can't afford to make them more important than people.
Kimball also seems unaware of the context of the writing of The Constitution. That document was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. That document was written in response to the threat that the position of America's new elites were facing.
What has closed the American mind isn't what was stated in Kimball's article. What has closed the American mind is the group authoritarianism that has come with tribalism. And a resurgence in political and ideological tribalism started when pop conservative talk show hosts described non-conservatives in all negative terms. It started when these conservative talk show hosts got their conservative audiences, and then many other Americans followed, addicted to black-white thinking so that American conservatives looked at themselves and those in their own groups as being good and all others as having nothing worthwhile to bring to the table. In fact, non-conservatives were sometimes described as evil or enemies of America while like-minded conservatives were labeled as good patriots. That is what started the most recent closing of the American mind.
And perhaps what is most ironic here is that the person writing about the closing of the American mind has no problems with censoring comments that are contrary to his own. Certainly it is his right to censor such comments. The problem is that it is inconsistent to do that while complaining about the closing of the American mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 9 or afterwards
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from Stella Morabito’s article from The Federalist which used the brainwashing of Patricia Hearst as an example of how white women become woke. This appeared in Heidelblog.
The above is just an conservative authoritarian response to the call to change. That response presents a hostile, black-white view of what it takes and means to be woke in effort to discredit the awareness, the awareness of white privilege and systemic racism, rather than to engage its detailed claims.
The hostility is found in the selectivity of the person used in the illustration. The writer picked Patricia Hearst who was kidnapped and brainwashed. But why didn't person cited pick any of the white women who participated in the Civil Rights Movement at least one of whom was martyred? Didn't they participate in the movement because they too recognized white privilege and systemic racism? In fact, how could there have not been aware of white privilege and systemic racism during Jim Crow? .
And, after all, if one picks more than one example, then doesn't one get a fuller idea of what it takes and means to be woke? That fuller idea could point to multiple ways and reasons why people became woke back then and now and thus the process of being woke would not be portrayed as a monolith.
The above amounts to nothing more than a defensiveness toward the charges of white privilege and systemic racism which existed during and still exist now after the Jim Crow period. Of course there are some who believe that America's problems with racism ended with the Civil Rights Movement. But the data about wealth disparity between the races, racism in law enforcement, racism in the justice system, racism in hiring, and racism seen in voter suppression points to the continued existence of white supremacy and systemic racism.
But we have to understand that we can't expect more from conservative authoritarians who probably passionately embrace patriotism. However, Christians should note that if we embrace any ism too passionately, it will play havoc with our loyalty to the Gospel and our perception of reality. That is because, as Ted Koppel reminded Sean Hannity about embracing an ideology too closely, it causes us to deny the facts on the ground. And that seems to be a good description of the quote above as well as source of the quote.
One more thing should be mentioned. The reluctance of conservative, patriotic Americans to fully connect to the past shows a pronounced inconsistency. For while these Americans have no problem in feeling proud of America's past accomplishments, when faced with America's atrocities, like slavery, their response often sounds like a quote from Steve Urkel when repeatedly asked: 'Did I do that'?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 19
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how James 2 addresses racism. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
What is said about how James 2 addresses racism is good. But now we should apply that to nationalism because, as Bobby Seale once said on a talk show on which John Lennon also appeared, nationalism is like racism in that both rely on the belief on the superiority of one's own group. And we could add that superiority is the basis for entitlement for both isms.
We show the preference that stems from nationalism when we respond with silence to those foreign policies practiced by our nation that practice injustice against the peoples of other nations. We show favoritism when we don't hold our nation accountable to the same standards that our nation holds others accountable to. And there are other examples.
According to what James says about favoritism, should we care about the injustices suffered by Americans more than we care about the injustices suffered by others because of our nation's foreign policies?
No comments:
Post a Comment