Despite my lack of certitude on most topics, I am certain that I have power over my own actions. And so do you.
As is always the case, I may be wrong here. I openly confess that I'm largely relying on my own experiences and the ethos of the author, whose extensive education and history of protest are, I believe, both relevant and suitable in this circumstance.
Beginning before acknowledging my own short-comings feels inappropriate, especially given the level of certitude bombarding most of my Facebook and Instagram feed. Moreover, I feel the need to also acknowledge that I, as I will discuss further below, am aligned with the same cause as the majority of you who also seek justice and change.
In letter XIV of the book mentioned in the opening paragraph, Hitchens explores some of the propensities (or proclivities) driving the moral and intellectual outlying figures of the past. The inner-paradox common to them, argues Hitchens, lies in the fact that, although they are largely individualistic in their nature, they "are actuated by concern for others, and for causes and movements larger than themselves."
Noble though this may seem, he goes on, "the point to keep in mind is that when it came to it, these heroes had no stronger moral compass than their Dark Age predecessors and were forced to rely as much on their own consciences, if not indeed more, as on any historical materialist canon." This is all to say that humans have the capacity both to create suffering and ameliorate it.
So many wish to ameliorate the suffering; so many don't quite know how. Because I currently find myself mostly among the latter, I focus on what I believe I can control, that being primarily my actions. And so I write.
Many revolutions have challenged the contemporary prevailing conditions, but that does not mean every incident is the same. Nor does it mean that the predominant voices should not be examined. It is to these points that Hitchens advises:
Being part of the consensus is not inherently bad. Understanding the consensus can be helpful. The best news in the current circumstance is that the consensus appears to be almost completely one-sided, at least in the specific case of George Floyd. Few cases, if any, don't acknowledge that an egregious incident took place and that those responsible should be held accountable. Most of the division seems to stem from disagreements about the underlying issues of the case and how to appropriately respond to it.
Part of what currently perturbs me is how many people seem to be speaking so confidently about what white people need to do and what black people are feeling and, while some of what is being said is valid, I would urge you all to consider another point Hitchens makes in his letter: "Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term 'we' or 'us' without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that 'we' are all agreed on 'our' interests and identity... Always ask who this 'we' is; as often as not it's an attempt to smuggle tribalism through the customs."
I feel as though so many have conscripted me into intentions, motivations, ideas, and prejudices when I have not granted permission. White people need to x... White people should stop y... Apart from the fact that I don't identify as white, I object to these statements because they attempt to tell me what I believe, how I should act, and what I need to do based on those two points. I often tell my students not to assume that they know what your reader believes or thinks. My hope is that you will do the same. Further, I would hope we would all be so kind as to act is if we live in a society wherein people are "not judged by the content of their skin, but by the content of their character" (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.).
A friend of mine wrote earlier today about how annoying it is to have to find, in a moment such as this one, quotes from Dr. King because he is, according to this friend, "the only 'acceptable' black voice they'll acknowledge." I can see how there is probably some truth to this statement—many caveats aside—as it relates to this particular moment. Why might this be? I wondered. Recency is probably a large factor, but I think that it might also be in large part because Dr. King got so much right.
I can't claim to be a scholar of King and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, but at the very least I know that he stood for love, equality, and nonviolence. Most have no problem jumping on board with those first two, but what most concerns me most at this time is that so many are forgetting why that last ideal is so very important.
The mob fails to see people and instances as valid in and of themselves. Instead, it seeks to ignore specificity in favor of some larger, vague, often-caricaturized narrative that subjects itself to an underlying ideology. To this point, specific people, many of whom are innocent, are being injured in these riots. Specific business, many of which are owned by black entrepreneurs, are being destroyed. A common sentiment I keep hearing is essentially that you have to crack a few egg to make an omelette. More specifically, the sentiment I hear is that violence is okay if people are so upset.
Words matter because they keep us from violence. When we fail in the ability to appropriately communicate with one another, we resort to our baser selves, which is to say that we resort to physical violence.
Part of the reason I became an English teacher is because in high school and early college I had so many feelings that I couldn't adequately articulate. The older I get, and the more I learn, the more I believe people would be much better off if they attempted to toward that same end.
To write is to think. We need a lot of thinking now and much less violence. I would hope that you are asking questions and that, more importantly, you are seeking those answers.
When you are upset, seek to find the source and address it.
For the case in question, it does appear that the situation is currently, as of this moment, being handled as it should. I don't know the ultimate outcome, but it looks as though the offending officer and the others involved will face drastic consequences for their actions. This is a good thing! This means the system is functioning as it should. At the very least, the fact that so many people are outraged is a sign that we are on the right path.
Praise the good when you see it! Further, have gratitude when considering your privilege over the masses that came before you who didn't have the same advantages. If the ultimate outcome does not transpire as you believe it should, or the broken system does not change as you believe is must, this cause may be a calling for you.
Most of us have our "things", our issues to which we hold dear. We aspire to make a positive impact on the world. (I hope you'll forgive my conscripting you into the faction that would wish to ultimately effect positive change for humanity.)
If the problem is indeed systemic, it strikes me that the system would benefit from better-functioning cogs. Whether it is by changing a law that doesn't serve the correct purpose or by becoming a police officer so there is one less whose intentions and actions are less than exemplary, that opportunity is yours.
You have power over your actions. Please choose to wield that power with love, equality, and nonviolence. Invoking Dr. King one more time, I leave you with this:
Beginning before acknowledging my own short-comings feels inappropriate, especially given the level of certitude bombarding most of my Facebook and Instagram feed. Moreover, I feel the need to also acknowledge that I, as I will discuss further below, am aligned with the same cause as the majority of you who also seek justice and change.
In letter XIV of the book mentioned in the opening paragraph, Hitchens explores some of the propensities (or proclivities) driving the moral and intellectual outlying figures of the past. The inner-paradox common to them, argues Hitchens, lies in the fact that, although they are largely individualistic in their nature, they "are actuated by concern for others, and for causes and movements larger than themselves."
Noble though this may seem, he goes on, "the point to keep in mind is that when it came to it, these heroes had no stronger moral compass than their Dark Age predecessors and were forced to rely as much on their own consciences, if not indeed more, as on any historical materialist canon." This is all to say that humans have the capacity both to create suffering and ameliorate it.
So many wish to ameliorate the suffering; so many don't quite know how. Because I currently find myself mostly among the latter, I focus on what I believe I can control, that being primarily my actions. And so I write.
Many revolutions have challenged the contemporary prevailing conditions, but that does not mean every incident is the same. Nor does it mean that the predominant voices should not be examined. It is to these points that Hitchens advises:
"Don't allow your thinking to be done for you by any part of faction, however high-minded. Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about 'we,' or speaks in the name of 'us.' Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creep into into your own style. The search for security and majority is not always the same as solidarity; it can be another name for consensus and tyranny and tribalism.""Consensus" and "tribalism" strike me as particularly important here because of the staggering divisiveness of the current US climate. To the first, I will say that being in line with the majority does not necessitate being correct. To the second, I can only say that my zealous allegiance is exclusively dedicated to the tribe of humanity. (I'd like to add that this same book has more to add about this specific point, but I'll leave the topic as it stands for now.)
Being part of the consensus is not inherently bad. Understanding the consensus can be helpful. The best news in the current circumstance is that the consensus appears to be almost completely one-sided, at least in the specific case of George Floyd. Few cases, if any, don't acknowledge that an egregious incident took place and that those responsible should be held accountable. Most of the division seems to stem from disagreements about the underlying issues of the case and how to appropriately respond to it.
Part of what currently perturbs me is how many people seem to be speaking so confidently about what white people need to do and what black people are feeling and, while some of what is being said is valid, I would urge you all to consider another point Hitchens makes in his letter: "Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term 'we' or 'us' without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that 'we' are all agreed on 'our' interests and identity... Always ask who this 'we' is; as often as not it's an attempt to smuggle tribalism through the customs."
I feel as though so many have conscripted me into intentions, motivations, ideas, and prejudices when I have not granted permission. White people need to x... White people should stop y... Apart from the fact that I don't identify as white, I object to these statements because they attempt to tell me what I believe, how I should act, and what I need to do based on those two points. I often tell my students not to assume that they know what your reader believes or thinks. My hope is that you will do the same. Further, I would hope we would all be so kind as to act is if we live in a society wherein people are "not judged by the content of their skin, but by the content of their character" (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.).
A friend of mine wrote earlier today about how annoying it is to have to find, in a moment such as this one, quotes from Dr. King because he is, according to this friend, "the only 'acceptable' black voice they'll acknowledge." I can see how there is probably some truth to this statement—many caveats aside—as it relates to this particular moment. Why might this be? I wondered. Recency is probably a large factor, but I think that it might also be in large part because Dr. King got so much right.
I can't claim to be a scholar of King and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, but at the very least I know that he stood for love, equality, and nonviolence. Most have no problem jumping on board with those first two, but what most concerns me most at this time is that so many are forgetting why that last ideal is so very important.
The mob fails to see people and instances as valid in and of themselves. Instead, it seeks to ignore specificity in favor of some larger, vague, often-caricaturized narrative that subjects itself to an underlying ideology. To this point, specific people, many of whom are innocent, are being injured in these riots. Specific business, many of which are owned by black entrepreneurs, are being destroyed. A common sentiment I keep hearing is essentially that you have to crack a few egg to make an omelette. More specifically, the sentiment I hear is that violence is okay if people are so upset.
Words matter because they keep us from violence. When we fail in the ability to appropriately communicate with one another, we resort to our baser selves, which is to say that we resort to physical violence.
Part of the reason I became an English teacher is because in high school and early college I had so many feelings that I couldn't adequately articulate. The older I get, and the more I learn, the more I believe people would be much better off if they attempted to toward that same end.
To write is to think. We need a lot of thinking now and much less violence. I would hope that you are asking questions and that, more importantly, you are seeking those answers.
When you are upset, seek to find the source and address it.
For the case in question, it does appear that the situation is currently, as of this moment, being handled as it should. I don't know the ultimate outcome, but it looks as though the offending officer and the others involved will face drastic consequences for their actions. This is a good thing! This means the system is functioning as it should. At the very least, the fact that so many people are outraged is a sign that we are on the right path.
Praise the good when you see it! Further, have gratitude when considering your privilege over the masses that came before you who didn't have the same advantages. If the ultimate outcome does not transpire as you believe it should, or the broken system does not change as you believe is must, this cause may be a calling for you.
Most of us have our "things", our issues to which we hold dear. We aspire to make a positive impact on the world. (I hope you'll forgive my conscripting you into the faction that would wish to ultimately effect positive change for humanity.)
If the problem is indeed systemic, it strikes me that the system would benefit from better-functioning cogs. Whether it is by changing a law that doesn't serve the correct purpose or by becoming a police officer so there is one less whose intentions and actions are less than exemplary, that opportunity is yours.
You have power over your actions. Please choose to wield that power with love, equality, and nonviolence. Invoking Dr. King one more time, I leave you with this:
"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says 'Love your enemies,' he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition."May you be filled with more light and love.
No comments:
Post a Comment