...And you'll find as much of the smae stupidity as you find on the Right.
(Of course, to be fair, on the Right you don't have to go nearly as far!)
Let me back up a bit...
I don't care for labels. I'm not a "Republican," but that doesn't make me a "Democrat." Thanks to all of the political and mental baggage that comes with the label, I haven't called myself "Conservative" in about 20 years or so. Does that make me "Liberal?" Meh, I suppose. That's fine, if that's how those numb-skulls want to characterize me, I'm OK with that. I can't stop them, and I hardly see it as an insulting epithet anyway. But I just don't embrace labels. (Which alone, in their eyes, MAKES me a Liberal!) But I don't really care if my position on something is Liberal or Conservative. That it happens to be liberal 90-some percent of the time is entirely a function of modern Liberals largely choosing the path of reason, rather that me choosing the path of modern Liberalism. I like "Progressive" better anyway, since it conjures imagery more about forwards versus backwards than Right versus Left, but again: I really don't care if I earn that label or not. I only endeavour to form opinions that I believe are principled and defensible and that will lead to positions that make the world a better place. If, years from, now it's happens to be so-called "Conservatives" who do that? Fine. Then I'll be "Conservative" again.
I guess my point is that I just hate DOGMA (the philosophical concept not the Kevin Smith movie!) and DOGMATIC thinking. And really that precludes me from being Conservative these days, because ever since they decided to basically abandon Social Libertarianism and embrace Christian Funny-Mentalism, dogmatic thinking has become a basic requirement to being Conservative. And while [whatever you call the alternative: Liberalism, Progressivism, etc...] simply does not embrace dogma the same way - Liberalism is all about CHANGE, after all - the fact is that if you go far enough off the deep-end (and we do have one) you'll find that there IS in fact dogma, or at least dogmatic thinking in "our camp" as well.
The first time I encountered this was in seeing the hard-core Feminist reaction to basic rape-prevention advice, characterizing any and all discussions of that nature as "blaming the victim." And DON'T GET ME WRONG: There is NEVER any justification for rape, and I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE we have a societal commitment to stopping all forms of Rape, Violence against Women, Sexual Harassment, and any other form of mysoginy and gender discrimination. Hey: I manage to get through every single one of my days, working with women, without triggering a lawsuit; so I have very little sympathy for those man who can't seem to accomplish this. (And I've worked with some of them as well. Dumbasses, every one.) I despise the Barbie doll on many levels, and truly believe that the sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears. So I've got plenty of feminist cred. Yet, when it's pointed out that maybe after her fourth abusive relationship, a girl might want to take batter care in selecting her life-partner? (Or address whatever personal issues she's got that keeps her fgoing down the same path over and over?) I get attacked for "blaming the victim." Hey: Society can do anything and everything you want them to, and yet in the end you can still only control your own actions.
When idealism blinds you to pragmatism?
That's dogmatic thinking.
The other day on MMFA, I was in an argument with a LIBERAL who wanted to defund NPR, because their bias was even more insidious than Fox's, since they put on juts a good enough of show that people believe them to be objective. OMFG, where to even begin? NPR is worse for society than Fox? *shakes head* Is NPR perfect? No. They absolutely are not perfect. They have biases and agendas and rely on political favor from congress as well as corporate donors for their financial survival. So yes, they have committed every error from false equivalency and balance to broadcasting outright RW misinformation. The thing is? That is largely the EXCEPTION at NPR, where it is the RULE at Fox. If you seriously conclude that NPR is WORSE than Fox? Well... You're either off the deep end of Conservatism, or off the deep end of Liberalism, as was the case here. (Though, for the record, I do agree with them that there was simply no reason for NPR to act as they did in this case. However, much like with MSNBC's treatment of Olbermann in 2008, I will take a media station that at least HAS a standard of ethics over one that flaunts their lack of one ANY DAY.)
So... what's this all about. Well... I'm talking to my Dad earlier today (staunch Conservative / Republican) and he asked me if I'd heard about this idiot superintendent in Massachusetts who wants to ban Halloween, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. Now, I had, on MMFA. But in a stunning (LOL) show of liberal bias, they point out of she may have had plenty of Conservative allies (Christian Whack-Jobs, Pat Robertson, etc...), had she just stuck to Halloween. But they kind of left out the rest of it. But that's fine, I've got the whole story now. And you know what?
She's a fucking idiot.
Now DON'T GET ME WRONG: My objection to this particular breed of LW insanity has nothing to do with the "PC Police" complaints coming from the Right. Unlike the modern breed of jingoistic, Right Wing, "American Execptionalists" I have no problem discussing the genocide of the Native Americans (and it WAS a genocide) nor of the Europeans bringing diseases, nor of them stealing their land, nor of having a frank discussion about those very "exceptional" origins of America from all angles. And it is precisely because I believe those discussion to be of such importance that I make my judgement of her.
What better time to have a complete discussion, and endeavour to give children a FULL and COMPLETE understanding of our history than in the context of these Holidays?! And seriously... It's not like Thanksgiving is all about celebrating the Pilgrims (eventual) victory (massacre, genocide) of the Indians, and neither is it really about trying to GLOSS OVER IT either. Not anymore, anyway. For as long as I can remember, it's been little more than a Hallmark Holiday and an excuse to drink and est yourself into a carb-coma. Maybe, maybe we'd take a few minutes to "give thanks" for the "things were thankful for." (Hardly an offensive practice.) But really? It's about Turkey and Potatoes and Stuffing and Gravy and possibly some form of Alcohol. So if this person wants to raise awareness about what REALLY happened to the Native Americans, maybe a more productive way would be to fill the void of meaning that this holiday has now, let the kids have their celebration, and USE THE OPPORTUNITY to EDUCATE them a little! (They still do that in schools, right?)
She'd reach a lot more people that way, raise awareness about the American Genocide that much higher, and piss off... basically no one! (I'm not even sure that ACTUAL Native Americans would give a crap about this, one way or the other!) And so thinking that we should BAN Thanksgiving and Columbus Day (not to mention Halloween?) is just stupid. And, if it's coming from a Liberal motivation, only the result of what happens when LIBERALS start engaging in DOGMATIC THINKING of their own.
Nothing will accomplish more in getting modern Americans to FORGET about the fate that befell the Native Americans than BANNING Thanksgiving Celebrations. On their best day FOX NEWS could only dream of accomplishing so much harm.
I've often said, Eddie, that ideologies consist of calcified ideas. This first occurred to me in my twenties, when a Wisconsin campus radical and friend of my wife sat in our kitchen talking about people who's "ideology is together," or not. Even though I agreed with him on much (not to include shrugging off the death of a student research assistant killed by an anti-war bomb), I found him insufferable (and the kind of person who makes anti-intellectualism understandable.)
ReplyDeleteThe woman is an idiot. Take away Thanksgiving and you take away my first time on stage; playing Massasoit of the Wampanoag in third grade, my acting debut, LOL. Seriously, it is a bridge too far. When my now 21-year-old was in a Montessori pre-school in NYC, they had a sleep-over at school, with a gathering of the families at the beginning to prevent, or deal with, separation anxieties. His 18 year-old brother and I sang this ancient lullaby to the kids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToWrxfqrG38
The song starts at the 4 minute mark, and goes for a little over two. (These lads taught me the song, BTW, and listening to them sing it brought me to tears. I wouldn't have missed a minute (well, maybe one or two) of my 68 years, but the loss of some who are gone is a knife in the heart.)
Anyway, back to my point: this took place around Thanksgiving time, which they were erasing for PC reasons, and the administration was upset with me for the second stanza of the song. Can't wait to hear what you have to say about that.
One more thing. As I have been told by Chocktaw, Cherokee, Pima and Brule friends, as as Bronwyn (who grew up on a reservation) posted recently on MMFA, they call themselves "Indians." "Native Americans" is, in addition of being linguistically and logically suspect (if you're born here, you're a native; that's what the word means, from the Latin for "birth"), offensive to the people it's supposed to respect. It looks patronizing.
I can't believe I wrote "who's", and even missed it when I edited. WHOSE!
ReplyDeleteWell, first off - thanks for the song(s)! I'm not exactly sure what I was supposed to react to in the second stanza (of the first song, or the second?) but there's little the Clancy's HAVE done that ISN'T profoundly moving in any case.
ReplyDeleteSecond off... Indians, huh? Well, what do you know? PC euphamisms have led me astray. LOL. Makes sense, although "Indians" is a somewhat misleading term as well, seeign as it originates from Columbus' unwillingess to get out and ask for directions. (Typical male.) And what's more, having Indian-American friends (Ravi, Murali and Ram) can make even 'American-Indian' confusing - dots or feathers, right? Personally I'd usually prefer to refer to specific tribes and nations, just as few people whould ever refer to a White Person as a "European-American," but in this case the point applied soemwhat universally, so... Indians it is, then I guess. (Though it seems there may be just as many who don't like that either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy#.22Indian.22_and_.22American_Indian.22
(And shame on me for assuming MMFA poster Bronwyn was of some manner of Irish or Welsh ancestry! LOL)
Actually, she is. She's descended from the James (as in Jesse and Frank) family, and also from two Montana tribes.
ReplyDeleteIt was the second stanza of the second song, "October Winds." That's a song said to have been written for baby Eoghan Roe (Red Owen) O'Neill, who grew up to kick English ass in the 16th Century. I've sung it to all mine, and my granddaughter (harmonizing with her father which I don't think about till later, and then the eyes get kind of moist). I found it amusing and outrageous that the Montessori admin would, in the interests of "inclusion," exclude so much. It's a gorgeous song, and the line she objected to was, "...dread spirits of the black water, Clann Eoghan's wild banshee; and Holy Mary, pitying us..." Personally, I think the melding of the pagan and Christian is kind of cool, and it's anything but "white triumphalist."
You're right. There are, no doubt, many who would rather be called Native Americans. I just haven't met any. And I'm reminded that the Sioux who fought the FBI on the Rosebud Reservation 30 some years ago called themselves AIM: American Indian Movement.