What I really, really hate to do is disagree with kavips.
kavips is one of the consistently most thoughtful bloggers in Delaware, and the fact that s/he is certainly far from my own political perspective on many issues (although very close on others) does not prevent me from paying close attention when s/he speaks.
But I have thought for some time that kavips is not speaking clearly or consistently with regard to this presidential election cycle.
Currently s/he has up a post on the Different Shades of Brown in America, which starts off at an elementary school concert and ends in a consideration of why we have to elect Barack Obama to provide us the jump into the social changes we need in this country.
It is genuinely written, I think, to be inspiring, and that's the way that such different individuals as Liz, Nancy Willing, and David Anderson took it.
But to me there were just too many jarring, stream-of-consciousness inaccurate generalizations that kept breaking the mood--sort of like when the special effects fail in an action movie, and you lose that necessary suspension of disbelief.
Here are a couple of problematic passages for me:
I am genuinely unsure about precisely what the first sentence actually means. I find the characterization of Russia and China as "threats" to be troubling, and as "technological equals" to be inaccurate.
Then there's this:
"How can an attacking nation convince its citizenry that we are evil when each individual soldiers relatives back home are telling him otherwise?" China and Russia, I might point out, are authoritarian nations who don't really depend on the opinion from below in deciding on foreign or military policy. Nor, in a nuclear, precise-guided-munitions age do other countries actually have to convince more than a few button-pushing technicians to launch an attack.
I might also point out that having a 10% Muslim/Arab population is not working out so well for France.
Multiculturalism is an American fetish, not a worldwide value. About fifteen years ago, there was to be a major historical/cultural exchange program between Japan and the US, with each country providing a gigantic, Disney-like traveling exhibit for a two-year tour in the other's country. The project broke off, however, when the Japanese sponsors learned that the US exhibit would emphasize how cultural diversity is our strength. To many Japanese, what American calls multiculturalism is more accurately considered mongrelization. Check Japanese public school history books in vain for any positive references to the Ainu or Koreans.
I also found myself pulling back at this reference:
"Why do we automatically call that child black? Why is he not white?" Because in the peculiar social-cultural tradition formed by the confluence of European (primarily English), Native American, and African cultures colliding in North America, a particular version of pseudo-genetic racial thought emerged around the late seventeenth century that (unfortunately) became the basis of our own special American brand of racism. We've been trying with mixed success to get beyond that paradigm for decades.
But let's not forget that other cultures have equally twisted if totally different paradigms of racism. Consider the Spanish version of race, which could have two sons of the same "white" parents end up in different racial categories (Peninsulares or Criollos), and which had literally dozens if not hundreds of different legal categories depending on the racial category of your great grandparents. All of which, with suitable bribes, could be eradicated with a Certificado de blanco that, by the Grace of God and King Philip, could immediately extinguish your non-White blood.
At the same time, try out that multicultural mantra on the Middle East, which most Americans and western Europeans mentally populate with Arabs, failing to realize that--for example--the Iranians are Persians, the majority ethnicity in Pakistan is Pashtun, and the ruling minority in Syria is neither Sunni nor Shi'a, but Alawite. There are many Muslim scholars who believe (although it is dangerous for them to say so in public) that the Muslim Middle East actually needs Israel in permanent existence as a common enemy, because otherwise the ethnic and religious animosities would tear the region apart more fiercely than is the case today. Certainly we have gotten a preview of that possibility in the Iraqi Civil War.
I find the inherent paradoxes of the following paragraphs maddening:
I will only point out two problems with this sequence:
1) "We know what needs done and that action will need to be taken as quickly as possible." Precisely the problem America is facing is that there is not a general consensus on "what needs to be done", and the failure of Dubya's administration did not create one. There are tens of millions of Americans who believe that we need a much more managed, centralized state to achieve social justice, stop global warming, and usher in an era of peace and prosperity through national health care, windfall profits taxes, and a major re-orientation toward mass transit. There are also tens of millions of Americans who favor a less authoritarian, more market-oriented approach to our problems. And even at 28% approval ratings, there are still tens of millions of people out there who believe in social conservatism every bit as much as you believe in multicultural pluralism. If you are using We as a collective pronoun for the entire American people, this sentence is manifestly inaccurate. If you are using We to represent Democratic/liberal consensus, that's more accurate, but then the absence of apparent toleration for other views is a bit daunting.
Look at it this way: Dubya told everybody that the threat of terrorism was so great that they had to put their qualms aside and trust in the government to keep them safe--and we all know how well that's worked out. Your sentence suggests that the many other threats to America are so great that the rest of us have to put our qualms aside and trust new leadership to jump us en masse into the future. There's some parallelism there, I think.
2) First you say we have to elect Senator Obama, because "Having either one of the two candidates with a ligher shade of brown calling the shots, means we will still have to relive those same old controversies that should have been put behind us many years ago," which strikes me as a strange juxtaposition to the follow-up statement that "race should not be an issue." I think everyone really needs to get straight the idea that electing Barack Obama president would be a milestone (electing Catholic JFK was a similar milestone, and if you don't see the equation it only proves you are probably not Catholic of a certain generation), but electing Barack Obama president will not suddenly cause "those same old controversies" to disappear.
It seems to me that after an impassioned argument that we should not let shades of brown divide us, when you then divide the presidential candidates by exactly the measure you deplore, that there is some seriously fuzzy thinking going on here.
Disclaimer: before you take your shot, realize that I know that it was stupidity on my part that led me to write this post. So many of the snippets kavips has strung together in this piece have become litmus tests for declaring people to be hopeless social conservatives, or racists, or other dire things. So I realize that the folks who agree with the spirit of kavips's writing are going to gently (maybe not so gently) explain to me that I should know better. Feel free.
kavips is one of the consistently most thoughtful bloggers in Delaware, and the fact that s/he is certainly far from my own political perspective on many issues (although very close on others) does not prevent me from paying close attention when s/he speaks.
But I have thought for some time that kavips is not speaking clearly or consistently with regard to this presidential election cycle.
Currently s/he has up a post on the Different Shades of Brown in America, which starts off at an elementary school concert and ends in a consideration of why we have to elect Barack Obama to provide us the jump into the social changes we need in this country.
It is genuinely written, I think, to be inspiring, and that's the way that such different individuals as Liz, Nancy Willing, and David Anderson took it.
But to me there were just too many jarring, stream-of-consciousness inaccurate generalizations that kept breaking the mood--sort of like when the special effects fail in an action movie, and you lose that necessary suspension of disbelief.
Here are a couple of problematic passages for me:
America does not need to prosper….as Republicans have touted as they roll back taxes on the wealthy. But every human American does….if this nation is to remain a bastion of Democracy against the new threats of Russia, and China. both technological equals with vast resources at their disposal…..
I am genuinely unsure about precisely what the first sentence actually means. I find the characterization of Russia and China as "threats" to be troubling, and as "technological equals" to be inaccurate.
Then there's this:
There may come a time when we may need assistance from the rest of the world if our nation is to survive….. Having a multicultural nation would be our best defense against any national attack…. Who could not support a nation which allowed ones relatives to work and send back the very money one needed to survive upon?
Allow me the luxury of this theoretical example. One of our best defenses which we have going for us to keep China from attacking us, is to have a large number of Chinese living here and calling us their home…. How can an attacking nation convince its citizenery that we are evil when each individual soldiers relatives back home are telling him otherwise?
Likewise with Russians, Indians, Arabs, and Latin Americans…..Our common defense rests on our friendships, probably a little more than it rests on our weapons…..
"How can an attacking nation convince its citizenry that we are evil when each individual soldiers relatives back home are telling him otherwise?" China and Russia, I might point out, are authoritarian nations who don't really depend on the opinion from below in deciding on foreign or military policy. Nor, in a nuclear, precise-guided-munitions age do other countries actually have to convince more than a few button-pushing technicians to launch an attack.
I might also point out that having a 10% Muslim/Arab population is not working out so well for France.
Multiculturalism is an American fetish, not a worldwide value. About fifteen years ago, there was to be a major historical/cultural exchange program between Japan and the US, with each country providing a gigantic, Disney-like traveling exhibit for a two-year tour in the other's country. The project broke off, however, when the Japanese sponsors learned that the US exhibit would emphasize how cultural diversity is our strength. To many Japanese, what American calls multiculturalism is more accurately considered mongrelization. Check Japanese public school history books in vain for any positive references to the Ainu or Koreans.
I also found myself pulling back at this reference:
If any child comes from parents of two different shades of skin, why do we automatically call that child black? Why is he not white? This controversy is solved if we choose to call it as it is…. “If a dark brown mothers the baby of a light brown, it’s a medium brown…” “Whoop de doo.” Anyone with married friends of different shades of brown, who happen to have children, knows full well the impossibility of pigeonholing each of their progeny’s behavior based on their skin’s shade of brown…..
If one looks at race with a clear eye….it is laughable.
"Why do we automatically call that child black? Why is he not white?" Because in the peculiar social-cultural tradition formed by the confluence of European (primarily English), Native American, and African cultures colliding in North America, a particular version of pseudo-genetic racial thought emerged around the late seventeenth century that (unfortunately) became the basis of our own special American brand of racism. We've been trying with mixed success to get beyond that paradigm for decades.
But let's not forget that other cultures have equally twisted if totally different paradigms of racism. Consider the Spanish version of race, which could have two sons of the same "white" parents end up in different racial categories (Peninsulares or Criollos), and which had literally dozens if not hundreds of different legal categories depending on the racial category of your great grandparents. All of which, with suitable bribes, could be eradicated with a Certificado de blanco that, by the Grace of God and King Philip, could immediately extinguish your non-White blood.
At the same time, try out that multicultural mantra on the Middle East, which most Americans and western Europeans mentally populate with Arabs, failing to realize that--for example--the Iranians are Persians, the majority ethnicity in Pakistan is Pashtun, and the ruling minority in Syria is neither Sunni nor Shi'a, but Alawite. There are many Muslim scholars who believe (although it is dangerous for them to say so in public) that the Muslim Middle East actually needs Israel in permanent existence as a common enemy, because otherwise the ethnic and religious animosities would tear the region apart more fiercely than is the case today. Certainly we have gotten a preview of that possibility in the Iraqi Civil War.
I find the inherent paradoxes of the following paragraphs maddening:
But to use Galactica termonolgy, America needs “to Jump”….. We need to move our entire nation, en masse, to some point into the future. The last person to make a jump of the likes we now need, was Franklin D. Roosevelt. The one before that, was Lincoln….. So these events don’t come that often....
Undeniably the winner will need to jump America’s ship far into America’s future…..We can’t wait for the shattering of our infrastructure and economic markets, the poisoning of our planet, or the breakdown of our people to occur before we take action. We know what needs done and that action will need to be taken as quickly as possible. Having either one of the two candidates with a ligher shade of brown calling the shots, means we will still have to relive those same old controversies that should have been put behind us many years ago……
Race should not be an issue…..it certainly isn’t for kids in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades…..ask them…..They’ll tell you….”Who cares what shade of brown lurks in one’s skin? We’re all the same.”
I will only point out two problems with this sequence:
1) "We know what needs done and that action will need to be taken as quickly as possible." Precisely the problem America is facing is that there is not a general consensus on "what needs to be done", and the failure of Dubya's administration did not create one. There are tens of millions of Americans who believe that we need a much more managed, centralized state to achieve social justice, stop global warming, and usher in an era of peace and prosperity through national health care, windfall profits taxes, and a major re-orientation toward mass transit. There are also tens of millions of Americans who favor a less authoritarian, more market-oriented approach to our problems. And even at 28% approval ratings, there are still tens of millions of people out there who believe in social conservatism every bit as much as you believe in multicultural pluralism. If you are using We as a collective pronoun for the entire American people, this sentence is manifestly inaccurate. If you are using We to represent Democratic/liberal consensus, that's more accurate, but then the absence of apparent toleration for other views is a bit daunting.
Look at it this way: Dubya told everybody that the threat of terrorism was so great that they had to put their qualms aside and trust in the government to keep them safe--and we all know how well that's worked out. Your sentence suggests that the many other threats to America are so great that the rest of us have to put our qualms aside and trust new leadership to jump us en masse into the future. There's some parallelism there, I think.
2) First you say we have to elect Senator Obama, because "Having either one of the two candidates with a ligher shade of brown calling the shots, means we will still have to relive those same old controversies that should have been put behind us many years ago," which strikes me as a strange juxtaposition to the follow-up statement that "race should not be an issue." I think everyone really needs to get straight the idea that electing Barack Obama president would be a milestone (electing Catholic JFK was a similar milestone, and if you don't see the equation it only proves you are probably not Catholic of a certain generation), but electing Barack Obama president will not suddenly cause "those same old controversies" to disappear.
It seems to me that after an impassioned argument that we should not let shades of brown divide us, when you then divide the presidential candidates by exactly the measure you deplore, that there is some seriously fuzzy thinking going on here.
Disclaimer: before you take your shot, realize that I know that it was stupidity on my part that led me to write this post. So many of the snippets kavips has strung together in this piece have become litmus tests for declaring people to be hopeless social conservatives, or racists, or other dire things. So I realize that the folks who agree with the spirit of kavips's writing are going to gently (maybe not so gently) explain to me that I should know better. Feel free.
Comments
We have one country and it is called America.
If the government takes our money and stuff, threatens or shreds our constitutions we should recognize that all Americans are affected and all of our prosperity is at risk and unite in a spirit of goodwill and peaceful cooperation to protect these institutions. We have to recognize the sovereign right of each republic and work together as Americans for the benefit of all Americans.
You're gonna have to flesh that one a LOT more, bud. As it stands now, your comment is as ambiguous and touchie-feelie as kavips' post.
Pan Americanism was defined by Thomas Jefferson as all the republics of America working together for the mutual interests that we share as Americans. That includes economic, social, cultural and defense relations. UNASUR and the OAS are good models. He never precisely defined how it should work, but was empahtic that it should work in concert to keep European and other powers out of American affairs it led to the Monroe Doctrine when Russia was making moves in Alaska and France in Mexico. For example, Jefferson would suggest we kick the British off the Falkland Islands and give them back to Argentina.
Some may see my posts as a statements of finality, (it must be my didactic style) but I see them as evolutionary steps.
I remember another blogger Tommywonk commenting on one of his anniversary posts that the give and take often forced a better quality product, as questions were answered and analysis were defended.
Since the acceptance of "global warming" it appears that less of that give and take has occurred on our local blogosphere. Occasionally a partisan jab in ones ribs may raise an eyebrow, but rarely do we get a detailed rebuttal which challenges the work of a poster.
I, for one, think our community needs more of it. I see a propensity to post items saying "read this," " read this", "read this", instead of showing ones humanity by countering ones suggestions for improvement.....
If time allows, I reserve my right to respond in some future date. Right now its a glorious long weekend....Life's got to be lived, right?
So for now, I am content to leave our two view up side by side and let the readers peruse them both, and make up their own minds......
But if anyone out there in a teaching capacity would care to use my original post to teach young minds the advantages of "critical" reading, they certainly have my permission. Flawed or not, if a piece develops young good minds, it has a use that transposes far beyond what I could ever accomplish........
As everyone, I struggle with ideas. It is only through reasoned discourse that those who may disagree may flesh out their own views and appreciate the views of another.
Like kavips, I am enjoying this beautiful weekend. I plan to come back to both posts and the discussion.
Who knows, maybe I'll learn something. Maybe I'll discover something new. It's been known to happen.