Black Lives Matter

It should be evident to anyone who keeps up with the news (even if it's just on Facebook) that there has been a lot of coverage of police officers shooting (and sometimes killing) unarmed black men, often without any clear indication that they were presenting any danger whatsoever to the police. In the wake of several of these killings, the phrase "Black Lives Matter" spread throughout the media, both mainstream and social. Pretty quickly a backlash developed, with "All Lives Matter" and "Police Lives Matter" springing up in some kind of counterpoint. Assuming that you're not a bigot who is offended that the "niggers" are getting "uppity" - you really should have understood that saying that black lives matter is not a suggestion that only black lives matter, it's a reaction to the perception that, due to the seeming epidemic of unarmed black men being shot, black lives don't seem to matter. Perhaps they could have said "Black Lives Matter Too"- but they shouldn't have had to.

Offensiveness - Part II

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is intended to be a commentary on any actual situations in the author's place of business or personal interactions, but are intended as general observations

In a previous post I discussed my view on the trend of belittling people who point out insulting language and situations or who take issue with bigoted statements in the media or general culture. I asked why it had become offensive to be offended. I've observed a tendency to make pointing out offensiveness the problem, rather than the offensiveness itself. This doesn't mean that I think that it is always warranted to be hyper-sensitive to the words and actions of others. There is indeed a balance between each of us being responsible for what we say and for the hearer to be responsible to not over-react or misinterpret. Context, tone of voice, facial expression and intent are all important. Not every ill-thought-through comment, joke, facile observation or smart-ass remark is cause for a trip to the legal compliance officer or a brawl in the backyard. So why do people quit jobs, take legal action, punch people out, change churches, engage in high-level passive-aggression, decapitate journalists and post ambiguously on Facebook?

Much of what we communicate is ambiguous; partly due to the imprecision of the English language and partly due to our own sloppiness in using the English language. There's also the tendency of people to not listen to the actual words being said (or written) and let their emotions determine not only the meaning of the words, but the actual words themselves. I'll give an real-life example:

My ex-wife and I were having an argument about something and I was asking a lot of questions that she didn't want to answer and she asked me why I was asking so many questions. I replied that I lived there and I wanted to know what was going on. (The argument probably had something to do with what our kids were up to) In recounting this conversation to someone a few days later she reported my words as "This is  my house and I'll ask the questions here", adding an aggressive tone that was not included in my original statement. 

What she did was take my words, superimpose what she thought I meant and unconsciously changed my actual words to reflect this perceived meaning. This is not unusual, we miss details of what is being said all the time and our brains fill in the missing bits, or we didn't take the time to accurately remember what was said and recreate scenarios based on what ought to have happened. Written communication has its own problems. While the issue of misremembering isn't there, neither is the mitigating effect of tone of voice, facial expression and body posture. The inherent ambiguity of our language could even be amplified in written communication.

Some of the problem arises when people just refuse to give others the benefit of the doubt, and assume an evil or hurtful intent when the words and what was behind them were innocuous. Granted, sometimes what people say is hurtful and is said with maliciousness, but I believe that malignant intent should be the supposition of last resort

Fighting to Make Us Free?

Oftentimes we hear praise for those who serve in the U.S. military as those who "make us" or "keep us" free; or alternately, that we "owe our freedom" to those who wear the uniform. While intending no disrespect for military veterans and active duty personnel, this is not strictly true. While I would have little argument with anyone who would say that the military has kept us safe, in what way does a military presence keep us "free"? The military is not some loosely organized posse of altruistic Americans hunting down and fighting against injustice like some comic book superheroes. The military, collectively, is an agent of the state and as such carries out the will of the elected leadership of the state. One of the functions of the military is to defend against attacks on the United States and to go on the offensive against those attackers to prevent further attacks. How many actual attacks have been made against us? Other than individual acts of terrorism (which is the bailiwick of the FBI in any case), not many. The British attack on Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812, The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the 9-11 attacks (arguably FBI territory, not military). One might add some isolated German attacks on coastal installations in World War II and the "war" with Pancho Villa in the early part of the twentieth century. One could argue that the military acts as a deterrent to attacks as well. Fair enough, preventing attacks also keeps us safe. But could any of these actions be categorized as an attempt to take away our freedom? The 9-11 attacks arguably could, but should more logically be classified as an act of terror - retaliation against our actions in the Middle East; the Pearl Harbor attacks were a preemptive strike in an ongoing war (for the Japanese). Many of our other interventions, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War, were in the role of "The World's Policeman" and could only be looked at as "maintaining our freedom" if one took a long, and extremely speculative view.

So what makes us free? What keeps us free? Religious people would credit their respective gods. But what people are responsible for instituting and maintaining our freedoms?

What is "freedom"? Loosely defined, it means to be in a society absent coercion or oppression, to be able to "do what you want" without outside interference. A more nuanced definition would recognize that one person's freedom of action cannot impinge on another's freedom. In other words my freedom to expand my business cannot include using my neighbor's yard to build a new storeroom. So, in reality, freedom is not anarchy. The rights and freedoms of all a society's individuals and groups must be balanced. What we as a nation consider to be the correct balance of freedoms has changed many times in our history. Early on, our definition of freedom included the freedom to take land from the original inhabitants. This was not unusual at the time; the history of the world is the story of successive waves of war and conquest and displacement of those who lost. We included the freedom to enslave others, and denied full freedom to a host of groups, including women. Later, as the industrialisation took hold, workers had no rights and business owners had the freedom to treat them as they would. Laws are written to restrict the "freedom" of people to pollute so that others may be "free" from pollution; to require certain safety rules in the workplace to that workers can be "free" from being injured at work..etc.

Who "made us free"? Who "kept us free"?

We could start with the nation's founders, the first group to break from the colonial system that had defined the world since the days of Columbus. Or we could even go back to the great minds of The Enlightenment, upon whose writing the Founders based many of their ideas. Freedom, or its loose synonym, liberty, was not a concept that was very popular prior to the 18th century. Most nations were still ruled by monarchs or oligarchies and the idea of individual rights had not caught on. The great thinkers of the American Revolution really set the tone for freedom.

We could continue with the abolitionists who fought to outlaw slavery. Despite the high-minded pronouncements in the Declaration of Independence, we not only had legal slavery, but the native people were not even considered "people" within the meaning of the law. We often hear that slaves were considered 3/5 (60%) of a person. Actually, slaves were considered 0/5 - 0% a person. The 3/5 number was only in respect to the census. Northern states did not want to count states at all while Southern states wanted to count slaves for the purpose of congressional apportionment.

How about adding environmentalists to the list. Derided as tree-huggers and environmentalist wackos, these are the people that you have to thank for clean air, clean water and (along with Teddy Roosevelt) national parks.

Early union organizers were also among those who fought to make us and keep us free. While modern-day unions are perceived as greedy and out of touch, and most unions these days represent public/government employees, employment pre-union was often dangerous and abusive. Think you work your butt off 40 hours each week? How about seven days a week, ten-twelve hours a day? How about unsafe working conditions? So much of what we take for granted now was fought for by union men and women.

What about whistle blowers and investigative journalists? The effect that a free press has in keeping politicians honest cannot be overstated. And those who have braved loss of income and blacklisting to bring government abuses out into the light of day should be recognized for their fight to ensure our freedoms as well.

And lest we think that abolition meant that freedom was achieved  for blacks, part of our freedom is owed to those who fought, and sometimes died, for civil rights regardless of color. This includes the big names like Rev. King, the revolutionaries like the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, the quiet resisters like Rosa Parks and the ordinary people who marched across bridges and were set upon by dogs and police with fire hoses. Civil rights struggles continue today - even though the Supreme Court has ruled for marriage equality, it is still legal to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity in most states.

There are many, including those who serve in the military, who have contributed to the safeguarding and expanding of our freedoms in this country, to all of them, we owe a debt of gratitude.