Category Archives: Politics

America, Politics

January 6, 2021 – Part 1

1 Comment

I’ve been planning to write this post for a long time, since shortly after the events of January 6, 2021, but I wanted to do it carefully, trying to make sure I got my facts correct, that I was interpreting them correctly, and that any conclusions I drew were correct. Unfortunately, the world has moved a long ways since then, more or less to my original conclusion. So even though I’m late to the table, I’ll write my post anyway.

It was sometime early afternoon on January 6, 2021, when I checked in on Facebook during my reading time and began to see posts that something was happening at the Capitol in Washington D.C. It soon became apparent that a group of protesters were attacking the Capitol. As I said in my previous post about this event, I elected not to rush right to the TV for more news, because the early reports are so often exaggerated or wrong. A few hours later I began checking in with news sources, and over the next few days did a lot of digging.

The main thing I wanted to do was determine what the facts were. I didn’t want newscaster, anchor, or commentator opinions. I wanted the facts. What exactly happened? Don’t give me interpretation; tell me what happened. Alas, I found very little of that. What passes for news today on television is mostly commentary.

What I wanted to know was (still is):

  • Why did the protesters attack the Capitol?
  • What were the aims of the attackers?
  • How many people were involved? A corollary question was how many people were at the rally just before the attack.
  • Was it spontaneous or planned?

What I found was none of the news outlets, either on TV or their on-line news feeds, gave me that information.

Why did the protesters attack the Capitol? According to most news outlets, because President Trump incited them to. Or urged them to. Or asked them to. Depends on what news outlet you talk with. Okay, I thought, let me listen to what he said at that rally. So I went to look for a link to his speech but—I couldn’t find one. There were links to about 5 seconds of his speech, but none to the speech itself. Why, I wondered? Were the news outlets concerned that the mere replaying of the speech would incite further violence? Did they not want to give him anymore air time? Did they realize the speech, if viewed in full, would contradict some pre-conceived notion? Even now, when I look for that speech on-line, I don’t find it. Maybe I’m not searching correctly, but I don’t find it.

The question of how many people were at the rally and how many attacked the Capitol has been equally difficult to learn. I heard a report that a million people attended the rally, but this seemed impossible to me. Such a huge attendance would have been reported. So how many attended? I spoke with someone who saw a shot of the crowd and he said he thought 10,000 or so. That sounds more realistic. As to how many attacked the Capitol, I again have had trouble learning that. The frequently posted footage makes it seem like a lot of people, but was it? Was it 100? A thousand? More? I saw a report about two weeks ago that suggested it was 400 to 500 people that actually entered the Capitol. That seems realistic.

What did the attackers hope to accomplish? A takeover of the government? An interruption of the counting of the electoral votes, a.k.a. “Stop the Steal” as it was being called? Or was there no real aim? Were they whipped into a frenzy by the president, went the short distance to the Capitol (about a mile), and, without much thought, showed their displeasure by resorting to violence? I suppose that’s possible, but do the facts suggest that? That’s part of answering the question: Was the attack spontaneous or planned?

Here are a few things that suggest it was planned.

  • At least two different people in or just outside the Capitol were carrying zip-tie hand restraints, the kind that police sometimes use. I doubt if anyone at the rally found a vendor selling those between the Washington Monument and the Capitol. No, they had to have brought those with them to the rally—if they were even at the rally as opposed to just going to the Capitol that day. This suggests a planned attack.
  • At least one person had a diagram of the layout of the buildings (didn’t see this; that’s based on news reports). Did someone bring that with them that morning, or did they divert to a bookstore or the Library of Congress and get one? More evidence of pre-planning.
  • At least one man had a sledge hammer. Some thing; he had to have had that when he got to the rally, because I doubt very much that law enforcement officers protecting the Capitol were armed with sledgehammers. More evidence of pre-planning.
  • It’s been reported that two pipe bombs were found, planted adjacent to the office wings of the Capitol. I saw photos of the bombs, but no photos of the scene. Nor have I seen any reports as to whether these were real bombs or dummies. Again, I don’t think someone was selling pipe bombs on the National Mall that day, so that had to be pre-planned.
  • The breaking down of the minimal barriers was horrific in the footage I’ve seen. This could well have been spontaneous; it’s hard to tell. It could also have been pre-planned. Certainly, the breaking of doors inside the building seemed to be done with whatever materials that had at hand. No one brought a pallet of bricks with them. Evidence of spontaneity, though it doesn’t preclude planning.
  • Almost none of the attackers were armed with firearms. I think I saw one photograph of one attacker having a rifle. I’ve not read any reports indicating other protesters had firearms. This suggest the aim wasn’t an insurrection, a takeover of the government. You don’t bring a Confederate flag or a Viking hat if your aim is a putsch. That could suggest spontaneity.
  • The behavior of the attackers once inside the buildings seems less of an attack and more of a lark, like a bunch of boys who broke into the school during summer vacation and vandalized the building. Maybe that’s because the Congress had been moved to a secure location and there was no one to vent their anger at. Or maybe it’s because the thing was really spontaneous and they didn’t have a real plan.

This post is now quite long and all I’ve managed to do is mention the problem, not draw conclusions. I’ll have to finish it later. Let me just conclude this much: I’m amazed at what appears to be an attempt by the news media to keep us from knowing the raw facts of what happened that day.

More to come in another post.

America, Politics

Agree With Me On This or I Will Unfriend You

2 Comments

How many times have I seen something like that on Facebook? That’s my only social media platform. I assume it happens on other platforms also. I saw statements like that about ten times on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. Let me set my scene for you.

My morning was as normal. Up around 6:45, down to The Dungeon with coffee. Devotions and prayer. Then I go through the whatever is new on the few blogs I read, mainly writing blogs. I checked e-mail and read an article on Yahoo Finance. I went through my Facebook news feed to see if the world had blown up while I had been sleeping. By then it was time to start my trading day. I didn’t have much planned; I think I made one trade. Wrote maybe 1,000 words on my novel. I did a little decluttering. I think I found a couple more items from our Kuwait years, transcribed them then put them in the collated file. At that point I went upstairs, got my third mug of coffee, and went out to the sunroom earlier than normal. At this point I checked Facebook again, then started my reading. I think that was 11:30 a.m. or 12 Noon CST. When I came upstairs my wife didn’t have TV on, or if she did it wasn’t on daytime news.

I alternately read and checked my cell phone as it dinged and vibrated. Several friends had posted that a mob had attacked and occupied the Capitol in Washington DC. But I elected not to go watch the news since early reports are so often erroneous or exaggerated. I read what was going on. Soon I began to see statements similar to the title of the post. The statement is usually made this way:

If you think this is ok, let me know right now so I can unfriend you.

If you think this is ok, unfriend me right now.

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? A heinous thing is in progress. How can anyone support it? If YOU support it I can’t possibly be friends with you. Some things are just bad enough that’s the only way to respond to them, right?

Well, I want to suggest another path forward.

I responded to one of those on Wednesday, sometime in the early afternoon. One of my friends posted something to the effect, “If you think this is ok, go ahead and tell me so that I can unfriend you.” I assumed by “this” he meant the attack on the Capitol. Some others responded. I responded something like this: “By this I assume you mean the attack on the Capitol? I haven’t seen any news coverage yet, so all I know is what I’m seeing on Facebook. But from that it sounds bad. I condemn this violence based on what I’ve heard so far. But tell me, why the passive aggressive approach to this?”

As I wrote that, I envisioned a dialog between him and me where I laid out this alternative approach. Depending on his response, I planned to lead into this series of questions:

“Do you want the world and our nation to be a better place?” I would assume his answer would be yes. I mean, who wants the world to be a worse place. That’s almost an insulting question.

“Do you feel that you have any responsibility, any role to play, any work to do toward the end of making the world and our nation a better place?” Again, the answer would be an obvious yes. No one would say “I want the world to be a better place but others must do the work, not me.”

“What do you feel is your role in making the world and our nation a better place?” This answer would vary, of course, but would no doubt have a number of tasks: be a good husband and father, pay my taxes, live peacefully with all men, work to fight injustice,” etc. The list could go on with both general and specific tasks that a person might feel are their responsibility toward building a better world and nation.

At that point I would shift to a statement. “I assume you believe that those who attacked the Capitol are making the world and the U.S. worse, and that those who believe their actions are a good thing are also making the world worse. But tell me, if you unfriend such a person, cut off all dialog with them, are you not reducing your potential to reason with them and perhaps change them? I abhor their views and the actions of those they seem to be supporting, but I will not cut off dialog with them. Who knows but that, by a few well-placed and carefully reasoned statements, I could help them see another way of thinking and maybe change them.”

Now, I’m not naïve enough to believe that I can change the heart of an individual so calloused that they would turn in an instant from being in favor of violence to be a peacemaker. But I can nudge them. By several such nudges, by me and others over time, the world could be made a better place. Slowly, one obstinate and misguided person at a time. Yes, I will remain friends with such a person. I will dialog with him or her. Because I believe that makes my task of making the world and our nation a better place.

I never got there with this friend. As I renounced the violence at the Capitol I also renounced the violence of the summer protests. That brought in another person to call me a coward and make many other disparaging remarks. I thought, ah, I’m now dialoging with two people. But, my friend unfriended and blocked me and the dialog ended before it got started. Such is life. I pray the breach may someday be healed.

I had more to say about this, but my post is already too long. I anticipate another post on this, maybe on Friday.

C.S. Lewis, Church History Novels, home improvements, miscellaneous, Politics, reading, The Teachings, Writing

A Whacky Week to Start 2021

Leave a comment

That sounds too flippant, to call last week a “whacky” week. It was an awful week as far as our nation goes. For me in my personal life, “whacky” is an apt description.

Not that anything went wrong, at least not terribly wrong. The worst that happened to me was a dead battery. I drove to a haircut appointment on Friday, the first haircut I had since May. I took the Green Monster, our old minivan. It’s been a little hard to start and I thought it might be that the battery was old. But it started and I drove it the 3/4 miles to the beauty shop. Got my haircut, came out, and it wouldn’t start. So I walked home and let it sit overnight.

I considered having my neighbor drive me up there and jump start me then drive it to the Dodge dealership 4 miles north, but on Saturday? I decided instead to call AAA. They now have a battery service. I requested that, and they came so fast I barely had time to walk up there to meet them. Fifteen minutes and some money later and I was up and running. That battery was six or seven years old, so I was on borrowed time with it. And, that service didn’t cost a whole lot more than going to Wal-Mart, buying a battery, and putting it in myself.

During the week I actually got back to significant work on my novel, The Teachings. Over Tuesday through Friday I added over 5,000 words to it. I haven’t had that kind of writing production in a long time. I left it on Friday with the next scene clearly in my mind, hoping to add another two to three thousand words over the weekend. But instead I added…nothing. Other tasks consumed my time.

On Saturday, in addition to taking care of the van, I did maintenance around the house. The shower door handle needed attention, and was easily fixed. I tried to glue down some old wallpaper that is coming loose but it wouldn’t stick, even with gorilla glue. A window handle needed put back in place, and I was able to find screws that reasonably matched and got that done. While at it I went around the house and checked the other window handles, tightening a few. I also did some more straightening/arranging of my miscellaneous hardware, and identified some more I can sell.

We continue with decluttering, going through old Christmas cards and letters received over a 28 year period. Few are worth saving. Why we saved them I don’t know. But that is slowly being cleared out. I keep getting some inquiries about items I have listed for sale on FB Marketplace. Sold some books on Thursday, but a freak snowstorm that day kept two other scheduled buyers away or I might have sold more.

My reading was progressing well early in the week. I read ten or more pages a day in C.S. Lewis’s letters, with great enjoyment. But I read less over the weekend, my concentration waning. Our evening reading is in a Philip Yancey book, and we make good progress in that. We lost reading time two days as I had evening Zoom meetings on church-related tasks.

One of those tasks is our church’s 100th anniversary committee. I was asked if I would write a book to be distributed as part of the celebration, which is in October. That may seem like a lot of time, but it’s not. Thursday evening I went up to the church to retrieve the archives. Saturday I went through about 5 to 10% of them. It’s going to be a huge task. I have a timeline already started, though with much more needed. I probably need to spend some time every day on this, and will do some today.

My weight and blood sugars were a little whacky last week. My eating was fairly good and I lost some weight and had good blood sugars, but the blood sugars didn’t track as well to my eating and exercise as I thought they would; not sure why.

I could go on. Prepared on Saturday for and taught adult Life Group yesterday. Did a little genealogy research. And, as you would expect, made a few Facebook posts or comments on Wednesday, now estranged from a family member over it. This too shall pass. I will post about that, maybe in my next post of possibly not until next week. While I’m hoping the madness (yes, I consider it madness) has stopped, I’m hearing things that concern me that it hasn’t. More on that later.

So, here it is another week, the 2nd of 2021. Normal tasks are before me. God is on the throne. I will continue to serve Him, regardless of what of what swirls around me.

Bible study, book reviews, Christianity, Politics

Book Review: Kings & Presidents

2 Comments
A difficult read. I hope others had an easier time of it than I did.

In the last month leading up to the general election just concluded (but still being disputed) in the US, our church decided to do a study of the book Kings & Presidents by Tim and Shawna Gaines. Our pastor preached on it for four weeks. All adult Life Groups were encouraged to also study it, either the four weeks the pastor preached on it or the full eight week series envisioned by the book. Our group elected to do eight weeks. When I had coffee with our pastor during the series, he said there was no way he could preach eight sermons on this material.

Let me tell you, this was perhaps the hardest lesson series I ever taught. Five of the eight weeks were mine, three by my co-teacher. Looking back, I’m glad we studied it, because I feel that we learned something, but, man, it was difficult to teach.

Tim & Shawna (T&S henceforth) developed the book following the 2012 presidential election, when they were pastoring in California. Members of their congregation were apprehensive about what would happen. The book came from the sermon series.

The book takes stories from 2nd Kings 1-7, the days of Elisha the prophet, and contrasts the workings of God with the workings of kings. The kings were unable to see what God could do, whereas the prophet always could. Messages to the king weren’t understood. In the end God always prevailed. That’s fine. But how does that help us approach politics if we are devout Christians?

The purpose for the book is stated thus in the Introduction:

Our purpose…is to offer a vision of political life that takes discipleship to Jesus Christ seriously and treats it as primary.

Okay, that’s all well and good, but how do you do that? They sort of answered that question in the Afterword:

If you’re wondering So what exactly are we supposed to do politically? our guidance would be something along the lines of: Gather with other believers, empty yourself, lovingly deliberate, humbly discern, and then go and be persistent. Engage the world according to the way of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Take that vision that the ancient stories of our father open to us and act according to the world of the kingdom.

All well and good again. Except this said “gather with other believers.” If I take that literally, does that mean I should not engage in politics with non-believers? T&S do say “engage the world”, which implies we should engage in political discussions with non-believers. I think what they mean is: engage in political discussions with whoever, but don’t lose your faith over it. Come at it from a disciple point of view, not a worldly point of view. To help me help the class to understand this, I developed this chart which summarizes my understanding of T&S’s message. Hopefully I’m right or close to right. Click on the chart to enlarge it.

The best I could come up with on what the book teaches. Christians should approach politics and governance from the right side of the continuum, and seek to move the world in that direction.

In the final lesson—or maybe it was in an earlier lesson—I suggested to the class that they engage in political discussions with non-believers in such a way that, immediately after the political discussion they could present the gospel to them with no loss of credibility. Maybe that’s what T&S are saying.

Here’s a quote from the last chapter of the book.

[A]t its fullest and deepest, politics has always been about being reconciled to God and to one another.

No, no, no, no, no. Unless I’m misunderstanding them, they are proposing dropping the separation of church and state. Politics (by which T&S mean both what I call politics and governance, but they don’t really define their meaning) has nothing to do, and should have nothing to do, with God. It is a secular thing. Governance is about governing, of doing what the people want as far as rules and laws that regulate human civic behavior. Politics is about getting into the position to govern. Politics and governance should be separate from religious practice. We should not be hoping for a theocracy—a blending of church and state.

T&S say some negative things about the concept of the individual. The state regulates individual behavior, they say, so that everyone has the space they need to conduct their life and exercise their rights without stepping on the rights of others. It results in tolerance of each other Yes, they seem to be a bit negative on this, although they also say,

Tolerance is not a bad thing, but we need to acknowledge that a Christian view of politics, a sanctified vision of what politics is mean for, is so much more than simply putting up with one another.

Maybe. Maybe in a world (or a subset of the world) that is 100% devout Christian that would happen. But not in the world we live in. Sorry, T&S, but I can’t grasp your vision in a secular world.

So, it comes down to two questions: do I recommend this book to you? And is it a keeper? No, I don’t recommend it. It was difficult to read and seemed a little long for the material covered. I had to read each chapter a minimum of three times before I could grasp it enough to teach it, and even then I went into each lesson feeling unprepared. As for keeping it, the jury is still out. I may keep it and re-read it before the next election, to see if seasoning by years will make the message of the book clearer and thus be more useful to me. But it is not a long-term keeper. Three stars on Amazon.

Oh, one last thought. T&S kept calling the Christian faith “subversive.” Sorry, but I just don’t see that. I thought a long time about it, but I don’t see it.

America, American Colonial History, Genealogy, History, Politics

Self-Determination: A Defining American Characteristic

Leave a comment

My first characteristic of what makes the United States of America different than most other nations is the concept of self-determination. In other words, we chose our own form of government and our own leaders, and have maintained that for over 230 years. Actually, the choosing of our government goes back much further than that.

The residents of Waterville Vermont wrestled with choosing leaders and setting the tax rate in the mandatory annual town meeting. How interesting it was to read those records.

From the moment that Europeans came to these shores in the early 1600s, selection of leaders through voting has been a part of our nature. The form of government was at first based on what the colonists knew back home, or what was imposed on them by the terms of the charter by which the colony was established. However, slowly, the form of government changed and settled into a pattern.

First it was pure democracy at the local level, with a fledgling republic at the colony level. By the time of the revolution, when the colonies considered themselves states, republican form of government was well-established. At the local level even, a mini-republic had mostly replaced democracy. Some vestiges of democracy remained, but for the most part the form of government was a republic.

Of course, a republic requires active participation of its citizens in terms of voting. At regular intervals, from as short as six months to as long as two years, the people chose their leaders. In doing so peacefully, the people were saying, “We are satisfied with this form of government. All we are doing now is choosing those who will lead us, either returning those already in leadership or voting new ones in.” Election after election, for more than a century before we were a nation, this process took place from New Hampshire to Georgia. Those eligible to vote chose new leaders and kept their form of government.

The colonies did well governing themselves, until the King of England tried to impose new government on them. Resistance to that became the seeds of the American Revolution.

Self-determination. We will govern ourselves. How different this was than in the Europe they had left! England had a monarch, a king or queen, who ruled. In the 17th Century the parliamentary system was flexing its muscles and growing in importance. England went through three revolutions (one bloody, two peaceful) and one counter-revolution. All other European nations had much the same. The monarchy was a coercive power. The people didn’t choose it so much as the king ruled by “divine right”. France, in a bloody revolution that would eventually lead to a worse dictatorship than the kings ever were, would throw off that monarchy thirteen years after the American Colonies declared their independence. Other nations would eventually follow suit. But it was the bloody American Revolution that set much of that in motion.

As I researched my first genealogy book, Seth Boynton Cheney: Mystery Man of the West, I had occasion to look into town records of Waterville Vermont, where Seth was born and raised until he was 13. It was interesting to see the notices of the town meeting on the last Saturday in March (right in the middle of maple sugar harvest no less) and having all voters required to attend. I read how they set the tax rate: “Voted to establish the rate at $X” or “Voted a rate of $Y to construct a fence around the cemetery.” These people were governing themselves at the local level, deciding big issues as a democracy but electing representatives to lead the municipal republic the rest of the year. I “watched” as new towns were formed, Waterville carved out of Bakersfield because the Waterville residents couldn’t cross the snow-covered mountain in March to attend the town meeting. Self-government in action, the form of government chosen by the people and maintained year by year, decade by decade, century by century.

As I researched my second genealogy book, Stephen Cross and Elizabeth Cheney of Ipswich, I saw the same thing from a much earlier period, Ipswich in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the years 1647 to 1710. I actually went back earlier than that, as I was simultaneously researching an earlier ancestor in the Cheney family, the subject of a future book. I saw the same thing with the town, and more so at the county and state level. One rabbit-hole I went down with my research that took place during Stephen’s and Elizabeth’s lives was the change in colonial charters forced upon the colonies by the king of England. This did not go over well. In fact, the seeds of the American Revolution were sown right here, as people, who had chosen and maintained a form of government they liked—self-determination—had a form of government and leaders forced on them—a coercive power—who served at the whim of and benefit of the monarch, not the people. Ipswich was a hot spot about this and some consider it to be the cradle of American independence.

Now, in 21st Century America, we have a hard time conceiving what the world was like during our colonial days. Oh, we know from studying our history what the colonies were like, and may have a vague understanding of England, from whence most of those settlers came. But I think we need more study of just how different the government was in our world. And to what extent the people had, not just the right, but the obligation to maintain that government through votes and taxes. We had our faults back then, and took far too long to address those faults. Compromises would eventually be forged that would keep us as one nation rather than several regional federations, compromises that later would almost tear us apart.

Yes, I believe self-determination is a defining characteristic of the United States of America. Other nations now have it. Yet many other nations only dream of it. It defines the USA. How long can we keep it?

America, American Colonial History, History, Politics

Three Traits that Mark the USA

Leave a comment
When the time came for a new form of government, American traits were well-established. This series of blog posts will explore those.

What is it that differentiated the United States of America? What separates us from all other nations? Or is there anything? Are we the same as the other nations, but we became wealthy and powerful by chance of time and location? Did we just happen to find the right combination of population and resources?

Many talk of American exceptionalism. When did that kick in? Were we exceptional at the beginning, or did we develop into an exceptional people and nation in response to circumstances?

These are difficult questions. I’ve been pondering them for a while—at least ten years, since I’ve been writing the Documenting America series. I’m learning more and more as I do the research on this. In addition to that, I do a lot of research into genealogy—American genealogy. My first genealogy book dealt mainly with the years 1830-1910, long after American traits would have been established. My second genealogy book dealt with the years 1640-1710, right in the foundational period. As I wrote that genealogy/family history book, my thoughts began to focus on that question: what differentiated the USA from other nations?

As I researched to finish this work, I came upon some Massachusetts Bay Colony documents that led me to concluding one of the characteristics I’ll discuss in this series.

Added to researching my books is a love of history and an ability to self-study and learn. I love to read, and history is about my favorite topic to read. Since I started writing history books it’s difficult to read history for simple enjoyment or personal learning. Still, I try.

I don’t know that I’ve finished my thought process on all of this, but I believe I have identified three items that are in our nature that made a difference in our journey to exceptionalism.

  1. The consent of the governed. Another explanation for this is self-determination. We decide what type of government we want and establish it.
  2. The common man as a landowner. A big difference in the USA is everyone—just about everyone—owned land. This gives a huge change in perspective on government.
  3. Peaceful transition of power. When we change leaders—with two notable exceptions—the transition happens easily and peacefully.

These are probably not the only things that have contributed to making the USA into the nation that it is, but I see them as critical components.

In three posts coming soon (maybe not next, but soon), I’ll cover these three factors. By the time I finish them, I may have another one or two posts to make in the series. I hope many will read these posts, and consider how these helped to make us what we are.

Politics, Racism

Combatting Racism: Effectiveness of Protests

Leave a comment

My series on racism is drawing to a close. I’ll have this post and, depending on how wordy I am with it, possibly one more. I think I have made a convincing case that combatting racism requires looking at two things: racist acts, and racism that gives rise to racist acts. You can legislate against racist acts but you can’t legislate against racism.

Further, I believe I made a case that the role of any given person in this fight will be different than everyone else. Not everyone can or should be shouting “Black lives matter!” on Facebook or other social media every day or every hour.

Now I come to the matter of protests. How do you combat racism? A segment of the population is doing that through protests. The protests seem to be mainly gatherings in public places with much talk, repeating of slogans, denunciations, etc. Sometimes this involves blocking public places to prevent access. We have seen that where protesters block highways, preventing all vehicles from passing, including emergency vehicles.

In the speeches I’ve seen—which admittedly has only been on television and not so many there—have a “death to America” ring to them. The protesters seem to not just want change, but want to tear down our government and…do what? Start over with a different form of government? Have anarchy instead of government? The rhetoric seems not to be designed to solve the problem, but only to define it. The autonomous zone established in Seattle, later abandoned, seemed one of these types of protests.

Complicating the protests has been the violence. In certain major cities around the nation, violence, destruction of property, and looting have taken place. Again, the goal doesn’t seem to be to fix the problems in the system, but merely to rage against it.

I say that because the combination of protests and violence seem to be causing people to turn a deaf ear against the protesters. “Oh, you want to burn police cars, smash storefronts, loot businesses, and prevent free access on public streets? The heck with you and whatever it is you’re protesting.” That’s what I see happening. The protests have turned counterproductive. The very people the protesters need to change the system are turning against them. As a result the nation is going backwards in race relations, not forward.

Surely there is a way to protest racist acts in a way that will bring about positive change. That will help those in power at public institutions and at businesses to see how racism has crept in and caused racist acts to occur. Those can be changed. But will they ever be changed when all that we see is violence and looting? I fear not.

It is now close to three months since the death of George Floyd, the last in a line of acts that appear to be racist, where black men, for minor infractions, have wound up dead at the hands of police. Protests have been taking place daily in major cities around the USA. For a while they took place in smaller cities as well. Some changes have been made in how policing is done and how much policing these cities will have. Policing is in part being replaced with social working. How effective this will be in improving conditions for racial minorities in the cities will play out over time, time that will have to be measured in years before we will know the effectiveness of new procedures.

The protests—peaceful protests—have perhaps done some good in terms of racist acts. As a nation, we understand a little better how racist acts happen, and are making some changes. But as to racism, I think we are going backwards. White people look at the violence and pull away from admitting that racism exists. Hearts of men and women are not being changed, or, if they are being changed, it is to become more racist.

I never want to state or define problems and stop there. I want to develop solutions and state them clearly in a way that will convince people of the correctness of those solutions. In this case, however, I’m not sure what the solution is. There is a way to protest against racist acts and bring about improvement, and that doesn’t include violence. There is a way to change people’s hearts and help them to see that their racism, latent or open, is real and that they can change, and that doesn’t include violence. You can’t loot a store and say “Looting is reparations for slavery” and expect racists to turn into non-racists. Maybe you feel better having done the looting, but you have made the world worse, not better.

One of the reasons the civil rights protests of the 1960s were so effective is because they were non-violent. People could see the difference between the mostly black protesters and the white racists who committed violence against the protesters. The morality of one side and the immorality of the other was obvious. Progress was made as a result, and legislation was passed to put an end to a wide array of racist acts. At the same time, I believe we saw some hearts changed, and people who were racists came to the realization they were being stupid, that skin color didn’t matter. Not as many as needed to be changed, but some.

Violence now is being committed, not by those who want to preserve a racist system, but by those who want to change it. Or, perhaps, much of the violence is by those who seek to benefit without even trying to change what they see is a racist system.

End the violence. Protest peacefully. Show the world that your grievances are real, that you want honest change. As you do, also speak out against the violence. Denounce the looting and the violence against people and property. Help others to know that isn’t you, isn’t your group, isn’t your aim. I think that combination, ending the violence and maintenance of peaceful protests, will go a long way to achieving a less-racist system.

Politics, Racism

Fighting Racism: One Size Does Not Fit All

Leave a comment

In prior posts in this series, I discussed the difference between racism (what occurs in the hearts of men) and racist acts (what is done in the open as a result of racism in the heart—actually, I suppose racist acts can be done privately), which includes speech.

Why do I differentiate between racism and racist acts? Because it is possible to deal with racist acts through legislation, regulations, corporate policy, and public pressure. Racism, however, cannot be dealt with in the same way. Since racism is inside a person, ending racism requires a change of the heart. Racism gives rise to racist acts.

So, if racism and racist acts are different, the former giving rise to the latter, and if different means are necessary to combat them, then obviously you need people who can work the different approaches.

I say this because of statements I see on Facebook about the needs to scream out “Justice for George Floyds” or “I can’t breath” or “Black lives matter”. One friend, a woman fellow-writer I know only from on-line writer groups, went as far as to say:

If you aren’t outraged over this, if you aren’t willing to shout Black Lives Matter on Facebook, then go ahead and unfriend me now.

That’s an approximate quote. I commented on her post, went back recently on her timeline, to review her post and the comments I and she made to it. Here’s her post.

No disrespect to anyone, if you found out I unfriended you. This isn’t coming from hatred, but anyone who posts All Lives Matter, anyone who posts negative comments toward the protestors, anyone who hasn’t mentioned anything about what’s going on AND hasn’t even liked any of my posts to show they care are being deleted off my FB.
You don’t need me in your life, and quite frankly I don’t need you either

I pointed out to her, lovingly I believe, that this essentially says, “Unless you fight racism the way I’m fighting racism you’re doing it wrong and we can’t be friends.” She’s giving a one-size-fits-all approach. I simply can’t agree with that.

Some people are called to fight racism through legislation. Some people must work on regulations. Some have to strengthen these. Some have to see them properly and diligently implemented from administrative positions. Some need to do the same from a law enforcement position. Some need to attack it from the judicial system.

All of those in the previous paragraph relate to racist acts, not racism. Clearly one person isn’t able to do all those things in the fight to achieve racial equality. The pathway is clear, I believe, in how to combat racist acts. We as a society may disagree in a few particulars, but the general approach can be figured out and tackled.

Concerning racism, the means of combating it is also clear, though more difficult. You have to change men’s hearts. You have to help them come to an understanding that all races are equal before God and  thus should be in society. An honest belief that is true. A belief that results in their changing their behavior. Needless to say, before you can help another to come to this belief you must have that as your own belief. You must change your own heart.

Except, as a Christian I don’t believe that changing the heart is something man can do. Only God can change a heart.

That doesn’t mean that man has no part in dealing with racism in the heart. What man can do is help other men to see the error of their beliefs and urge them to bring the matter before God, asking for God’s help, His intervention. That’s our part in this equation.

How do we do that? What can we do to help people see the racism within them and do something about it? How can we help a person who has nothing to do with God to seek His help in the matter? I’m not sure I have all the answers to this. But I’m sure that if one size doesn’t fit all in the grand approach to combating racism, then one size doesn’t fit all in dealing with the range of people who hold racist views. What helps one person won’t help another.

Where does that leave us? Where are we on the spectrum of combating racism? Where am I? I’ll deal with this in my next post. For now I’ll just say that my friend’s approach, a one-size-fits-all approach, is insufficient to end racism. I’d like to think my comments made a difference in what she believes. A post she made later suggests that she agrees with me, and that her earlier post didn’t accurately reflect what she thinks about combating racism.

miscellaneous, Politics

Racism and Racist Acts

Leave a comment

My last post was a start to a discussion about racism in America. This is the second. I’m not yet sure how many posts I’ll have in this series. For sure one more after today and perhaps two, depending on how prolix I become and how my interest and energy goes.

From a Facebook posts by Thomas Nybo.

I used two terms in my last post: racism and racist acts, but I didn’t define them. Actually, I’m not sure I need to define them. Racist acts are actions taken against a person because of the color of their skin, or against an entire people for the same reason. Acts include words spoken or written. Racism is a condition of hate or belittlement that resides inside a person. It’s what gives rise to racist acts.

Examples of some racist acts:

  • refusing to rent an apartment to someone because they are black.
  • denying seating on a bus or at a lunch counter because someone is black.
  • enacting laws saying blacks and whites can’t marry, or college rules that say they can’t date.
  • enacting laws and practices that make it difficult for people of color to vote.
  • saying derogatory words against someone because of their skin color.
  • writing a piece that slams an entire race that’s different than yours.
  • erecting a statue that glorifies a slaveholder.

I could go on and on. Many are the racist acts that have taken place in the USA over the years.

But many, also, are the laws and court decisions which have set aside those racist laws and practices. Court decisions beginning in the 1950s and civil rights legislation beginning in the 1960s went a long way to correcting these racist wrongs in our nation. In addition to court decisions and laws, policies were changed at institutions (such as university) that corrected much.

Racist acts still happen. When they do, and when they are brought to the attention of authorities, corrections are made. Or should be made. A constant diligence is required to make sure the laws are faithfully executed and rights of people of color are not denied them by racist acts. The fact that many civil rights claims are brought before the courts indicates we are not perfect in this regard. Our administrators must figure out how to better and more faithfully implement the law, and our legislators must be looking at unintended holes in the law and find ways to plug them of otherwise strengthen them.

That’s my summary of what racist acts are. Now to tackle racism.

Racism is what gives rise to racist acts. Racism is what’s inside a person that causes them to commit racist acts. Racist acts are seen or heard out in the open. Racism is concealed inside a person. It may be concealed for a long time until it spills out in a racist act. Some people, I am convinced, are racists without realizing it, a condition I call latent racism (to be covered in a future post). When it does spill out, if it does so in a way that the racist act is against the law or policy, the law enforcement and judicial system can be called in to counteract the racist act.

But the racism, being inside the person, cannot be countered by any law or policy. How can the law say, “Don’t hate blacks, don’t look down on blacks, don’t think your race is better than blacks”? The law can’t deal with that, with what’s in a person’s mind and heart.

Racism is a terrible thing. How does it seep into a person’s mind and heart? Are people born racists? I covered that in my last post. I don’t believe anyone is born a racist. They become racists through education, example, and persuasion. Of these three, perhaps example is the largest contributing factor. A father doesn’t say to his son, “Son, come here and let me teach you to be a racist.” No, a son watches and listens to his father, and from observing racist acts (which, remember, includes speech), the son becomes a racist.

The father may never say anything to his son directly, but the son will learn from his father’s example. When we moved to North Carolina in the mid-1980s, we were invited to a neighbor’s house. The neighbors had moved there from New York. In the party were a number of local families they had befriended. I was 32 or 33 at the time, and I’d say most of the local folks were younger than that. The women were inside and the men were out on the front porch. One of the local men said, “If the Whites would just band together we could deal with the Blacks more effectively.”

I was shocked. That man was less than 30 years old. By 1984 the major civil rights legislation had been in force for about 20 years. Yet here were racists acts being committed by men who were 10 years old when those public policies were enacted. Why were they committing racist acts? Obviously they were racists, and they must have learned it from the examples of parents, grandparents, and others in the community. They were also taking part in persuasion, either trying to convince these newly moved-in northerners that they should become racists, or perhaps reinforcing the racism within themselves. This was one of the times I didn’t speak up, but I remember thinking how sad it was that these men were burdened with the scourge of racism.

Why is all of this important? Why do I separate racist acts from racism. I do that because of what I will highlight in my next post, that many different approaches are needed to combat racism. One person’s approach may tackle one small part of the problem while others tackle other parts of the problem. For this subject, look for my next post, on Friday.

Politics

Voluntary Lawfulness

2 Comments

Dateline 31 May 2020, 4:18 p.m. to 6:42 p.m.

With great sadness, I’m watching the news coverage of the looting, burning, stealing, and destruction of property that is going on in the U.S.A. right now. This was after watching the news coverage and video of a black man being killed by a white policeman. George Floyd was killed by that policeman even though he gave no cause for the use of such force. It looks like murder, or at the least depraved indifference by up to four policemen. A man’s life snuffed out by policemen who acted as police, judge, and jury.

But what we are seeing is only in part protests. Much of it is simple lawlessness. It’s either pent-up rage that has spilled over into lawlessness or it’s deliberate taking advantage of the situation. Either way, a flashpoint has been reached. It’s now happening in, it seems, 50 cities. Police seem unable to keep the peace. Some of it is their unwillingness to take violent action against the criminals. Some of it might include not recognizing the difference between protestors and criminals. Some of it might simply be lack of sufficient officers.

The police are tied up with seeing that the protests remain peaceful. I suspect all police days off have been cancelled in just about every city of 50,000 people or larger, yet there still aren’t enough. While the police are in one place, looters and destroyers do their dirty work in another. It’s a desperate game of whack-a-mole.

What this is showing me is that a peaceful America depends on voluntary compliance with the law. This has been oft noted concerning paying income taxes, which to a large extent depends on people voluntarily complying with the law requiring them to pay income taxes. If a hundred million people suddenly decided to not voluntarily pay their taxes, our national government will collapse.

So it is with honoring property and people. We live in peace because people want to live in peace so they don’t go killing their neighbor or breaking into houses, stores, institutions, or vehicles. A handful of people do that all the time. But what if a hundred million people suddenly decided to act unlawfully? Same thing: the USA would collapse as a civilized society. We can’t have enough police, enough national guard, enough military to maintain the internal peace if we, as a populace, decided we were not going to respect life and property.

It’s likely that what we seeing is the activity of two different peoples. One is a group fed up with instance after instance of black men being killed by white police, with nothing seeming to change, and are protesting that. Another is a group of opportunists making hay while the sun doesn’t shine. But there might also be a third group of people who are trying to incite a race war or a general state of lawlessness as a way of damaging our nation. We hear anecdotal evidence that this third group is at work, both left wing and right wing extremists. I personally think they are “no-wing” extremists, simply wanting to see America harmed.

I have no solution. I will continue to voluntarily obey the law and encourage others to do the same. I will continue to encourage local police forces to get rid of the racists, realizing as I say this that it’s easier said than done. I will continue to speak out against lawlessness. I will be an army of one, and see if I can somehow enlarge my regiment.