Category Archives: Politics

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.

miscellaneous, Politics

So Much Anger

Leave a comment

Is it the shut down of normal life due to the corona virus that is causing people to be so angry of late, including me?

We all know that fights can break out on social media. The only social media I do is Facebook (well, I just joined Next Door but haven’t gotten into it). It’s easy to witness fights there. Yesterday a friend shared something about injection of medicine into someone’s lungs. The original poster (not my friend, but a person unnamed) said she was a respiratory therapist, and that, while President Trump’s recent disinfectant comments were poorly worded he was actually spot-on for what the treatment is and does. She wasn’t saying that an effective treatment of corona virus has been found, but that the president’s question was actually of something worth considering. To show that she has no political agenda, she said she has never voted and isn’t even registered to vote.

Enter an acquaintance—I won’t call him a friend—who used to attend church with me and the one who shared that post. He said this: “This person needs to shut the hell up!!!! Not registered to vote, won’t vote, your [sic] not neutral your [sic] a moron sheep that has no right to share their opinion. No vote, no whining about anything!!!” That struck me the wrong way. First off, the respiratory therapist wasn’t whining, just sharing some of her experience. Second, I wasn’t aware the First Amendment had been rewritten to allow free speech only to those who voted. That’s the sort of thing I would expect in China. I replied to his comment with those sentiments. He then responded:

Dave is your head up your ass?

Sue is a friend, dear friend we can disagree or discuss a topic with out your two cents for sure!!!

He and I aren’t Facebook friends (not sure why, just never connected after life took us in different directions) and it looks like we won’t be. If he doesn’t think the First Amendment applies to all, we have little in common politically.

The other item of anger that helped define my week was in real life, not on social media. I lost my cool with someone who pushed my buttons (not my wife!). I let my anger loose in a phone call when the person once again pushed my buttons, for perhaps the fifth straight pone call. This person has always pushed my buttons and I’ve always controlled my anger much better. This week I let it go. I’ve since sent an e-mail of apology, but haven’t heard back yet. The person doesn’t regularly check e-mail.

So what caused my outburst? Yes, my buttons were pushed. Not one button but three by this person, three issues raised where he/she criticized me and my wife. It’s been happening for years, and I had finally had enough. But has the shutdown/lock-down/stay-at-home movement had a negative effect on my ability to deal with negative people?

I just read a post where someone was critical of some teenage girls who were out on a trail by a river and lake yesterday dressed in skimpy bikinis, more thongs. I agree with the poster that I’d rather not see such sights. I started to post in agreement, then stopped. I decided it’s just not worth it and moved on.

Life is good. God is good. There’s no reason to dive into these negatives. Controlling my own behavior is what I’m called to do, not to fix stupidity or wrong-headedness in others.

America, Politics

Looking at One Person’s View On Impeachment

Leave a comment

I write this on Thursday, December 19, 2019, for posting on Friday.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Passions are running high on both sides. One FB friend I never would have suspected is FOR impeachment, mainly on the charge of obstructing Congress. I have debated him on FB, saying the president has no obligation to cooperate with those who are trying to remove him from office.

In past similar situations, thinking mainly of Nixon, he also defied Congress. Congress took him to court and asked that the SCOTUS fast-track the process. In compliance with the court, Nixon handed over the subpoenaed items, they showed he had indeed committed crimes, and he would have been impeached had he not resigned.

That’s not what Congress has done here. They have subpoenaed Trump for documents and witnesses. These have not been produced. Rather than go to court to have them enforced, they just impeached him.

In the debate with my friend on FB, another friend said Trump had already committed impeachable offenses and he offered a video of Robert Reich from April 5, 2017 as proof. While I have no respect for this former Cabinet member, I decided to listen to his video to see if I may have overlooked anything. Reich suggests four impeachable offenses at that time, with a fifth one brewing. Let’s look at them

One: Trump is “unfaithfully” executing his duties as president by accusing his predecessor, President Obama, of undertaking an illegal and impeachable act, with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation.

Sorry, Mr. Reich, but no one appointed you of what is or is not faithful or unfaithful execution of office. It is unfaithful execution to criticize your predecessor? Give me a break. This is ridiculous.

Two: The Constitution forbids government officials from taking things of value from foreign governments. But Trump is making big money off his Trump International Hotel by steering foreign diplomatic delegations to it. And will make a bundle off China’s recent decision to grant his trademark applications for the Trump brand, decisions Chinese authorities arrived at directly because of decisions Trump has made as president.

Is Trump “steering” business to his hotel? Or are foreign delegations using it because it’s a good venue in Washington DC? Is Trump donating the profits from that hotel to charity? Hardly impeachable. And, as to China, has any president in the last 100 years been tougher on China than Trump? Reich, your argument doesn’t hold up.

Three: Trump’s ban on travel into the U.S. from 6 Muslim countries, which he initiated, advocated for, and oversees—violated [the free exercise of religion clause].

The courts struck down that travel ban and it wasn’t enforced. How can it be impeachable when Trump complied with the court? Again, Mr. Reich, that’s ridiculous. I also point out (since you don’t seem to know this), that there are some 30 Muslim majority countries. If travel from individuals of six of those were banned, then travel from individuals from 24 of them was allowed. That’s hardly against the free exercise of religion.

Four: Trump’s labeling the press the “enemy of the people” and choosing whom he invites to news conferences based on whether they’ve given him favorable coverage, violates [the freedom of the press provision of Amendment 1].

What Reich is saying is the president cannot criticize the press. How did this criticism prevent them from doing their job? It didn’t. They were still free to publish. He denied them an audience. Guess what, Mr. Reich, the First Amendment doesn’t grant the press an audience. The president is free to give interviews to whom he wants to.

Five: Evidence is mounting that Trump and his aides colluded with Russian operatives to win the 2016 presidential election—which Reich says meets the definition of treason.

Reich was so wrong on this, where to begin? Several investigations failed to find the alleged collusion. The evidence mounted against this. If this took place, it happened while Trump was a candidate. Do you really think a president can be impeached for things he did before he was president? I think not.

I’ve never liked Reich, never thought he had the country’s best interests at heart. Now I’m sure of it.

America, History, Politics

Thoughts On Impeachment: Original Sources

Leave a comment
One of my copies of the Federalist Papers. Yes, I bought it used, to have at the office. This copy stays in the sun room; my other stays in The Dungeon.

As we deal with impeachment of the president in 2019, we have few precedents to base a position on. Impeachment has happened only twice, and would have occurred one other time had not the president resigned.

What is an impeachable offense? What was on the Founders’ minds at the Constitutional Convention? How would they approach it today? The place I always turn first on Constitutional issues is the Federalist Papers. What did Madison, Hamilton, and Jay have to say concerning this?

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

Federalist #65, by Alexander Hamilton

I don’t find this particularly helpful. Or, rather, it’s helpful, but not very comprehensive. Impeachment is a political process. Because the president is immune from being charged criminally while president, so that he/she wouldn’t be continuously harassed in office, impeachment by the House, trial by the Senate—resulting either in acquittal or conviction, resulting in removal from office, and then charging and trial by the courts. That’s the process, but for what can the president be impeached? I just went through the entire Federalist Papers, searching for “impeach” and other related terms. I’m surprised at how little is included. They include much discussion of why the Senate is the right body for impeachment trials. But, as far as discussions on what is and what is not an impeachable offense, I find very little, except what I’ve quoted above from Federalist #65.

An additional source is James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention. I just went through those notes, looking for discussion on what is impeachable, and I found this.

The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up. Col. MASON. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after “bribery” “or maladministration.”

Mr. GERRY seconded him.

Mr. MADISON So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS, it will not be put in force & can do no harm. An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.

Col. MASON withdrew “maladministration” & substitutes “other high crimes & misdemeanors agst. the State”

On the question thus altered

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

James Madison, Notes on the Constitutional Convention, for September 8, 1787

 This gives us a little more to go on. The original clause on impeachment was for treason and bribery. Mason of Virginia wanted to add “maladministration” as a reason for impeachment. What, exactly, is maladministration? I interpret it to mean “doing a bad job” or “not doing a good job”. In other words, incompetence or malfeasance.

The summary of the debate, somewhat spare in Madison’s words, was that maladministration would never in fact be used as a reason for impeachment, and the correction for maladministration is elections.

Facing rejection of his motion, Mason changed the motion to add “other high crimes & misdemeanors”. In other words, for crimes other than treason and bribery. This seems to me to be more or less the same as felonies and misdemeanors—things that would result in being charged in criminal court if not the president.

Others think the word “high” applies to both crimes and misdemeanors. If that were the case, the bar would be a little different than my interpretation.

The question now comes down to whether the impeachment of the current president meets the constitutional definition. Alas, I’ve already exceeded a reasonable word limit for a blog post, and will have to answer that in a future post. I may post earlier than my normal schedule.

Politics, reading

Thoughts on the Rising Cost of Health Care

Leave a comment

I’ve made a few political posts on An Arrow Through the Air (okay, perhaps more than a few), but tend to avoid them. Plenty of news outlets and commentators do a good job saturating us with news and news analysis.

But this one I must, because I found a magazine article that agrees with me and presented the same analysis of health care costs that I did at least five years ago.

Somehow we got on the mailing list for Imprimis, the magazine published by Hillsdale College. We’ve never given them money, so it was a curiosity when it first showed up in our mail. It’s a good magazine, however. I tend to read the issues in batches, whenever the magazine basket gets to overflowing.

Last week I read the September 2018 issue. The article is titled “A Short History of American Medical Insurance” by John Steele Gordon. I don’t know him, but I like his article. Perhaps I like it, in part, because he agrees with views I already had, yet gave me new information at the same time.

I’ve said for a long time that things paid for with other people’s money tend to rise in price faster than things you pay for with your own money. Or, put another way, what you don’t pay for yourself and directly you won’t fight to keep the cost low.

Health insurance isn’t exactly other people’s money, but, when you go to the doctor’s office and have a $25 co-pay, or when you pic up a med at the pharmacy and have a $4 co-pay, you tend to not pay any attention to the actual price of the thing. $4 for a month of pain pills? Great. $25 to see my PCP to see about my chronic condition? Best bargain in town.

Thus, forgetting that the actual cost of going to the doctor is $188, with you paying $25 and insurance paying $163. Except, you have to pay for the insurance, but that’s taken out of your paycheck and you never see it. And for sure you never see your employer’s contribution. The prescription or office visit looks like a bargain, but it probably isn’t. You see no need to fight to keep the cost down, or find a lower-priced alternative.

Slowly, over the years, those who provide those services learn they can increase their costs to a fairly high level, up to a point where the insurance company starts pushing back.

Now, I realize you shouldn’t purchase medical care based on low-bidder. These are professional services. You want the best you can get. The problem is, removing the payment away from the consumer results in the consumer simply not paying much attention, and prices go up.

Don’t worry; it’s not just you. A hundred million purchasers of medical services in America are doing the same thing. One person trying to buck the system isn’t going to get far. It’s an unfortunate result of believing that the “windfall” of having your bills paid for with other people’s money means you pay more in the end. You paid for a big chunk of your health insurance. And, if your employer didn’t pay for the rest of your health insurance, that money would be part of your salary. With the greater amount of money you could shop around for the best services at the lowest acceptable cost, and would most likely come out ahead. Health insurance would become true risk mitigation, which is the true definition of insurance.

The phenomenon is the same with other things that are paid for with other people’s money. The main one that comes to mind is a college education. When 50% of the cost comes from scholarships (other people’s money), 40% from loans (temporary use of other people’s money) , and a mere 10% from out-of-pocket during the college years, the payments are so far removed that the consumers of college educations don’t try to apply pressure to keep the costs down.

These are things I see the results of, but have no answer on how to reverse a trend and make it better. Too many people are enamored at the thought that other people are paying their bills to ever change back.

I should take time to quote a number of places in Gordon’s article where I feel he is spot on in his analysis. My post is already too long, however. Perhaps I’ll make a second post. If not, I leave it by saying I’m glad to have had corroboration, from a source I admire and consider authoritative, for some long-held beliefs.

America, book reviews, Politics

Book Review: John Locke’s “Two Treatises on Government”

Leave a comment
John Locke significantly influenced key leaders of the American Revolution.

Last week I posted my book review on John Locke’s first treatise on government, promising to come back “soon” for a review of the second treatise. Here I am for that purpose. I made a slight digression, as I obtained Filmer’s Patriarcha and have allowed myself the distraction of reading it some.

In his second treatise, Locke is trying to say why government is established, and how, and how it is changed. I found his descriptions tedious. Again, how much of this was the archaic language and structure, how much my distracted reading, how much my small-screen device I don’t know. A future, second reading is on the unwritten to-do list.

Detected and overthrown? Locke was certainly confident about the success of his arguments.
Photo reference: Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=399928

Locke started by saying his first discourse had proven that Adam had no special authority to rule over all the earth, nor did his immediate or later heirs, that there was no right of succession, and that even if there had been a right of succession we have lost the line of succession; hence, what do we do? Did he prove that? I’ll have to re-read the first treatise to decide.

His conclusion, however, I can agree with: “…it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that [Adam and the right of succession]” and thus “all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion….” Therefore, mankind  “just of necessity found out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.”

Locke then sets out to describe and prove this process in 219 pages (in my copy). In chapter 2 he describes the State of Nature. In chapter 3 it’s the State of War. He discusses Slavery in chapter 4. This interested me. On the slavery-freedom continuum, where Filmer came down on the end that is slavery, Locke comes down on the end of freedom.

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.” Locke’s Second Treatise, Chapter 4, section 22

I like Locke’s position. Given opposite ends of the continuum, all men are slaves (except for the king) or all men are free, I agree that all men are free. This seems more natural than that all men are born slaves, subject to the one man who has dominion over all.

I could go on and on. Locke talks of Property in chapter 5 and the right to defend it. His discussion of Paternal Power in chapter 6 is a blur to me. Moving to Political or Civil Society in chapter 7, Locke held my interest a little more. This phrase, “man in society”, shows up in the writings of our Founding Fathers. It’s the buzz word of the day for mankind not living alone, but with other men, and thus having to modify behavior so as to live at peace.

The latter is part of Locke’s system of government that I need to know better. I’m sure I’ll re-read this book. I may, perhaps, read Filmer all the way through first, and maybe Hobbes, now that I have both in my possession.

The American Founding Fathers liked Locke. I need to too. I’m not really there yet. As I re-read some of the second treatise in preparation for this review, it seemed clearer to me. I was able to focus on Locke’s premises and arguments, rather than just read the words. Maybe there’s hope for me yet in understanding these books.

Do I recommend anyone else read these books? I don’t, at least not yet. Perhaps in a few months, or maybe a year, I’ll have finished a second read and will revisit this in a post.

 

America, Documenting America, Politics

Saddened

Leave a comment
The e-book has been available for two weeks, but I'm just now working on the print book.
The e-book has been available for two weeks, but I’m just now working on the print book.

My book on the civil war, Documenting America: The Civil War Edition, had much to say about race relations. How could it not, when the war, despite revisionist history to the contrary, was about perpetuating slavery?

I’ve made some posts about the contents of that book (such as this one: On Confederate Civil War Monuments). This weekend, with the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia, but without  time to watch the news enough to take in a full picture of what was happening, I can’t help but be saddened by what I saw and heard about. Clearly, something has gone wrong in this country. Progress we had made has disappeared, and we are back to the 1960s, or even the 1950s, in terms of race relations.

Yet, perhaps that’s an overly negative reaction to what happened, and what is happening. I think the number of people who would take us backwards is relatively small, certainly smaller than it was in those earlier decades. At least, I hope it’s smaller. Nowadays even a small group of nut jobs can get press out of proportion to the strength of their numbers, and certainly to the strength of their cause. So, although some groups are not even close to representative of barely aligned groups, the whackos get all the press.

In my book, one chapter deals with the views of Louis Agassiz on what would happen—what should be done with—the emancipated slaves once the war came to an end. Agassiz was a Harvard professor. He wrote three letters to a colleague who had solicited his views. Agassiz’s reply boils down to this: The blacks should be kept separated from the whites, and the two not be allowed to reproduce together; and those who are already mixed-race (half-breeds as he called them) should be allowed to die out. He said that intermingling of the races was “repugnant to my feelings”.

I found Agassiz’s views repugnant. That was the basis of my chapter. Here is some of what I wrote in terms of the modern lesson to be drawn from those old letters.

What is to be done? How do we change the hearts of mankind to drive racism into the abyss where it belongs? It’s said that, if you change yourself, you can change your family. If you change your family, you can change your neighborhood. If you change your neighborhood you can change your city. If you change your city you can change your county. If you change your county you can change your state—and your nation, and the world. It’s a big task, but it starts with me.

I’m glad my parents raised me without prejudice. Yet, I still need to be careful, less latent racism creep in and, without my realizing it, cause me to alter my behavior. To let that happen would truly be “repugnant to my feelings”, and something I—and we all—must diligently guard against.

Yesterday I posted that to Facebooks, to many likes, and no negative comments. Maybe, just maybe, it will have done some books. Nevertheless, at present, I remain saddened.

 

Documenting America, Politics, Racism, Writing

Thinking About Race Relations

Leave a comment
At the spray park on Memorial Day, there was no black or white—only people having a good time.
At the spray park on Memorial Day, there was no black or white—only people having a good time.

This past weekend, a four-day weekend for me, we went to Oklahoma City to be with our daughter and her family. We had missed a birthday weekend for two grandchildren earlier in the month, so we sort of made up for it with this weekend. Our time was full of typical holiday weekend stuff. I even slept out in a tent in the backyard one night with the three older grandkids.

One bad things that happened: When I woke up from a Sunday afternoon nap, sitting in a chair on their patio, with my head back against a pillar, my knee was hurting really badly. No reason for it. I didn’t trip, didn’t wrench it. Within three days it was back to normal, which includes some underlying pain until I get it replaced. Very weird. That’s actually not part of the story, but I thought you might be interested.

The story is my observations at the local spray park on Memorial Day. This is a neat park, across the street from the grandkids elementary school. We got there around 10:30 in the morning. No other cars were there, and the water wasn’t going. I thought perhaps the park was closed. However, I soon found out you turn the water on by rubbing your hand over a sensor. The water runs on a timer, and must be restarted every five minutes or so. I thought that was nice, with no wasted water. That’s quite good.

Within 15 minutes, other cars began arriving. Within an hour, the parking lot was half full and the park was awash with kids, of all ages, having a great time with the different jets, with spray guns and water balloons. In the two hours we were there, I didn’t see anyone hurt. We left there with three happy, but tired, kids, and two tired adults.

That’s not much of a story, you say, not worthy of a blog post. No, but let me finish. On this weekend, for reading material, I brought the printed first-draft of my work-in-progress, Documenting America: Civil War Edition. I started reading/editing it Sunday afternoon. I made good progress despite my nap and my knee. I was reading chapters I’d written almost three years ago, chapters about the early days of the Civil War, when the Union and Confederacy were laying out their war aims. Soon I’ll be reading later chapters. In all of these, race is a factor.

Race, first as in slavery, then as in segregation, all with the belief that the black race was inferior to the white race, and thus bondage for them was the normal condition. Short of that, segregation was next best. As I wrote in the book, the source materials I had to go through to write this were painful to read, and painful to write about. We’ve sure come a long way as a nation. I’m not saying we’ve come as far as we should, or can, but I’m glad for what progress we have made.

Which brings me back to the spray park. We were the first family there that day. The second family was a black woman with four children. Later conversation revealed one was her child, three were nephews or nieces. The third and fourth families were black. The fifth family was white. After that I lost count, or rather didn’t bother to count, because I didn’t really care. I was so happy that the white and black race can mix like that. When the park was quite well populated, I’d say the races were pretty well balanced. No one seemed to care. Splash and play  feels about the same for whites as it does for blacks.

I thought of how fifty or sixty years ago, spray parks like this would have been segregated, and wouldn’t have been built in black neighborhoods at all. Yes, we have made progress.

I’ll get through this round of edits, print it again, and read it again. I’d say I’m a little more than a month away from having a finished book, ready for publication. The pain of reading the old, racist materials will pass. Hopefully the words I added to the source words will make a difference with someone, and will improve race relations just a little. That’s what I hope for.