About two months ago I wrote a blog about “Black Lives
Matter” (*1). Because it was the title of the blog, I capitalized those three
words. But I’ve now come to realize that doing so may have contributed to one
of the issues currently facing this country where a whole series of seemingly
unrelated things have gotten intertwined and words/phrases have been redefined
– somewhat deliberately.
The focus of my blogs is most often historical with
genealogy playing a major role in my investigations. It may seem as I try to
untangle these intertwined concepts below that I’m being political instead. But
I ask that you keep reading, as I will end on a historical topic that is also
intertwined here.
“black lives matter” v. “Black Lives Matter”
It wouldn’t seem that the simple difference of
capitalization would make that much of a difference. But that’s some of the
subtlety that is deliberately confusing. The uncapitalized words describe a
concept that I support and which was the focus of my earlier blog. But the
latter is the name of an organization. One of the key pages on the website of
this organization (*2) is a list of 15 items that the organization is committed
to. Each of these paragraphs starts with the word “We”. [Each of the bulleted
items below are taken verbatim from this website.]
The first three describe some concepts that I can support
and are what I misguidedly thought was the only focus of the organization.
·
We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate
differences and commonalities.
·
We work vigorously for freedom and justice for
Black people and, by extension, all people.
·
We intentionally build and nurture a beloved
community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is
restorative, not depleting.
But, in item six, there is a shift in emphasis. It starts
subtly with a statement that seems to mirror the current federal EEO
guidelines. But it goes beyond the EEO guidelines to include such topics as
“immigration status”, etc.
·
We are guided by the fact that all Black lives
matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity,
gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or
disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.”
Then in items seven and eight, it is no longer subtle:
·
We make space for transgender brothers and
sisters to participate and lead.
·
We are self-reflexive and do the work required
to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black
trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by
trans-antagonistic violence.
And by the time we get to items twelve and thirteen we see
even further evidence of things that have nothing to do with “black lives”:
·
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family
structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and
“villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to
the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
·
We foster a queer-affirming network. When we
gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of
heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are
heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).
Did you know that these ideals(?) were part of the whole BLM
movement? I certainly didn’t. But it’s out there in their “what we believe”
statement for all to see. Are you willing to get behind a movement that is
fighting for such non-Black issues as “immigration status,” “dismantling
cisgender privilege,” “disrupting [the] nuclear family,” and “queer-affirming?”
When you see the protests taking place in some of our cities did you know that
this is what they are fighting for?
Hijacked by Antifa?
When some of the initial protests started in Ferguson, MO, a
few years ago, the crowds of protestors were primarily the local people in that
city. But have you noticed that the composition of the crowds in the current
protests? Look at the two pictures below – one from this summer and one from
Ferguson.
[Protest picture]
[Ferguson picture]
In Ferguson, the protestors were nearly all local black
residents. But the current protests are dominated by young, white individuals.
While there have been some reports that “Antifa” was
responsible, there are two problems with this characterization. First, the term
“antifa” generally applies to groups/individuals who are rarely militant or
violent and most of them engage in commonly accepted forms of political
activism. (*3) The other is that this “movement” is mostly unorganized and has
no central leadership. Thus, when looking at those who arrested, trying to find
a connection to antifa has had little actual results (*4, *5). In the protests
in Portland, only one individual was arrested that had any purported connection
to a national organization (*6). There has also been a claim circulating that
these protestors are primarily teachers, but this has also been thoroughly
debunked (*7).
But it is true that the protestors are mostly white, mostly
young – various analyses indicating 26-28 years old on average (*6, *8) – and
many appearing to be college students. Thus, nearly all the individuals are
either part of the generation termed “Millennials” with the younger ones being
part of “Generation Z”.
So, if it’s not antifa behind the protests, and they are not
local black individuals, what things do these protestors have in common? I’ve
not seen a definitive analysis, but it appears to me that there are several
factors in play here. The individuals who are involved in these riots are
far-left politically, and supportive of socialism or even communism. It’s been
well-documented that the individuals in this demographic are more socialist
than those in older generations (*9). One of their “heroes” is Bernie Sanders
who made the news this past week when he proposed a 60% wealth tax on
billionaires (*10). They are also the ones who have incurred large amounts of
debt paying for college and want the government to pay off their debt.
I’m not going to try to do any deeper analysis, but it
appears to me that this generation has forgotten, or chooses to ignore, the
lessons of history – or perhaps they were never taught these lessons in the
first place. And that brings me to my next point.
Slippery Slopes and the Cancel Culture
It was not that long ago that marriage was defined as the
union of a man and a woman. In that religious definition, the ultimate end of a
marriage was the birthing of children. But then those who were homosexual asked
that they be able to share in the same benefits as those who were in
heterosexual marriages. Initially, the “ask” was fairly low-key and only for
the ability to have same-sex unions. Some on the religious right noted that
this was a “slippery slope” which would lead to other requests, but regardless
of their objections, same-sex partnerships were approved in many states.
However, the slippery slope proponents were right and soon
the request was for not just same-sex partnerships, but “marriages”. Just one
small step, just one small word! In the years since, just as predicted, we have
been asked to move from just being “tolerant” to “accepting” (i.e. to approve
of these same-sex relationships), and then to being required to “celebrate”
(*11). Now there have been court cases where individuals with sincerely held
religious beliefs are being sued and “forced” to participate in same-sex
marriage celebrations (*12). It’s interesting, however, that such suits are
entirely against Christians. No one has ever asked a bakery owned by someone
who is Muslim to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. There seems to
be specific targeting against conservative Christians.
Last year the Geneva Centre for Human Rights Advancement
called for “celebration of cultural diversity,” in which the word “tolerance”
is defined to include “acceptance” (*13). Yet another step on that “slippery
slope.”
Now, somewhat suddenly, in 2020, we have moved even beyond the
model of tolerance/acceptance/celebration to the new concept of being a “cancel
culture” (*14). In this model, anyone who disagrees with or has ever held an
opinion that is even mildly divergent from the “woke” politically correct
individuals on the far left is attacked, shouted down, or otherwise marginalized.
So, if you say something (or even said something in the past) that the woke mob
doesn’t agree with, you will be “eliminated.”
Impact on History
As promised near the beginning of this blog, now we come to
the area of my interest in history. So, what is the impact of BLM, Cancel
Culture, etc. on history? Things are happening very quickly, but at least the
following three things are going on all at once.
First, educators are being asked to remove the teaching of
traditional history from our education system. As an example noted in (*15),
the Illinois State Board of Education and local school districts are being
urged to remove current history books and curriculum practices. George
Santayana (*16), is famously quoted as “those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it.” This is often paraphrased as “Those who cannot learn
from history are doomed to repeat it.” By removing history from our educational
system, the lessons of it will not be learned.
Second, since removing the teaching of history from our
educational system will not have sufficient impact upon those from prior
generations, the cancel culture is using force and violence to remove traces of
it from the public square. They started with statues of Confederate generals
and very quickly moved on to any monuments of Columbus, Washington, Jefferson,
and nearly anyone of significance in US history. The “slippery slope” argument
was even referred to by President Trump (*17), where it asks “Should Americans
therefore disavow these founding fathers as scoundrels and national
embarrassments, or accept them as men of their time, demigods with feet of
clay, who bore their imperfections even as they sought to steer their country
beyond them?” But rather than debate this in the public forum, the cancel
culture is just acting violently and not allowing any debate.
Finally, having removed the teaching of history and any
symbols that remind us of the past, there is a concerted effort to replace that
which was removed with a new, revisionist view of that history. As noted in
(*18), “[a] concerted effort to revise history to fit the modern social justice
narrative and insert works of fiction in our education system – from
kindergarten through higher education – is well underway.” This article is about
the “1619 Project” where it is proposed that “6-year-olds will be learning a
reframed version of America’s founding, shaped to fit today’s standards and
train the next generation of social justice warriors.” I’ll refrain from
further quotes and just ask that you read about it.
Three easy(?) steps – stop teaching the old, remove residual
traces of it, and teach everyone a new “woke” version. And anyone who objects
is shouted down and marginalized. How long will it be before we start “burning
books” as well in order to remove further residual traces of our history?
I’m concerned. I continue to learn from history. And I
continue to interpret current events in light of history which helps me to
understand these events. If we banish it from our collective consciousness,
then what will be the consequences?
Notes:
