This “Special” post strays a good deal from my usual posts and (if I’m honest) violates my usual plan to avoid political-ish subjects, but it’s been gnawing at me for several days and I had to DO something about it. I guess that it’s just that I feel quite strongly that what I see as TRUTH isn’t really political, or shouldn’t be. If this upsets you, don’t read this. If you don’t want to be challenged to think a bit, perhaps you should be (and perhaps I should have done a better job in the classroom). I hope this makes sense. At least I am honestly upset and concerned. I think that, under the current circumstances, that’s not a bad thing!
Recently I ran across a reference to a book published a couple of years ago called The Great White Bard: How To Love Shakespeare While Talking About Race by Farah Karim-Cooper. Being something of a Shakespeare “Nut,” I decided to see if the local library had a copy. (NOTE: Shameless plug for Public Libraries AND my admission that I CAN’T buy EVERY book which I might find interesting because [1.] I can’t afford to AND; [2.] I’m out of shelf space)! Since they had it in their collection, I took it out, read it, and found it interesting. But, it confused me a bit, as I couldn’t figure out why Professor Karim-Cooper seemed so surprised and upset that people can at least believe themselves to be reasonably “race conscious” and still love Shakespeare’s works.
I agree that it isn’t hard to find what CAN be seen a racial epithets in many (all?) of Will’s plays. What I don’t understand is why that should be especially surprising. I confess that I am not particularly knowledgable about all of history, but I’d like to think that my studies of the dramatic literature and theatrical history of “Western” culture has given me at least a passing understanding of the forces which shaped it. So, I won’t pretend to speak to the historic development of African, Asian, Middle Eastern, or Indigenous American (North, Central, or South) cultures, although I have at least a sneaking suspicion that ALL human culture has in common a belief that MY people, tribe, culture, religion, etc., is the BEST one and is, therefore, actually superior to all others. I don’t find that particularly surprising, or unlikely. But, IF that assertion is true, it sort of cancels out the idea that the notion that what is called “Western Civilization” thinks itself superior only because it IS in some way, as opposed to its just having been more aggressive and, in many cases, better armed.
My special interest, of course, has been THEATRE history, but I believe (you are welcome to disagree with me and just stop reading this) that theatre frequently provides us with insights into a good deal more than just the entertainment of a culture. I suggest that it draws on accepted theories of cultural origin, religion, values, structure, etc.: most of the aspects of how a cultural system works and what it thinks about itself.
I think I am correct in suggesting that what is called “Western Civilization” is assumed to have begun with the Greeks somewhere around the 10th Century BCE. It was into this culture that Western theatre would develop during the 5th Cent. BCE in and around Athens, one of the more dominant regional centers of the Grecian world. Around the same time, Rome started to emerge as a regional power and it would eventually come to dominate what had been the Grecian region and, eventually, would become the Roman Empire about 27 BCE. That empire would last for, roughly, 500 years and serve as the primary forerunner of what would become European (Western) culture. It takes its name from the Western portion of the Roman Empire. That empire had split into two parts, East and West, after the “Fall of Rome” in 476 CE, eventually further splitting into the many countries which make up Europe (the Western Empire), while the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire would dominate much of the Eastern Mediterranean region. I confess to having considerably greater knowledge of the West.
It doesn’t seem to be too much to suggest that the Greco-Roman influences on this region were several. The idea of an Empire, ruled by an Emperor, who was the “Supreme Leader” was a (not always successful) component of its political structure, but more “local” political units were commonly headed by a King (Monarch), who supported the Emperor during Imperial times. This sort of system was preserved even after the split, with greater power vested in more local Kings, supported by even more local “Lords of the Manor,” who controlled regional properties and served as “rulers” (social, political, and economic) of their regions. They were required to “support” the “Higher Lords” and the “King” militarily in times of war, and with financial support at all times, thus establishing a societal “ranking” system which became dominant in most of Europe. The role of the “Emperor” largely disappeared in much of the western region, although that title did reappear with the formation of the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages. It was, generally stronger in the East, so many parts of the West were dominated by more regional Kings and their more local Lords. Together, this helped establish Male, Caucasian authority, the principle of primogeniture, a clearly established class system, and quite a rigidly authoritarian political system.
Complicating and (I would suggest) reinforcing this system was the emergence and eventual domination of the entire region’s religious practices by the Christian Church which was, essentially, completely based on the Roman church in the West. This church, of course, was completely male dominated, obviously was Caucasian, and rigidly authoritarian. I do NOT say this to condemn what is now called the Roman Catholic Church, but to point out the facts as I understand them. As this occurred, Caucasian authority might have even been increased with the emphasis placed on Jesus as the bringer of God’s “Light” of Truth, Beauty, etc. At the same time, of course, the idea of “Darkness” as the province of evil, etc. became reinforced. I believe this becomes important later on. While the authority of the Church was challenged by the Reformation in some places, the structural components of the society was NOT. Only the notion of final religious authority being invested in the King instead of the Pope (in England, which was of most concern to Shakespeare) was changed.
This gets me back to the discussion of race and Shakespeare. Will is, obviously, still widely admired as the “greatest poet and playwright” of English culture. Now, Professor Karim-Cooper’s work suggests (as I see it) that this appellation MIGHT not be as free from racial bias, and the works themselves might not be as free of racist influence (and other sorts of “undesirable” feelings) as one would like the works of the most admired author in the English language to be. When I encountered those ideas, I confess that my immediate reaction was “What’s surprising about the notion that Shakespeare’s plays might contain racist, or sexist, or anti-Semitic ideas?” Of course, they do! Why WOULDN’T they? That doesn’t mean that I’m enthusiastic about those influences, but I can acknowledge their existence, even if I don’t support them.
I’ve just explained why I’m not really surprised that Professor Karim-Cooper found such ideas in the plays she discusses in her book. I think that she was rather focused on looking for such, AND a good deal of the point of Othello, for example, is specifically intended to be about Race. The idea that Othello, obviously a “person of color,” and a former slave, has been chosen by the Venetian authorities to serve as the leader of the Venetian military, might not be readily accepted as a “suitable” spouse for the daughter of one of the City/State’s highest ranking families doesn’t surprise me. The story of the play is, of course, based on a story by the Italian author, Cinthio. (Actually, it appears to be true that virtually ALL of Will’s plays had “outside” sources, and so were not completely original to him.)
But, regardless of that, and even if, as Karim-Cooper suggests, non-Caucasians were more prevalent in Shakespeare’s England than is generally thought, I think it could be argued that this play is more about personal revenge through jealous manipulation, than it really is about just race. Racial prejudice is, obviously, a part of the process used here because it assists in providing a means to stir up the major characters. (Negros, Moors, and other “people of color” WERE commonly assumed to have less control over their passions than fully “civilized” Caucasians, after all.) So is a play automatically “Racist” because it honestly portrays some racist characters?
In a similar light, The Merchant of Venice is currently widely condemned for its anti-Semitism. It doesn’t require extensive study to understand that the position of the Church, rather an important influence on all of Western culture when Shakespeare was writing, espoused the idea that the Jews killed Jesus. That’s NOT going to make them beloved in any heavily Christian culture. Of course, it actually was the Roman authorities who did crucified Jesus, but it was easy and, seemingly, correct to suggest that it was at the behest of the Jewish leaders. There WERE, in fact, Jewish enclaves throughout much Europe, although there were often restrictions on them specifically because they were Jewish, AND they were (at least officially) banned in England at this time. While I don’t think Shylock is treated very nicely in Merchant, I don’t find it all that surprising, given what I think was true about Western Civilization at the time.
There are many examples in the plays discussed in The Great White Bard (Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, The Tempest, Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, and Titus Andronicus) of how “white” is seen as “GOOD” and “black” is portrayed as the opposite. When you consider (as I do) that the Sun is commonly seen as providing light, safety, and the thriving of goodness and beauty throughout Western Civilization (and many other cultures), and “Darkness,” (black) is where evil, ugliness, devilry, and other forms of “badness” are said to flourish, is it really any wonder that these are used symbolically to suggest these conditions? (The Lighting Designer in me wants to point out that “white” is, in fact, the presence of ALL colors, while “black” is the absence of color, so the use of these names for racial indication is not only inaccurate, but rather stupid.)
I’m not going to belabor my discussion of The Great White Bard any further than to suggest that my feeling is that Professor Karim-Cooper’s book struck me as working VERY hard to suggest that there is a great deal in Shakespeare’s writing that was specifically racist, or misogynistic, or otherwise undesirable in the modern era, but that this can be “cured(?)” through careful editing and appropriate direction for performance. I confess that I am, almost certainly, drastically over-simplifying her points, but this IS a quick general summary of what I gathered of her point of view. I would urge my readers to read the book and decide for themselves.
Now, everyone desires to be proud of their history, personal AND national. Unfortunately, if one actually LOOKS at most national histories (certainly this applies to the United States) there are occasions where our ancestors, sometimes even pretty recent ones, have done things which today many would condemn as not living up to what we would today like to be the values of our nation. However, it behooves us to make at least an attempt to try to understand our ancestors’ thinking and how our culture/society might have changed from what probably seemed to them to be perfectly reasonable and proper, but is viewed quite differently today. I would suggest that without this work, it is unlikely that we will either understand or change our behaviors to suit the changes in insight that time has wrought. We also need to understand and accept that WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for things done BY OUR ANCESTORS. If some of them did, or believed, things we find abhorrent today, we CAN’T change them, but we can try to understand why they did, or believed, them and learn from our (national) past.
The Fourth of July, the Independence Day celebration of the United States, is approaching fairly soon. How many of us have ever stopped to consider that when Thomas Jefferson wrote the words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” it can be said with considerable certainty that he, literally meant “Caucasian, White MEN,” as in human Males of European (Caucasian) extraction! The idea that females, or ANY “people of color” might actually be included would (almost certainly in my estimation) never have occurred to Jefferson, the other members of the Committee charged with writing the Declaration, or Members of the Continental Congress. Why should it have? Everything in the history of Western Civilization would have suggested the propriety of just including MALES in those notions and, it seems likely to me that many of the Founders would have liked to include some mention of Christianity. I suspect that the Reformation had so splintered Christianity (NOTE: many of the colonies were, in fact, founded by various, DIFFERENT, specific Christian groups.) so it’s likely that it would have been even harder to get the Declaration adopted than it was, if they had included this. So they, purposely, did NOTHING to even suggest the idea of a “national religion” in this document, and wrote that notion firmly OUT of the Constitution, in the First Amendment.
The notion of what is implied in the concept of “all men” has, in fact, changed considerably over the years, so that it now seems most widely to mean “all HUMANS,” except in the minds of some few who would suggest that the “Creator” gave those “certain unalienable Rights” only to some.
It is also quite easy to forget that the land which became the United States was, in all areas, occupied by human beings before our earliest ancestors arrived. As I can trace some of my ancestry back to The Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock, I confess to being less than thrilled when I contemplate the FACTS about our nation’s treatment of the Indigenous peoples who (it is now believed) were on the continents we call the “Americas” for thousands of years BEFORE anything resembling “Western Civilization” began. One of the best(?), brief summaries of that treatment (which includes “American” treatment of the people we imported from Africa to serve as slaves) is from John Wayne, an actor in a number of rather good movies, but with whom I disagree on several social topics. He is quoted as having said:
Recently I ran across a reference to a book published a couple of years ago called The Great White Bard: How To Love Shakespeare While Talking About Race by Farah Karim-Cooper. Being something of a Shakespeare “Nut,” I decided to see if the local library had a copy. (NOTE: Shameless plug for Public Libraries AND my admission that I CAN’T buy EVERY book which I might find interesting because [1.] I can’t afford to AND; [2.] I’m out of shelf space)! Since they had it in their collection, I took it out, read it, and found it interesting. But, it confused me a bit, as I couldn’t figure out why Professor Karim-Cooper seemed so surprised and upset that people can at least believe themselves to be reasonably “race conscious” and still love Shakespeare’s works.
I agree that it isn’t hard to find what CAN be seen a racial epithets in many (all?) of Will’s plays. What I don’t understand is why that should be especially surprising. I confess that I am not particularly knowledgable about all of history, but I’d like to think that my studies of the dramatic literature and theatrical history of “Western” culture has given me at least a passing understanding of the forces which shaped it. So, I won’t pretend to speak to the historic development of African, Asian, Middle Eastern, or Indigenous American (North, Central, or South) cultures, although I have at least a sneaking suspicion that ALL human culture has in common a belief that MY people, tribe, culture, religion, etc., is the BEST one and is, therefore, actually superior to all others. I don’t find that particularly surprising, or unlikely. But, IF that assertion is true, it sort of cancels out the idea that the notion that what is called “Western Civilization” thinks itself superior only because it IS in some way, as opposed to its just having been more aggressive and, in many cases, better armed.
My special interest, of course, has been THEATRE history, but I believe (you are welcome to disagree with me and just stop reading this) that theatre frequently provides us with insights into a good deal more than just the entertainment of a culture. I suggest that it draws on accepted theories of cultural origin, religion, values, structure, etc.: most of the aspects of how a cultural system works and what it thinks about itself.
I think I am correct in suggesting that what is called “Western Civilization” is assumed to have begun with the Greeks somewhere around the 10th Century BCE. It was into this culture that Western theatre would develop during the 5th Cent. BCE in and around Athens, one of the more dominant regional centers of the Grecian world. Around the same time, Rome started to emerge as a regional power and it would eventually come to dominate what had been the Grecian region and, eventually, would become the Roman Empire about 27 BCE. That empire would last for, roughly, 500 years and serve as the primary forerunner of what would become European (Western) culture. It takes its name from the Western portion of the Roman Empire. That empire had split into two parts, East and West, after the “Fall of Rome” in 476 CE, eventually further splitting into the many countries which make up Europe (the Western Empire), while the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire would dominate much of the Eastern Mediterranean region. I confess to having considerably greater knowledge of the West.
It doesn’t seem to be too much to suggest that the Greco-Roman influences on this region were several. The idea of an Empire, ruled by an Emperor, who was the “Supreme Leader” was a (not always successful) component of its political structure, but more “local” political units were commonly headed by a King (Monarch), who supported the Emperor during Imperial times. This sort of system was preserved even after the split, with greater power vested in more local Kings, supported by even more local “Lords of the Manor,” who controlled regional properties and served as “rulers” (social, political, and economic) of their regions. They were required to “support” the “Higher Lords” and the “King” militarily in times of war, and with financial support at all times, thus establishing a societal “ranking” system which became dominant in most of Europe. The role of the “Emperor” largely disappeared in much of the western region, although that title did reappear with the formation of the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages. It was, generally stronger in the East, so many parts of the West were dominated by more regional Kings and their more local Lords. Together, this helped establish Male, Caucasian authority, the principle of primogeniture, a clearly established class system, and quite a rigidly authoritarian political system.
Complicating and (I would suggest) reinforcing this system was the emergence and eventual domination of the entire region’s religious practices by the Christian Church which was, essentially, completely based on the Roman church in the West. This church, of course, was completely male dominated, obviously was Caucasian, and rigidly authoritarian. I do NOT say this to condemn what is now called the Roman Catholic Church, but to point out the facts as I understand them. As this occurred, Caucasian authority might have even been increased with the emphasis placed on Jesus as the bringer of God’s “Light” of Truth, Beauty, etc. At the same time, of course, the idea of “Darkness” as the province of evil, etc. became reinforced. I believe this becomes important later on. While the authority of the Church was challenged by the Reformation in some places, the structural components of the society was NOT. Only the notion of final religious authority being invested in the King instead of the Pope (in England, which was of most concern to Shakespeare) was changed.
This gets me back to the discussion of race and Shakespeare. Will is, obviously, still widely admired as the “greatest poet and playwright” of English culture. Now, Professor Karim-Cooper’s work suggests (as I see it) that this appellation MIGHT not be as free from racial bias, and the works themselves might not be as free of racist influence (and other sorts of “undesirable” feelings) as one would like the works of the most admired author in the English language to be. When I encountered those ideas, I confess that my immediate reaction was “What’s surprising about the notion that Shakespeare’s plays might contain racist, or sexist, or anti-Semitic ideas?” Of course, they do! Why WOULDN’T they? That doesn’t mean that I’m enthusiastic about those influences, but I can acknowledge their existence, even if I don’t support them.
I’ve just explained why I’m not really surprised that Professor Karim-Cooper found such ideas in the plays she discusses in her book. I think that she was rather focused on looking for such, AND a good deal of the point of Othello, for example, is specifically intended to be about Race. The idea that Othello, obviously a “person of color,” and a former slave, has been chosen by the Venetian authorities to serve as the leader of the Venetian military, might not be readily accepted as a “suitable” spouse for the daughter of one of the City/State’s highest ranking families doesn’t surprise me. The story of the play is, of course, based on a story by the Italian author, Cinthio. (Actually, it appears to be true that virtually ALL of Will’s plays had “outside” sources, and so were not completely original to him.)
But, regardless of that, and even if, as Karim-Cooper suggests, non-Caucasians were more prevalent in Shakespeare’s England than is generally thought, I think it could be argued that this play is more about personal revenge through jealous manipulation, than it really is about just race. Racial prejudice is, obviously, a part of the process used here because it assists in providing a means to stir up the major characters. (Negros, Moors, and other “people of color” WERE commonly assumed to have less control over their passions than fully “civilized” Caucasians, after all.) So is a play automatically “Racist” because it honestly portrays some racist characters?
In a similar light, The Merchant of Venice is currently widely condemned for its anti-Semitism. It doesn’t require extensive study to understand that the position of the Church, rather an important influence on all of Western culture when Shakespeare was writing, espoused the idea that the Jews killed Jesus. That’s NOT going to make them beloved in any heavily Christian culture. Of course, it actually was the Roman authorities who did crucified Jesus, but it was easy and, seemingly, correct to suggest that it was at the behest of the Jewish leaders. There WERE, in fact, Jewish enclaves throughout much Europe, although there were often restrictions on them specifically because they were Jewish, AND they were (at least officially) banned in England at this time. While I don’t think Shylock is treated very nicely in Merchant, I don’t find it all that surprising, given what I think was true about Western Civilization at the time.
There are many examples in the plays discussed in The Great White Bard (Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, The Tempest, Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, and Titus Andronicus) of how “white” is seen as “GOOD” and “black” is portrayed as the opposite. When you consider (as I do) that the Sun is commonly seen as providing light, safety, and the thriving of goodness and beauty throughout Western Civilization (and many other cultures), and “Darkness,” (black) is where evil, ugliness, devilry, and other forms of “badness” are said to flourish, is it really any wonder that these are used symbolically to suggest these conditions? (The Lighting Designer in me wants to point out that “white” is, in fact, the presence of ALL colors, while “black” is the absence of color, so the use of these names for racial indication is not only inaccurate, but rather stupid.)
I’m not going to belabor my discussion of The Great White Bard any further than to suggest that my feeling is that Professor Karim-Cooper’s book struck me as working VERY hard to suggest that there is a great deal in Shakespeare’s writing that was specifically racist, or misogynistic, or otherwise undesirable in the modern era, but that this can be “cured(?)” through careful editing and appropriate direction for performance. I confess that I am, almost certainly, drastically over-simplifying her points, but this IS a quick general summary of what I gathered of her point of view. I would urge my readers to read the book and decide for themselves.
Now, everyone desires to be proud of their history, personal AND national. Unfortunately, if one actually LOOKS at most national histories (certainly this applies to the United States) there are occasions where our ancestors, sometimes even pretty recent ones, have done things which today many would condemn as not living up to what we would today like to be the values of our nation. However, it behooves us to make at least an attempt to try to understand our ancestors’ thinking and how our culture/society might have changed from what probably seemed to them to be perfectly reasonable and proper, but is viewed quite differently today. I would suggest that without this work, it is unlikely that we will either understand or change our behaviors to suit the changes in insight that time has wrought. We also need to understand and accept that WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for things done BY OUR ANCESTORS. If some of them did, or believed, things we find abhorrent today, we CAN’T change them, but we can try to understand why they did, or believed, them and learn from our (national) past.
The Fourth of July, the Independence Day celebration of the United States, is approaching fairly soon. How many of us have ever stopped to consider that when Thomas Jefferson wrote the words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” it can be said with considerable certainty that he, literally meant “Caucasian, White MEN,” as in human Males of European (Caucasian) extraction! The idea that females, or ANY “people of color” might actually be included would (almost certainly in my estimation) never have occurred to Jefferson, the other members of the Committee charged with writing the Declaration, or Members of the Continental Congress. Why should it have? Everything in the history of Western Civilization would have suggested the propriety of just including MALES in those notions and, it seems likely to me that many of the Founders would have liked to include some mention of Christianity. I suspect that the Reformation had so splintered Christianity (NOTE: many of the colonies were, in fact, founded by various, DIFFERENT, specific Christian groups.) so it’s likely that it would have been even harder to get the Declaration adopted than it was, if they had included this. So they, purposely, did NOTHING to even suggest the idea of a “national religion” in this document, and wrote that notion firmly OUT of the Constitution, in the First Amendment.
The notion of what is implied in the concept of “all men” has, in fact, changed considerably over the years, so that it now seems most widely to mean “all HUMANS,” except in the minds of some few who would suggest that the “Creator” gave those “certain unalienable Rights” only to some.
It is also quite easy to forget that the land which became the United States was, in all areas, occupied by human beings before our earliest ancestors arrived. As I can trace some of my ancestry back to The Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock, I confess to being less than thrilled when I contemplate the FACTS about our nation’s treatment of the Indigenous peoples who (it is now believed) were on the continents we call the “Americas” for thousands of years BEFORE anything resembling “Western Civilization” began. One of the best(?), brief summaries of that treatment (which includes “American” treatment of the people we imported from Africa to serve as slaves) is from John Wayne, an actor in a number of rather good movies, but with whom I disagree on several social topics. He is quoted as having said:
I’d like to think that I understand what Wayne was trying to say, but since I have no knowledge that he made any real efforts to assist the “blacks” to achieve the educational goals he claimed were needed for them to achieve the “authority and positions of leadership and judgment,” which he claimed they were not yet qualified for, I find it hard to be very sympathetic to that idea.
In my opinion, his rather casual dismissal of anything resembling what might be called the “land rights” of the Native Americans is at least equally flawed. Based on my own extremely casual understanding of Indigenous beliefs about their land (if they can be reasonably summarized by an outsider), I think that many of those groups felt that “their” land had been given to their GROUP by their deities in a sort of trust to USE, but not to use in the same way as land was used (private ownership, fences, etc.) in Western culture, but for the benefit of ALL of them, as a PEOPLE. So, the European “invaders” saw what THEY saw as “unused” land, but the Native population saw as their “tribal homelands,” which they, as a group, both cared for and made use of for their needs.
Since the “settlers” were better armed (and, eventually, had the US Army to support them), they managed to “contain” those “red” (NOTE: non-white) savages onto plots of ground which “white” (REAL) people decided were good enough for those “savages.”
NOTE: In conclusion, I wish to point out AGAIN, that we, as individuals, are NOT responsible for things done before we had any say in things. We had, literally, NO control over our ancestors” actions and/or beliefs. Personally, I think I understand at least some of the thinking behind what I consider to be some of the unfortunate decisions which were made by my ancestors. I’d like to believe that these were honest decisions (for the most part anyway) which, as our society has grown and changed over the years, we probably would not find acceptable today.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that it is true that we DO HAVE SOME responsibility for the actions and/or beliefs which guide our society’s thinking and actions today. Therefore, it behooves us not just to sit and watch “things” happen! We SHOULD, as the opportunity arises, make our voices heard; let people (especially the people in positions of authority and power) understand how we feel about issues. I don’t expect that we will all agree on specific positions. That’s okay. I would point out, however, that we are more likely to accomplish something worthwhile if we listen to each other’s point of view and present our thinking as to why our position is stronger, than by ignoring differences , quashing dissent, and trying to erase history (and FACT) from our libraries, schools, museums, press, etc. That sort of action seems likely to end badly to me.
Our country’s been around about 250 years, I’d sure like it to continue for a few more. Monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, call it what you like; it’s NOT what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they started this whole thing. We CAN influence the path OUR nation takes as it continues. The question seems to be … will we?
I believe that our best, first step is to be honest about nation history, not to try to “clean it up and make it pretty” because that makes some of us feel good. We (our ancestors) did stuff which doesn’t seem right today, although it may have to them at the time. Acknowledging that truth doesn’t make us weak, it just means to we increase the possibility of actually moving forward in a more positive fashion. I think that’s a GOOD thing!
I plan to try to post something more typical on May 12, as previously announced. I think I can do that. We’ll all see as that day approaches….
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
In my opinion, his rather casual dismissal of anything resembling what might be called the “land rights” of the Native Americans is at least equally flawed. Based on my own extremely casual understanding of Indigenous beliefs about their land (if they can be reasonably summarized by an outsider), I think that many of those groups felt that “their” land had been given to their GROUP by their deities in a sort of trust to USE, but not to use in the same way as land was used (private ownership, fences, etc.) in Western culture, but for the benefit of ALL of them, as a PEOPLE. So, the European “invaders” saw what THEY saw as “unused” land, but the Native population saw as their “tribal homelands,” which they, as a group, both cared for and made use of for their needs.
Since the “settlers” were better armed (and, eventually, had the US Army to support them), they managed to “contain” those “red” (NOTE: non-white) savages onto plots of ground which “white” (REAL) people decided were good enough for those “savages.”
NOTE: In conclusion, I wish to point out AGAIN, that we, as individuals, are NOT responsible for things done before we had any say in things. We had, literally, NO control over our ancestors” actions and/or beliefs. Personally, I think I understand at least some of the thinking behind what I consider to be some of the unfortunate decisions which were made by my ancestors. I’d like to believe that these were honest decisions (for the most part anyway) which, as our society has grown and changed over the years, we probably would not find acceptable today.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that it is true that we DO HAVE SOME responsibility for the actions and/or beliefs which guide our society’s thinking and actions today. Therefore, it behooves us not just to sit and watch “things” happen! We SHOULD, as the opportunity arises, make our voices heard; let people (especially the people in positions of authority and power) understand how we feel about issues. I don’t expect that we will all agree on specific positions. That’s okay. I would point out, however, that we are more likely to accomplish something worthwhile if we listen to each other’s point of view and present our thinking as to why our position is stronger, than by ignoring differences , quashing dissent, and trying to erase history (and FACT) from our libraries, schools, museums, press, etc. That sort of action seems likely to end badly to me.
Our country’s been around about 250 years, I’d sure like it to continue for a few more. Monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, call it what you like; it’s NOT what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they started this whole thing. We CAN influence the path OUR nation takes as it continues. The question seems to be … will we?
I believe that our best, first step is to be honest about nation history, not to try to “clean it up and make it pretty” because that makes some of us feel good. We (our ancestors) did stuff which doesn’t seem right today, although it may have to them at the time. Acknowledging that truth doesn’t make us weak, it just means to we increase the possibility of actually moving forward in a more positive fashion. I think that’s a GOOD thing!
I plan to try to post something more typical on May 12, as previously announced. I think I can do that. We’ll all see as that day approaches….
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed