• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

​84       Hidden Figures: Racism, Sexism, Frustration and the Stupid Lies We Tell Ourselves.

2/23/2017

0 Comments

 
A couple of days ago, Bonnie and I went to see the movie Hidden Figures at a mid-afternoon matinee.  One of the nice things about being retired is that one can do things like that.  Other people are, mostly, at work or school, so there aren’t crowds; prices are reduced because it’s an “odd” time; and the movies are still the same because the theatre can’t change the movie just because the price is reduced.
 
Anyway, we liked the movie a lot, but it made me a little angry, and, mostly, it frustrated me for a number of reasons.  Now, the movie is, in my opinion, very well done in that it captures a good deal of the spirit of the times: times which I remember all too well.  After all, I was in high school during those times (1958-1962), so I was reasonably aware of what was going on in the country, aware of the space race, aware of the sit-ins and other early aspects of the civil rights movement, aware of the growing concerns relating to race relations, and I was upset about them, at least to the extent that a young, white Northern male was likely to be. 
 
I am also aware that the movie is not completely true to historical fact, but, like most works of historical fiction, has been simplified and has altered historical fact to make a better story.  (Yes, I did do a bit of historical research.)  Okay, such changes aren’t really very surprising, nor are they unusual; it happens all the time in movies, novels, and TV shows.  The fact remains that, for the most part, it presents a reasonably accurate picture of the time and of events which actually did occur.
 
I think what frustrates me, as one who was alive and reasonably aware at the time, is that the story has been so little known.  The facts may not have been quite as dramatic as the movie makes them out to be, but the racism and sexism portrayed can be established as fact, and, at least to me, they mark one of the more shameful periods of our collective history as a nation. 
 
What frustrated me the most, however, was my realization that there is still much too much of these underlying attitudes in the present, largely due, I think, to the belief that we have now moved beyond that and that this sort of problem simply doesn’t exist anymore.  I have to say that the evidence seems to suggest that this is simply not the case.  In other words, it’s a lie.  And, perhaps most disturbing is the idea that, where such things do exist, they are limited to some, few folks on the “fringe.”  That simply doesn’t appear to be true, at least to me.  It shows up all too much on the news for that to be the case.
 
There is a wonderful scene in the movie where the white, female supervisor who is responsible for the “colored computers” (portrayed, apparently accurately, as all females) says to the Dorothy Vaughan character “Despite what you may think, I have nothing against y'all.”  The character replies: “I know.  I know you probably believe that.”  I think the point of this line is that it’s probable that this white woman probably did (would have) actually believed what she said.  And that’s all too much of the problem to this day.
 
It’s easy to point out the prejudicial bias of, say, the KKK and other groups who are, at least, up-front about their racial and/or sexual attitudes.  It’s harder to recognize the subtle biases of those of us more “progressive” folks, who, all too often, I’m afraid, are just as likely to have the same sort of racist, sexist or other prejudicial attitudes.  We just bury them more deeply, so they don’t stand out.  And, we don’t “believe” that we are prejudiced, either, which may be another lie we tell ourselves.
 
Yes, I am admitting that I probably have at least some of these same attitudes, but that I bury them just as deeply as most of the rest of us “progressively minded” people do.  I refer to the attitude, which I did hear expressed, that one should vote for Obama (back in that day) because he was “African American,” or that one should have voted for Hilary (a bit more recently) because she was a woman.  Does it strike anyone else that these are absurd ideas?  Neither of those are qualifications for any elective office.  Of course, they shouldn’t be disqualifications, either.
 
I think that it’s okay to be proud of ones’ ethnic/racial/religious heritage, but I’m afraid that we may be doing our country more harm than good when we choose to identify ourselves as Irish, German, Italian, Hispanic, White, Black, Chinese, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Pagan (get the idea, pick your choice)-Americans.  As best I know, I am about 98% European (Western European [German, French, Swiss, Belgian, Dutch, maybe a bit of Northern Italian, etc.]; Irish, British, a bit of Iberian and a touch of Scandinavian).  That would suggest that I am Christian in terms of religious heritage (which seems to correspond with what family history I know).  But, if my family history is correct, I have had some ancestors on this continent since the earliest days of English settlement (Plymouth 1620).  But, I also have ancestors from many other parts, of, mostly, Europe.  So, although I’m of European extraction, I’m really just an American. 
 
This means to me that I should be free to identify with any and all of my ethnic background(s).  Now I have no real quibble with anyone who (whether really entitled to, or not) identifies with a specific ethnic/racial/religious heritage (as in Italian-American, German-American, Irish-American, or African-American), but it seems to me that the important point is that we are all American!  That really should be our primary identification.  Yes, we should be proud of our heritage, honor our traditions, but we should remember that what unites us is the “American,” which should be most important, not the “whatever” which marks our differences.  As the character played by Kevin Costner says in Hidden Figures, “Here at NASA we all pee the same color.”  And that’s really true for ALL Americans, not just those at some fictional NASA.
 
Unfortunately, I suspect that far too many well-intentioned, liberal-minded folks will vote to give Hidden Figures, or Fences (a movie I haven’t seen, but I know the original award-winning play pretty well) awards because they are “Black” films, or have “African-American” cast members, etc. rather than because they feel that these people did the “best” work of the year.  Of course they will claim that they gave their vote to the “best,” but that’s probably not really likely to be completely honest.
 
Personally, I find the whole idea of these awards rather silly, because I don’t think one can make a meaningful, objective evaluation of any sort of art.  Who is better, Rembrandt or Picasso?  Mozart or Gershwin?  Why?  If you can produce some objective criteria, I’d be surprised.  No, I suspect that “liberal guilt” will be a big factor when these films and actors are given awards.  I’m afraid that those awards will do more to make the award voters feel like they are not behaving prejudicially, when, in fact, at least some of them almost certainly will be.
 
Now, I am NOT suggesting that the movies and actors I mention AREN’T worthy of awards, if such awards have to be given; just that the awards shouldn’t be given for the wrong reasons and that I find the whole idea of the pretense of objective evaluation of art another of the major stupid lies we all tell ourselves.  We seem to be telling ourselves that OUR motives are pure, unlike those of others.  I doubt that.  We all have our prejudices and we do neither ourselves, nor our country, any service by denying that.  What we have to do is to recognize that these prejudices exist and to do our best not to let them count for much, at least in our actions.
 
I went to all white schools up through Sixth Grade because the school system was built around neighborhoods (and tended to follow bus routes) and there weren’t African-American kids in my “neighborhood.”  (That may well have been due to bias in where housing was available to African-Americans, but that’s another story.)  There weren’t very many (if any) Jewish kids in that elementary school either, as I remember it.  Beginning in Junior High (Seventh Grade, for me) the schools included both “Black” and Jewish kids because the (then two) Junior Highs drew from a number of feeder elementary schools and the (one) High School included all of the students in those grades.  I found that, while it was more difficult to have friends who didn’t live near where you did, there were African-American and Jewish kids whom I liked, and some I didn’t care much for and (at least I think) it was because I either liked or didn’t like them as people.  I’d like to think that religion, color, ethnicity didn’t really seem of much importance.  At least I certainly wasn’t conscious of those as factors.  Some folks seemed to be what I considered to be “good” people; some didn’t seem so much so. 
 
Pretending to “like” or dislike an entire class, or group, is silly.  Simply looking at people as people seems much more intelligent.  That’s probably a bit too simplistic, but wouldn’t the world (at least the country) be better off if we all at least tried to look at people as individuals to enjoy, or not, rather than classes to be “better” than?  I suspect so.  Couldn’t we at least make the attempt?
 
LLAP
0 Comments

83       Thoughts on Shakespeare’s King Lear

2/15/2017

0 Comments

 
As I write this it is February 15, 2017, and this evening my former colleagues at Western Carolina University are opening their production of Shakespeare’s play King Lear.  Since I retired at the end of academic year 2013-14, this will be one of the last productions presented by Western which is likely to have any students performing with whom I had any personal contact or knowledge.  That is, this spring will (probably) mark the graduation of any students I actually taught.  Western is doing a production of Hair to close this year’s season in early April, but it’s not likely that I’ll be able to get to see that one, either.  Still, the opening tonight has gotten me to do some thinking about Lear.
 
I have to confess that, while I own six video versions of this play (second only to Hamlet), I’m not sure if I have ever actually watched more than one: the version Olivier made for TV with an all-star cast, and I’m not sure that I have watched that since it was on TV in 1984.  You see, like a lot of pretty well educated people over the years, I find this play virtually impossible to watch, or even read.
 
I am quick to point out that virtually everyone, including myself, will acknowledge that this is one of the “great” plays.  Certainly it is one of the most popular and has been the inspiration for many movies, plays, novels, etc., (several soap operas) because of its portrayal of a dysfunctional family (actually two dysfunctional families) and the fascinating complexities and characters which can be developed from the sorts of flawed relationships presented in it.  I have to admit that I have only seen one “live” production of it, at least that I can recall.  This was a production directed by Robert Benedetti at Indiana the summer between my senior year and when I started Graduate school.  It was a very sparse, low budget production put on (at least largely) by the first members of the Indiana Theatre Company, of which “Benny” had been a member as a visiting student while working on his doctorate at Northwestern.  (He spent a year at IU while earning that degree.)  It was, in my memory, quite a powerful production, perhaps because the simple staging (a bare, rush-strewn stage as I remember it, with costumes of plain black leotards) forced one’s attention on the characters and the language, as there was little else to provide distraction.
 
Still, this is quite an unpleasant play about (for the most part) unpleasant people doing unpleasant things in order just to satisfy their own, greedy desires.  Goneril and Regan from the first come off as insincere hypocrites, rather clearly out to get as much as they can for themselves even at the expense of driving their aged father out of his mind, blinding (onstage) one of the last of their father’s supporters, lusting after the same man (not either of their husbands) and, eventually ending with Goneril poisoning Regan, then committing suicide herself.  Then we have Edmund convincing his father, Gloucester, to disinherit Edgar, his legitimate son, and allowing his father’s eyes to by “plucked out.”  By the end of the play, Lear and Gloucester are both mad, Cordelia, the one “true” daughter of Lear has been killed by hanging, Lear dies of a broken heart and the characters who are left are supposed to pick up the pieces of the devastated Britain.  No, I can’t say that I am fond of the play, as it seems to me more soap opera melodrama than tragedy.  One can certainly make a case for Lear as a tragic character, but it has always seemed to me that his tragic mistake is based on such simple, arrogant stupidity that I find him very hard to find sympathetic.  After all, he wants to be treated as the king, without continuing to pay any price for doing so, just because he is loved.  This has never seemed to me to be a particularly worthwhile idea.
 
On the other hand, I’m not fond of even the idea of the “regularized” version of the play, adapted by Nahum Tate, which first appeared in 1681 (after the Restoration when the Neoclassical rules were in fairly full force, even in England) and which pretty well dominated the stage until 1836.  In this version, the evil sisters are defeated by a rebellion of the English people (not a foreign invasion), Lear and Cordelia both survive, Lear is restored to the throne (which he promptly abdicates to Cordelia), and she now marries Edgar.  While I think this is an abomination, as The History of King Lear it is the version which dominated the stage for over 150 years as it didn’t violate the essential neoclassical concept of verisimilitude, which demanded reality, morality and universality.  A certain amount of this version’s popularity was also probably due to the rise of Sentimentality and the belief that it was good for one to observe virtue in distress, as it provided one with a chance to display one’s own sensitivity, so long as the virtuous, ultimately, triumphed, as it HAD to do.  That being required by the demand for morality.
 
I guess that my problem with this play is not that I doubt its importance, nor its power, nor the fact that, like the role of Hamlet, the successful playing of Lear is considered essential for any actor who wishes to be thought of as “great,” at least in the portrayal of Shakespearean roles.  I have no problem with any of these ideas.  My problem with Shakespeare’s Tragedy of King Lear is much the same as my difficulty with Tennessee Williams’ play, A Streetcar Named Desire.  I am enough of a literary scholar (without claiming any particularly great insight) to recognize the importance and merit of both of these plays, but I can’t seem to find the ability to “enjoy” even a really high quality performance of either of them.  The people are, for the most part, unpleasant, unhappy people and they engage in unpleasant, unhappy actions which I can find no reason to excuse.  Richard III (historically accurate, or not) and Iago tell us from the beginning that they are Machiavellian evil-doers, so there is a certain satisfaction in watching them ply their craft until their ultimate downfall, in spite of the harm they do along the way.  Hamlet, of course, I find endlessly fascinating, as he struggles to try to figure out what he’s supposed to do in a world which seems to have gone in a direction which he is incapable of understanding or accepting, and, for the most part, those who suffer in that play can be said to have brought on their fate themselves. 
 
Still, I hope that the Western production is successful and that they have good audiences and the students have all learned a lot about how to do Shakespeare.  I would argue that an actor (at least a stage actor) can be most simply evaluated by examining his/her ability to handle Shakespeare.  If one can simply handle the language, speak it clearly and with an appropriate sense of understanding (and rhythm where appropriate) it goes a long way towards telling me that this is an actor who cares enough about the craft (art?) of acting to “do the homework,” to be prepared to perform.  Obviously, a certain degree of talent, good direction, well thought-out scenery, props, costumes and lighting all can make significant contributions to a production’s success, but, like all playwrights, Shakespeare wrote words!  We have little in the way of stage directions, etc., that we can believe are from his hand, but we are reasonably sure of the words he chose to create his characters and situations.  Spending the time and energy to master the understanding and performance of that language suggests something about a performer which is very hard to teach, but goes a long way to separate out the true “theatre person” from the “glory seeker.”
 
I’d like to think that over the years I helped a few people to become real theatre people.  Perhaps I even did.
 
LLAP
0 Comments

​82       FACT, bias and Budweiser

2/7/2017

0 Comments

 
According to Wikipedia, “A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually correct.  The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.  Standard reference works are often used to check facts.  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means).”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact downloaded Feb. 6, 2017.  That seems to leave little room for debate.  If it cannot be verified, either from standard reference books or through repeated observations or experiments, it’s not a “fact,” no matter who claims it to be so, nor how many times it is repeated.  That idea seems to pose a difficulty with some people.
 
A case in point might be the calls by some to boycott Budweiser beer for it’s 2017 Super Bowl ad which claims to show something of the experiences of Adolphus Busch as an immigrant to the US in the 1850’s.  Now, it can be (fairly easily) established the there ARE factual errors in Busch’s personal history leading to the creation of Budweiser as shown in this ad.  However, these errors do NOT appear to be what has made this ad controversial, leading to calls to boycott the brand.  No, the concerns appear to stem from the idea that Busch faced “anti-immigrant” (specifically, anti-German) bias and prejudice when he came to this country.  I would hasten to point out that while there may be a good deal of simplification (perhaps even over-simplification) of the whole story, one thing seems indisputable; there WAS anti-immigrant bias in the US during this period, often focused on immigrants from Germany.  This is fairly easy to verify.
 
In fact, the United States has a long history of anti-immigrant bias, which can be traced to long before there even WAS a United States.  One need not be much of an historian to discover that the peoples who apparently got to this continent via the Siberian land bridge (those we now are supposed to refer to as “Native Americans”), were not overly enthralled with the (mostly English) colonists who came to this land beginning about 1620 which led to a variety of “Indian” wars because these “foreigners” were taking away their lands for their own purposes.  And, those continued, leading, eventually, to those “natives” being forced onto “reservations” to enforce a sort of separatism so that the “best sort of people” wouldn’t have to deal with the earlier settlers as equals.  But I won’t go into the long history of unfairness to those peoples.
 
Nor, was nationality the only thing involved with this sort of bias.  A number of the original British colonies were founded, in large measure, to provide a “homeland” for a variety of religious communities which were fleeing persecution of various types in Britain.  That certainly suggests that religion, as well as nationality, has been a part of American anti-immigrant bias.  This is what led (eventually) to the First Amendment notion of freedom of religion, although bias against some religions was almost always a part of the prejudice against folks of many nationalities, as well.
 
No, there has been anti-German, anti-Irish, anti-Italian, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, anti-Korean, anti-Vietnamese bias, as well as anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, and other sorts of bias well before the current anti-Islamic prejudice.  It’s perhaps worth noting that, with the exception of our treatment of the so-called “Native” peoples, the only group which has been singled out for “interment” camp treatment was the Japanese-Americans during World War II.  Still, it is pretty easy to verify a long history of Americans having a desire to exclude “those other” sorts of people from these shores from the time these shores were settled by Europeans down to the present day.  This is why I find it more that slightly self-serving to get up in arms about the portrayal of what must be considered the rather unhappy treatment of folks like Adolphus Busch when he immigrated to this country as unfair.  It’s a FACT!  It CAN be verified.
 
Personally, I also find it a bit disturbing that there seem to be a number of Americans who have (apparently) forgotten that the Sixth Amendment forbids a “religious test” to hold any Federal, or State office in the United States.  “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  Note: these office holders must swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution, but ONLY the Constitution, and they are NOT obliged to swear “So help me God” as that would constitute a “religious test.”
 
The Fourteenth Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  This establishes the idea that all citizens are required to be given equal protection under the law, including protection against religious discrimination. 
 
In fact, The Treaty of Tripoli (signed Nov. 4, 1796, ratified by the Senate [unanimously] June 7, 1797) stated rather specifically “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”  This would certainly appear to establish that, contrary to some current statements, the US was never intended to be a “Christian” nation.  After all, we did say that rather explicitly (see above).
 
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that a law was constitutional if it
            1.   Had a secular purpose
            2.   Neither advanced nor inhibited religion
            3.   Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
 
So, in spite of our rather lengthy history, as a people, our Founders would appear to have established the idea rather firmly that: 1.) all people born or naturalized in the United States are equally citizens and subject to the same treatment under the law; 2.) religion is not a factor in citizenship; 3.) the United States was not founded on the Christian religion and bears no enmity against Islam specificly.
 
Of course, the notion of “naturalization” (a process for becoming a citizen) is clearly implied in the Fourteenth Amendment, as well, and has been provided for in a variety of other laws.  That implies that immigrants from other countries are supposed to be welcome to come to these shores for the purpose of becoming citizens and those who are born here (and are subject to US jurisdiction) are citizens.  Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to allow for citizenship for former slaves, but it was not limited to them.
 
These may be uncomfortable facts, but they appear to be FACTS.  It is also a fact that we, as a nation, have not always been completely comfortable with those facts and that one cannot deny that we, as a people, have engaged in prejudicial and biased behavior on nationalistic, ethnic and religious grounds throughout our history.  Still, it is a fact (Note: not an “alternative fact” [i.e. a lie]) that this sort of behavior is contrary to our stated beliefs and laws.  That is also a fact.  To boycott a company, or its products because we don’t wish to acknowledge the truth of that, is to lie to ourselves, which I find not only despicable, but sad.
 
Anyway, I had a Bud with some food during the game (and I drink VERY little), but, somehow, it seemed appropriate that evening.
 
LLAP
0 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly