Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Race Today

In the last year, America has experienced almost a revolution in terms of race, ethnicity and how the two interact within society. The election of the first black president, Barack Obama, showed just how far America has come in terms of the overcoming the stigma of race. Or perhaps it showed how much race is still a factor within American society. It depends upon one's point of view. This was followed by the much ballyhooed case that went before the Supreme Court on the issue of white firefighters being denied promotion due to an insufficient number of minorities passing a promotion exam in New Haven, Connecticut - and the role played by the all-but-confirmed Sonia Sotomayor who will likely be the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court. And the most recent example of race relations in the US is the case involving a white police officer arresting Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, a black Harvard professor which, on its own was newsworthy but escalated with the additional (and some might feel inflammatory) comments by President Obama on the case.

Certainly the election of the first black president is a sign of tremendous progress on the issue of race in America. It could be argued that it is a tremendous sign of progress in almost any Western nation - most of which have not equaled the feat. At the time of his election, it was being hailed as the "post-racial" era. Presumably, this meant that the era of racism was quickly reaching its denouement. However, and this is something that I pointed out at the time privately, racism is still a relevant issue in the United States and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the election of a black man (or woman, for that matter) did not signal an end to the path started generations earlier. Frankly, the beginning of the end for that issue will occur when a white man (or woman) can freely criticize that elected official for whatever reason and not be immediately labeled a racist. And it is clear from the reactions that have been shown toward those with the temerity to criticize the current president that the nation is still not approaching that point.

The white firefighters filed suit to claim their promotions shortly after the city of New Haven declared the results to be invalid and that there would be no promotions at that time due to the lack of minority candidates passing the exam. Their case was pursued all the way to the Supreme Court - along the way being denied by current Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor - where it was awarded its final merit and declared that the city did not have the right to deny them a promotion based on the lack of a higher number of qualified minority candidates. Some felt this signaled the end of race-based quotas while others felt this was clearly a strike against Ms. Sotomayor being elevated to the Supreme Court as her earlier decision in the case was overruled. But the decision did not resolve the underlying issues concerning race-based quotas and that will continue to be an issue for the immediate future. But this can be seen as part of a backlash against the race-based quota system under the larger aegis of affirmative action. Is affirmative action something that is no longer needed? Certainly it is debatable and there is merit on both sides of the argument. Certainly everyone should be given the same opportunities to succeed - after all, that is the founding promise of America. But are quotas the best way to even the playing field? Would not equal opportunities to education be an equal solution, if not better? And while it can be argued that educational opportunities for minorities are certainly better than they were 40 years ago, that does not mean that they are equal. Perhaps if affirmative action were aimed more toward education, then it would not be so polarizing for adults.

The case of racial profiling looms large when discussing Professor Gates. Was his a case of racial profiling? There is not enough public information to say for certain. But Colin Powell put it well. There was probably an over-reaction on both the part of Prof. Gates as well as Sgt. Crowley. Prof. Gates was likely tired and did not like being challenged in his own home and felt that race was the leading factor in him being questioned. Sgt. Crowley probably did not like being challenged for questioning Prof. Gates and, after a short time of listening to the professor, subsequently arrested and charged him with disorderly conduct - a charge that was soon dismissed. But it does beg the question of whether the perception by blacks is that, even when innocent, are they being challenged because of their race or because of other issues? And do the police profile potential suspects? Absolutely! Just as everyone does profiling of one sort or another. An older black man wearing a suit may not attract the attention of the police as quickly as a black youth wearing a bandanna. A young white man in shorts and sandals may not get a job as easily as a black youth wearing a shirt and tie. Everyone judges others by what they see immediately and color is one of those things that is immediately visible to everyone. But to argue that the profiling takes place only because of color is to suggest that we can know the motivations of others - something that simply is not possible. We know only what we see, hear and touch. We cannot prove what someone else is thinking. Indeed, everything else is subjective. But perhaps some good will come of this as it may be an opportunity for others to talk and be heard and to communicate and learn from others.

Institutionalized racism is no longer acceptable but that does not mean that racism is gone, only that it is not so overt as it was in earlier generations. It is unlikely that it will ever truly go away unless we all go blind and color no longer holds any meaning. But it does not mean that we should hold judgment based only on one's color nor necessarily withhold judgment solely for the same reason. Perhaps, with time and patience, we can learn that the definition of people is, and should be, based on the person themselves and not what is seen at first glance.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Anger management

Anger is one of those emotions that demonstrates a loss of control. More precisely, it is a glaring symptom of a loss of control. A loss of control over any situation, large or small, can trigger an angry reaction. And anger can fuel itself to rages that grow increasingly uncontrollable until the underlying anger is spent.

So what to do about it? It is nigh impossible to prevent getting angry because on one can control everything in their life - presuming of course, that anger is the natural reaction to a loss of control. For many people, myself included, this is true. So if it is not possible to prevent becoming angry at a loss of control, the next best solution is learning to manage the anger instead of letting it control you. Using the anger as a tool to or a focal point can help to manage the anger to a point where control can be regained not only over the anger itself but even to the underlying cause. It is not easy and does not always work but even working to get to that point can help restore the sense of balance that is lost in the maelstrom of the anger and the (often) accompanying rage. Focusing on a single point of restoration can be, in itself, the first step in recovering that which has been lost - control.

And while most of us would deny we are control freaks, few of us like to be out of control of the people, events and emotions surrounding us.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Popularity contest

"People's support doesn't bring legitimacy, but popularity". So goes a quote by a senior Iranian cleric regarding the continued discontent by a large part of the Iranian populace about the June 12 presidential election in that nation. And I am sure that the cleric and others within the ruling leadership feel that they do not need popular support so long as they possess the guns with which they can continue to quell support for alternatives to their leadership. The problem is that they were on the other side of the equation 30 years ago in opposition to the Shah and they certainly had no problem declaring that popular support granted them the legitimacy to take the actions - and the leadership - that they did.

However, power begets the desire for more power and a lower tolerance for dissent. That, in turn, reduces the standards of legitimacy from popularity by and from the populace to legitimacy through whatever means are necessary. Lies, coercion, force or anything else in between are fair tools to use within their eyes and, unfortunately, it continues a downward spiral from which it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to recover. History is littered with many examples of those who failed to learn the lessons of their predecessors. And thus does the cycle continue.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Communication

What are words for? For whatever reason, I was thinking about that today. Not the video, per se, but the idea behind that phrase. Words are simply a form of communication between people. But words are very interesting in the larger context of communication. Words are can be very expressive and beautiful, they can be limiting and even insufficient at time, and they can be more brutal than physical force. All living animals have the ability to communicate but it seems that humans are the only ones with the ability to articulate in a verbal form.

A caveat here - we know, for example, that dolphins and whales can communicate with each other through what we (as humans) interpret as song. Does that mean that they cannot articulate? Perhaps not in a manner that we can easily understand. But that means that articulation takes on a very narrow definition that is likely incorrect in the larger picture.

Poetry and literature are examples of the beauty and the power of words. Poetry has the ability express emotion in ways that are seemingly limitless. Putting words and phrases together that can convey a meaning whose interpretation depends upon the reader is an awesome ability. Literature possesses the ability put the reader into a new environment or to share knowledge of people, places or events that would otherwise be completely alien to the reader. Literature allows us to create new perspectives through which to view the world - all of which is possible through the power of those words.

In the Christian Bible, it is said that God destroyed the tower of Babel and allowed the creation of a multitude of languages. But the existence of different languages creates difficulties in the usage and understanding of words. It allows for confusion when speakers of different languages attempt to communicate and such miscommunication has been known to start fights and even wars. Words used in one context can easily be misinterpreted in another context. And all of this is provided that the people involved in the conversation both speak the same language - even if not natively. Furthermore, native speakers of the same language can fail to communicate effectively. Any conversation between parents and their children is proof of a failure to communicate in the same language.

Words can also cause more damage to people than physical actions. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." This children's mantra is intended to ward off hurtful things that other children may say. But taking away the pain caused by hurtful words to children is a difficult thing for any parent. An even more worse example is the demonization of people that are different in any fashion. Jews in Germany, the Tutsis in Rwanda and even Blacks in America and Western European nations have been victims of the language of demonization. It is always easier to treat others poorly when they are called names that dehumanize them. When their individuality and personality is stripped away and they can be grouped by whatever separates them from others (whether it be language, religion, color or any other grouping option), the ability to cause great harm and pain is made much easier.

So, do we still beg the question of what are words for?

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Something to lose

Billy Joel sang that only the good die young. Perhaps they die young because they have nothing to lose so they are more likely to do things that risk their lives. Those with something to lose are often far less likely to participate in actions that can hurt them, whether it be physically, emotionally, financially, or in any other manner. The reality is that everyone has something to lose - no one is invulnerable. The difference is that older people, or those with families, are typically more cognizant of that fact. And if they recognize what they have to lose, they are far more reticent to change anything that could impact them negatively.

When put in the context of revolution, the contrast is stark. Revolutions are often started by the youth of a nation while their success often depends upon the support of the middle class and some of the elites. Several examples come to mind, including the failed protests in China in 1989, the failed protests in Iran in 1999 and some of the "color revolutions" that occurred in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. A great majority of those who came out to protest their governments were students and other youngsters. In spite of the dangers of crackdowns by the governments they were protesting against which often resulted in beatings, arrests and even death, they came out in the belief that their presence would result in a change that would grant them what they sought. In some cases, their presence resulted in enough pressure that they were soon joined by the middle class who had previously stayed aloof for fear of loss and they would find a leader from one of the elites who sensed an opportunity to ascend higher. In other cases, they suffered disastrous consequences.

But why did they risk themselves in such ventures? The reasons are myriad and sometimes perhaps even conflicting. It would not be a platitude to argue that many of them sought freedom, though that term is subjective and was often interpreted differently by those who risked themselves. One example is China during the spring of 1989, when the students protested against government corruption as well as the ability to be able to do better for themselves. While they enjoyed a great deal of support among the general populace and even among some of the leading elites, their protests were eventually crushed by an apparatus that was unwilling to tolerate any criticism and feared a loss of its unlimited power. It could be argued that the protests did succeed in some small measure as official corruption has become a persistent whipping boy of the government and the great majority of Chinese have seen dramatic increases in their lives in the 20 years - all of which is claimed as a validation of and by the government and its brutal crackdown of those student protesters.

But it is important to note that the protests began among the students, as they have for much of the last century in China. The great majority of citizens, middle-class and elites, held back from participating in the protests until it appeared that there would be no forceful response from the government (which occurred due to disagreements within the government as to how to handle the protesters). That the protests failed was not as important as who led them. The initial risk (which is always the greatest) was assumed almost exclusively by the students. Whether one agreed with the risk - and it can be rather certain that the parents were not happy for their children to risk themselves - the students felt the risk was minimal to themselves. Perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of a false sense of bravado, perhaps the naivete of youth that it is invulnerable, the youth were the ones to strike out on the new path. It was for the remainder to determine whether the path upon which they set out had a destination that could be reached.

Each new generation spawns new ideas. The lessons of the past are often left in the past - a past that only the older generations can recall with ease. Much like the story of Pavlov's dogs, if punished for taking a particular action (or for putting their necks on the line), then they are less likely to do it again. But for those with little experience - good or bad - then the lure of taking risks is sometimes too strong to resist. And with great risk can sometimes come great reward. But the opposite corollary holds equally true in that that risk can be realized. One of the definitions of risk is "the hazard or chance of loss" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/risk). To understand risk and loss, each generation must first experience it.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Michael Jackson

I am not sure whether to be appalled or amazed at the hoopla surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. The morbid fascination with a singer - albeit a very famous one - is simply stupefying to me. I have read some of the obituaries written about him and it is clear that he was, among all other things, human and fallible. He had his incredible musical gifts and his personal foibles that made him into the media target that he had become in the last half of his life. Prior to his death, it seemed that as many people admired and loved him for his music and talent as despised and hated him for his personal failings. Yet, in the aftermath of his sudden (we could say premature, but that would suppose a level of knowledge that he should have died at some later point in time that is impossible to prove) death, he has returned to his status as a musical giant whose legacy outshines all else in his life. He is being worshiped and remembered as he was at the height of his fame and not as he was in his later years.

This is not to say that we should speak ill of the dead, but the level of celebrity worship is worrying at best, dangerous at worst. Celebrity status is highly sought after with the (mistaken) belief that its very attainment is a justification of sorts for the methods employed to gain it. Additionally, it almost seems as celebrity status confers a knowledge of almost any subject and the ability to speak to said subjects with an authority normally reserved for those with years of study and education. It is a sad state of affairs when well-known actors or actresses are asked to serve as "ambassadors" for UN agencies in order to generate attention for the cause du jour instead of allowing people whose livelihoods are helping others serve in similar capacities. After all, who wants to hire John or Jane Smith to serve as an "ambassador" for [insert generic] relief agency when they can hire Johnny or Jenny Millionaire actor?

This does not mean that celebrities are not allowed an opinion or to help on causes that are important to them but that celebrity status should not make them more important than others. Nor should celebrity (and its attendant - and sometimes unwanted - attention) detract from other more important (another subjective term, to be sure) issues. The protests and crackdown in Iran, which was a major event in the world news, was quickly replaced by Michael Jackson's death. Subsequent events in Iran have been relegated to "below the fold", under the continuing mass coverage of Jackson's death and any related issues. And that is just one issue. The US economy and its continued free fall, a major military offensive by US troops in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of US troops from Iraqi cities have all been relegated to the back pages to satiate the public's thirst for knowledge of everything related to Michael Jackson.

But he is one man. Certainly a man who had a great impact on the world through his music (I remember where I was when his "Thriller" video was first released), but one man nonetheless. Yet the public is more concerned over the minutiae of his death than with events throughout the world that hold more sway over their daily lives. The devoted attention of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people at the expense of many other issues could be written off as curiosity run amok, a one-time event. Yet recent history and its fascination with all celebrities would indicate that this is a trend that continues to roll on - very possibly to the peril of all and not just to the obsessed fans.

I wonder if the thousands arrested and likely being persecuted in Iran feel as concerned about the death of Michael Jackson as those who have followed his death for the last week or so. Somehow, I doubt it...

Friday, July 3, 2009

A day at the beach

A day at the beach crabbing is an exercise in futility. Crabbing is the process of fishing for crabs or, more simply, just like fishing. It is an exercise in patience and persistence with an undetermined end that can be either exhilarating or exasperating. Ultimately, its reward is not so much the end result but the process itself - or so I am told. While I cannot profess to be a fisherman nor to enjoy its alleged benefits, I am not blind to some of the things that are a result.

Fishing is an opportunity to talk with others who share the same passion. Stories are passed along, tips are freely offered and accepted on the best ways to accomplish the task at hand and drinks (typically alcoholic) are consumed with great gusto. This is an opportunity to share and partake of large event that would not be available in most other settings. There is a personality to those who enjoy fishing that is refreshing in a world otherwise locked within itself or its immediate surroundings. People with whom there is otherwise nothing in common giving and taking is very reassuring. There is a diversity that does not seem to percolate very far beyond those piers but, on those piers, everyone is equal and that is refreshing in a world where equality seems to be a quaint dream otherwise yet to be realized.