Godwin's Law

You won't find this in the law books. But it's an all-purpose rule that is hard to avoid nowadays, in its original form or in one of its variations. The law, which was originated by Mike Godwin, an American author and attorney (although it isn't a real law), states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches.” “That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or his deeds.” (Wikipedia – emphasis added by Sir Oracle.)

And it's true. The choice of Hitler is unfortunate, however, because it cheapens memories of Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust, but that's what happens. People become frustrated when others don't accept their views, and they use the worst insult they can imagine. I guess that it's encouraging that their imaginations can devise nothing more horrible than a comparison to Hitler, but that is only a symptom of a far more severe problem.

Too many people, now and in the past, have sought an all-encompassing truth. It is an answer to all questions. It is not simply a “fall back” position, but a sincere – if unconsidered – view that the one they accuse of evil is, in fact, evil. (I wonder if our fellow Americans, in their frustration, aren't now substituting Trump into the law, viewing him as the cause of anything they don't like.)

And, as I mentioned, it's a reaction that has galvanized huge numbers of people to specify the cause of all problems. “Knowing” the cause of your troubles saves a lot of time and rumination. It's far easier than thinking and analyzing. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Reduce to the absurd. Only you don't recognize it as absurd. It's all real and justified.

That's the origin of prejudice – of scapegoats and scapegoating. You remove the need for any thought or doubt if you can designate a single cause for everything that is wrong. And that provides a simple solution to every problem. Eliminate the single cause. (It's an approach that has to be controlled however. The cause can't be totally eliminated because that would leave no explanation for future problems. A remnant of “evil” must remain.)

Godwin identified what people view as evil. Hitler and Nazism were evil, and those who are on line can more easily accuse those they oppose of some kind of similarity to Hitler than they can voice their frustration in the form of logical arguments. Ad hominem arguments are simple – but they are the arguments of the simple-minded – or of those who are, themselves, evil. If you attack your opponent personally you don't have to make a solid case against his point of view, or justify your own. It has become an issue of his personal character and traits rather than a discussion of the merits of a particular view; it is a matter of rhetoric, rather than reason.

America has a history of such prejudices. They exist to this day, but are nothing when compared to the sacapegoating in which the world has participated for millennia – anti-semitism. And that, too, persists. In the middle of the last century the world established the United Nations – largely in reaction to Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust. Nations that had remained silent through the war, ignoring the murder of Jews, felt the need to offer a “sop” to them. But they were less interested in giving them a place to live, and the division of their homeland, Palestine, (so designated by the Balfour Declaration) to provide them with their own country was only approved with difficulty, and with the Arab countries vowing to destroy the new nation of Israel. But while the Arab countries were unsuccessful in their efforts, they have, over the years, managed to maintain instability in the region – instability which they, and the UN, blame on Israel. In fact, the nations of the world often accuse Israel and the Jews of acting like Hitler and the Nazis. Or worse. An organization founded in the wake of the Holocaust has managed to blame Israel for the world's problems.

As opposed to Hitler, however, the UN cannot entirely rid the world of Jews because they will need someone to blame afterwards. So their “virtue” will be manifested by their accusations and other words vilifying one of the world's smallest nations – the one causing them all to “suffer” even though its Jewish population is less than one tenth of a percent of theirs. Prejudice and scapegoating don't require rationality – only anger. Additionally they solve so many problems. And the UN has found a way to express their bias.

They've surpassed Godwin's law by finding an evil which exceeds Hitler. The Jews.

And that prompts the question of whether the UN is simple-minded or evil. I have my bias, but I leave that question to you.

May 4, 2017

The Melting Pot

“A lot of folks didn't know they were black. A lot of people thought they were Americans.” So said (Black Panther) Jimmy Garrett about those attending his (identity raising) reading groups in the 1960's. (Cited in Andrew Hartman's A War for the Soul of America.)

They “thought they were Americans.” What a humiliating idea.

"America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming... Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians – into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American." That was the take of Israel Zangwill (in The Melting Pot) who, though English, better understood America's mission than many Americans.

Some have viewed this mission as a call for assimilation, which, to a degree, it is. America has always been a potpourri, an olio both ethnically and politically. We are a country of immigrants (remaining so today, notwithstanding the current political brouhaha) and while most of our newest members have adopted the culture of their new land, we have all gained by their incorporation into our culture of fragments of their own.

But the most important element has been the acquisition of our ways by those who have come here. It is what many have sought and what others have accepted in the quest to leave the oppressive situations in which they lived. Some came for the freedom we offer, and some primarily for economic reasons. Either way, however, they chose to join a society which they viewed as superior to their own. And there is no question that many of our country's benefits are unique, and worth the difficulties associated with migration.

There is no question, though, that Americans have been prejudiced against those they considered different from themselves. This includes those of other races, ethnicities, and religions. All are seen as “foreigners” or other “undesirables.” Some of our citizens denigrate as well those with accents, different sexual practices, opposing political views, and other levels of education from their own. Over the years, however, the differences have often faded (not invariably, of course) with assimilation and acculturation.

But we must all remember that assimilation doesn't preclude the maintaining of the cultures of their upbringings, nor the teaching of those cultures to their children or to us. That is a desirable practice helping us better understand both the values and practices of other nations and peoples – important on its own and a special need of those traveling for pleasure or business – and the comparative strengths of our own society. The importation of traditions other than our own is beneficial to us.

Still, “multiculturalism” can go too far. Some see their new home as a place which they would like to turn into one resembling the old. Europe has experienced immigration over recent decades (not just the recent flood from the Middle East) which has led to voluntary ghettoization and an attempt to import and impose the societies that they left, including religious law, on those to which they fled. And this has led to conflict and distrust all around them. It has led to demands that the newer members of that society “go back where they came from.”

A major problem is that while most want to assimilate and become full members of their new society – to become indistinguishable from other citizens – there are many who prefer the past to the present, and are unwilling to give up their old ways. Moreover, there are many who believe, often with good reason, that they are being marginalized by their new fellow citizens. But there are others who see their presumed marginalization as a meal ticket. It is a rationalization for any failures of their own, and a stick to be used against a society that they claim has oppressed them. Their ways are right, and society's are wrong.

From my perspective, such an attitude is unwarranted. It is admirable to want to preserve the past practices of your heritage, but that should be along with, not instead of, those of your new home. Perhaps your traditions should inform the new society in which you live, but they should not replace them. Except to the degree that they are protected by the first, or some other, amendment, they should be subservient to American law.

We do not live in an either/or society – one that requires that we eschew either our past or our present – but one that is both/and: one in which past, present, and future enhance each other. That is a status that will provide for our future and make it profitable for us all. We can be whatever, and Americans as well.

The Devil Made Me Do It

One of the most memorable lines from “West Side Story” comes during the song “Gee, Officer Krupke.” Proudly declared by Riff a gang member, the words, in defense of his antisocial behavior, were “I'm depraved on account I'm deprived.” We're entertained by the wordplay and the concept it conveys, but we also laugh a little nervously, both because we know he believes what he's saying,ⁱ and because we're concerned about a society in which criminal behavior may be excused because of “mitigating” conditions.

One of the more frightening ideas, and one we know to be true, is that people become set in their ways early in life. And the “ways” are, in large part, ones they've learned from others. Over the years we've learned a lot about human behavior and the factors that influence it, recognizing that there are many we're powerless to control. One of the most important of the factors relates to the people around us and their views.

Another song sheds light on the problem. The words are by Oscar Hammerstein II, and they come from “South Pacific.” “You've got to be taught” points out the effectiveness of early education. “You've got to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or seven or eight.” And it is during this period that we poison our children, while at the same time warning them about playing with the “wrong” friends.

Riff, apparently, was conditioned both at home and in the schoolyard, and he continued to associate with those who would reinforce the dangerous ideas he had already learned. Having been taught the behavior he displays, he should not, in a modern country like ours, be held responsible for it – or at least the faulty upbringing and the lessons it fed him should be viewed as extenuating circumstances and excuse any punishment due him. At least that's what he believes. Certainly such a childhood is just as likely to cause deviations from civilized normsⁱⁱ as Twinkies.ⁱⁱⁱ

There are at least two bottom lines to this situation: one is that no one is responsible for anything he does. It's not his fault. There is always an outside influence like a person or a condition^iv of some sort that is the guilty party.^v It's certainly not him. And the second is that early childhood education is largely responsible for people's behavior later in life. The song from “South Pacific” tells us what we must be taught: “to hate all the people your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught.” Children taught to hate and fear^vi will hate and fear. And chances are good that they'll inculcate in their children the same biases and paranoia.

Without spending unwarranted time on how disdain for responsibility affects the children, a subject which I may address in a future post, there are a few suggestions I'd like to make which may, at least to a degree, mitigate the situation. Thus all include education.^vii Certainly there are other treatments which should be applied, but for the sake of this essay I want to limit my thoughts to the education.

Parents – or future parents – should be taught parenting skills. No such subject was taught in the “olden” days,^viii but in our modern urban society, these skills seem lacking in many of the people who, willingly or otherwise, become parents. It is likely that not too many will participate voluntarily, but this kind of education can be made a part of the package that includes the spectrum of “entitlements” proffered to those who require them, and can be a condition for the receipt of other aid.^ix Apart from parenting, adults should be taught a variety of other subjects which directly involve their own lives and those of their children. These may include nutrition, sex education, civics and money management. The level of the teaching should be tailored to the group involved.

Classes can be given in a variety of places – public buildings where benefits are distributed, social centers, schools offering adult education, and even prisons. It would be naїve to believe that all who are urged or forced to attend them will do so, or that all who attend will benefit from them, but to the degree that attention is paid to the material offered, there is likely to be some improvement in behavior and some help for the children of participants.

Similar material, adjusted for the age of the students, should become part of the curriculum of both public and private^x schools. Giving the classes in several grades will emphasize the importance of the material presented and allow for the elevation of the level of the education as the children get older.^xi Much of this material is already being presented but repackaging it in the form of family skills may make it more interesting to some of the students. And, as is true with all teaching, its repetition improves the likelihood of its retention.

Bad parents treat their children in a way that is likely to turn them into bad parents as well. It's the curse that keeps on cursing. The profits society can realize from children who are carefully taught the right lessons cannot be overstated. Whatever can be done to break the cycle will provide benefits and cost savings that are certain to exceed the costs incurred in the programs that yield them. Perhaps it will help both the deprived and the depraved.

Next episode: “The Great Debate” – It ain't what you say but the way that you say it.

 

 

 

 

 

I        And maybe we do too. We know for certain that he'll make use of the free pass he expects.

ii       Which is certainly not to suggest that something is proper because it is a societal norm.

iii      Actually Dan White didn't claim that the Twinkies and other sweets he ate made him murder George Moscone and Harvey Milk, but that his taste for them resulted from depression (indeed, they proved that he was depressed) and the depression lowered his responsibility for whatever he did.

iv      That includes issues as diverse as genetics, poverty, life experiences, and Twinkies.

v        I'll deal with that issue at a future date.

vi       A good example is the inclusion in textbooks supplied to Palestinian children by their hate-filled elders, a large body of anti-Israeli (and anti-semitic) propaganda which amplifies the malevolence they are taught elsewhere. In general, prejudice is learned at home, but school and teachers may influence it greatly – as may biased friends.

vii      Since I'm finessing the “guilt” issue.

viii     Nor did it seem necessary. Perhaps we ignored the issue, or perhaps people were more civil in a less advanced civilization.

ix       That is not to suggest that those who do not require welfare don't need better training in parenting skills – only that we have less leverage to involve them.

x        That may be one way to get through to those not requiring welfare payments.

xi       Age-appropriate videos could even be shown at Day Care Centers in order to give small children a head start.

Boy Scouts Lite

                                                                    

I have a dream. Chances are it's not your dream. In fact you'd probably abhor it, and condemn me for having it. In my dream, there's no penalty for calling someone a “nigger” or a “guinea” or a “spic.” There are Boy Scout troops that prohibit homosexuals, and colleges that don't admit women. I dream of segregated lunch counters and hotels that prohibit Jews. As I said, it's my dream, not yours.

Let me begin with the disclaimers: I'm a kike,ⁱ a neocon, and I'm an old man. Thus I'm disqualified when it comes to saying anything intelligent about our modern, democratic, Christian society. But I won't let your biases stop me. I have my own views and I have my own blog. If you don't want to read it, that's your right. So if you want you can stop right now. Your loss.

The bases for my views are the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. They're documents once revered, but now viewed as antiques which may only be cited in patriotic speeches since they're so out of date that they can't be taken seriously any more.ⁱⁱ Yet they remain the foundation of the world's oldest constitutional republic. Whatever their imperfections, they work.

The principles, doctrines, and laws they contain, however, apply only to the government. The private sector has – or, at least, should have – considerably more latitude.ⁱⁱⁱ The rights of the individual as opposed to those of our government constitute an important distinction, one of which we should all be aware, and one that is part of the structure of the American dream. It matters. It helps keep our republic alive, and, as Martin Luther King said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Thus I will not be silent. I will speak out for prejudice, hate speech, and segregation.^iv

It's not that I support those positions. I don't. But that's my choice, and should not limit the rights of others.^v I fully believe that there are acts permitted to “private” individuals and organizations that would be viewed as unconstitutional or contrary to law when involving “public” ones. The government^vi should not attempt to control what anyone thinks, says, or even does as a private individual, unless his actions directly or indirectly cause physical damage to others. And then he should be punished for the harm he has caused – not for the thoughts or words.

So let me get back to my dream, for I have only related part of it.

In my dream, there's no penalty for calling someone a “nigger” or a “guinea” or a “spic.” There are Boy Scout troops that prohibit homosexuals, and colleges that don't admit women. I dream of segregated lunch counters and hotels that prohibit Jews. But there are few who use epithets and a diminishing number of those who listen. The insults have lost their sting because they elicit little response. Human nature may not change but inhumane actions may.

In my dream, also, the segregated Boy Scout troops, colleges, lunch counters and hotels are open but empty. No one is interested. And there are numerous alternatives, public and private, to those facilities, some with and some without governmental funding, that provide equal accommodation to all takers. The change will take place because of economics rather than compulsion. People's actions will change as they forget the old, and unrewarding, practices. Even their prejudices will fade as they learn that no one is interested, and that it is more productive to move on.

As Reverend King said, our children “will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin^vii but by the content of their character.” Nowhere in his “I have a dream” address^viii did he suggest that people should be forced to act properly. He knew too much about our weaknesses to even suggest that. His hopes were pragmatic as well as idealistic.

Perhaps we share a dream.

Next episode: “Take It From Whomever” – Everything you may or may not have wanted to know but didn't have time to ask.

i         That's not the way I view myself, but I know there are many who see me that way. And that's their right according to the Constitution.

ii        In fact, I'd bring them up to date myself if I could. But for now they remain in effect.

iii      Hillsdale College (and, perhaps, others more recently) refuses all government support and declines to participate in any governmental programs, so that it will not be subject to any strictures that derive from involvement in any relationship with it. The college is a strong supporter of the Constitution, and prides itself on its independent status and its refusal to sell or compromise that independence from governmental regulations while enjoying the liberties guaranteed it by our Founding Fathers.

iv      Actually I view arrogance, corruption, violation of the ten commandments, and complicity in the seven deadly sins as greater threats to our republic than these.

v       When their actions are unrelated to, and not dependent on, any governmental authorization. Our ancestors recognized and accepted what we find intolerable: you can't change human nature. It has to change itself. The best you can do is to make it clear that society itself is proscribed from involvement in immorality.

vi      And self-appointed censors.

vii     Nor sex or religion or any other such extraneous criterion.

viii    http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf