Bad Karma

It isn't easy to understand this statute.  For me, at least.

Just what is Teddy Roosevelt supposed to be doing (besides riding a horse)?  Is he going somewhere?  If so, where? Why are an African and a Native American walking beside him?  Why would three such persons and a horse come together in the manner portrayed?

Obviously they wouldn't.  I suppose it would be possible they could meet together in some fantasy novel or movie (I think of Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series, where everyone who has ever died comes back to life on the banks of an incredibly long river and must interact).  But it's unlikely that's what the sculptor had in mind.

From what I read, the standing or walking figures are intended to represent continents, presumably North America and Africa.  That TR as he was called has a connection with North America, indeed with both American continents, is obvious.  It isn't clear to me what he had to do with Africa, however, unless he visited it to kill large animals with guns as I assume he did, or perhaps visit the Pyramids.  Personally, I don't think that merits a statute.  

The use of figures to represent continents or cities or peoples was once fairly common in art, and that was the case for a long time.  The Romans were inclined to do this.  Coins or reliefs showing figures representing Britannia, Germania, Judea etc., in chains or kneeling before an emperor or Rome personified were produced in response to many conquests.

Assume these figures with TR represent continents.  What then?  Why is TR riding a horse between Africa and, say, North America?  Is he supposed to unite them in some sense, or lead them?  Is he a bridge between them?

Probably not.  As I confessed, I don't really know what was intended.  I can't speak to the intent of the sculptor or whoever commissioned the statue.  I can merely speak to my impression of it and my impression of it is first that it is weird, and second that it seems to depict the standing or walking figures as lesser than the figure riding a horse between them for God knows what reason.  Indeed, subservient to the rider, in the sense that anyone on foot next to someone on horseback feels at a disadvantage; whenever one sees a person on foot and one on a horse in some movie, the person on foot is in most cases subordinate to the one on the horse.

I would have no objection to the removal of the statue solely because I think it's weird.  But the depiction of a white man riding a horse between a Native American and an African is of course particularly disturbing at this time.

At this time.  It should, of course, be disturbing at all times.  But if what is happening now in the form of protests and statue removal and the reaction to them is any indication, we can hope that this time many if not most of us are offended when others demean or oppress people merely because they exist and are not caucasian, or white.

No rational person, I think, can claim that this nation's treatment of the indigenous peoples and those taken from Africa to be sold and treated as property was not extraordinarily terrible, and remains immoral.  The reasons given for the extermination, oppression and discrimination in the past were always self-serving and incredible, and are being given less and less credence as time passes.  Read John Calhoun's defense of slavery, if you can, and, as they say, weep.

What will happen, this time?  One wonders if there's truth in the doctrine of karma.  As I understand it, karma is the belief that the sum of a person's actions in this and previous existences decides a person's fate in the future.  If karma may be applied to nations, we have much to worry about.  Other nations would as well, of course.  But we're here, and this is now.

The Continuing Vulgarization of Conservatism

One of the many aspects of our times, and our country, which sadden me is the deterioration of a once reasonable political, social and cultural perspective--conservatism--into a contemptible, irrational, self-righteous, dull, bigoted, totalitarian and often preposterous ideology, worthy of Jonathan Swift's Yahoos or members of the Know-Nothing Party.

I say "reasonable" as opposed to, say, "admirable" because I think reasonableness is the best we can expect in matters involving politics (and perhaps in anything we humans do).  Even when it was respectable (which stopped being the case not all that long ago) conservatism had its share of loonies and stout defenders of the primitive and immoral.   The normally shrewd and thoughtful Edmund Burke, a great figure in conservatism, wrote, infamously, an extremely silly kind of Romantic rhapsody regarding Marie Antoinette in his work regarding the French Revolution.  John Calhoun, who seems to have had a sharp intellect, unfortunately devoted it to rigorously defending the institution of slavery.  But much the same may be said of liberalism and its devotees.

Conservatism once stood for limited government to facilitate the exercise of individual rights.  This position requires a commitment to laws which protect individuals from the limitation of rights arising from government power and authority, which in turn requires a commitment to the rule of law.  A commitment to the rule of law requires that the law be deemed to apply in all cases, subject only to reasonable exceptions, the purpose of which is not to restrict liberty but to foster it.

Conservatives in this country continue to pay lip-service to these ideals, but are ready and in some cases eager to disregard them.  That's because they take the position that they know what's best for everyone and the country, and seek to use the law and government power to impose what they know is best, whether other citizens agree that is the case or not.  It is, after all, for their own good or if not for their own good than it's for the good of anyone who matters.

This is of course reflective of the same kind of arrogance and totalitarian thinking conservatives once maintained were characteristic of liberals and liberalism.  This repressive stance may explain why many now prefer to identify themselves as libertarians or "independents" rather than conservatives.

An acquaintance of mine who is conservative recently responded to my complaints about conservatism by stating that the view that individuals should be free to do what they want provided they don't harm others was all very well and good when there was a consensus regarding what was appropriate conduct and thought, but that's no longer the case.  So, presumably, individuals should no longer be free to do and think what they like.  It's a telling statement, one that indicates that concerns with individual liberty are not all that concerning, to conservatives.  What is significant is conformity to certain standards.

As may be guessed, given the timing of this post, it was made in connection with the Jenner situation.  We Americans have always been unduly fascinated by sex, of course, as well as gender, or what may more properly be called how we perceive and broadcast our gender and that of others.  In this case we have someone who is or wants to be a woman seemingly eager to relate that to the world at large, thereby assuring an adverse reaction from those who are disturbed by it which has also been related to the world at large.  I care nothing about sex between, to use a cliche, consenting adults, and think it should not be of any concern to others, but think those who try to make it our business one way or another are wrong to do so.

In other words, I have no desire to hear of it.  It may be that Jenner has sought this publicity, in which case an adverse reaction should have been expected.  I assume yet another "reality show" will soon appear.  But the adverse reaction is nonetheless founded on a belief that something is permissible and other things impermissible, and this is a belief today's conservatives take with increasing frequency; worse yet, they seem inclined to use the law and government power to eradicate what they consider impermissible.

Conservatives seem particularly inclined at this time to adopt laws or interpret or apply laws in such a manner as to prevent, or limit, the conduct of those who don't think as they do, and to preclude even the presence of those different from them in the United States.  The U.S. is very much a product of the Enlightenment; it's Constitution is very much the product of Enlightenment thinkers.  Yet it is insisted it is a "Christian nation" which is to attribute a certain religion to the nation contrary to the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers.  It is a nation of immigrants not only because its laws allowed immigration, but because it accorded to immigrants the same rights accorded to other citizens.  Conservatives seem less and less inclined to allow immigration and to allow others to seek let alone possess the benefits of citizenship.

Conservatives have begun to favor certain rights over others.  The fetishistic regard for the Second Amendment, uber alles as it were, is a symptom of this rejection of the rule of law, as is the growing tendency not to take a neutral stance as to religion but to favor religious beliefs and conduct (but only Christian in nature) in legal situations.  Zoning decisions are now subject to strict scrutiny if they involve religious uses.  The use of the law to provide for the teaching of religious beliefs in the form of creationism is another example of the new conservative urge to legislate in such a manner as to assure that what they think appropriate is taught.

In short, conservatism as a political and cultural force has become a threat to individual liberty.  Conservatives want us to be free to do as we please provided we do as they please.  They don't want us to do otherwise, and actively seek to prevent us from doing so. 

It's natural to wonder how far this perversion of traditional conservatism, which has its basis in classical liberalism, will go.  Ultimately, I think, what is now called conservatism has its basis in fear (and loathing, I suppose, as the late Hunter Thompson would day).  Fear of change, of most everything that is different.  It's likely that change will come regardless of efforts to prevent it from taking place, because to put it simply and frankly, people die.  It seems most who call themselves conservatives are older, and overwhelming white.  The demographics of this country are changing, and the older of us generally die before the younger do.