A Fierce Ignorance

 

I've always thought of the three wise monkeys above as the "Goody Goody Monkeys."  That's because my first memory of them is from a cartoon I saw many years ago.  The cartoon was made and shown in 1935, or so the Internet tells me.  I'm not old enough to have seen it at that time, but it was one of the many cartoons, new and old, which were featured on TV Saturday mornings during my long-ago youth.  I can even remember some of the song they sang:  "Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil so; We're the Goody Goody Monkeys everywhere we go."  I can remember nothing else about the cartoon, but again the sometimes useful Internet tells me that it has to do with a devil tempting the unfortunate monkeys with a variety of things involving characters from famous and not so famous books.

I think they've come to be associated with ignorance.  Ignorance of evil, obviously enough.  But also ignorance of another kind; willful ignorance of anything disturbing or potentially harmful.  Of anything unsettling, or different.  Of anything we don't want to think about, in fact.

I've lamented the ignorance of these times often enough in this blog, but have to come think, in light of the deterioration taking place, that I've underestimated how ardently, how zealously ignorant we've become.

There are things we don't want to know, or don't want to know more about.  That has been the case for most of our history, in all probability.  It's an attitude which may have one of more causes.  "Ignorance is bliss" is a common saying.  Even the Stoics maintain we shouldn't let things beyond our control disturb us, and most which takes place is beyond our control.  The Stoics, though, also claim we should act virtuously as to things within our control, and wisely.  What we know and what we learn is in our control.  We can choose to be ignorant and remain ignorant.  Whether we should is something that we are to judge "according to nature."  I think that Stoicism requires that we know what it is that's beyond our control.  So, the Stoic would not be ignorant of such things, or necessarily seek to ignore them.  Instead, the Stoic would recognize them and treat them accordingly.

To be clear, the kind of ignorance I refer to is chosen.  A decision is made.  But with it is a decision to actively foster ignorance.  That kind of ignorance isn't merely chosen, it's pursued.  Not only do we imitate the good monkeys and close our eyes, mouths and cover our ears, but we seek to repress knowledge and information.  These days, we try to do so in great part by reference to conspiracies--claims are made, things take place not because there's good reason for them but because they're the result of efforts to discredit people and things we like.  Thus they're fake, like fake news and stolen elections.

So we pay no attention to them, but now we also do what we can to suppress them.  The slavery that's part of our history isn't something we want our children to be taught.  We want them to be taught that it was good for the slaves, really, in many respects.  Sources of information like some books shouldn't be read, according to some, but they're not content to refrain from reading them, they take steps to remove or ban them from libraries and schools.

The zealously ignorant want others to be ignorant as well.

We've seen this attitude and its results whenever a nation or society become totalitarian or autocratic.  Certain knowledge, books, people and conduct are banned.  Enforced ignorance is characteristic of revolutionaries and reactionaries whenever they have the power to impose it.

Sameness has a certain appeal for us, and we may be entering into one of those period when we long to be the same and follow, thoughtlessly, someone who tells us what to do.  What better way for that to happen than in circumstances where nothing is new or different, when there's nothing to be learned, nothing left to be known, or at least no way to learn or to know more?

The Curious Concept of a Fatherland/Motherland/Homeland

 What is a Homeland of a people (or Fatherland or Motherland, depending on whether one is inclined to ascribe a gender or sex to real property)?  The claim is made that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people.  Others have made similar claims to other tracts of land, but as the current government of Israel seems inclined to govern that state presuming its status as Jewish homeland, claims made in that respect specifically have a certain special pertinence, and may be used as an example for purposes of discussion.

Consider the history of the land in question.  It has been designated by Jews and certain nations to be a homeland for the Jewish people for less than a hundred years , and not without strong and even violent objection.  What was it before then?

Before then, it wasn't peculiarly Jewish in any respect since the 6th century BCE, when Babylon conquered the area.  Babylon was succeeded by Persia.  Persia was succeeded by Alexander, then the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.  They were succeeded by Rome.  The Jews revolted twice against Rome, resulting in the destruction of the Temple and most of Jerusalem in the first century CE and then under Bar Kochba in the second century, which revolt was also crushed by Rome. After the fall of the Western Empire the Eastern Empire ruled for a time, and then Arab rule succeeded Roman rule.  The fact of the matter is that there was no Jewish kingdom or nation where Israel is now located for roughly two thousand years.  That's not to say that no Jews lived there, but most it seems did not.

Does the fact that there was a Jewish kingdom in Palestine from the time the tribes of Israel conquered the Canaanites and the Philistines to the Babylonian conquest make it the Jewish homeland?  Why would that be the case?  If we judge whether land is a homeland, fatherland or motherland based on the number of years it was inhabited or governed by a particular people, what number of years is adequate for the purpose?  Does the fact that others have done so for more years, or more recently, impact the determination?

Indigenous peoples inhabited the Americas for many thousands of years before the European conquest, which took place commencing about five hundred years ago.  Who has a legitimate claim to them as homelands?  Does one's birth in a particular nation render it one's homeland?

I suspect the claim that Israel and the land surrounding it is considered a homeland by some is primarily for religious reasons.  Some believe that God gave it to them.  I also suspect that religious reasons had a place in the decision of the Great Powers, and specifically Great Britain, to support such a homeland and that they continue to figure in the support of the idea by many who aren't Jewish.  Do such reasons make a homeland, fatherland or motherland?  What about a common language?  

This isn't an effort to question the legitimacy of the state of Israel.  Rather,  this is intended as an exploration of the meaning and use of the words in question, when applied to any land, nation or people.  The picture at the beginning of this post is a WWI postcard, in which a German and an Austrian are shown, each pledging to fight for their supposedly mutual fatherland.  They were separate nations, and it seems their heads of state weren't particularly fond of one another.  Presumably, it was being maintained they had a common fatherland because they shared a language and culture.

The assertion a particular land or nation is a homeland, or fatherland or motherland seems to me to be an exhortation, regardless of its basis or lack of factual basis.  It's an effort to influence people to support the interests of that nation and people or what's claimed to be their interest.  Its purpose is nationalistic, in other words.  It need not comport with the history of a particular region.  It's appeal may be romantic, its basis in legend or stories.  But its intent is exclusive; it fosters an "us against them" view, and generally they are bound to suffer in one way or another from those who assert that a particular land or region is their homeland, and others have no claim to it.

 

Life Imitating Art

 

He even looks and acts like him, when you think of it.  The overblown expressions and mugging for the camera.  The bad hair.  The pointless, repetitive gestures.  The smarmy manner.  The banal comments.

They're similar in character as well.  Self-pitying, self-centered, self-righteous.  Desperate for fame and approval.  Willing to do anything to obtain and maintain status.  Conceited in a pathetic kind of way.  Self-proclaimed king of something, anything.

Pictured above is Rupert Pupkin, the self-described "King of Comedy."  He is the main character (I can't say protagonist) of Martin Scorsese's The King of Comedy, a movie which came out in 1983.  Robert De Niro played Rupert, and convincingly portrayed him as a sociopath who thought himself a major talent and, after his request to appear on a national show was rejected by his idol, a Johnny Carson figure played by Jerry Lewis, kidnapped him and thereby forced his way onto the show by threatening him with harm.  

Almost as disturbing as Rupert himself and the actions he resorted to for the sake of fame was the audience's reaction to him and his very uninspired performance as a comic.  They thought he was hilarious.  They especially enjoyed it when he noted, truthfully, that he had the star of the talk show tied up in his living room.

The film is a condemnation of the star culture in our Great Republic and the desire for fame which is characteristic of us as a people.  It's also, I think, is a commentary on what we are willing to tolerate, and even admire, of those who participate in public affairs with whom we associate for one reason or another, and what is given attention by the media, traditional and now social.

Perhaps we now admire and are willing to support those who are not specially talented and experienced, who are not able, but who we believe are thereby like us, like us "common people."  Nothing special, in other words, but able to silence doubters and critics with mere bluster and appeal to our prejudices and our desire not to be bothered.  Most of all, having the nerve to display their lack of ability for all to see, to flaunt it, in fact.

Their brazenous in the absence of specialness distinguishes them from mere clowns or figures of good-natured amusement.  They're admired because they don't care that they're not experts, or that they don't have any special talent or ability, but still have the perverse kind of courage needed to insist they know what's the right thing to do almost by virtue of those facts.  They defeat and defy their critics by bluster alone.  It seems Americans have a fondness for those who triumph through bluffing, who can con the elite.

Rupert Pupkin lives and breathes in the United States.  Perhaps his time has come.  

The Culture of Resentment

The Greek goddess Nemesis was the personification of resentment.  She was thought to punish those who were believed to be the unworthy subjects of good fortune.  She's pictured above with the goddess Tyche, representing fortune.   I assume she's the one pointing, doubtless drawing Tyche's attention to someone she's unduly favored.

"Resentment" is defined as a bitter feeling of disgust or displeasure caused by a perceived insult or injury, and can include indignation resulting from the belief that one has been treated unfairly.  Here in our Great Republic we seem consumed by the belief that we've been treated unfairly; that others are being treated better than we are in some sense.  Even worse, that someone may be perceived to be better than we are, and our status reduced as a result.

I think resentment is behind the continuing complaints against "wokeness" (never clearly defined) and what's being characterized as the preferential treatment of those who aren't like us; the insistent disregard and condemnation of those who aren't standard-issue Americans; and the pandering to the resentful we see being engaged in by so many of our politicians, particularly Republicans.  The encouragement of resentment is all we see in our politics, thus far.

It's remarkable how self-pitying we've become.  This translates into a belief in the existence of conspiracies, relieving us from fault for our own ills, relieving us from responsibility for our own failures, justifying our bitterness.  We seem to feel we're being treated unfairly when those different from us are treated well (or fairly).

The resentful aren't concerned with, and likely deny the existence of, anything along the lines of a "common good." This is because they feel aggrieved.  Addressing their complaints, the restoring of their rights and status is the highest good, for them.  They become the victims while they complain that others play the victims and are better treated in consequence.  When a person believes they're treated unfairly, the fair treatment of others is merely a reason for jealousy, and the unfair treatment of others is thought to be misrepresented or a kind of hoax.  Those discriminated against historically are no longer discriminated against, now "we" are the subjects of discrimination.

The resentful are thoughtless.  There's no room for thought when one is occupied with the belief one is being wronged.  There's no room for anything or anyone else to the resentful.  Resentment is an entirely selfish emotion.  Our communications have become complaints.  That's now the nature of our national discourse.

It's unsurprising, therefore, that those perceived to be leaders are filled with resentment themselves, and complain the loudest.

 

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Affirmative Action

Sorry, but I couldn't prevent myself from paraphrasing the immortal lines from The Treasure of Sierra Madre spoken by the Mexican Bandit leader as portrayed in the movie, above, in referring to another decision of the Supreme Court.  This one is about Affirmative Action, or rather the demise of that program or policy, as a result of the opinion in the case involving Students for Fair Admissions (as opposed it seems to Students for Unfair Admissions).

The Equal Protection Clause is at issue in the case.  That Clause was adopted just after the end of the Civil War, and it seems beyond dispute that it was adopted to prevent governments from engaging in racial discrimination of the sort which continued despite the defeat of the rebellion.  It seems curious, therefore, that it is claimed in this opinion that a policy intended to remediate the results of racial discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause, which is intended to prevent it.

Such, though, is the result when we reverse course in this fashion, and declare that a policy which had been determined to serve a vital governmental interest doesn't really do so anymore, which is what I think is the position taken by the majority of the Court.  It is acknowledged, though in a somewhat grudging and dubious manner, that prior cases sanctioned the consideration of race in admission to institutions of what used to be called "higher learning" as serving such an interest.  But, one gathers from the opinion, it no longer does so, if it ever did.  Why?  Because there just isn't all that much racial discrimination going on now in higher education.  It is so limited at this time that the extraordinary decisions of the past no longer apply.

The fact that Affirmative Action existed always made some uncomfortable in light of the unambiguous language of the Equal Protection Clause.  Affirmative Action by its nature gave preference to certain students based on their race, and so favored them in consideration for admission to an institution, based on their race.  Clearly, if white applicants were given preference, it would constitute a violation of the law.  Why should that not be case if black or other applicants are given preference?

It was thought that it should not be the case because black and other applicants or minority status had been wronged, discriminated against, where others were favored.  That should be fairly clear, one would think.  If strict application of the Equal Protection Clause has the effect in certain circumstances of preventing its purpose from being accomplished, it isn't unreasonable to believe exceptions are appropriate in extraordinary circumstances.  

So, the majority doesn't maintain that Affirmative Action always violated the Equal Protection Clause.  Instead, it's reduced to claiming that Affirmative Action just isn't necessary anymore.  Curiously, it refers to language in prior opinions which spoke of the sunset of Affirmative Action.  It was estimated that 25 years should suffice to dissipate the harmful effects of discrimination due to race, and behold!  Twenty years later  discrimination is no longer a significant concern, and least in the admissions process.  We should congratulate ourselves.

Some disagree with the comforting conclusion of the majority.  And it does seem to be a decision which should have more support in a factual record than this opinion does, limited as it is to consideration of the policies of two institutions in particular.  

Most peculiar, I think, are statements made in the majority opinion which state that nobody doubts that applicants of a particular race may note in an essay submitted for consideration the impact that racial discrimination has had in their lives.  So, it seems race may be mentioned, at least in an essay, according to the Supremes.  Nonetheless, though, it cannot be considered.  What can be considered is how the applicant as an individual derived from that discrimination some sort of ability which would contribute to the university.  If an applicant is black, therefore, the majority thus asserts that while that fact may be significant in developing certain abilities and characteristics due to discrimination--may have indeed been necessary to that development--it cannot be considered in the admission process.  Instead, the individual, which apparently isn't black or isn't deemed black, is what is to be considered.  

It will be interesting to see how this bit of conjuring will play out.