Of Generals And Mules

 Another Facebook post repeated.

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule/?fbclid=IwAR1USFuWBcqF6nm1di8zkuQw-oP3Qx8Ryq8hL40-9WPjRNExm0nRnAxsRMQ

Here is some interesting news. Like everyone else, I always thought that “40 acres and a mule” was the invention of Sherman. It was part of a special field order issued by him, to be sure, but the idea originally was presented to him by a group of Black ministers. Furthermore, contrary to the common belief, he did not unilaterally declare it.

> Four days later, Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, after President Lincoln approved it.<

So it really was an official promise made by the United States government (President Lincoln himself, no less), not merely the reaction of a general who was overreaching his authority.

Always ready to learn something new. And when I learn something new that contradicts what I thought before, I am ready to share it with everyone else. That’s because I actually do believe that reality is real and important.

You might also  be interested in the comments section which follows this article. It does get rather heated, so you might want to avoid it, but it raises interesting points.

Missing History Month

 Facebook again.

https://classicalwisdom.com/culture/sculpture/the-sudanese-pyramids-wonders-of-ancient-africa/

An interesting article,although not one that surprised me. The knowledge of the Nubian pyramids and Nubian civilization is out there; it’s just not that easy to find. I have an interest in this sort of thing, so I knew about them.

It does, however, make for an interesting question. If you ask people to name societies closely associated with pyramid building, everyone would say Egypt. I think many, but a smaller number, would say the Mayans and Aztecs.  I would expect quite a small number to say Nubia.

As a retired educator, I found this especially interesting because of how completely Nubia was ignored in discussions during Black History Month. The Nubians were very important to ancient Egypt. Quite often they were rivals, at other times Egypt dominated Nubia politically, and for a time Nubia ruled Egypt. Yet you almost never hear about Nubia.

Why? I think the answer is contained in one sentence from the article. >These structures stand testament to the wealth and power of ancient Nubia.<

A Black nation that was wealthy, powerful, and influential just isn’t very popular.  

(Nubia is not alone in this matter. There are a number of African cultures that should be in every history book, but somehow aren’t.)

Science On Trial...Again

 

A pair of Facebook posts which, pasted together, are worthy of re-printing here.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01430-z?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=21cdb74e59-briefing-dy-20210528&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-21cdb74e59-44635989

So telling the truth and calling out researchers who fake their data Is to be considered, “...aggravated moral harassment, attempted blackmail and attempted extortion.”?

This will be a very important court decision. If scientists doing what scientists are supposed to do, which is to question and examine the data, research, and conclusions of their fellow scientists is considered to be criminal, then science itself is criminal. A conservative dream. Let us hope it doesn’t come true.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01436-7?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=21cdb74e59-briefing-dy-20210528&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-21cdb74e59-44635989

This is a problem we’ve come to expect in the social sciences, a.k.a. the soft sciences, a.k.a. the kind of sort of semi sciency stuff.

It is very disturbing to see it in what is generally referred to (with considerable justification) the hard sciences.  

It reflect a serious problem in science, that is, papers that “prove” or affirm a concept are preferred by journals. Journals don’t like to publish papers that disprove or call research into question.

In the light of the immediately preceding post in which scientist known for doing her job effectively and calling erroneous research into question is being criminally charged for doing so, We can see that there is a genuine war on science and, disturbingly, scientists aren’t all on the same side.

Paradise Lost

Conversation between Bobby and me:

B:

1. There’s a hegemonic culture (including its myths) in the U.S. Many Americans are, naturally, deeply attached to it. Their identity and station are comprehensible only through it.

Me:

And it’s deeply tied not only their sense of identity but to their religion. Much of America’s problem goes back to the Puritan roots of our political culture.  “We are the one and only true religion and all other religions must be suppressed. We are God’s new chosen people and since God makes no errors…”

To put it another way,

🎶We are the champions

We are the champions

No time for losers

'Cause we are the champions of the World🎶

Instead of ‘in God we trust’ maybe our national motto should be ‘no time for losers’.

B: 

2. A premise of Progressivism is that this hegemony is unjust. Social justice means prioritizing Americans on the perceived margins in order to reduce those margins, even at the expense of the existing cultural milieu. 

Me: This is seen as an attack on their religion. In their minds, it’s not just enough to be free to practice their religion, they must be free to force it on everyone else. That is why the Puritans came to America. They actually had almost total religious freedom in Holland. The only freedom they were denied in that nation, to which they had emigrated to escape suppression in England, was the right to suppress other religions. So they came to America to acquire the religious freedom to deny everyone else religious freedom.

What we are now experiencing have been called culture wars but they really aren’t. They are religious wars. Just like the great European wars of religion, they think they are operating in the name of God.

“We're on a mission from God.” — Elwood Blues

Remember, the Puritans were also millennialists. Christ is coming any moment, but not until we prepare the Way. Today’s conservatives are ultra religious and they are preparing the Way for Jesus. Thus, the world can finally end. Yay!

B:  

3. Cultural rivals are not seeking peaceful coexistence but domination. Culture is persistently being renegotiated. But, conservatives believe (have been convinced) that the liberal counterparties are not jockeying in good faith. The current Progressive agenda can only be realized by way of destroying the very hegemony that situates conservative in social life. There was no bargain to strike. 

Me: Your point is absolutely correct. Conservatives are creating a forced choice-false dichotomy. In their minds it is a complete zero sum game, winner take all situation. Like the Puritans, it’s not enough that they are free to practice their religion as they wish; they must ensure that no one else can practice a different religion.  Why? Because everyone else is a servant of Satan. Do you want Satan to win?

This is a holy crusade and they are fighting for the very survival of God against Satan. Which is a bit strange considering that God is all powerful and Satan is absolutely certain to lose, no matter what. 

One of the reasons they are so contemptuous of democracy is because they have never believed in democracy; not for a single moment. Christ is the king. He is the true king. His rule is absolute and genuinely divine. Not only the law but even what is moral or immoral, right or wrong, depends on whatever he says it is. Nothing is forbidden, nothing is justified,  except insofar as he declares.

B: 

4. This means that politicians and Americans maintaining the cultural bargaining game were, at best, practicing appeasement. Chamberlains all. Capitulators to existential risk. 

Me: Except even worse, because they are not appeasing Hitler, they are appeasing Lucifer.

B:  

5. If you are in a bargaining coalition and a counterparty coalition aims don’t entail any shared bargaining space, then end negotiation altogether. It pressures your own coalition to follow because they would lose more leverage without you.

Me: You can’t compromise with evil and claim to be a moral person. This is a case of an absolute. They would insist it is not a false dichotomy but a holy, God blessed dichotomy.

B:  

6. Trump rejected the premise to bargain with culture antagonists. Mock, berate, antagonize, self-glorify, mythologize. Be "grab 'em by the pussy Jesus billionaire el Duce." He's the only one who 'gets' it. The hordes are at the gates. 

Me:  And of course he’s the Chosen One. We are the Chosen People and he is the One Chosen to lead the Chosen People. His followers seem to be confused as to whether Trump is Moses or Jesus or maybe a combination of both.  In any event, he adds the extra wonderful appeal of saying it’s OK to be a disgusting, crude, violent, racist, bully. Be just as disgusting as you’ve ever wanted to be.  It is no longer rude.  It’s not even merely acceptable. It is praiseworthy!

B:  I suspect that conservative media has played a crucial part in successfully inflating the threat with the 'bad faith actors' narrative. 

Me: Thank you, Ronald Reagan, for getting rid of the Fairness Act which formerly kept political reporting in America fair and balanced. (And by that I mean actually fair and genuinely balanced.) Say, have I ever mentioned you just how much I believe that all the horrors we are facing today can be traced directly back to the incompetence and prejudice of Ronald Reagan?

I think I may have mentioned it once or twice.

Putting another way, I agree with everything you said, I just see it through a lens of religious extremism. I am convinced that all of our problems can be summed up as identical to much of the problem Israel faces. What do we do with the ultra religious?

Mensa, Densa, Schmenshma

 As I always point out every time I hear about Mensa, I’d love to join but I’m already a charter member of Densa.  

We’re very large organization, I think. It’s hard to tell because none of us are capable of keeping records or making estimates. We do have a lot of meetings; only no one ever comes because we’re not very good at organizing things and we don’t know who our members are anyway.

I should add that the moment I meet someone and they inform me that they are a proud member of Mensa, my opinion of them drops 50 IQ points right on the spot. Can we rename Mensa, Smugma?  Or Boastma?

Anyway you look at it, when I think about it, I wouldn’t join Mensa if I could. I’d be too ashamed.

Note: the above comments do not include the child in this case. She is two years old. I do not think she is accountable for the actions of her parents.

¡Calmate, hombre!

 

A Facebook post and its responses.

https://www.salon.com/2021/05/26/historian-of-fascism-wonders-is-joe-biden-a-speed-bump-on-the-fascists-march-to-power/

Me:  A most interesting in-depth analysis of our current situation. It is good to hear that people are finally recognizing the danger that the Republican Party presents to democracy in America because by recognizing the danger we can deal with it. It’s like getting a very frightening diagnosis from your doctor. It is disturbing, but it’s better to know and take action to treat the condition that it is to remain in ignorance and be destroyed by something you didn’t even know existed.

I agree with most of what the article has to say and have excerpted one paragraph and added a comment to the last sentence of that paragraph:

> As I see it, Trump's coup attempt was a great success for the far right. Too many professional smart people and hope peddlers want to claim that it was a failure because many of Trump's followers were arrested. Anyone who argues such a thing does not understand storytelling and the political imagination. The Trumpists and other neofascists won the presidency and were in power for four years. They left an indelible stain on American society. They now have the imagery of overrunning the Capitol to draw strength from. It was an impossible dream come true, and it happened in a very short amount of time.<

My criticism of this quote is its last sentence. It happened in a short amount of time? No. I was calling the Republican Party the American Hezbollah, the American Party of God, when Ronald Reagan was sitting in the oval office.  My friends, although generally respecting my opinions, deeply felt I was overreacting. Now it is 40 years later. And it turns out that I was correct all along.

I know I keep saying that but I spent 40 years of being told I was overreacting. Please indulge me a little bit of, “Told you so! Told you so!”

M:  I agree with you, Jim.  The brain-washing techniques have been visible for quite a long time and continue to this day.  Trump has total control and there is no Republican party any more.  The more we try to control him, he cries "victim" and his minions rush to his defense.  I have to wonder how this is all going to end.

Me:  It’s a battle and struggle and there’s no way to tell who’s going to win. Oh, eventually the Republican Party will lose. I stand by a statement I’ve been making over those decades that the insanity of the new conservative movement as founded by William F. Buckley will inevitably lose because it’s a minority movement and that demographics are against it. I said, and I will still say, it’s just a question of how much damage they can do before they lose. Where I was completely and utterly wrong was in not realizing how much damage they could accomplish. We may yet go through a period of religious fascist dictatorship before the end of the nightmare.

I simply could not see that it could ever have gotten this bad. And it may get even worse!

M:   Yes, I used to say, "how much damage can one man do in four years", thinking that the next election would turn things around.  Well, I never expected a "Trump" and for people, that I thought were thinkers, would fall for him.

Cancel Cancel Culture!

 A Facebook post which originally included only the following sentence:

The CCC (Conservative Cancel Culture) strikes another blow for freedom from reality!

Here expanded into a more thoughtful piece.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/why-conservatives-want-cancel-1619-project/618952/

As the article points out, conservatives >... took issue with the ideological implications of its central conceit: that America’s true founding moment was the arrival of African slaves on America’s shores.<

What’s happening is the old teeter totter problem.  It replaced “American history began with the arrival of White people” with “American history began with the arrival of Black people”. Both are equally wrong and factually erroneous. Both are racist in that they ignore the arrival of people of other races, such as, shall we say, the Native Americans?

Replacing one racial myth with another racial myth is counterproductive. It simply confuses the issue even more and raises a cloud of obfuscation further hiding the facts.

I think, however, that the author of the article is far too generous. I believe that this one point is the excuse conservatives have seized upon, not their casus belli. In condemning this one error they can condemn the entire work and I am convinced that the entire work is offensive to them because it does not tell a glorified, candied, glowing image of the perfection of America and American history.  Conservative patriotism is synonymous with jingoism. Any suggestion that America is not God’s perfectly handcrafted Etsy creation is offensive and must be banned.

This brings us to another issue I think should be discussed. The fanatic devotion of the GOP to banning the teaching of critical race theory in schools. The issue here is not why are they trying to ban it, but rather, what is it that they are trying to ban?

The problem with banning or supporting critical race theory is that critical race theory is a vague term which means many different things to many different people.  It can simply mean that racism has been built into American society and therefore is difficult to rout out and may not even be noticed by people who do not suffer directly from it.

That is a clear statement of fact and which can be denied only by those who do not wish to open their eyes and see the world around them as it actually is.

Nevertheless, that is just one of the two poles of the entire planet of critical race theory. The other pole is those adherents of the theory who say that White people cannot help but be racially prejudiced because they are White. Many of them also go even further and declare that Black people cannot possibly be prejudiced because they are Black.  This version of critical race theory is, in fact, profoundly racist. It judges people solely buy the color of their skin and says one is helpless in the face of that simple state. You are doomed to your fate simply because of your skin color. There’s no escape. There is no evading it. This is truly racism at its worst. (It is also an excellent example of Greek tragedy, an interesting topic which I have discussed elsewhere.)

Which pole represents critical race theory? Both. Neither.

Critical race theory is not like the theory of universal gravitation. In the theory of universal gravitation we know that gravity decreases in the inverse square proportional to distance. There are many other elements of the theory but each of them can also be expressed in the same type of direct, clear statement. It is a statement which is right or wrong by how accurately it reflects the theory. It is a statement which is falsifiable. It is a statement which makes clear predictions. It is a statement which can be tested. It is a scientific theory.

Critical race theory is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is a theory only in the vernacular, common usage of the term. That is to say, it is vague, utterly hypothetical, and subject to re-interpretation by every single person who adopts it.

So, do I support critical race theory? The answer depends on which critical race theory you mean. There are literally thousands of interpretations. Specify the exact interpretation you mean and I can answer your question. Until you do so, I cannot.

This is exactly the same as “defund the police“ and “reparations“. What do you mean by those terms? A very few extreme radicals want to eliminate police departments in a bizarre concept which makes no sense at all when applied to our morally challenged world.  Most want to restructure the police and shift funds that police are using to acquire military equipment to support health services and crime prevention programs. 

Reparations are even worse. If you read about reparations it sounds like a great idea or a bad idea on the face of it without much room for compromise in between. It seems to create a polarized situation which is polarized by its very nature, nothing falls in between.  However, close examination reveals a vast level of complexity and difficulty. Ask someone who supports reparations what the word means to him and he will give you an answer that is probably different from what seven other people in the same room will tell you is an appropriate definition.

So, do I support reparations? The answer depends on which reparations you mean. There are literally thousands of interpretations. Specify the exact interpretation you mean and I can answer your question. Until you do so, I cannot.

Some want a cash payment. This would be bitterly opposed at the onset by White supremacists, then end up delighting them. They will oppose it because they insist there’s no reason to pay such reparations, but once they are paid, they will then declare that they never want to hear anything about race or prejudice or slavery again because “we paid you off.  You’ve been paid. The debt has been paid the whole issue is over and finished forever.”

Others want reparations to be basic human rights. Not having to be afraid of the police. Having decent schools. Having fair economic opportunities. Not facing prejudice. Those I support by whatever label you put upon them; although I don’t call them reparations. To repeat, I call them basic human rights.

I said it so many times, but I’ll say it again, we need to be very careful in our usage of language. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking which leads to sloppy decision making. What do you mean by “critical race theory“? What do you mean by “reparations“?

If you are unclear in what you mean when you state terms which you know will, in and of themselves, be divisive; then you are not being intellectually honest.

I wish everyone would take a good basic course in semantics. Value loaded terms change the meaning of what should be clear communication.  Sometimes changing a word can be effective and other times it can be an exercise in futility or a deliberate attempt to confuse and emotionalize an issue.

Unfortunately, many of us love to develop a term or phrase which we can utilize to sort the entire human race into two groups; those agree  and those who don’t. This also divides the human race into good people and bad people. The good people are those who take the same side you take in regard to that term or phrase; the bad people are those who don’t.

It does make a complex, morally confusing, difficult world so very simple. Simple to your own perception. Unfortunately, as a means to the solution of real problems, it is a total failure. That inability to succeed is built into the very concept of a nice simple test for very difficult issues, but it does make life so very clear and easy… Well, it makes your emotional life very clear and easy, not the actual, real life you live in the actual real world.  That stuff is hard!