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!