Dear White People:

On the day that we honor Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legacy, let’s have a little chat, shall we? One white person to another. There’s some shit about racism that needs to be talked about here. Specifically, your collective knee-jerk reflexive need to whitewash and disproportionately celebrate King’s embrace of passive resistance and non-violence. The man had an awful lot more to say that gets ignored in the process.

Yes, I get it. The high-level abstract impression left by the “I Have a Dream” speech makes dealing with racism easier. “Oh look, there is a Black man who says we all need to be peaceful and just get along. Then racism will go away!” You do realize that he got murdered by a racist for suggesting that, don’t you?  Stop making the the “I Have a Dream” speech your touchstone for you understanding and celebration of the man. That speech, which is over 55 years old, is about an ideal world that is merely marginally closer to reality than it was then. In fact, it behooves us to instead focus a little harder on a passage from an earlier, 1956 speech, “When Peace Becomes Obnoxious.” He makes it abundantly clear what a peaceful society with justice entails:

“I don’t want peace:

“If peace means accepting second class citizenship I don’t want it.

“If peace means keeping my mouth shut in the midst of injustice and evil, I don’t want it.

“If peace means being complacently adjusted to a deadening status quo, I don’t want peace.

“If peace means a willingness to be exploited economically, dominated politically, humiliated and segregated, I don’t want peace.

“In a passive non-violent manner we must revolt against this peace.”

Yes, he ends with non-violence, but also take notice the word “revolt.” So long as the peace is without justice, it cannot stand. Maybe, the fact that Black people are still needing to fight for the full array of human dignities and rights that white Americans absentmindedly take for granted is a clue that something is still horribly wrong. Beyond that, It’s kind of difficult to continue spreading a message about peace and love when you’ve been shot dead for it, right? Before he was murdered in cold blood by a white person (never forget that), his views on protesting were already undergoing a noticeable change.

Admit it, if all you do is focus on his earlier writing and speeches, then it is rather difficult to reconcile them with much of what he started to say before being shot. In a speech he delivered to the American Psychology Association’s annual convention in September 1967, he stated:

“Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena… They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking.”

See, there’s an illustration of the problem with continuing to insist that protests should remain peaceful. Peaceful protests only work against a system that has a guilty conscience; one that can be shamed into doing the right thing when historically speaking it has been anything but fair and just. This is a huge reason why Gandhi was successful in helping to bring India its independence from Great Britain. The British, having just won a war in which the enemy was the most efficient racist killing machine in human history, just didn’t have the stomach for turning around and brutally repressing another race of people. There’s an alternate history short story, “The Last Article” by Harry Turtledove, that underscores this point. In it, the Nazis win World War II and Gandhi is forced to deal with them rather than the British. It should be clear, even without reading, that Gandhi’s techniques would not have worked against them.

Oh, let’s not forget that Gandhi also ended up murdered in cold blood (albeit for different reasons.)

But, I digress slightly.

What would have happened if Martin Luther King, Jr. hadn’t been murdered, and he had the opportunity to grow older? I guarantee you his views and feelings would have continued to evolve and change. That is what happens to any self-aware person who is willing to let their beliefs be challenged and change them when confronted with facts that do not support what they previously espoused. I will not attempt to theorize they direction they would have taken, but I am certain that King’s would have changed and evolved. I sincerely believe this because of my own growth and change as an individual.

See, during college I wrote extensively in the Commentary section of the student newspaper. In fact, I was the editor of that section for two years. During that time, I wrote nearly 100 opinion pieces, and there is stuff in there that makes me cringe thinking that I wrote it. I know that at times I was sexist, racist, and well… just painfully ignorant. However, I also did try my best to listen and think hard about what feedback I received. Change and growth didn’t happen as quickly as it could and should have — I readily admit to a painfully stubborn streak that continues to challenge me — but over time I came to understand and appreciate what was wrong about those beliefs and how I had to change them. I think it’s obvious that Martin Luther King Jr. was that kind of self-aware person.

So, white people, please stop focusing on the feel-good parts of his sermons, speeches, and interviews. It’s a bad fucking look — especially if you haven’t truly bothered to read the writings of numerous other black writers, both fiction and non-fiction. No one with a truly well-considered opinion relies solely on the work of one person or just one perspective. When you do that, all you are doing is reinforcing and pushing your own beliefs, without any true thought or reflection. It’s like saying that Alex Jones speaks for white people. Well, I’m sure he speaking for way too many of you, but I hope you get the point.

Do better.

“Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered? Where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization.” — Agent Smith, The Matrix

The Matrix was released in 1999. Coincidentally, that was around the time I became fond of saying that particular time and place was perfect for me. Living close to a large city with plenty of bookstores, used CD shops, restaurants and many other beloved places to frequent, for the first time my job provided the necessary income and stability to lead the kind of life I wanted. The world seemed wonderfully suited to cater to my interests, needs, and desires.

Alas, the world changes, but that was expected. Some changes would be for the better, and the others… Well, I just thought that disconcerting changes would be of the predictable variety that typically make challenge people as they age. Predominantly, the kinds of technological and cultural progressions that just move too fast for us as we start advancing well into middle age and beyond. In some ways, that is exactly what happened. For example, societal changes in how we consume books, movies, and music just feel wrong, but they are not entirely unexpected. However, there are ominous, mostly unanticipated things inducing feelings of dread — to the point of causing anxiety — about the future.

Where to even begin? Global climate change, the political decline and slide of the American republic into minority rule and totalitarianism, the incessantly-growing power of global metanational conglomerates, the increasingly daunting plastic pollution problem, the largest upward redistribution of wealth in American history… it’s all just one giant backslide, and at the moment there seems to be very little hope that any of this is going to appreciably change for the better in the near future. Hell, I totally get why climate anxiety is rapidly on the rise — I might even be experiencing a touch of it myself.

In addition to all the ways in which the current state of affairs is depressing as hell, it’s nearly just depressing that this battle needs to be fought. We shouldn’t have to. As a species, we are capable of such innovation, insight, beauty, and creativity. Yet, we are also amazingly short-sighted, tribal, selfish, and capable of frightening degrees of both self-deception and deceit. Throw in the rampant misogyny, racism, and religious intolerance that seems to be getting worse, and it adds up to something far more damning than what Agent Kay said in Men in Black: “People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it.” 

There’s a good reason why I often add “misanthropic” when describing myself as a secular humanist.

I don’t want border on churlish. I want to be optimistic and believe that this world will start becoming a better place again. But, it’s daunting… and exhausting. I will continue to speak out, vote, and attempt to change what I can. I have to, knowing that Brandon will be inhabiting this world for many years after no longer will. Sadly, as it is, 2020 is nothing like any kind of future I would have imagined back in 1999. 

Even more disconcerting: at the moment, 2020 is proving Agent Smith right.

Now that it’s been a couple weeks since Nike initially triggered a bunch of flag-waving enthusiasts, my two cents on their ad featuring Colin Kaepernick:

1. The immediate stock price hit was to be expected. The Wall Street crowd leans conservative. I would have been stunned if it hadn’t dropped in the immediate aftermath. Nonetheless, it didn’t stop the anti-Kappers from gleefully using the stock price as an indicator that Nike’s gambit had hurt them. Clearly, they don’t understand how stock prices work and why the immediate was meaningless.
2. While Nike was definitely “taking sides,” that was tertiary to the ad’s primary goals: getting them lots of publicity above and beyond mere advertising, and selling more shoes and clothes. I think the fact that the campaign is still a large part of the national conversation shows the former worked exactly as planned. As for the latter, fact of the matter is that we won’t know how successful that was until Nike has issued at least a couple quarterly earning reports. In other words, it’ll be months before we know whether it increased sales or hurt them.
3. Millennials are the largest generation in American history, and now they are all adults. In addition, surveys and polls show that on average they are more liberal than Boomers or Gen Xers. They are also the group more likely to purchase the types of clothes and shoes made by Nike. Conversely, the people most likely to be annoyed at Nike for featuring Kaepernick are people who are buying less of that class of products. If you’re going to take a side, you should definitely choose the side that’s most likely to respond favorably to your advertising.
4. Nike spends enough money on marketing research and market surveys to give Miles Drentell an erection to rival that of John Holmes. Does anyone really think that they didn’t carefully consider all the pros and cons of this ad campaign?
5. Finally, there are plenty of far better reasons to stop buying Nike products than their decision to include Kaepernick in their ads. In fact, if you are using that as your rallying cry to boycott, then you clearly haven’t been paying attention to the wages and working conditions in their Asian factories over the past few decades. Either that, or this simply hasn’t bothered you in the past. I’ll leave it to you to decide which you think is actually worse.

Okay, that was more like a nickel than two cents. However, I also need to give Nike additional credit for getting me to finally get off my lazy ass and pound out something with more heft than my typical 100 words or less Facebook post. They’ll never know or care, but that’s okay — I’ve never purchased or worn any of their products anyway (though I certainly wouldn’t mind wearing them if they paid me to do so.)

I’ve been giving a lot of thought recently to the antifa movement, my feelings towards it and what it represents, and the role of protected free speech. Truth be told, I’m still struggling with all of it. In a normal, properly functioning democracy, there is absolutely no place whatsoever for such a movement, nor should we be talking about what kind of speech is acceptable in a public forum. However, it seems to me that the United States, at this moment in time, is not a properly functioning democracy. The primary reason for this is our current President, who has no qualms whatsoever about eschewing established norms or circumventing and/or disabling our systems of checks and balances. He also constantly attacks the free press, demonizes his opponents (to the point of suggesting that violence against them might be okay), and gaslights and lies on a regular basis. Trump is wielding his power in a fashion that is wildly errant and destructive, to the point where white supremacists of varying kinds feel comfortable making demonstrations consisting of violent rhetoric, which often includes declarations welcoming the idea of race war.

I strikes me as Pollyannish to suggest that their freedom of speech still must be respected, no matter the cost. Again, in a normally functioning democracy, this would be an appropriate response. The problem is that many of these far right-wing individuals and groups aren’t just voicing their opinions; they are also coming to these gatherings heavily armed and engaging in acts that stop just short of committing violence against counter-protesters. They are aggressively acting in a manner designed to enrage and provoke in the hopes of causing the other side to start the violence. In the cases where these racists do shed first blood, they will find some way to blame the other side. HBO’s VICE News segment on the events in Charlottesville two weekends ago, featuring an embedded reporter, demonstrates this quite clearly.

They arrived heavily armed and bearing large body shields to be used as means of shoving counter-protestors out of their way. In addition to antagonizing and provoking, they were also hoping to intimidate through a strong show of force. Simply, they are operating in the margins where the courts have ruled the First Amendment rights can be curtailed and suspended; where speech is no longer just an expression of ideas. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s 1919 opinion, written in support of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling, made it clear that speech designed to cause violence or damage could be restricted. The issue then becomes a matter of determining what crosses that line and what doesn’t.

The free speech issues were compounded by the police response. Ideally, the police forces with the proper jurisdiction would be in place to make sure that such displays of openly antagonist speech do not escalate into full-blown violence. Unfortunately, this was not the case in Charlottesville. Why the police looked so utterly unprepared and inept continues to puzzle me — the white nationalists, Neo-Nazi’s, white supremecists, and various counter-protesters made it very clear in advance that they were going to be there in large numbers. This was a situation that required a large police presence, and the City of Charlottesville should’ve known in advance whether it was prepared. If not, they should have asked the Governor for National Guard assistance days before the marches took place — especially since white militia groups also announced their intention to attend in advance. I guarantee you that if a militant faction of the Black Panthers had fought in court for the proper permits for a demonstration then the City of Charlottesville would’ve been better prepared than it was for the events of August 11 & 12.*

To make matters even worse, for a brief period on Saturday morning, the police actually retreated from an area where violence was occurring and didn’t intervene. At best, this situation suggested that our government is afraid to properly assert itself in its duty to preserve the public peace. At worse, it shows it is incapable of it. Either way, we have a situation now where many on the left, who are horrified by the violent rhetoric and aims of far right-wing individuals and groups, feel as though they need to protect themselves, in much the same manner expressed by the NRA and its supporters. Hence, the antifa.

It’s this breach in the public trust that has provided the conditions for antifa in this country. It’s this kind of situation that has caused many on the left to suggest creating the kinds of limits that Holmes et al. said might be necessary. As I said at the start, I haven’t figured out exactly where I stand on all this. Ideally, I loathe the idea of settings limits (even temporary ones) on First Amendment rights, and I am equally disconcerted that an Antifa movement exists. However, our government seems unable or unwilling to maintain the peace in situations where it clearly should. Violent speech was in part responsible for a situation that got out of control, and as long as right-wing organizations continue to bring weapons and armor to demonstrations and agitate for violence, there will be those on the left who feel the need for something like antifa.

I don’t have an answer for this solution. At the moment, however, playing by the old rules doesn’t seem to be working.

———————————

*Actually, I’m more willing to believe that in such a situation the city’s response would have gone too far to the other extreme, making it far worse than what we saw.

While using one of my favorite baseball apps on my phone this morning, the screen name of one of the users caught my eye: CamdensDad. Typically, such names aren’t noteworthy — numerous dads create similar account names. Furthermore, this is an age of non-traditional and unusual names, and there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about “Camden” as a girl’s name in of itself. However, a couple items drew my full attention to the profile picture: the Orioles logo framing it, picture showing Camden and her dad in full Orioles regalia.

Orioles fans probably already see where I’m going with this.

For those who haven’t already made the connection, the official name of the Orioles’ home field is Oriole Park at Camden Yards. All the details lead to one unavoidable conclusion: the dude named his daughter after a baseball field. Let that sink in for a moment. Even if that isn’t true — that for some reason the girl’s mom decided years ago, before meeting the father, that she wanted to give that name to a daughter — that poor girl is probably going to need some therapy later in life to deal with that fact/unfortunate coincidence.

It could have been worse. Camden’s Dad could have been a Phillies fan and her name would’ve been Citizen.

Although, as I ponder it, Citizen Appleton has a nice ring to it. Maybe I’ll name my next child that.

I realize I am three days late in posting anything about the announcement that Jodie Whittaker will play the next Doctor, but I wanted to share something that’s on my work desk. I grew up watching the original incarnation of Doctor Who, and these two autograph cards are of “my” Doctor and his companion (who also happens to be my favorite companion, with River Song running an amazingly close second.) The fact that Whittaker playing him/her next doesn’t bother me — in fact, I’m looking forward to it.

I will never understand just how so many men continue to get butt-hurt over the recasting of male roles with women. Battlestar Galactica, Ghostbusters, Doctor Who… Yet, it is still an overwhelmingly male-dominated entertainment universe out there. Putting that aside, in the case of the Doctor this is a character that gets recast every few years — there is nothing to say that the person after Whittaker won’t be a man again. Tradition be damned. In the words of my father-in-law, tradition is just a glorified habit. In fact, Doctor Who already broke with tradition when the producers cast David Tennant and then Matt Smith to play the role — historically, with one notable exception, the character had been played exclusively by middle-aged or older actors. The producers admitted that their casting was an effort to create a new generation of fans. Is the gender break really any different than that one?

I don’t believe so. Whittaker isn’t going to change or ruin anything I’ve loved about the show, because Doctor Who has always embraced change — it’s baked into the DNA of the show. The series literally recasts all it’s major characters every few years. The Daleks and Cybermen have actually evolved during the course of the show — which the last episode wonderfully acknowledged when it depicted “original” Cybermen. They came up with reason to grant the Doctor a new set of regenerations. Hell, continuity is, at best, problematic — something the writers and producers acknowledged when they introduced the concept of “a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff” during the Tennant era. Yes, there’s an awful lot of comfortable familiarity in the show as well, but at this stage, over 50 years after the show’s debut, no one can argue that there is anything sacrosanct or vital about any of the show’s traditions.

I sincerely hope that Whittaker’s run as the Doctor is one of the show’s most successful. It’s the best way to silence the misogynists and nay-sayers angered by the casting of a woman. Regardless, however, her time in the role won’t ruin a damn thing about what I love about the show. In fact, I may come to enjoy her portrayal as much as I enjoyed Christopher Eccleston’s or Peter Capaldi’s, Even if I don’t, for whatever reason, there was nothing about Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, John Hurt, Capaldi, or anything introduced or written by the producers and writers since 2005 has ruined my love for the Sylvester McCoy-Sophie Aldred era of original Who or the series in general. It’s all still there, right alongside all sorts of bad writing, questionable changes in direction and tenor. Yet, the love and joy for the show never diminishes. Whittaker will certainly bring something uniquely wonderful to the role, and I plan to embrace it.