Name calling didn’t end when we finished elementary school. The technique still appears to be the most employed means of derailing an argument and stirring up anger. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for calling a behavior by its appropriate title. For instance, if I practice lying, I’m a liar. If I consistently advocate conservative ideas, it’s fair to call me conservative. And if I promote the ideas of fascism, I may earn the title of fascist.
On the other hand, using a title or epitaph as an incendiary tool - one which is meant to inflame and divert attention from the details of the controversy, serves only to give opposing sides a handle to conveniently categorize and overly simplify opposing viewpoints.
In the setting of the 18th century, the British government was blindsided by the American reaction and protests to the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Quartering Act, Townshend Acts, and Tea Act. All of these were laws passed by Parliament seeking to re-line the pockets of the English purse by directly taxing the American colonists; colonists, as covered in earlier blogs, who rightly asserted that England was stripping them of their rights as English citizens to select the men who determined their taxes, as well as other laws. Initially, England had perhaps, understandable pause in evaluating the American response. After all, the American colonies existed to financially benefit Mother England. Additionally, England had just defended the colonies against the French threat during the French and Indian War.
This notwithstanding, the American colonists were the ones taking the direct risk of living on this frontier. They were the ones to whom failure carried not just economic but rather mortal consequences. More importantly, the principles being disputed did not boil down to who was benefitting whom, but one much more basic: An Englishman had rights guaranteed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. Period. Abridging those rights was not to be tolerated. As for the French and Indian War - that was a war protecting the nation of England. Colonists fought and died for Mother England, they weren’t just protected.
The English living back in England had no real concept of the realities faced by their American cousins. What they heard of life in the colony was based on gossip, what was carried in the news, and perhaps correspondence. The Americans were being depicted as overfed, ungrateful children, spawned and protected by the graces of British generosity, but obviously insolent, arrogant, and spoiled. Those living in England who were concerned about their country’s welfare had to make sense of the situation as economic hardship dictated their economy. What conclusion would they reach about the American response to England’s need? The most popular response, fostered by elements in Parliament and the press was that Americans were Disloyal.
Time to digress: Wisdom is gained by living through experiences and coming out the other side, gaining understanding about the human saga. And this is what I’ve learned about name calling: the basis of resorting to labels is an attempt to compartmentalize information about people. It is always an oversimplification, giving our brain a chance to bring a matter to closure rather than grapple with further extenuating circumstances which may forestall conclusion. I believe this applies to sexism, racism, agism, ad nauseam. In other words, I assess observation #1, perhaps #2, and maybe #3, and reach my conclusion that a person is a racist, or whatever. As or culture increasingly becomes less analytical, we’re complacent to reach our conclusion after observation #1.
Once one reaches the conclusion wherein they assign a label, future analysis of the situation becomes stymied. A decision has been reached, a label assigned, and future consideration is largely limited by the meaning of the label. What does one do with disloyal children (in the case of the British)? Well, abandonment would be one option - unless the children’s income was too much of a consideration. That was truly the case here. England had grown dependent on America’s wealth. Option B: Bring the children under control. That was what proceeded. Disloyal, ungrateful children need to be disciplined. Once your mind is made up, you allow yourself to dismiss further consideration of the validity of the other side’s perspective. For those living in England, this meant you didn’t need to consider whether Americans were entitled to the rights of the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. You didn’t need to wonder how you’d feel if you were the one living with the risks of frontier life. You could relegate your American cousins to the the status of provincials, incapable of understanding the complicated realities of English needs, reducing them to the status of simple, ungrateful children who merely needed discipline.
The colonial response? This validated their fear that England did not take them seriously; that England was not going to treat them as equals. Their argument of receiving the same rights as any English citizen was going to be swept under the carpet and the focus of the issue would be diverted into considering whether Americans were loyal or not.
Loyalty. That’s an emotional word. When one is disloyal, it seems to trump other considerations. Get enough people to believe you are a disloyal person, and it’s pretty hard to get the argument back on track. It’s easier to focus on “how could you betray your own mother ?(England).” The ploy worked with some; many colonists would back away from the association with those who argued that their rights were being ignored, if it meant being disloyal. Others tried to prove their loyalty while adhering to their rights. Eventually, those who proceeded in identifying with the Patriot movement had to abandon hopes of vindicating their motives, and reach the conclusion that a breach with England was inevitable - they would never convince detractors of the validity of their point of view.
How does this relate to our situation today? While we celebrate America electing its first black president, those who raise concerns over his policies are often labeled as racist. Doing so derails the detractor immediately, regardless of the validity of their concerns. The critic of Obama may attempt to raise points A, B, C, etc. But the cries of racist are loud, emotional and divisive. The audience has to decide, is it worth it to analyze the arguments being promoted by the critic? Crying racism has a certain romanticism associated with it - so some may jump on that bandwagon at this point and forgo any analysis; it’s easy and it puts you in good standing with people of color. Others may not understand the arguments of the detractor; rather than struggle with bridging the information gap, it takes far less effort to glom onto the label of racism - reach the conclusion and move on. Still others, and this being the most dangerous group, realize that the detractor has valid points but would rather live with, or embrace, the Obama direction, and so uses the label of racism to purposely divert the focus away from the actual concerns and to a hot button accusation - thereby defusing the potency of the detractor’s points. The validity of his or her points are drown out in a din of emotional accusation, relying the characteristic so deeply embedded in our culture - guilt.
What other names are we hearing? Right Wing Extremist. McCarthyists. Bigots. Uncaring. Hardhearted. Hate monger. Selfish.
Like the colonists in the 18th century, Americans who oppose the direction of their government are having to make choices. For some, the association with labels such as racist is far too threatening, and they will back down and avoid the possible condemnation among their peer group. Others will vainly try to explain they are not a racist, extremist, or hateful. They feel strongly about their values, but also feel the need to vindicate their position. Others have, or will eventually, give up trying to satisfactorily explain - they will reach a decision that they don’t care what the opposition thinks.
Solution? History indicates that sitting down at a table, hoping to eventually convince others of your good intentions hasn’t really worked. We need to move past the sting and hurt of emotional labels and words, and proceed in pursuing the truth. If people accuse you of being a racist, hateful, or an extremist - don’t change your focus into trying to vindicate yourself in that light. Stick with your concerns. Address what you don’t like. Tell people you don’t care if the president is black, white, or purple - you can’t support a man who...
Your detractor might say, “You’re the one calling the President a fascist! If that’s not name calling and emotional, what is? At that point you need to know your facts. It’s important that you understand what fascism is, and be able to explain that it’s not an emotional label meant to smear his reputation and divert attention away from the behavior. It’s a term meant to accurately describe his actions - that being, a governmental movement to take control of a private business, e.g. General Motors.
Name calling has probably been around as long as there have been humans. It’s hurtful and often takes consideration away from the facts of the situation, highlighting instead some emotionally charged accusation which is used to conveniently oversimplify the position of an individual or group. Realize that it’s a tactic, often used by those who having nothing left to say, so they grasp at straws, and names. Don’t take the bait; bring the focus back to the facts and the principles involved.
In conclusion, even Jesus addressed this issue during the Sermon on the Mount:
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
(Matthew, Chapter 5)
No comments:
Post a Comment