Tag Archives: politics

Another Essay About Privilege

I’ve lost count of how many I’ve written. This better be good.

Because of the context of using adverbs as nouns, I have bolded those words when they appear in that context.

Thinking about privilege, which I do more often than I let on, it came to me that one of the reasons it is so difficult and maddening to help certain of us understand the concept is that they individualize it. They are, in general, more comfortable as individuals than they are in groups. They take umbrage with what they consider to be a personal attack because they only respond to groups if they imagine they share every quality or when they share no qualities. It is hard for them to envision being a member of a group that has any great measure of diversity, such as being part of as group that is diverse, sharing a privilege that not everyone in the group acts on individually.

It is this part of their nature, be it learned or innate, that is being exploited by those who denigrate and outlaw DEI programs. Diversity has become a dirty word, not simply because they are averse to diversity themselves but because they have been sold a narrative that agrees with them about the nature of groups. They are told confirming information that groups are either completely good or completely bad . The narrative is filled with sordid exemplars of minorities getting unjust preferential treatment in hiring, housing, college admissions, etc. It reinforces the us versus them, sovereign citizen ideation.

An example (now here I go with exemplars) of this individualization is that so many of us react negatively to being told that America has a racist past. They need to make it clear, by immediately stating, loudly, that they are not racist. That’s not the issue. You don’t need to be a racist to belong to a group with the privilege of being a “right” race. Explaining this sort of privilege has always seemed very simple to me. That doesn’t make me a saint. Perhaps I’m an obsessive observer. I certainly get my share of blank stares when I talk about it.

In my world, privilege is always about what we are and not who we are. It’s that simple, but difficult. Making it complex is easy. I am a Caucasian male. That is what I am. I cannot change or alter that. I did not choose it. Any privilege it confers on me is none of my own, personal doing. I have male privilege because I am male and for no other reason. I am not singled out. All males have the same privilege I do, and they also did not choose it. Even trans men have male privilege, although it looks mighty diluted from here. Saying you can prove that not all men display male privilege will get no resistance from me. Some men choose not to take advantage of male privilege; others do. It can be very taxing to entertain this concept, but the fact remains that both using or not using privilege are there for the taking. 

The only requirement to have the advantages of male privilege or white privilege is to be what you are, male and/or white. Not all males choose to use their male privilege, but because they are male, they still have the privilege to use it if they wish. The defining characteristics of a what are that not just anyone else can be what that person is. The defining group is a closed group. Also, that person did not choose to be what they are. The thing that defines a who is that anyone can be any particular who at any time Whos are an open group. Being a who involves a personal choice.

Who we are involves a multitude of factors, the most prominent being that we, for the most part, choose who we are. Unless there are specific reasons we are not able to do or be something we can be whomever we desire. Anyone can be a teacher, lawyer, or butcher should they choose to become that and fulfill the requirements. Yes, lawyers get certain privileges that you and I do not, giving the appearance of a what. But, remember that anyone who passes the bar can be a lawyer. The privileges of the what of being a lawyer are a subset of who the lawyer is.

Privileges and privilege are different things. Privileges are things you can do that others are not allowed to. They are given to you by some worldly authority. Privileges can be taken away, and they can also be earned. A person has ‘privilege’ without it being given. You have it because you are something unique that only certain people can be. It is never earned and can never be taken away. You cannot change what you are. But you can change who you are. You could stop practicing law and become a scuba diving instructor anytime you so desire. But you cannot change the fact that you have type AB negative blood.

Many people become angry and defensive when it is said that there is systemic racism in America. They take it as an attack on their values without the ‘attacker’ knowing who they really are. They will deny being a racist and say you are a bad person for assuming they are. They feel this is accusatory and pigeonholes them as a bad person. They are sure they aren’t what you ‘say’ they are. It humiliates them and they won’t listen to another word you say.

This misunderstanding is significant. It happens largely because of that person’s troubles relating to groups. They feel better perceived as themselves, individually. When told there is systematic racism in America, they only hear that they are themselves being called racists, as individuals. They don’t clearly hear what was said, sometimes because the word racist triggers deep feelings, and they do not listen closely while influenced emotionally by the trigger. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. We all have emotional triggers from various sources. What is heard is that they are part of a group that is racist, and they are angry for being assumed to belong to that group as individuals. What they aren’t hearing is that in America, there is systematic racism and has been for centuries. If you are not a minority in America (read ‘white’) you have the privilege grated to you by very old racist systems.

Not everyone understands systemic racism. There are and have been for a long time, systems that are racist by nature, i.e. redlining, job and educational discrimination, accusations of immorality, assumptive judgements based entirely on privilege with no evidence. People who do not speak out against these things are considered by many to be complicit and as at fault as the actual perpetrators. This is true in one sense, but to be generous, most of those considered complicit either do not know that the racist entities are, in fact, racist. Or, they have accepted a culture that normalizes the racism as natural without critically questioning those cultural norms themselves. This does not let them off the hook in complicity. But it provides teachable moments for those who can approach them truthfully and respectfully. 

Taking advantage of teachable moments is perhaps the best means of combatting the privilege afforded by systemic racism. This is one of the main reasons that MAGA legislatures want to control education by removing incidences of and references to racism, as well as alternative sexual and gender stories and such references from textbooks and libraries, as well as other truths they don’t want their vulnerable children to know. Conservatives, in general, think human beings are evil by nature and must be saved from themselves. They are afraid of ideas. Ideas will corrupt their children. 

It is a reality that many who don’t understand, when given the facts about privilege with grace, humility, and respect, will open themselves up to learning. Teaching truths without proselytizing helps people understand that knowledge is power and not propaganda. Knowing that because Americans committed genocide and encouraged ownership of other humans centuries ago, it does not magically make one genocidal or racist in the here and now. Hasn’t anybody ever told these people that we can learn from our mistakes, regardless of how heinous?

Raising awareness of what privilege is and isn’t is a giant step in the direction of helping all of us improve our lives by appreciating both what we are and who we are, with clarity about the differences. It lets us know which of our behaviors and attitudes we are directly responsible for, and which we are indirectly responsible for in the here and now, both as individuals and in groups. It tells us how not to fear things we are not overtly responsible for but need to know and understand. 

The dynamics of human social interactions and emotional reactions are rarely simple to grasp with facility. But humans of all sorts are capable of understanding those things and looking upon their fellows with compassion for their faults, which are also our faults. Opportunity, empathy, and responsibility are values that everybody has access to. They are not weak traits as we are often told. Paving a path to the embrace of those values for those who are lost might be a thankless job. But more likely than not, there will come a time when somebody appears from a thicket of oaks and, looking around, opens their mouth and heart in awe of the power that comes from simply being human, and realizing that we are all human. Instinctual, absolute truths can and will instantly replace the relative, learned truths of their past. We can unlearn that which is learned but we can’t unwhat what we are.

We can and will shine.

It takes work.

But the brilliance of the light makes it worth the effort.

People, Privilege, and Paradox

There are a limited number of basic and meaningful things that happen in a human being’s life. We are prone to experience any or all of them. Experiences just happen, regardless of our particular place in life. However, one factor that influences the experiences we have is privilege. Privilege is one of the more misunderstood concepts in America. Conflicting definitions of privilege are perhaps the major source of confusion over what it is. Privilege is defined by what we are and not who we are. There are many different whos that we can be, from artist to attorney, from republican to recluse. And there are many whats as well, from British to blind to black to a baby.

A what is a closed set. An American cannot be British. You may say there are British Americans. But that is also a closed set. Not just anyone one can be British American either. What you are cannot change but who you are can change many times and at any time. Anyone can be a who and a who can be anyone. An artist can be black, Catholic, rich, poor or woke. It is true that artist is a type of closed set but anyone can be an artist. So it is also an open set. This is a contradiction. We must realize that a contradiction is not necessarily a cognitive dissonance. Contradictory concepts can coexist and can have subsets that share a place in a Venn diagram.

Thanks for reading Gandharva Loka! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Many people misinterpret the relativity and absolutism involved in privilege. They confuse the who they and others are with the what they and those others are. When people are told they have white privilege that is a what, because only white people can be white and thus only white people can have white privilege. When a person professes to be an accountant that is a who because anyone could be an accountant. One might say an accountant has certain privileges. But because anyone can be an accountant those things particular to an accountant are features of the subset and not privileges.

Often, all white people are called racists by people who don’t understand privilege. It is true that white people have dominated American culture since before the American revolution. They have dominated governance since the beginning of our nation. It is also true that America has featured systemic racism for the entire period of white dominance. Consider that being white is a what and being a racist is a who. For example, asian people can be racist as much as white people. Recall the Venn diagram from above. Some people are in the shared section and some are in the individual section. Some people are both and some people are one or the other.

The truth is, not all white people are racists. Some are, some aren’t. This is the case regardless of whether a white supremacist culture has always featured systemic racism. Because of that cultural connection white people who are told they have white privilege assume they are also being called a racist. They can become angry that they are being stereotyped. This interaction is untrue and divisive. The people involved in these sad divisions are not wrong out of rancor but from a confusion of what privilege is. The misunderstanding surrounding white privilege is not the only instance of division caused by confusion. It is but one of many misunderstood concepts keeping Americans divided. Unfortunately, these divisions are promoted by those who wish us keep us arguing and not realize that we the people are one. They are major problems many others describe better than I.

Regardless of whatever who we are or profess to be, the only what that we all share is being human. Our only universally shared privilege is human privilege. All humans want to love and be loved. All humans want to be happy and have meaning and purpose in their lives. We all think and make decisions and worry and laugh. There are so many things we have in common. These are so basic as to be taken for granted and not rightfully considered to be things that bind us together.

We are small creatures on a small planet in a small galaxy in a vast multiverse. Can lose track of the fact that there is big and small but we depend on it. We recognize different colors on a TV screen as being different. But if the screen is entirely red we do not see any differences even though there are still thousands of individual pixels. It’s easy to see similarities and not the differences as much as we recognize differences but not similarities. That they can coexist gets lost in our addiction to duality. We see the world as black or white but choose not to see the gray that represents unity. One thing for certain, when we are being born we are all the same and as we die we are all the same. What makes us think there is an existential difference between the two?

We are individuals and part of a whole. We are all the same yet all different. It is a most sublime divine paradox. It is this conundrum that is the engine of a life that can contain both mystery and misery, both freedom and boredom. Life is not static nor moving. It is both. It moves and stays. For life to move there must be different places. For there to be different places there must be different spaces and for each individual to exist they must occupy their own particular space. Two of us cannot occupy one space but any of us can occupy any space at any given time. A major life contradiction is how can we be both one and many at the same time. It is this question that we strive to answer all our lives whether we know it or not. We seek out differences to legitimize our own individuality but also we all know in our deepest hearts that the things in life that truly matter are the things we all share, like family, being hungry, and having desires. These things stay.

I love being like you. And I love being me. There is a balance to life. When that balance is upset and we recognize only our differences, life becomes difficult and fractured. If you won’t recognize me, should I care to recognize you? If you don’t respect me do I respect you? I grow weary of spending so much energy disliking people. As an individual I already love everybody. I am called to love by my spirit. But if we are to like each other we must all work together. Love is the Alpha and Omega. If we can recognize and respect the love in each other it will go a long way towards making it acceptable to not like each other. And when it is acceptable to not like each other, because of the presence of divine contradiction, it is much easier to discover we actually do like each other. It is through respect for our shared humanity, despite our differences, that we find unity.

Regardless of who or what we are, when we occupy space in this world we create boundaries for a space I can occupy. For that I am grateful. What you do with your space is your business. As mine is mine. With this freedom we make our space a place. For this process to work we must allow each other a space in which to create our place in this world. We all deserve a place. We all want and need autonomy. I’m here and I belong here. We are also a vast network of souls, whether connected or seemingly not. It’s like this at every level of existence. From the macrocosm of the universe to the microcosm of a Higgs Bosun everything seeks stasis. Everything is individual and part of a whole.

I haven’t posted much lately. I’ve been caretaking my fiancee as she recovers from surgery and have taken on extra work around our castle. I wrote this a while ago. With some editing it is my latest contribution.

This is how I see it. The concepts of relative and absolute truths coexisting in a peaceful and productive world are, to me, what make life incredible, meaningful and exciting. We should embrace them.

Amid the chaos and turmoil there is a path to a reimagining of America. Right now, it is the path less taken.

Only we the people can change that.

Evidently It’s Not Just a Game

A local opinion writer recently had a piece published advocating for a third sports gender category to consist solely of transgender athletes. He offered this suggestion as a way to create ‘fairness’ in sports competition and to ostensibly soothe the angry and indignant arguments that currently dominate the issue. On the surface, it is not an unreasonable suggestion although I’m not sure it is the best idea or even all that good. It is not the first time I have heard this possible solution.

There are things about this suggestion that trouble me. First, there is the implication that all trans athletes are equal. When this topic is discussed it is always mentioned that M to F (Male to Female) trans athletes have a physical advantage over athletes who were female at birth. But not all trans people were male at birth.

Second, many different genetic combinations having to do with sex and gender are present in varying humans. The physical characteristics and abilities of those born male or female are not dualist. Rather, as with most human characteristics, there is a spectrum of traits and abilities spread over a continuum of all people, not necessarily strictly related to the concept of two and only two sexes and genders.

Finally, in this scenario, F to M (female to Male) trans athletes seem to be left out of the discussion entirely. Not all trans people are M to F and those born with female anatomy who identify as men and take action to become men physically need to be recognized as not only real men but real athletes. Where is their category?

To follow the logic behind the concept of three categories these F to M trans athletes should be less capable athletically than those who were male at birth. If this is true, to be truly fair, shouldn’t there be at least 4 categories of athletic competition? Is trans athletic competition only an issue if the transition leads to dominance? 

The exclusion of F to M trans athletes from this conversation is humiliating. Trans people and trans athletes face enough discrimination as it is and certainly do not need any more fear piled on their already hyper-stressed heads.

When a person transitions from their gender at birth to that in their mind, heart, and soul my guess is that they are fully prepared to compete against others of their chosen gender regardless of their birth physicality. This is not a cut and dried, black and white issue. Frankly, there are people born as men who are good athletes and those who are poor athletes. This applies to those born as women as well. I recall something about a tennis player named Billie jean King. 

There is a level of legitimacy to the argument that M to F trans athletes, in general, have better physical abilities than those born female. But the argument that men who choose to transition to female do so only for the opportunity to excel at women’s sports is patently ridiculous. Why would a man who knows he is a man become a woman to win medals and then face years of regret after their sports career is over? It’s absurd.

This is not an easy topic to parse as there are strong opinions held by many. For my money, we should let the athletes decide how to work out this controversy, not parents or politicians. I think we all know this conflict will be difficult to reconcile. But I feel that allowing those who participate to decide will be the closest to fair that we, as a society, can get.

Just the opinion of a cisgender old white man.

A Few Things

I am not a baby killer. Regardless of whether a fetus is or is not a person I don’t think abortion is the best option for any child bearing person.. But, I don’t have the right, or duty, or ability to judge a person for the actions they take with their own body. I can’t demand their spiritual condemnation. That judgement is God’s and God’s alone. I believe when people legislate morality it’s dangerous, especially when it involves an individual’s personal decisions.

Those who favor banning books, or banning teachers from teaching things that give people valuable lessons, even they are are controversial should remember that someone els might benefit from reading or hearing about it. it infringes on their freedom. Banning such teaching is bullying. Implying that anyone is less human than you are is an offense against God. It violates the patriotic American idea that all people are created equal. Their desire to withhold truths from their children comes from the fear that those children might learn about something they don’t like. These deniers are afraid their children don’t have the common sense to know that learning about controversial things isn’t going to make them turn against their parents. In essence they are discriminating against their own children.. They do not trust their children to be clear thinking individuals. They don’t seem to have faith in human love or compassion. This is perhaps because they have difficulty with loving and empathizing themselves.

Yes, by themselves, guns do not and cannot kill people. And yes, people do kill people. This is not a good defense of people with guns. People with guns kill people much, much easier and efficiently than people without guns. None other than that famously woke Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, in his decision for the Heller vs. Washington D.C. ruling, stated that second amendment rights are not unlimited. He said a citizen can’t carry just any gum for just any purpose. Certain guns and how they are used can be regulated. We are reminded that freedom does not mean everyone has the liberty to do whatever they want to whoever they want.. Violating the liberty of another person who is exercising their liberty to use their freedoms is a crime.

At the leadership level Republicans and Democrats are less different than they and the media would have us believe. Both parties are heavily influenced by corporations. Republicans answer to corporations who are more interested in profit than people. They continue to follow economic principles that have little to do with ‘promoting the general welfare’ of the people. Democrats answer to corporations who use a more generous economic approach to create loyalty among their followers. They feel that appealing to the needs and desires of the average American will bring greater profits in the long term by establishing loyal customers. The Republican party makes its followers happy with secret appeals to their racial and white supremacist ideas,. These appeals are less secret now than in the past. The democrats appeal to their base by talking about doing good things but not doing a lot about it. Both sides accuse the other of doing bad things they do themselves.

Both sides try to keep the public distracted from the real issues of the time by talking a lot about issues that aren’t as important as they sound like which bathroom transgender people can (or can’t) use or demanding that their state representative be on their side on absolutely every issue. They use both social and mainstream media to tell people how bad the other party is and send out lots of emails and letters asking for more money than we have to give.

Republicans continue to try to keep people at each others throats by telling one group of people they are better than another group Or they tell a different group of people that the Democrats don’t care about them as much as another group. Because they are afraid there will soon be more Democrats than Republicans they want everybody fighting everyone else so they don’t see that the Republicans don’t have much of a plan for government. Democrats appeal to the decency of people. They feel this is the way to convince them to stop voting for Republicans against their self interests. The Republican message has backfired a little because they are losing suburbs to progressives who can now better afford to move there. These folks have become annoyed by what they think are stupid culture battles and the failure of government services under Republican rule. Democrats keep losing votes from voters who used to be loyal such as Blacks and Hispanics. Republicans tell them the Democrats only care about them when they need their votes. They appeal to their conservative religious and cultural values.

Most of us know that America is really run by a small group of super rich peopleThey work hard to control our voting habits. When Republicans are elected the wealthy few allow them to make lots of right wing laws and policies. People get tired of the weaknesses of right wing rule and eventually we elect Democrats. Then the same thing happens, the Democrats do too many liberal things and we elect the Republicans again. We go back and forth and back and forth a. This gives us the illusion that our vote counts but it is really the super rich that are controlling things.

I want to continue on something I talked about earlier. Many Americans confuse freedom and liberty and think they mean the same thing. This is not true. Freedoms are given to us by the constitution. They apply to everyone equally and are limited for everyone equally. Everybody has freedom of speech but no one can yell fire in a crowed theater for example. Liberty, on the other hand, is individual. Each person has the liberty to live their lives however they wish. Liberty is granted to every person because they are alive. Liberty come from God or whatever power greater than you that you recognize.

The issue with individual liberty is that there will always be conflicts when two people’s liberties clash. Conflicts of liberty are what most of our laws are about, civil and criminal. For example, the second amendment gives every American that follows the law the freedom to bear a firearm. The first amendment gives everyone the freedom to say whatever they want unless that speech would threaten someone else. But the person with the gun is not at liberty to shoot the speaker just because they don’t like what they are saying. Society determines how conflicts of liberty are to be judged. We do this by democratically electing representatives who debate and make laws about our conflicts. We have courts that decide who has the law on their side in a conflict. W have courts that decide whether the constitution agrees with a law or it doesn’t. Freedom doesn’t allow anyone to do whatever they want when and wherever they want. And liberty is only an inalienable right when it does not interfere with another’s liberty. These words are tossed about much too loosely.

There will be more tidbits of opinion coming soon.

Not Really About Economics

Economic prosperity and likewise economic distress are both very complex issues with a considerable number of variables sharing responsibility for the economy’s health. To blame any one political party and/or politician for our economic troubles is disingenuous. Knowing that people like simple solutions to complex problems Republicans cleverly apply Occam’s Razor to their campaigning. They frame both our problems and their solutions in the simplest terms possible. Democrats have an unfortunate tendency to endlessly debate, then partially address, each of the numerous variables responsible for our most significant problems, leaving people confused and suspicious.

Republicans are aware that people approach life and its problems emotionally rather than mentally. They use emotional persuasion based in such things as fear, revulsion, and scorn to get their point across. They use emotional ad hominem attacks and sensational prevarication to vilify their enemies (read opponents). They avoid issues primarily because there are no easy solutions to complex problems. Thus they don’t spend a lot of time on policy and problem solving. They do spend in inordinate amount of time disseminating emotionally charged attacks and simple solutions to as many people as possible through their cleverly purchased and easily accessible information sources. They use glib and charismatic talking heads to sell their framing to the masses. These tactics are often successful given peoples’ tendencies to get their information from just one source without taking time out of their manufactured busy day to investigate issues.

On the other hand, assuming we have two hands, Democrats rely on the overrated fact that life is practical and ordered, based on truth and knowledge. They have a different concept of simplicity than Republicans. They feel (over)confident that if they simply and clearly reveal all the factors that influence public policy and problem solving that the people will magically absorb it all into their heads. Voters will obviously recognize and embrace the truth, facts, and irrefutable policy conclusions of the nearly infinite research and careful considerations of the hard working, honest and empathic clerks of the Democratic Party. What a crock. Most people fall asleep before the end of the first paragraph. Luckily for the Democrats, the country, contrary to expansive marketing, is mostly a center/left nation. Philosophically there are more Democrats and sympathetic independents than Republicans. If the Democrats can somehow motivate, logically of course, their base and likely allies to forego chatting over their weak lattes long enough to vote they can usually win. These outcomes hold up for both major parties unless one of the frequently incompetent candidates is vastly more incompetent than the other. Herschel Walker this means you.

It is relatively easy for Republicans to proudly and loudly shout out their simple and emotional views of our problems and their simple and emotional solutions while attacking the Democrat’s complex, mental, and issues oriented assessment of problems and their complex and mentally oriented policy solutions. Democrat’s tough but convoluted solutions are normally more effective but Republican’s easy and understandable solutions are more popular. It is so much easier to convince someone that you are correct in one or two sentences than in a white paper.

Tangentially I rest partial blame for the incredibly short attention span of the modern American squarely on the head of MTV, even though they essentially no longer play music. The accepted metric for editing a music video states there should never be a continuous scene of more than four seconds. For a generation raised on music videos and their progeny and progeny’s progeny this style of editing has conditioned and normalized the average American’s attention span to that very four seconds. Well, perhaps as much as 10 seconds. Barely enough to get in a sentence, or maybe two if they’re short.

Enough of my tangential hypothesis.

Frankly, this very essay is too long and complex. There is a reason many modern opinion pieces, news articles, essays, social media comments, and actual conversations are passed over by ultra busy people. They haven’t the time to read anything longer than a tweet. In the 21st century time is money and you don’t get paid for the 10 minutes it takes to read something that actually covers the subject. With the acronym TLDR: Too Long, Didn’t Read (these days everything seems to be an acronym ) writers apologize for their verbosity, warning the reader, and targeted readers apologize for choosing to avoid reading the piece regardless of it’s relevance.

Here’s my attempt at something succinct. Not easy for this Irish Italian. The Democrats suck but the Republicans suck more. A fender bender sucks but totaling your car sucks more. Do you wanna vote for a fender bender or a totaled car? No brainer if you ask me. Don’t wanna vote for either one? That kinda makes sense but it means you probably don’t have a car.

A final thought. Control of the government roughly resembles a sine wave, with the GOP ruling above the axis and the Democrats below. Once the public elects a party that controls government they eventually become disillusioned with that party’s inability to do much for the people and subsequently vote them out of office. They figure out that the Democrats have such a complex plan they can never really effectuate it and the Republicans have no plan and can only fool people for so long.

So yeah, both parties suck but one party has no plan and the other party has a flawed plan. For my money flawed beats none by a nose.

And if you choose not to vote you’re riding the bus.