There’s an important difference between feeling passionate
about something because someone stirred you up to anger, and because someone
inspired you to defend something good.
How do you know whether you’ve been stirred up to anger or
inspired? Anger might be one clue.
Another clue is that stirring up tends to take one singular
incident and extrapolate from there that an entire system is irreparable
because of it.
Let’s take a look at some examples.
Examples
of Stirring up to Anger
George Floyd
George Floyd was killed while in police custody, in Minneapolis.
It was on video. It appears to all Americans that he was unjustly killed in
this incident. And yet, because of this incident, there were riots, lootings,
murders—not just in Minneapolis, but all over the country, and even all over
the world. And they continue more than a month later.
Why? What is the narrative? That this single death in this
one city shows that racism is so rampant that no black is safe anywhere? And that
it has always been this way, and it’s time for an uprising to stop this
ubiquitous injustice?
It’s a leap. And it’s unsupported by facts.
First, if racism were ubiquitous, you’d find a large segment
of the population that cheered for the death of George Floyd, simply because of
his color. You don’t see that. In fact, you hear zero examples of such
views. Maybe there are some fringe racists out there in a country this large,
but you’d have to seek them out and purposely give them a voice, because that
viewpoint simply doesn’t have a place in our society.
The data, as we’ve gone over, shows that blacks are less
likely than whites to be fatally killed in an interaction with police.
The cries of protesters for what they claim to want—to end
racism, especially as it pertains to police brutality—we can accomplish today.
Now. Immediately. As if by magic. Done! Simply by changing the perceptions and
attitudes of the protesters. Because those goals are not only achievable; they
are achieved, according to all objective measures.
So why the leap to “We need to defund the police,” or “We
need to eliminate the police”? It doesn’t accomplish the stated goal. It
accomplishes something else—the goal of those doing the stirring up to anger.
Bubba Wallace
Take a look at another related example, the supposed racism
at Nascar, when a noose was found hanging in the garage of the only participating
black Nascar driver, Bubba Wallace. The immediate response was that some racist
had targeted him. Nascar was concerned. Media labeled all Nascar fans racists. In
a show of solidarity with Wallace, participating Nascar drivers spontaneously walked
his car to the post position—to show their racism? Exactly the opposite.
And then, it turned out the “noose” was a loop handle on the
garage door, which had been there, according to photo evidence, at least since
last October, so it could not have targeted Wallace. And it wasn’t intended to represent
a noose at all; it was simply a looped rope to use as a garage door pull.
It’s one thing for Bubba Wallace to see it and wonder. It’s
another thing for the entire world to jump to the conclusion that all of Nascar
and all Nascar fans are racist—with no evidence other than a looped rope that
had been there for quite some time, and was intended an entirely non-racist
purpose.
Why the leap? Because someone benefits from the narrative
that racism is rampant, even in a place where there has been no evidence of it.
It meets some goal of those stirring-up-to-anger people.
Vanessa Guillen
How about an example other than racism? OK. There was a
murder at Ft. Hood, near Killeen, Texas. US Army Spc. Vanessa Guillen, a 20-year-old Houston native, went missing from
the base on April 22nd. While it may not have been apparent, the
search for her, with multiple investigative arms, has been ongoing since then.
This past week remains were found that were thought to be hers—finally verified
on Sunday. As the investigation reached this climax, investigators confronted Spc.
Aaron David Robinson, and he shot himself. His girlfriend, Cecily Aguilar, has
been charged with conspiracy to tamper with evidence.
 |
| mural for Vanessa Guillen in Austin image: JayJanner/Austin American-Statesman, found here |
From what I gather from various news stories, Guillen worked
with Robinson on base, and saw him shortly before she went missing. The
evidence seems to be that Robinson killed her by bashing her head with a
hammer. Then he disposed of her body by cutting it in smaller pieces, mixing
with some sort of concrete, and burying those pieces in various places. Robinson’s
girlfriend, Aguilar, is believed to have participated in the disposal of the
body.
Friends and family have said that Guillen complained about
sexual harassment by Robinson. At this point, I do not know what details are
involved in that charge, or whether they were being pursued by authorities. It seems
likely that such complaints led investigators to Robinson. It appears similar
to the kinds of cases that show up on NCIS (US Navy investigators) pretty
regularly. While TV shows always get the criminal during the hour of their
investigation, which appears to cover only days, in real life two months is not
particularly slow.
There were complaints that the Army couldn’t even handle the
investigation; they had to bring in an entity that finally tracked down the
remains, I believe with animals. Except, an entity that handles tracking down
remains would nearly always come from outside and is not unusual for such a
circumstance.
And yet there are calls—including a petition on Change.org—to
shut down Ft. Hood entirely, supposedly because the rampant sexual harassment on
base makes it unsafe for women to be soldiers there.
That’s kind of a leap. There is only a single case we’re
looking at. One piece I read from 2017 (and updated to include Guillen in the data) was trying to show that there are a
mysterious number of soldiers who die at Ft. Hood. But I looked at the list. Of
all non-suicide causes of death, there was only one other woman. Sexual
harassment did not appear to be a factor. And that case was several years ago.
Why does the death of one woman, while tragic, lead to the
call for the closing of the base because of rampant sexual assault against
women?
I don’t know if sexual harassment is an ongoing problem.
Wherever men and women work together closely, it tends to show up. That is not
the same as rampant sexual assault and murder. Nor is there any evidence
provided to show that the Army was doing anything other than pursuing the case
in the time that it took to make a solid case. That 2017 story was also calling
for the closing of the base. So maybe this incident is just another arrow to
sling.
Extrapolating from a single incident to claim that an entire
entity must be done away—that’s not caring about people of color or people of a
certain sex; that is stirring up to anger for some other purpose, which seems
to be a tearing down, rather than building up, purpose.
Examples of the stirring-up-to-anger variety seem endless
these days. But, if we look, we can also find examples of inspiring to defend
the good.
Examples
of Inspiring to Defend
President Trumps’ Mt. Rushmore Speech
 |
| President Trump and First Lady at Mt. Rushmore July 3, 2020 image found here |
Let’s just be honest and admit that President’ Trump’s speech at the Mt. Rushmore celebration this weekend was excellent. And yet, here are samples of what the stirring-up-to-anger media called overtly
racist, dark, and deeply divisive:
Being thankful:
Let us show our appreciation to the South Dakota Army and Air
National Guard and the Air Force for inspiring us with that magnificent display
of American air power, and of course our gratitude as always to the legendary
and very talented Blue Angels. Thank you very much. Let us also send you our
deepest thanks to our wonderful veterans, law enforcement, first responders,
and the doctors, nurses, and scientists working tirelessly to kill the virus.
They are working hard. I want to thank them very, very much.
July 4th Is
Historic:
We gather tonight to herald the most important day in the
history of nations, July 4th, 1776. At those words, every American heart should
swell with pride, every American family should cheer with delight, and every
American patriot should be filled with joy because each of you lives in the
most magnificent country in the history of the world and it will soon be
greater than ever before.
And
Our founders launched not only a revolution in government,
but a revolution in the pursuit of justice, equality, liberty, and prosperity.
No nation has done more to advance the human condition than the United States
of America and no people have done more to promote human progress than the
citizens of our great nation.
Only in America:
We are the country of Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and
Frederick Douglas. We are the land of Wild Bill Hickock and Buffalo Bill Cody.
We are the nation that gave rise to the Wright brothers, the Tuskegee airmen,
Harriet Tubman, Clara Barton, Jesse Owens, George Patton, General George
Patton, the great Louis Armstrong, Alan Shepard, Elvis Presley, and Muhammad
Ali, and only America could have produced them all. No other place.
Anything dark or overtly racist so far? No. Not even anything
covertly racist. There was a call to defend against America’s enemies:
It is time to plant our flag and to protect the greatest of
this nation for citizens of every race in every city in every part of this
glorious land. For the sake of our honor, for the sake of our children, for the
sake of our union, we must protect and preserve our history, our heritage, and
our great heroes. Here tonight before the eyes of our forefathers, Americans
declare again, as we did 244 years ago, that we will not be tyrannized, we will
not be demeaned, and we will not be intimidated by bad, evil people. It will
not happen.
So, we’re inspired to stand together, as Americans, against bad,
evil people—like those tearing down our cities and our statues and monuments.
That’s what the media call divisive? They need a better dictionary.
If you’re looking for words to unite, and to inspire to
defend what is good—this speech is a good place to look.
Senator Lee’s Resolution
 |
| Senator Mike Lee image from here |
Last week Senator Mike Lee of Utah put forth a resolution intended to unite Americans on what we
can agree on. He starts with some “whereas” points, all of them verifiably true,
both positive about America and its intent, and an acknowledgment of what we’ve
been facing in recent weeks. The comes the “resolved” section:
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) the rising tide of vandalism, mob violence, and the mob
mentality that feeds it—including its cruel and intolerant ‘‘cancel
culture’’—should be condemned by all Americans;
(2) peaceful demonstrations and mob violence are different in
kind;
(3) physical assault and property destruction are not forms
of political speech but violent crimes whose perpetrators should be prosecuted
to the full extent of the law; and
(4) the innocent law enforcement officers, public officials,
and private citizens who suffer the mob’s violence and endure its scorn while
protecting our communities from them deserve the thanks and appreciation of
every American.
Senator Lee said he thought it was straightforward: Mob
violence shouldn’t happen. It is happening. It should be stopped. We can all
agree on this, unanimously.
The resolution came in the wake of a shooting in Provo, UT,
last week. [local accounts here] An older gentleman was driving downtown
and found himself surrounded by a protest. He was very slowly trying to make
his way through and out of the area. But a protester began shooting through the
passenger side window of the man’s truck, and one bullet hit him. In a panic, the
driver bolted through the crowd (none reported injured). People were yelling
and claiming he was a white supremacist who entered the crowd on purpose to run
someone over—all evidence to the contrary.
Eventually the shooter was found and is being prosecuted.
But, if you’re not aware, this is an area called Happy Valley, not
sarcastically. People tend to be peaceful and law-abiding and basically just
decent to one another all the time. Crime and violence aren’t unheard-of, but
they are less usual than most cities of this size. And the idea that the police
there are racist or brutal is a figment of someone’s imagination. The protest
in this city is, in itself, without merit. So there was no reason for people in
the area to expect they’d run into a protest—right across the street from a
Latter-day Saint temple.
Senator Lee was saying, essentially, “We can all call this
wrong, can’t we?” Apparently not.
Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, insisted on
adding a line specifically calling out President Trump, which would have been,
not only inaccurate, but would have defeated the purpose of the politically
neutral resolution. Menendez went further, referring to Lee’s description of
our founding, saying it “reeks of a supremacist view,” and fails to condemn
America’s “original sin, which is slavery.”
The US didn’t invent slavery; in a world in which slavery
had been endemic for millennia, at last America created a setting in which “all
men are created equal” could become a commonly accepted thought, and slavery
could be abolished. In fact, I’d go so far as to say, wherever slavery has been
abolished in the world today—including the few places to accomplish it before
the US—did so because of America’s founding ideals.
So, Senator Lee’s words, to unite and inspire to defend what
is good about our nation, are called racist and divisive by someone who would
rather stir people up to anger.
There is clearly a division going on. But it is not being
created by those who inspire to defend.
Archbishop
Vigano’s Letter
About a month ago, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano wrote an open letter to President Trump. He described something in the opening that strikes me as true:
In recent months we have been witnessing the formation of two
opposing sides that I would call Biblical: the children of light and the
children of darkness. The children of light constitute the most conspicuous
part of humanity, while the children of darkness represent an absolute
minority. And yet the former are the object of a sort of discrimination which
places them in a situation of moral inferiority with respect to their
adversaries, who often hold strategic positions in government, in politics, in
the economy and in the media. In an apparently inexplicable way, the good are
held hostage by the wicked and by those who help them either out of
self-interest or fearfulness.
There are definitely two sides. Those who seek for and
inspire to defend the good are in the light. Those who stir people up to anger
in an effort to tear down, destroy, intimidate, and terrorize are in the dark.
One thing about being in the light—we can see more clearly. But,
as Archbishop Vigano said, we need to recognize we’re in the majority. We need
to stand firm, and cast a light on what’s going on, so that those in the dark
because of fear or confusion and see their way out of darkness and into the
light with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment