Thanksgiving: What does it mean? (Cliche alert)

Yeah, go ahead, make fun. I'm trying hard not to reek of a 7th grade essay; but in economic times like these and with a social confusion the likes of which are unprecedented, I think it's a fair question to ask: What does Thanksgiving really mean, anyway?

Seriously, I won't accept what I was taught in kindergarten that I now know to be false: the nice English "settlers" (read: oppressors) had lunch with the Indians (read: the guys who taught the incompetent intruders how to live on the land they would later take by force, all in the name of liberty and freedom). Sorry, a bunch of white males denying rights to women and non-whites, socially stigmatizing non-Christians, and displacing indigenous people more and more as time went on, is not what passes for me as a national pastime. So, as an American, the day doesn't mean terribly much other than a reminder of who we (as an institutional nation) really are.

So, personally, what is it? I suppose answering for everyone is out of the question. But I think I can answer what it is as a functional definition: a way to keep the American worker satisfied with his/her lot in life by giving up a day of the month for family gatherings. For most people, whether you believe in the sanctity of Thanksgiving or see the marketing as an outdated way of just getting 21st century families to get together, it's a pretty solid deal. If you're a full-time worker, you get a paid day off in many cases. If you're a student, no school for a while. For me, as a student, it's a reminder that the semester is almost over. 

In the end, I would say it's a day for me to just try and find the one person (or people) that is/are most accessibly important to me and try to enjoy time with them as well as I can. We're all strapped these days. Many of us question our place in our jobs, our future (as workers, students, etc.), and our lives in general. Where are we all headed in this quickly changing society? What validity will I have in it in 5-10 years? Will I fulfill my dreams and goals? Are they all meant to be achieved? If not, how do I know which ones to feel okay or bad about? Despite these questions, many of us know of at least one or more people we can turn to and cherish on this day. And for those who don't, maybe we can put ourselves to the side for a moment to think about them. In this 'me-centric' society, we tend to forget about what that type of message sends to those who don't have a lot of 'me' to feel good about. I think that one fact, more than any other, makes me feel the worst when I see how commercialized and fragmented our holidays, once sprinkled with some meaning perhaps, are becoming.

In the end, just value what you have. Who cares if you don't get everything you want this year? Who cares if you don't meet your goal you set 100% this year? We should be so lucky that we even have years to look forward to setting goals, achieving them, resketching them, or scrapping them, when some people only have goals of living to see the next day. Those people, more than any, only have their loved ones to value and get them through year in and out. Do you think we as a society keep that same level of focus on those we love the most? 

Have a nice Thanksgiving. 

The difference between living and learning.

Today I heard a young woman (white) tell me that since she has a Mexican boyfriend she "knows what it's like" to be treated like one vicariously in a white society. This comment is utter bullshit, for one, and insulting on another front. 

First, it's complete and utter nonsense. To demonstrate this, let me rephrase the question another way. I'm a male. If I hang out with nothing but women, will I ever know what it's like to experience life in this society as a woman? Will I ever know what it's like to be the victim of a sexist comment, mindset, or discriminatory act? No. If a black man hangs out with nothing but white people, is he going to begin to be judged as a white man? Negative. Just because one hangs out with people in mixed-race relationships does not mean they themselves know what it's like socially. 

I wanted to tell this girl so badly that "No, you don't know how it feels to be judged as a Mexican in a white society - you're white and American. You may know how it feels to be viewed as a white female who dates a Mexican male, and that is a relevant discussion for another time; but it's far from being the same thing". 

It's insulting in this way: it invalidates the unique reality a person of Mexican descent might feel in such a society. It sort of passively writes off being an oppressed situation by insinuating that watching and hearing something happen to another is the same or supreme to being the one that received the action. It's like seeing a punch thrown at somebody, seeing it connect, hearing the "pop", and saying "Man, I felt that just as bad as he/she did!"

This does not mean that white people have no valid stories or situations in society. An anti-racist white person (male or female) could very well say that non-whites do not understand how it is to be going against the institutional and social norm of white racism and experience the "traitorous" attitudes attributed to them. That is something that they can talk about and share (and it is an outlook and story that has a LOT of meaning, as white people are central allies in the fight against racism). However, nobody else can appropriate that feeling for themselves if they don't experience. 

Therein lies the difference between living and learning. It's important to do both. By living, we affirm who we are in society: your ethnicity, your gender, your religion/lack-of-religion, your class, etc. All of these things contribute in very unique and special ways to who you are and how you experience life. Women go through things daily that men do not understand. Why? They do not live it. Men experience things that women will never experience, just on a different side of the coin.

By learning, we put aside our own viewpoint to empathise with that of another. We try to view things in their lenses, to understand that our reality is not the one objective reality upon which everything else is based. The male reality is not the generic, definitive one. The American reality is not the benchmark upon which everyone else in the world should be judged. People are a result of their biography and history, and those histories are shaped in their status and classification in society. These things are key to understanding who we are and where we're going. 

If a person can't grasp that concept, I suspect it's going to rather hard for them to make sense out of much of what goes on in life without resorting to violence, resentment, and confusion that could be remedied and solved by simply putting their ego and vanity aside. Only when a person honestly realises that they don't know it all through their lenses do they really begin to learn about others and, in a way likely not expected, even more about themselves. 

So in the end, the next time you're thinking about how your friend or family member of a different race/gender/religion sees the world, admit to yourself up front that this is a viewpoint that you've never lived and can only learn; but to truly understand how they live their experience, you have to put your aside momentarily. Otherwise, you're just swimming in a sea of your own shit. 

Thoughts

As I get ready to write my next article, I'm wondering:

Why is it that being Christian in this country, at least in title, is synonymous with being moral? Why can you say "I have Christian values" and be considered basically good, yet saying Jewish or Muslim values falls noticeably short? Or saying I'm an atheist? Is morality tied to the Christian God only, or to God at all? Can one be without religion and automatically without morality and values?

Conservative anxieties over "Third-World" and "paradise" men.

I used to think only Pat Buchanan could say some of the most overtly and obviously racist and comments I've heard in our supposed "post-racial" society. Then I go and decide to read the news and I find this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/pruden-obama-bows-the-nation-cringes/?feat=home_headlines

The above link is of an article in the Washington Times. 

The author, a conservative, is upset because Obama recently went to China to discuss economics with their leader. Upon greeting the leader, he bowed as a sign of respect in diplomacy. Because of this, he is now ripe for accusations of being 'un-American' and 'subservient'. "What is Thomas Jefferson or John Adams had done this?" asks the author. Well, John Adams did spend many years in England learning to kneel in front of a foreign leader (much more so than a simple bow), so I guess there's that answer. But that's neither here nor there. What I'm interested in is the tangent the author goes off on towards the end.

He starts on somewhat of a personal rip of Obama and his upbringing. He says "Obama was raised in a paradise, far outside of the American mainstream", bringing up ideas of exotic living and 'non-American'-esque people (think 'non-White' for some idea of what he really means). 

He then makes it abundantly clear what the end point of his gripe is: he refers to Obama's father explicitly as Kenyan (a predominantly Black nation, and said as if his father's country of origin has any effect on how Obama is going to act with others) and says "raised by a mother who had a thing for 3rd world men". 

*GASP* - You mean...dark people? 

There are white-racial anxieties written all over this article. What does Obama's mothers "preference for 3rd world men" have anything to do with this situation? And his Dad's nationality?

I would say it's indicative of how a majority, though obviously not all, of conservatives vent their racial frustrations. They keep themselves censored and shut-up for the most part, but every so often they have to let out their antipathy towards all things non-White, non-Christian, and non-hetero.

Fort Hood massacre spurs hate crimes. What a shocker.

Why exactly do we fight the War on Terror? Well, I have my own theories. However, I'm going to entertain one of the more widely accepted (yet still asinine) reasons given by right-wing pundits and followers: that we are protecting our freedom and values here, the great western society of tolerance and justice we claim to esteem so much (as if being non-western are liberty loving are mutually exclusive). 

So imagine my surprise when I read that just the other day a Marine reservist attacked a Greek Orthodox Christian Priest when confusing him for a crazy, "Arabic speaking Muslim". He beat him with a tire iron. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/alexios-marakis-assaulted_n_353022.html

Now, the priest claims that as he was pulled over, stopping people to ask for directions, the man started to attack him after 'freaking out' over his accent. Be honest, here. What sounds more likely to you?

First, let's get something straight. At the heart of all of this lies a simple truth. The man confused Greek for Arab, and Arab for Muslim. Why? He saw it as non-white. And deep down, that scares white people. Of course, I don't mean every individual white person. As a general rule for the population, of course it does. 

That is why a Greek (European) man of Mediterranean origin can be attacked for confusion with a "Muslim" (which is a religion, not a race, by the way). That is why there is no movement amongst white people to be paranoid over Christians after the death of Dr. Tiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Roeder) by an anti-abortion extremist. Why is this? The reservist and Scott Roeder are white. Therefore, according to the laws of white privilege, they're a couple of "troubled individuals", not a representative sample for white christians. Don't expect this same standard to be held for dark-skinned Muslims after a handful of domestic incidents.

It is this kind of conditioned exceptionalism that allows White-males to get by with no sweeping generalizations of themselves after the terrorist attacks by Ted Kazinsky, Timothy McVeigh, and Scott Roeder, yet the acts of a handful of Muslims lead to this type of nonsense: 

The link above shows footage of Fox anchors seriously advocating the idea of interrogating Muslim-Americans serving in the military to "make sure" they're 100% on board. Imagine if the tables were turned, and all Christians were being interrogated for the actions of Scott Roeder. What kind of outrage would we see from the right-wing in this country? The thing is, the latter won't happen nearly as quickly as what we've seen happen with Muslims.

Now, let's see how fast the right-wingers move to decry the violence and abhor the actions this Marine took against an innocent man. I'm guessing little to no commentary over it in the news. However, had this been a Muslim man attacking a Christian man for "speaking the language of infidels", we would label it a terrorist attack. Interesting set of standards we hold here in the high and mighty, 'secular', and tolerant West.

Anti-racist white guy punks an anti-immigrant protest!

This is a bad-ass video. A white anti-racist activist gives an interesting speech at an anti-immigrant rally. He puts a spin on the speech, turning the rhetoric around on European-immigrants (present and past) to give a little perspective on the asinine feel of the anti-immigrants arguments. 

What is even more interesting is that the right-wing dickheads attacked the kid afterwards when he was riding his bike home. http://www.bluestemprairie.com/bluestemprairie/2009/11/ruthiehendrycksfail.html

Things like this are what worry white anti-racists. You see, there is one downside to being a white anti-racist: White people, in their lack of ability to claim your playing the race card, end up taking their irrationality out in violent outbursts, vocally or physically (the latter being less frequent). When they are in groups, it can get ugly, as we see here. 

Good for him to stand up to those fucks, though. 

Criticisms of a thinking man in a drastic situation.

Obama, being pressed by top officials in the military for more troop presence in Afghanistan, has been pondering the decision for a few weeks. Because of this, he has been accused of being "indecisive", "lacking leadership skills", and a barrage of unfounded insults. 

Let me get this straight: Obama, knowing that any surge in troops will take a year to complete, is supposed to rush this decision in order to look competent to those who oppose him? How do we know the situation will even be the same in a year? What if the troops were a waste in a year? Is it that urgent? What if they are not enough? Then it was a waste. I think Obama is unique in that he understands that an occupation of Afghanistan has been tried by two countries before us. Both have failed. Come to think of it, our occupation efforts have not often been incredibly successful. 

After 9/11, Bush wasted no time hurling our troops into two countries to replace their leaders with ones we found "worthy". Look at the mess it has caused. Maybe Obama has learned a thing or two from this quagmire created by Bush.

Please, don't take this as another Obama apologist. I have my own criticisms of Obama (his way of dealing with Israel/Palestine, his way of handling Cap & Trade/Healthcare). I am simply educated and aware of how our past attempts to displace leaders to insert our own regimes has backfired every time in ways the "experts" somehow "never expected" (anybody now remembering  Cheney telling us that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, that it would be a quick and easy war?).

So, again, let Obama take his time. Get off his ass. If months have passed and no decision has been made or even discussed publicly, let the criticisms begin. Until then, conservatives, shut the hell up and let the guy think.