America

You’re Welcome

Thanksgiving is weird. It’s gluttonous. For too many, the holiday is rife with family bickering and/or stress. Yet, the narrative of Thanksgiving is one of gratitude with a loving family and nature’s bounty, linked to an American origin story that suggests harmony with people of a different culture, sharing agricultural learning and exchange to achieve gastronomical delight. The religiosity of the non-native Americans is known, but the universality of gratitude distinguishes this holiday as one that can be embraced by any and all faiths. It is utterly American.

We celebrate the story. Our version highlights the ideals in theory, but the details often play out contrary to the ideals. Americans love the novel—the always new story that is tidy and lofty, that has us as the embodiment of goodness and Civilization. And we could never be so boorish as to not be grateful for all that we have been given, even when we feel like we are entitled because we stand for what is best. We don’t merely receive a bounty; we have a system that is based on the notion that more is better. We seek abundance; even demand it.

We often look down on those who do not seem to have much. Sure, we will be charitable and give to the needy, especially this time of year. But, there is a sense that abundance is not abundant; that it must always be hunted and gathered. More is more. Black Friday is the inverse of the Puritan holiday feast celebrated the day before, although the theme of gluttony (not in the original narrative) continues.

The sense of vulnerability that pervades American culture—that our precious and abundant life is at risk—is acute. In the 21st Century, terrorism has become even more global and effective and has heightened our sense of vulnerability in a way that was previously unknown to Americans. The Great Recession similarly created a sense of scarcity and risk. We are terrified of losing access to abundance and life as we know it (or knew it).

The very reasonable fears of loss due to extreme economic conditions and terrorism become magnified and take on lives of their own with the pervasiveness of media. Reasonable fears that require reasonable measures quickly devolve into panic and fear mongering.

Sure, we give thanks— at least on the last Thursday of November. But will we say, “You’re welcome.” ? Will we welcome refugees and others in need? Will we share our American bounty? Will we be welcoming to others—all the others that we can easily avoid, ignore, shun? Will we welcome change or other points of view?

The original story of Thanksgiving—of meeting the other and sharing the bounty— is the quintessential American tale. It would be more appropriate if we were more welcoming in our lives.
We can experience abundance when we are welcoming. We do have much for which to be thankful. But the magnitude is felt when we say, “You’re welcome” .

In Other Words

I’m not big on banning words, but I am pro thoughtful and considerate usage. Words, like actions, have consequences. That’s why we use them.

Before the real bloodbath of Friday the 13th in Paris four days ago, we were grappling with the sometimes conflicting necessities of racial sensitivity and free speech. For some, sensitivity means easily piqued; for others, sensitivity means the opposite— consideration, discernment, understanding, empathy. We see this different use and application of the word sensitivity much like the application of the word entitled; for some, entitled implies deserving based on qualification; for others, entitled implies someone who thinks s/he is deserving without having to do anything; spoiled.

In cases like entitlement and sensitivity, usage often falls within political party lines. It’s as though we are losing a common language. But, language does evolve, and reconsidering words and their usages reflects cultural (and sometimes personal) evolution.

It is easy to grasp the phrase “a clash of civilizations” when referring to terrorist groups who want to topple governments and seize territory through violence, distorted religion, and regression, as we have seen with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and with what we tend to call ISIS or ISIL (including more than Syria) or now the derogatorily named Daesh. Some have countered that the phrase “clash of civilizations” is hyperbolic and inaccurate because the fight is against Civilization, not against two civilizations. In other words, we dignify or dishonor depending on our word choices.

On the home front, we tend to distinguish between “politically correct” terms deemed considerate and preserving dignity, and terms that may be considered as derogatory or used to degrade or keep one outside. The recent backlashes to “politically correct” speech are sometimes motivated by discrimination, but other times, they are an effort to reclaim dignity in a new context; in effect, to show control over what was once terminology used for oppression. Others seek to acknowledge that speech is a protected right in this country and must not be silenced regardless of content.

I don’t believe that just because we have a Constitutional right to free speech, that speech is free. It is, like all freedom, embedded with responsibility, and that means consequences, intended and unintended. Our own grappling with words and phrases and how they reflect on us as a culture can get a bit messy, as we have seen many times during the last year alone, and recently on college campuses. Political rhetoric has always been with us, but we also see grassroots cultural rhetoric that seeks to dismantle some of the prevailing policies, and politics, cultural norms as well as inconsiderate behavior.

The way in which events are characterized is now mostly a matter of politics. Our task is to be aware of rhetoric. How words are used reflects and fosters dispositions. Even the word rhetoric, which refers to the way with words, can be defined as eloquence or as bombast; persuasion or lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. Politicization of events occurs through rhetoric—through word usage intended to persuade, either with eloquence or bombast.

The politicization of deaths to due terrorism and other violence seems to have the effect of dividing rather than uniting us in mission, which halts progress.
What should be done with so many Syrians fleeing Syria? We debate whether we should call them migrants or refugees. Refugees are those who flee their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. However, for the politicians who fear terrorists entering our borders (not an unreasonable fear), they can state their position as not wanting to give refuge to terrorists, thereby conflating refugees with giving refuge to terrorists. And migrants? I don’t remember hearing that term before recently to describe those fleeing persecution. The politicization of the word refugee has created the current use of migrant as an alternative to refer to those seeking refuge from war and persecution.
I started by saying that I don’t generally believe in banning words, but I am in favor of thoughtful and considerate usage. The manhunt for the so-called “mastermind” of the recent Paris attacks is one case in which I think it’s time to abandon the term “mastermind” when used to describe perpetrators of violence against innocent people. We often use it with an invisible or silent “evil” preceding the word mastermind. The title “Mastermind” aggrandizes those who conceive of methods to kill innocent people. Life takes much more mastery than killing innocent people and inspiring fear. This guy may have been the chief organizer and strategist, but why dignify the monster with a title that should be reserved for those whose intelligence produces that which is constructive and life affirming?

We tend to denigrate honest, hardworking, patriotic people who may have different opinions, but we aggrandize and empower the real troublemakers, criminals and monsters, especially when we foment fear. In other words, we can consider or ignore; dignify or dishonor; empower or degrade. Words, like actions, have power and consequences. Use them wisely.