“Love America and March for Peace” by Umberto Eco

Image Source: The Guardian

 

This essay is included in Turning Back the Clock and for me highlights the issue of people’s tendency to see complex issues as clear and simple. There is a new paradigm where individuals are expected to support one side or the other, regardless of any grey area that may exist. Examples: If you do not support the US war on terror, then you are an ISIS sympathizer. If you support Israel, then you are a fascist that supports the oppression of Palestine. If you do not condemn the officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, then you are obviously a racist. This is all a manifestation of what I personally like to call the “football team” mentality. People pick a team or side and support their “team” regardless of what they or the opposing side does. Nowhere is this clearer than in politics nowadays. Support for political parties is more polarized than it’s ever been.

As Eco points out, this mentality leads to deeper social divides.

At the heart of these painful but not yet bloody rifts, you hear statements every day that lead inevitably to racism, of the type “All those against the war are allies of Saddam,” but also “All those who think the use of force is justified are Nazis.” Shall we try to think about this?

(Turning Back the Clock: p. 32)

It seems that individuals love to label other groups as “Nazis” to emphasize that these opposing groups are crossing some moral boundary. The problem that I see in doing this is that it diminishes the memory of the atrocities that were actually perpetrated by the Nazis. For example, after a recent Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on gay marriage, the City Council here in Asheville displayed a rainbow flag to show support. Opponents of marriage equality immediately condemned the members of City Council and called them Nazis because they acted without their approval. Personally, I see no correlation between City Council’s hanging of a banner and the crimes committed in Nazi Germany.

This is all connected to the “with us or against us” mentality, where any opposition or questioning is immediately condemned.

These few observations are sufficient, I hope, to suggest that the situation in which we find ourselves, precisely because of the gravity, does not admit of clear-cut divisions or condemnations of the kind “If that’s what you think, then you are the enemy.” This too is fundamentalism. You can love the United States, as a tradition, as a people, as a culture, and with deep respect due to those who won on the field the rank of the world’s most powerful country. You can be deeply touched by the injury America suffered in 2001, but without denying the need to warn Americans that their government is making a mistake and that they should see our position not as a betrayal but as frank dissent. Not warning them means trampling on the right to dissent—the exact opposite of what we learned, after years of dictatorship, from our liberators of 1945.

(ibid: pp. 35 – 36)

I hope that this trend of vilifying those whose opinions differ changes soon. It’s very destructive and prevents human progress, and progress is essential. If we are not moving forward as a society, then we are most likely moving backwards.

Reading Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” On My Way To A Demonstration

When I was in college, one of my English professors commented that we study literature because it matters, that is makes a difference in the world. I firmly believe that to this day. So, as I was preparing to board a bus with 100 other protesters and travel four hours to Raleigh (the capital of North Carolina) to participate in the Moral Monday demonstrations, I thought about what I should read aboard the bus for inspiration. I decided upon Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. I could not have picked a more perfect book.

Although Thoreau wrote this in response to the slavery issue, his words are as powerful and relevant today as when they were written back in 1849. At one point I had to force myself to stop copying quotes from the book because there were just so many that struck me as important.

Thoreau asserts that the government is used by “comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool” to further their goals and agendas. I am in complete agreement. Anyone who follows politics knows how lobbyists and powerful donors sway the legislation that is enacted. And corporate influence is some of the most insidious, because, to quote Thoreau directly: “It is truly enough said, that a corporation has no conscience.”

Thoreau alludes to the Declaration of Independence when he talks about the need to refuse and resist allegiance to a tyrannical government, but he also stresses that we should show opposition to an inefficient government, and personally, I feel that this is a major issue that we face today. Our government spends more time bickering and arguing about petty things that nothing of substance gets done, and when things do get done, it is only because of partisanship and not because of concern for what is best for the citizens.

All men recognize the right to revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.

At one point, Thoreau lashes out against the apathy of citizens, who do nothing or very little to effect change in the country.

They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote…

Protest outside NC Legislature

Anyway, I was able to finish the book on the ride to the demonstration, which challenged the current administration’s legislation that is stripping the rights and benefits of many citizens across the state.  I could go into a lengthy discussion on everything that is going on, but I won’t. If you are interested, I encourage you to read more on your own. Here are a couple of articles that can get you started:

• MSNBC
• Washington Post

I’d like to close with another quote from Civil Disobedience, where Thoreau challenges us to improve upon our current system of government.

Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man?