As people around the country come to grips with Saturday's deadly shooting in Tucson, it's becoming fashionable to heap indignation on the Sarah Palins, Glenn Becks, Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the world. Many folks theorize that it is their vitriolic rhetoric which has poisoned the public space in this nation. To be sure, each of those individuals bears a level of responsibility, but their chosen phraseology is more a symptom than the disease itself.
In past generations, people on the left side of the aisle have been just as guilty as those in today's far right wing. In fact, if we look through the annals of US history, various groups and factions have employed the same violent rhetoric. I think, if we are at all honest with ourselves, this really isn't a right or left, conservative or progressive issue at all. The "call to arms" -- in a very literal sense -- is a bedrock foundation of American culture. It is, unfortunately, part of who we are.
When we landed on this continent, we forcibly TOOK the land from the indigenous inhabitants. We won our freedom from England through ARMED revolution. We tamed the wilderness by raping and pillaging it. We fought amongst ourselves via the barrel of a gun. And we have subjugated other lands and people through imperialistic exploits and preemptive war.
Violence permeates our national identity and, when something as insidious as violence becomes an inherent part of who we are, it is quite normal for it to play a big role in how we communicate with one another. It is unremarkable that we would choose violent metaphors to support or oppose particular candidates, positions, strategies and policies. It becomes as natural as breathing.
While it might be convenient to point the finger at those who, in the present tense, are the authors of the most violence-laced verbiage, the situation we find ourselves in won't change until we decide as a society to cast the acts of violence to the side of the road. As long as violence and aggression are the first tools we employ to"solve" disagreements and "rectify" problems, there is no genuine hope of removing it from public discourse.
In past generations, people on the left side of the aisle have been just as guilty as those in today's far right wing. In fact, if we look through the annals of US history, various groups and factions have employed the same violent rhetoric. I think, if we are at all honest with ourselves, this really isn't a right or left, conservative or progressive issue at all. The "call to arms" -- in a very literal sense -- is a bedrock foundation of American culture. It is, unfortunately, part of who we are.
When we landed on this continent, we forcibly TOOK the land from the indigenous inhabitants. We won our freedom from England through ARMED revolution. We tamed the wilderness by raping and pillaging it. We fought amongst ourselves via the barrel of a gun. And we have subjugated other lands and people through imperialistic exploits and preemptive war.
Violence permeates our national identity and, when something as insidious as violence becomes an inherent part of who we are, it is quite normal for it to play a big role in how we communicate with one another. It is unremarkable that we would choose violent metaphors to support or oppose particular candidates, positions, strategies and policies. It becomes as natural as breathing.
While it might be convenient to point the finger at those who, in the present tense, are the authors of the most violence-laced verbiage, the situation we find ourselves in won't change until we decide as a society to cast the acts of violence to the side of the road. As long as violence and aggression are the first tools we employ to"solve" disagreements and "rectify" problems, there is no genuine hope of removing it from public discourse.
You need to be careful about who you call "we." My father's family arrived here in the late 19th century, long after the Civil War was over. (Although my mother's great uncle was a Union soldier and I could have joined the DAR.) Barack Obama is not a descendant of the slave trade. My Senator is a Japanese-Amercian WWII hero. I live in the last state to join the union. None of those people did what you say "We" did. I understand your point, but I think we need to understand that our national identity is pluralistic; guilt and anger only serve to divide, not unify. People wouldn't be so upset if they didn't realize that the we do not accept violence as our national identity. Not that there aren't plenty of crazy people who do.
ReplyDeleteTo say nothing of the fact that few countries or civilizations have not experienced their share of violence. It's just more yin and yang in the red dust.
And since I made reference elsewhere to this very fine song from 1983, it goes on to say:
ReplyDelete"Democracy don't rule the world,
You'd better get that in your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid.
From Broadway to the Milky Way,
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed."
"Union Sundown"--Bob Dylan
.