The Zeitgheist of Defeat at Bama

     Wearing a garment of that shade of red favored by the locals, I am standing on a street corner and watching them exiting that place from which so much fame and glory has originated, today the scene of their tragedy. The general attitude is subdued, their eyes downcast, avoiding each others' gaze, as if looking into another person's eyes might cause them to realize the tragedy once more. the adults are depressed, sullen even. The smarter children know better than to laugh in the presence of defeat, those that do not are quickly silenced. There is no jovial laughter, there are shouts of anger between familiars. Grimness pervades their aspects.
      The authorities have been forced to deploy themselves to restore order, likely to prevent a riot. Houndstooth purses and are tucked tightly under arms, possibly to prevent theft, or is it out of shame? But no one of them can disguise themselves from the phantom of defeat which I see hovering over and chastising their crimsoned torsos, heads and spirits. I saw none of them bleeding physically from wounds to the body, but their crimson exteriors were the perfect symbols for their bloodied spirits, sullied by the A&M.

      On a side note, I'm sure that this defeat was totally insignificant, but I could not help commenting (and dramatizing) the spirit of defeat I have witnessed, especially when compared to the audible celebrations I am forced to endure. A little humility never hurt anyone, not even the Crimson Tide.

Sharmeka Moffit - A Rapist of Reputation

-->

There is a certain irony regarding the reaction to the incident surrounding Sharmeka Moffit who recently set herself on fire and scrawled an unfortunate word and the letters KKK on her car in toothpaste. The irony occurs at multiple levels.

First, the reaction is suprisingly similar to the reaction which often occurred in small, white, southern communities following the commission of a crime in the pre-civil rights era. Whenever people heard about a crime at that time, the predominant racist sentiment was that someone black had committed it. Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind as an example and also conversations with family members who lived through that era. The racism inherent in the general fear of African-Americans by their white contemporaries is both disgusting and revealing.

A lot of the reaction in the social media sphere was ready to raise a hue and a cry against that old, decrepit specter - white supremacism. As one local news station reports, the reaction of one facebooker was to say “a suspicious looking white person was seen in the area with a Romney bumper sticker.” This echoes of the pre-civil rights era, when, regardless of the crime and the evidence, black people knew to be afraid because one of them was likely to be singled out and accused of a crime. Of course, back then, it would have been the authorities reacting, now it’s just ignorant people on social media sites and feminist blogs like those at the crunkfeministcollective. The point is this, we can’t just change who we revile and who we generally blame for crimes. We should reserve judgment on any case until we know as many of the facts as are available, the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case might have benefited from a little bit of circumspection as well.

We can’t simply stop suspecting black people and start suspecting white people, justice would not be served that way, we should reserve judgment until we know something.

Second, there are also some fringe groups who are saying that even if Ms. Moffit did set herself on fire, it must be the fault of a society that embraces white supremacy and capitalism. This argument is so specious that it doesn’t really deserve comment. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, not society. If there is no such thing as individual responsibility, there is no crime that can’t be blamed on someone else which means that there is no crime. Even in parts of the Islamic world, where women routinely set themselves on fire to escape the horrors of child marriages and a real patriarchal culture which bears no resemblance to our own, the women who set themselves on fire are still to blame for the effects of the fire, though not perhaps for the legal system which oppresses them.

Finally, no one seems to be willing to voice any concern over the implications of Sharmeka’s actions other than to make muted comments about how this might be blamed on a culture of this or that. If the reports we have about her self-incineration are true, then she should be at fault. Not only for setting herself on fire but also for inflaming the issue of white supremacy, when clearly, there were no white supremacists involved. When an individual assassinates the character of another individual, it’s called libel or slander, we have no suitable word for the crime when its object is not another individual but an entire group of people united only by the loose and transient bonds of race and gender. 

Now I’m not suggesting that the KKK represents the “white race” or even “white men” insofar as those phrases even represent coherent groups of people – which they do not. But, there will be some people who perceive all white men to be the same, who conflate the KKK with all white men, just as there were once (and may still be) people who perceived all black men to be the same. And in the perceptions of these people, Shameka’s actions could have inflamed some suspicion and hatred of white men.

Shameka is guilty of attempting to rape the reputations of a whole group of people, who are mostly unassociated with each other and innocent.  Nevertheless, I don’t think she should be punished. I believe in an absolute freedom of speech and writing slurs on your car using toothpaste is fair game. Also, since she didn’t implicate a particular person, she can’t be accused of making a false accusation. I can’t even begin to highlight how ironic it would be if the KKK brought suit against her for copyright infringement or slander. Maybe the prosecutor in Louisiana will disagree with me, but I think she should walk free, but be scarred for life as a result of her own actions. 

If we are all going to live together in a society composed of multiple ethnic groups, we have to stop rushing to judgement on the basis of appearances and recognize that when someone commits a race-based crime or makes false accusations against anyone on the basis of their race, it is a despicable act deserving of our censure.

http://www.wtvm.com/story/19897441/burning-case-goes-viral-rumors-spread

http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/when-the-hoodies-are-white-justice4sharmekamoffitt/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/sharmeka-moffitt-lied-racist-attack-set-herself-on-fire-louisiana-kkk-_n_2008690.html

Reviving the Image of Columbus or What I Celebrate on Columbus Day

Today seems to be the day when everyone who ever took World History 101 or had American History in High School comes out to play the social critic. Columbus Day is the perfect day for post-colonialists who have read a lot of theory to step up to the bat and pretend to know something about history. The problem with applying such meta-theoretical perspectives as post-colonialism is that such applications obscure the people of the past, Columbus in this case, and prevent modern audiences from ever understanding them as they saw themselves. This is not to draw attention away from the rape and pillage of the Caribbean which Columbus oversaw, but to properly contextualize it.

The tendency of post-colonial amateurs is to isolate what Columbus did once he came to America and forget that the process of arriving did not happen automatically. Post-colonialism obscures all of Columbus’ virtue behind his manifold vices. His virtue lies in the fact that he stepped out beyond the parameters of defined existence and looked for something beyond the known. The intellectual and physical bravery of Columbus is rare in the modern world and particularly rare in the academy, which, if we measured it metaphorically against Columbus, would have burned its ships before sailing or at best stuck close to the shores of the Mediterranean and remained a Genoese trader for life. Such is the attitude in our institutions of ‘learning.’

Imagine for instance if Columbus had been possessed of a mind that was afraid of falling off of the side of the earth, of stepping out beyond the approved dogma of the collective. Such an individual would never have left Genoa, much less had the audacity to try selling his plan to the crowned heads of two of the world’s most powerful monarchies. Would such a mind have ever risked life and limb to sail toward something unknown in search of riches which were, according to the accepted nautical norms of his day only available by sailing east or bartering with the Ottoman Turks?

It is OK to teach children that such an individual was courageous and that they should strive to embody the ideal of courage. There is nothing wrong with teaching children that cultural ideals exist and that they should live their lives to embody those ideals. When I speak of ideals, I mean ideals which humans can embody such as courage, in this case. This is radical or insane, I understand, in a world that has no ideals i.e. a post-colonial, neo-Marxist world.

Eventually, children should be clued in to the fact that the raping and pillaging happened. Not to destroy the image of Columbus for the sake of destroying an image and showing that “humans are fundamentally flawed” but to show that Columbus held ideas which were non-objective and irrational, such as the moral superiority of European Christians. This will also show them that non-objective and irrational ideas lead people to commit savage acts of barbarism and that such ideas cannot form the permanent basis of civilization without destroying it. Columbus’ real vices were the bad ideas he had about civilization, not the barbarous acts he committed in Hispaniola.

Columbus’ actions in the new world are a classic example of one collective oppressing another and should provide us with evidence that the best moments in human history have been the achievements of daring and bold individuals not collective actions. It should also show us that people who cling to the collective, which Columbus did with regard to religion but not nautical science, are only going to be products of their era and are what Ayn Rand, the novelist, calls ‘social ballast.’ Post-colonialists are also not keen on mentioning another facet of Columbus’ life: the fact that his mismanagement of the new world got him thrown in prison and that he more or less died in poverty.

Columbus’ legacy is indeed a mixed one, but there is something to be celebrated on Columbus Day – the joyous and triumphant individual achieving success in spite of tradition.  Post-colonial theorists should hold their theory in for a few minutes and attempt to understand Columbus’ virtues before running amuck in their attempt to list his vices.

A State of Intellectual Independence

      As our nation celebrates its two hundred thirty-sixth birthday, I am reminded as much of the progress our nation has made across two centuries as the recession of that progress in the days since our founding. Values which were first realized in the United States: individual rights, intellectual independence and the freedom to succeed (or fail) are losing their prominence on the national scene. I am not a partisan die hard who believes that a return to the past is what will make us great. Nor am I a champion of either political party. I write this post from a cafe in the heart of the bible belt, where the greatest portion of my twenty-two years has been spent.

      The present incorporation of the democratic party represents a threat to our freedom – the freedom of our bodies. Taxes that redistribute income take from one person and give to another, solely on the basis of need, which is no form of merit. It is easy to see how such a policy is a threat to the freedom of our body. The work of our minds belongs to us, the reward should as well, yet it is wrenched from us by force. This is a type of mysticism, it is the pretense that work does not create wealth, that those who do not work can achieve success without working by riding on the backs of those who do work. Success is not mystical, it is systematic. Yet 'liberal' policy makers and politicians pretend that success is a mystic process which some will never realize. The irony is that many never will succeed on their own as long as we continue to teach them that success comes from thievery.

      But the mystics of the mind, not the mystics of the body, rule this part of the nation. Southern republicans, people who supposedly cherish their freedom, are quick to arch their backs against threats to their freedom. Guns, god and gold are the holy triad of conservatism in this corner of the union. But what many self-labeled republicans are not aware of is the fact that faith (or god) is as large a threat to their freedom as Barack Obama. The Christian faith encourages people to depend on a higher power, to give up control and place their lives in the hands of the divine. The better sort of Christians admit that this will not always bring success because their god is not concerned with giving them success so much as doing what is best for them.

      God is the ultimate tyrant, the tyrant of the mind, though no longer the body. John Milton glimpsed as much in Paradise Lost but perhaps lacked the courage to admit it to himself or others. Having faith in god to solve your problems is very nearly the same as having faith in government to do so except that government exists, god does not. The danger of surrendering your mind to god is that you have surrendered to a false premise and even if you manage to hit at some other truths, your thought process will not be unified as long as you defend that false premise. Defending a false premise with logic is like defending an uncooperative non-combatant who cannot see the danger in the middle of a firefight.

      How can Christians, who are supposed to be models of the altruistic, neighbor-loving citizens protest the theft of their money in the form of taxes when it is going toward such a good cause – care for the needy? The simple answer is that if they understand Christianity for what it is, they cannot. Freedom from god is freedom from false premises, the freedom to stand on your own two feet, the freedom to pursue the truth no matter the consequences. Christianity demands devoted slaves to Christ's reason – faithful followers who do not and cannot understand their master's true intentions. This is a recipe for disaster especially given the fact that their master does not exist and they are all following each other or their leader (who does not really know what he is doing either ).

      But not all leaders in the Christian church are so blind, many see the money that is to be made from pretending as though you know what is going on – these are the Joel Olsteins of the world. The truth is, Joel Olstein is less dangerous than the small-town pastor who blindly follows an often contradictory corpus of literature written thousands of years ago and the voice of the 'spirit.' The very mentality which fosters tyranny in politics, is the same mentality which controls the mind of the average parishioner. That mentality is fear. The fear of the unknown and the fear of thinking for oneself. The same fear which leads people to band together to legally rob the strong of this world is the mentality which leads them to band together as a defense against the unknown, in devotion to the unknowable.

      The world is knowable, this should be a source of comfort to our minds but it is presently a source of fear to many people because so much of it is unknown to them. To me, this represents a challenge, the challenge to know! I have no special malice against god (only an insane person would hate someone who does not exist) or against Christians particularly – only against the mystics of the mind and body, those who would enslave us as workers and as thinkers.

      What America needs, two hundred and thirty-six years after its founding is people who will take risks and who have the freedom to do so - entrepreneurs of the mind and body. What America has is faithful followers everywhere who are afraid of such risks and witch-doctors who fan the flames of their fear - intellectual cowards and thieves. These forces could combine to see America in a somewhat European conundrum, fifty to one hundred years from now. It is the pioneering spirit of the intellect, which led us to span a continent, that will reinvigorate our nation, our politics and our economy one individual at a time.  

Educational Issues: The Taco Without the Filling

Teaching is not an easy job. The profession is filled with more pitfalls and potholes than the way to hell, yet many people embark on the path of teaching – often as a last resort and often without an end in mind.

I was in this position when I first started teaching last June during summer school at a small private institution in Jackson, MS. I had no clue about the ethical monsters I would confront as a teacher, some of which I kept at bay and others to which I gave ground. The beginning of the regular school year brought them all rushing toward me pell-mell, and I attempted at times to fight them off, at others I ran away from them in a similar fashion. But the school year came to an end, I had time to recuperate from the battle and then the opportunity came for summer school. I would like to think that I have the metaphoric monsters on the retreat. But let me here give name to these monsters, and castigate their followers in passing, for there is nothing so vile as an enemy who flies friendly colors, or a devil who is adored as a deity. I propose to accomplish this over a series of blog posts in the following weeks. But here I start with one of the most vile of the creatures.

Upon taking up my post as a teacher, I was introduced to a new and innovative method of teaching. A method which involved the use of two simple materials:  a study guide and a test! In this method of giving credit, students complete the study guide and then take a test on the chapter in question. By this method, students can sometimes finish year-long classes in a matter of weeks. There is no discussion, there is no lecture, students do not have homework or activities, simply study guides and tests. I once confronted an administrator about this issue and was told that the way I taught class was “thought provoking” but students needed a more “basic course.” A more basic course! The thought is so detestable to me that I do not know what to compare it to – a sandwich without meat, an Oreo without stuffing, a taco without filling? I was wise and held my tongue in the face of this criticism but I cannot imagine how anyone thinks it a good idea. There are worse methods: giving out grades with no work to show for them, grading for completion or not grading at all. Zeus or Jupiter, their names are different, their effects are similar. In any case, my own track record against this monster is clear – I have never once allowed a student to complete a course in such a manner.

I must here pause to castigate the followers of this method who have the daring to call themselves teachers. Can you make no effort to bestir yourself to teach? Do you not care about the subject you are teaching? Are you afraid of any work which involves more than going through the motions? How is it that you can value your work or accept your paycheck? Are you not aware that by giving students credit for completing a course in which they learned nothing that you are giving them a false sense of achievement? Do you imagine that your actions are unimportant?

In answer to this last question I wish to describe an episode which arose in one of my classes this very day. My students were trying me to see if they could escape completing some work, I was in the process of declining when one of them said to me “Mr. Duke, you act like this is a life or death issue, it's just Government.” In short I responded by asking him if he would say the same in other educational situations: the doctor learning the location of the heart or the physicist learning how to harness the power of atomic energy. He agreed that it was important. Nevertheless, his unconsidered objection is the stated opinion of many 'well-educated' people. I have only to say to them that bad politics is as deadly as bad science. The point is that high school is not some throw away time period when students should not be expected to learn. Every subject is important for its own reasons. If you, as a teacher, are unaware of the reasons why what you are teaching is important, you should be deeply ashamed and immediately try to find out or find a different job.

Teachers are not the only ones to blame. We must also castigate parents and students for being such poorly informed consumers of education. Any parent who is not concerned about whether their child is actually learning or not (as opposed to simply passing classes) does not deserve the title. If the error is one of being intellectually unaware of the difference it can be forgiven. If it is one of not caring to make the distinction, it cannot.

But here I must go on, because it is not enough to blame those directly involved in the classroom and the home (teachers, parents and students). There is a fourth class of perpetrators who are perhaps most culpable for the practice continuing, namely, administrators. First, administrators have the responsibility to oversee teachers. In my own experience, as well as that of other teachers I communicate with, I have not found that administrators exist to actually help facilitate the educational process. All too often, when a teacher sees an administrator coming into their room it is so that they can discuss 'alternate means of assessment' which is a kind of Orwellian, educational doublespeak for an easier assignment. Administrators often mandate that certain students receive easier work than others (more 'basic courses'). They have removed students from my classroom, taken their files, given them work and then had the nerve to suggest that I lost the student's material and that I need to turn in a grade for that student. In the earlier periods of my employment, I am sad to say that I was sometimes intimidated by these tactics and once or twice gave ground.

The problem is that many administrators are too driven by empty results. These results vary from school to school but all have the same effect. In private school, more students graduating (and thus more money) is the object. In public school, better scores are the goal. Better scores and more graduations are not enough. Students must actually learn something! A few words for the wise administrator:  Identify those teachers who are not teaching – fire them. Do not interfere with the curriculum simply because some students are incapable of completing the material to the state's standards – perhaps these students need to learn a trade which does not require them to know about English Literature, Algebra, Physics or U.S. Government. Finally, acknowledge that your roll in the actual process of education is as a watchdog – a watchdog against the unethical, against anyone who would waylay the educational process or give in to those who would do so. If you are involved in marketing the school in any way, you should either make no promises about what will happen in the classroom or be honest about what is possible when speaking to parents.

As I wind down this rambling diatribe, which I hope to recommence some time in the future, I would like to say that not everything I write about deals with issues at the school where I teach. Much of my writing concerns stories I have heard from other teachers at other schools, though some of my experiences are included. Above all, I believe that education is a process which must constantly subject itself to criticism and self-reflection. Otherwise, the process never changes and we all keep plodding along trying to educate as we always have, often ineffectively.

Why I Oppose Homosexual Marriage

   Republicans and democrats have made a great deal of noise recently about the issue of gay marriage. Several pastors have even crossed over to a more 'tolerant' worldview in what some say is an effort to keep the church relevant to our world. I cannot resist commenting on the magnitude of this break. If Christians take their scriptures seriously, they ought to condemn homosexuality, there can be no denying this. When a religion or any movement suffers from such large internal divisions it must be coming near the end of its cultural and intellectual hegemony.


   But speaking to the point, the national conversation sounds a great deal like conversations in my ninth grade Mississippi Studies class: off topic and often bigoted. From the point of view of a homosexual couple, the system is against them. The heterosexual ruling class does not want to include them in the ranks of the socially respectable. A just criticism of a flawed system.
The first flaw is this: the very assumption that the government exists to create standards for social respectability. Republicans assume that this is one of the tasks of good government yet would never say it was also the role of government to create standards which determine what is or is not socially productive (i.e. interference in the world of business). We may give some credit to President Obama for consistently being on the same side of the issue, that is,  in favor of state regulation of both your marital status and your pocketbook.


   The appropriate policy transcends the stated positions of both parties. Homosexuals should not be prohibited from marrying nor should they be given marriage licenses by the state. In fact, the state should have nothing to do with marriage. In a society where people are free and possess individual rights, it is not within the proper mandate of the government to determine how its people associate with each other. Their should be no state sanctioned marriage simply put. This is true equality for homosexuals and heterosexuals: the freedom to associate with persons of their own choice free from state interference.


  It is important to realize the broader principle at stake here. The issue is not one which affects simply homosexuals. The great evil here is not the oppression of the homosexual class by heterosexual bigots. The issue is government interference in the lives of private citizens. Marriage licenses themselves date back to the European middle ages and gave the church certain powers to prevent or permit marriages. In the U.S., licensing was not employed until the mid to late 19^th century. In the early 20^th century, licenses were a way that states could prevent socially undesirable interracial marriages. Since their inception, marriage licenses have only hampered freedom and individual rights. It is thus with pride that I can say I oppose all government policies which seek to license marriage, homosexual or heterosexual.

The State of Reason

       We have come to a point in the history of the world as I see it where it would appear that reason prevails over faith. Looking to the past, reason has overcome a great many of its most deadly foes. Governments of the modern era are typically thought to be best if they are democratic, people are thought to be most intelligent if they are reasonable, but this is the extent of our progress. In the world we live in, most people rely on reason to make everyday decisions. Unfortunately, their application of reason often does not extend much farther into their lives. Let me offer some examples before touching on the deeper problem.

If for instance, a not very well educated (yet sane) person were attempting to wash their clothes only to discover that their washing machine was leaking or their dryer burning holes in clothing their immediate response would likely be to stop washing clothes and call a repair person or attempt to fix it themselves. A person in a pre-modern era faced with such a problem or a similar one, would likely call a priest to exorcise the 'bad spirit' from the machine. While humorous, the same situation applies to sick children, unhealthy animals or any other problem which people cannot immediately solve. Yet, there is a crucial difference between the two responses (aside from the fact that holy water never cured anyone). The difference is that the first, modern response relies on a system of reasoning. If the owner of the machine, child or animal cannot fix it they will find someone who can and it is based on their reasoning that they call in a repairman, doctor or veterinarian. The individual who calls the priest in does not rely on reason, they instead rely on faith. A faith, which is in this case based on an unreasonable premise (i.e. the existence of something unreal such as a spirit or demon).
        And here we strike at the central issue, the same sane person who called in a repair person and not a priest would not utilize their capacity for reason to approach bigger problems. More likely, they would cripple their reason by tying it to the faith which could not repair their washing machine or heal their children. Let us here proffer another example.
Let us have for example a man in the middle of his life who decides to open up his own business after years of working for other people. At first the business, a grocery for instance, is very successful, appealing to a niche market of consumers in a large city. Flushed with his early success, the businessman begins to take on employees who are not capable of high quality work or who are unwilling to do their job properly. He does this out of his desire to be altruistic and give them a chance. He ignores their incompetence for a 'higher cause.' Being a man of faith, the businessman makes frequent donations to his church on behalf of his business in the form of money food or other goods. The property is his and if he so chooses, there is no problem donating that money. Furthermore, if the business is doing well it likely will not be a problem. At church he meets a new supplier of fresh vegetables whose prices are higher but who is also a Christian and a 'good man.' He chooses to help this supplier out believing that his altruistic actions will benefit him in the end.
        As the years move on, the city expands and another store that appeals to a similar niche of customers opens up across the street. Our businessman believes that there is room for both stores in a city of this size and treats his competitor very cordially. Within a few months, our businessman discovers that his revenues have decreased drastically and many of his devoted employees, tired of working with incompetent people have gone to work at the other store. He concludes that the problem is a lack of ready money – clearly the other store has money to attract better employees – so he applies for a line of credit from the local bank for the expansion of his business. Based on his prior record of success and the value of his store, the bank grants him the line of credit. Our businessman pays his employees more money and even hires a new manager who he pays double the salary of the last manager. Thinking the problem solved, he uses a small amount of the money to take his wife on a month-long vacation. He returns to find his revenues steadily decreasing. The manager blames the employees, who cannot perform their duties despite their raise, and the owner blames the manager for not fixing the problem.
        It seems, many months later, that his business will collapse, the bank will not loan him more money and he cannot repay what he already owes. In desperation, our businessman prays to god for help. He reminds god of the frequent donations he made to the church which came directly from the business and begs god to fix the situation. In faith, he returns to work and manages the store himself though he changes nothing about his profit structure or employment policy – except to fire the manager. At the end of the month, he cannot make payroll or purchase stock. His employees, whom he was so kind to hire look for other jobs, the supplier will not extend him credit. His once thriving store in ruins, the businessman closes it down and begins working for other people as he struggles to pay down the loan he received. His faith has ruined him, his reason might have saved him.
This is the dilemma modern people face. It is a choice between reason and faith, rational self-interest and patronizing altruism. The primary purpose of action based on rational self-interest is not the well-being of society and yet all of society benefited from that businessman being in business. His employees, his customers, his competitors and his suppliers all benefited from his success.  Some people will try to say that one can act in one's rational self-interest and continue to be a person of faith, but the problem is that people are not segmented into little boxes. That is, the way they run their business or do their job will be affected by their reliance on either reason or faith. Unreason, i.e. faith is strongly linked to altruism and any attempt to mix altruism with reason will result in reason being overcome by faith. Whether it be faith in government or god, faith is the enemy of reason and those who attempt to combine them do so to their own destruction.

          What follows is my attempt at creating a primitive graph of my hypothesis that people tend to use reason to solve small problems but not large ones.