Washington versus Marx

When liberals decided to tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville Virginia, conservatives wondered where it would end.  Would anyone who had anything to do with slavery also be subjected to historical revision?  It did not take long to find out.

The slippery slope they feared turned out to be remarkably slick.  They had speculated about whether national icons such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be excised from the panoply of American heroes.  The answer was Yes!  Within, what seemed like hours, Christopher Columbus and Abraham Lincoln likewise joined the ranks of the dispossessed.

Columbus, of course, was blamed for every atrocity ever committed against Native Americans.  Not a word, however, was spoken against those once called Indians because they were regarded as innocent victims.  That the Aztecs slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Mesoamericans, while the Lakota virtually wiped out the Mandan, was passed over in silence.

As for Lincoln, he was insufficiently pure on race relations.  Despite freeing the slaves, he had the temerity to believe blacks were inferior.  The question was consequently who would be virtuous enough to satisfy the champions of political correctness?

Some suggested we needed to look to Jesus and the Virgin Mary.  Yet this would never do.  Erecting public statues to them would violate the separation of church and state.  So would monuments dedicated to Mohammed or Moses.

So what about a largely unacknowledged liberal hero?  Should likenesses of Karl Marx be set on pedestals once reserved for Stonewall Jackson?  Should a plaque praising his colleague Friedrich Engels be placed in the Alexandria church that considered one commemorating its former parishioner George Washington too offensive?

I doubt this will happen once opposition researchers dig into Marx’s actual legacy.  People will discover that although Marx’s family had originally been Jewish, he was a virulent anti-Semite.  He also had a lower opinion of black intellects than did Lincoln.

What then of other political leaders?  We can immediately rule out most conservatives.  Leftists will point out that they are mean-spirited and lacking in compassion.  This removes Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush from the realm of possibles.  And forget about Richard Nixon.

So what about liberals and progressives?  Sorry!  Franklin Roosevelt cheated on his wife.  So did John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton.  Consistent feminists should therefore find them unacceptable.  As for Harry Truman, he did not have a college degree and, what is worse, once flirted with the KKK.

Does this mean we will be forced to celebrate the likes of Susan B. Anthony?  Many women may not object, but was she such a decisive figure in our shared past that she merits top billing?

So how about Martin Luther King?  Oh, I forgot, he also cheated on his wife.  When then about Booker T. Washington?  Too bad he is often regarded an Uncle Tom.  Meanwhile W.E.B. DuBois took himself out of the running when he became an ardent Stalinist.

This is getting to be ridiculous.  Where are the perfect people?  Where are the ones, who are so beyond reproach, as to be worthy of commemoration?  A colleague of mine believes he found one.  He wore a Che Guevara t-shirt to school on the assumption that he was an uncontaminated hero.  I guess the thousands Che murdered do not warrant sympathy.

The point is that historical figures—if they are human—are invariably flawed.  If we require the airbrushed pulchritude of a Playboy centerfold, we will be looking a long time for someone better than Washington.  For goodness sake, in addition to establishing the foundation for our democracy, he liberated his slaves in his will.

The trouble is that many political activists know next to nothing about history.  Indeed, they remind me of a majority of college students.  I recall one who, after I discussed Jack Kennedy, informed me about that other Kennedy president, namely John Kennedy.

History is complicated.  Those who populated it were not saints.  Nevertheless, we do not honor outstanding figures because they were.  Rather, we commemorate their accomplishments.  They are symbolic of the deeds to which we would like our children to aspire.

Shouldn’t that be enough?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Lessons from Cordele

Race relations are churning.  Scarcely a day goes by when some white person is not accused of white supremacy.  Although many people are tired of the racial backbiting, they are also afraid of the repercussions of being totally candid.

This reality is what made my attendance that the recent Georgia Sociological meeting at the Blackshear Lake Resort so refreshing.  It exposed me to what many black college students are thinking.

But first let me say a few words about the virtues of candor.  Almost everyone is aware that troubled race relations are endemic to America.  Even most Southerners are anxious to solve this lingering dilemma.

The trouble is that political correctness prevents us from discussing embarrassing issues.  Whenever we come upon a topic that might be construed as making African-Americans look bad, we are required to hold our tongues.  Instead of dealing with difficult questions, we sweep them under the rug.

Nevertheless, as should be obvious, that which is unseen remains unremedied.  The dirt that lies hidden below the carpet does not go away.  It attracts bugs and mold that compound the nastiness.  The same is true of social problems when we pretend they do not exist.

This is why my experience in South Georgia was so rewarding.  Aside from the ever-present gnats, the conference attendees from a historically black college made the trip worthwhile.  They renewed my faith in the courage of the young.

Let me begin by laying out the problem.  Today nearly half of all American children are born out of wedlock.  In addition, single parents raise the vast majority of them.  This is problematic in that youngsters so raised are at a disadvantage.  They are less well educated, prone to health difficulties, and eventually unemployed.

To make matters worse, these offspring are concentrated among the poor and minorities.  As a result, they inherit the disorganized lifestyles of their parents.  They too have difficulty creating stable families and, as a result, are prey to emotional instability.

Unfortunately, these disagreeable consequences disproportionately afflict the black community.  Here nearly three out of four children are born to unmarried parents, while divorce and cohabitation are rampant.

The black students I met in Cordele understood this all too well.  They were quite familiar with the communities from which they sprung.  Most were similarly aware of the struggles inherent in being raised by a lone parent.

In fact, one of the main reasons they were attending college was to rise above this.  They were convinced that a college education would help, and also mindful that a stable interpersonal relationship might ease their path and that of their offspring.

Moreover, because they were immersed in the dating scene, they could not help but wonder how to establish a committed heterosexual bond.  How were they to choose the right partner or develop long-lasting attachments?  All too cognizant of the way sexual promiscuity undermines faithfulness, could they avoid the pitfalls?

As a result, the students I talked to were investigating the campus hook-up scene.  They were also asking what it took to find a loyal mate.  More specifically, they were exploring the nature of sexual dishonesty.

In this, they introduced me to the phase “slut shaming.”  I knew freshmen women were often pressured into having sex.  But as a college professor I also knew the word “slut” was a feminist no-no.  Among themselves, however, these students did not care.  This was what was happening and hence they were prepared to acknowledge it.

They were also honest enough to admit the level of distrust between African-American men and women.  In addition, they knew first-hand that this was a barrier to achieving steadfast unions.  Pretending it was not so would not help overcome this difficulty.

It takes courage to confront unpleasant obstacles.  It takes even more courage to scrutinize one’s participation in maintaining these impediments.  The students I met possessed this bravery.  They were prepared to forgo blaming others for imposing problems they were responsible for correcting.

What about the rest of us?  Will we ever be honest about race?  Will we ever get beyond the blame game?  There is more than enough culpability to go around, but this will not fix what is broken.  Only a clear-eyed admission of what is wrong can begin that process.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Cannon Fodder for the Culture Wars

In the old days, generals were less concerned with the welfare of their troops than they are today.  Few had compunctions about sending thousands of soldiers to their death; that is, as long as this sacrifice contributed to a subsequent victory.

By and large, the combatants they we most willing to forfeit were the least well trained and lowest in status.  These expendables were frequently peasants and/or foreign contingents.  They would be hurled en masse at the enemy so as to open opportunities for the elites.

The Spartans did this when they lined up warriors from other city-states against the most formidable contingents on the opposite side.  Napoleon did it when he sent battalions of his allies into the teeth of cannon fire.  That’s why we call these sacrificial lambs “cannon fodder.”

Today we are witnessing this strategy in the political arena.  In case you haven’t noticed, we are in the midst of ferocious culture wars.  Liberals and conservatives are arrayed in massed formations in a battle to the death.  At the moment, this melee is being fought over the political survival of Donald Trump.

One of the main skirmishes is about whether our president is a racist.  He has been called a white supremacist, a bigot, and a fraud.  It is even alleged that he encourages white police officers to assassinate unarmed black men.  To hear his enemies tell it, he wants to put every African-American in chains.

At the forefront of these accusations are battalions of enraged black partisans.  Whether they are football players taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem or congresspersons pressing for impeachment, their goal is to portray Trump as an evil creature who must be overthrown.

Just how far these protagonists are prepared to go was demonstrated in the kerfuffle about whether Trump was insensitive during a condolence call to the widow of a Special Forces soldier.  The worst possible interpretations were placed on words he intended to be sympathetic.

In any event, this policy of slander has been more harmful to blacks than the president.  Many whites won’t say it, but they have become less sensitive to the plight of minorities.  As a recent NPR poll demonstrated, a majority now believes that reverse discrimination is rampant.  They feel disrespected and don’t like it.

So how does this help blacks?  How does it enlist whites as allies in the battle against racism?  In fact, it does not.  Instead of creating bonds of friendship between the races, it polarizes them.  One side becomes the innocent victims, while the other is scorned as closet bigots.

From whence does this caustic gambit derive?  The answer is that it is a standard Neo-Marxist ploy.  The idea is to find a grievance and then use it to discredit the foe of the moment.  Once upon a time, capitalists were in the crosshairs.  They were routinely depicted as selfish monopolists intent upon squeezing every once of life out of their workers.

Today it is women, gays, and minorities who are purportedly abused.  They are the alleged victims of rapacious elites.  So dreadfully have these guiltless souls been exploited that it is essential their oppressors be overthrown.  These vicious tyrants must be tossed on the ash heap of history so their targets can prosper.

Because there is some truth to these allegations, it is possible to magnify them out of all proportion.  Caricatures substitute for honest appraisals, while hyperbole takes the place of measured discussion.  Even egregious lies are told if they further the cause.

So whom do these methods hurt?  Why, it is those at the tip of the spear.  Because they are at the forefront of the battle, they sustain the most injuries.  Meanwhile, their puppeteers stay out of the line of fire.  They remain safe in their bunkers.

This, to put it mildly, is cynical!  Liberals allege that conservatives exploit blacks, but it is they who are doing so.  They are allowing their African-American associates to sustain the casualties, while they reap the electoral rewards.

Liberal compassion is thus a sham.  It is a Trojan horse that must be recognized for what it is.  If not, people may be fooled into allowing these mean-spirited demagogues to undermine our nation.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Lies Incorporated

During the 1930’s, Jewish and Italian gangsters created an alliance to further their illegal activities.   Characters such as Bugsy Segal and Lucky Luciano teamed up to wipe out anyone who stood in their way.  So effective were they in eliminating the opposition that the New York media dubbed them Murder Incorporated.

Today more dangerous conspirators have supplanted these felons.  The mafia-associated villains of yore were small in number and restricted in their area of operation.  As a result, their modern successors make them look like amateurs.  Nowadays, the reach is international.

What might be called “Lies Incorporated” is a massive operation.  Many tens of thousands are involved in a multi-billion dollar enterprise.  These players are, to be sure, loosely associated.  Nevertheless, they are responsible for far more damage than their predecessors.

I am talking about none other than the crowd answerable for what Donald Trump calls “fake news.”  Many of these folks are journalists, but PR firms, Super PACs, Non-Profits and Think Tanks employ legions of others.  What these scoundrels have in common is a desire to manipulate public perceptions.

What they also have in common is an utter disregard for the truth.  Many do not care whom they hurt.  If a lie accomplishes their mission, they do not hesitate to embellish and disseminate it.  The goal is to win; not to advance our common store of knowledge.

Fortunately, former CBS reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, has done a masterful job of exposing this underworld of creeps and character assassins in her new book The Smear.   She makes it plain that they reside in a universe where day can be turned into night in an instant—then change back even more quickly.

You’ve seen this sleight of hand on television thousands of times.  Alleged experts come on screen to debate the latest political sideshow.  They then spout talking points fashioned by those Attkisson describes as “shady political operatives.”  These narratives are not designed to illuminate, but persuade.

Did Hillary Clinton try to hide embarrassing emails?  No, she turned everything over to the State Department.  Is global warming about to inundate our shorelines?  Those who doubt it are unscientific “deniers.”  They are like the cretins who question the holocaust.

Oh by the way, today we talk about “climate change” rather than “global warming” because these shadowy manipulators determined that the former term worked better.  The substitution had nothing to do with an empirical discovery.  It was about effective propaganda.

A recent example of verbal slight of hand occurred once it was discovered that the Hillary campaign hired Fusion, GPS to create a Russian dossier intended to discredit Trump.  Within hours, conservatives were blamed for starting it.  Only later did it come out that the Washington Free Beacon had commissioned entirely different research.

In any event, firms like Fusion GPS are in the business of confusing us.  They invent stories out of whole cloth; they plant misleading accounts with congenial reporters; they besmirch the reputations of inoffensive bystanders.  The underlying objective is to make money or advance a particular agenda—or both.

The casualty in this?  The truth, of course.  It becomes obscured in a blizzard of lies.  So pervasive are these fabrications that it is virtually impossible to keep track.

To make matters worse, most Americans are not even trying.  They are satisfied with parroting the fake news distributed by their allies.  Many do not care if these are lies.  As long as they promote the interests of the erstwhile good guys, they are content.

This is tragic.  Not only is the truth put in jeopardy, but so is public trust.  When fake news and phony innuendo suck the air out of the public arena, people don’t know whom to believe.  Everyone becomes suspect.

The smear merchants have thus replaced the search for truth with a quest for the cleverest way to slander the next guy.  Flood the Internet with spurious Tweets.  Tell whoppers on FaceBook.  It’s all part of the game.  As long as ordinary folks cannot tell the difference between reality and fiction, the dissemblers might come out on top.

Isn’t this comparable to murder?  Aren’t we killing our souls—as well as our national integrity—when we allow this miasma of deceit to spread?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University