Could This Get Any More Patronizing?

 End in Sight

President Biden, in an address given March 11, 2021, said that if we "do our part" (wash our hands, stay 6 feet apart, and wear our masks), there's a "good chance" we'll be able to get together with friends and family in small gatherings to celebrate Independence Day on July 4th. 

On my Facebook page, I asked: Could this get any more patronizing? 

Some of my friends, newly liberated from their four-year nightmare and still experiencing the afterglow of Biden's America, were not pleased. A few chided me. One thought me thin-skinned. Another said I was grandstanding and saw only good will in "our president's" encouragement to remain cautious. I wanted to ask this friend if he ever referred to Donald Trump as "our president," but I already knew the answer.

My Thoughts

I do not want my president telling me I might be allowed to visit with a few—but only a few—people—maybe—after I’ve been vaccinated. It feels very condescending. Some people apparently like this. Some people want their president to be a sort of daddy-figure. I do not. I find this deeply and truly insulting. I am an adult. I am able to determine what is right and safe for me and for my loved ones. 

A Friend's Response

One friend on Facebook pushed back when I said this. What about those that number many in our society that don’t act as adults? Those that still doubt the seriousness of the virus or that it really exists? Those who refuse to wear masks? Those who refuse to get vaccinated? Or the careless college students gathering during spring break? Perhaps his message is directed more toward them as opposed to a mature adult such as yourself? 

My Response

I guess that's the challenge, isn't it? We live in a free society. The government has its role, and it's been doing it, both in the previous and current administrations. I'm grateful for the rapidity of the vaccinations, thanks to Operation Warp Speed. I'm grateful for vaccines that have been made available by the current administration. However, I think the messaging has not been very good, particularly from the spokesman, Dr. Fauci, who has been inconsistent, and now, from Mr. Biden, regarding the efficacy of the vaccines. By saying, on the one hand, that vaccines are the answer, but on the other hand, don't change your behavior, people stop believing the message.

I think the American people have been extremely cooperative over the past year, and probably would have taken precautions regardless of what the government told them to do (I heard people had already stopped going to restaurants, etc. even before the official lockdowns began). Most of us are smart and will act in the best interests of themselves and their loved ones, indeed, towards their neighbors. That there may be some people who don’t act responsibly is simply a fact of life. And at a certain point, after it's done all that it can do, all the government can do is give guidance and then allow us to carry on. It can’t micromanage, it can’t tell us how to live our lives. It can’t “make” someone get a vaccine. It can’t “make” me wear a mask.

This may make some people nervous, but frankly, it makes me glad to be living in a free society. Free because I have choices. Free, even, to be irresponsible, or independent, or to make choices that I wouldn't make. Personally, I have chosen to get the vaccine. And I have cooperated with mask wearing out of respect for my neighbor, not because I was "told" I must (I suspect, if the government mandated mask wearing under penalty of arrest, I would violate the law). Mr. Biden has said that all adults will be “allowed” to get the vaccine by May.

That's good news. I see light at the end of the tunnel. Come May, and factoring in the weeks needed for the vaccine to be effective, I will live my life assuming that the people I’m around will have made their choice. Those that chose not to be vaccinated have chosen to take a risk of exposure. But their choice is their choice. I won’t wear a mask to protect them. The onus will be on them to protect themselves.

In time, I hope and trust we can go back to living normal lives, free of fear. The virus will still be out there, in the same way the flu is still out there. But fortunately, its impact on those who have been vaccinated will be minimal. It will have lost its power to terrorize us.

Creatures of our Time (Follow Up)

 Creatures of our Time (follow up discussion)

My previous post of March 4, 2021 (Creatures of our Time) was also posted on Facebook, and it generated a little bit of discussion among a few of my friends. I'm copying the most salient contributions below, slightly edited and anonymous.

Friend 1 But, as I understand the issue, the good Dr depicted Asian Americans with slanted eyes - as was the typical "norm" at that time. Any chance to correct or fix his work would basically ruin it. Time to walk away.

Me That's one thought. But what do we mean by walking away? Could re-issued books include new illustrations? Or introductory sections discussing the controversy? I don't know the answer. Similar to the idea of tearing down Confederate statues vs. relocating them in museums, I guess. One action is "erasing" while the other is acknowledging the problem while at the same time recognizing that these were historical figures, representing an era, or a moment, in history.

Me After I posted this, I went into the kitchen and opened the paper (we get the WSJ), and I noticed an op-ed on the subject. The author agrees that Geisel's early work did, indeed, depict stereotypically racist images but that later, during WWII, he changed. He (the author) concludes by making essentially the point I'm trying to make. "Our country's history is filled with imperfect people who nevertheless did remarkable things." 

 

Friend 1 Good article. But unlike the furor over the use of the "N word " in the classic To Kill A Mockingbird, which is set in the South in 1935 (there was a heated and unsuccessful push to ban the book), Dr Seuss' use of the drawings of slant eyed Asian-Americans is not critical to the storyline. 

Me: True. Speaking of Asian stereotypes, has there been similar banning of Breakfast at Tiffany’s? I get really uncomfortable watching Mickey Rooney’s character, Mr. Yunioshi. I know there has been general criticism. But no furor, as you put it.

Friend 1 Not that I know of. And Jerry Lewis portrayed Asian stereotypes (buck teeth, thick glasses, fake accents in "The Geisha Boy") for many years. Part of the "accepted" and intrinsic racism. 

Friend 2 As I understand it, moving forward, the publisher has decided to no longer print 6 of the 60 Seuss titles that had stereotypes that (I hope) we no longer condone. No one is attempting to crucify or “cancel” Dr. Seuss. And no one is asking any of us to throw away any books we cherish. This whole thing seems to be a brouhaha over little to nothing.

Me I'm surprised that you as an educator would minimize this story by calling it a brouhaha. Book banning used to be something liberals once condemned. Those days are gone, apparently. Your point about the decision being made by the Seuss Enterprises makes the story even more insidious. Self-censorship--anticipating the consequences of cultural judgment and acting proactively--is simply surrendering to cultural bullying.

Friend 2 It is not censorship when a company decides to change their products on their own to adapt to a changing marketplace. It is not bullying when a large portion of that market simply notes the product has some issues that are offensive to them. This is not surrender. It’s our capitalist system at work. How would you like the company to respond?

Me How about designing a whole curriculum around the concept of changing values over history through the prism of children’s literature? Teach, for instance. Educate. Don’t tear down (statues, literature, art, music), don’t erase history. Learn from it.  

Friend 3: So how do you depict Asians in painted pictures? Or any other culture? Should we all be the same? Sounds like the extinction of humanity.

Me: I'm not exactly sure I understand your question, but in the context of this conversation, I guess we have to agree that stereotyping people is always wrong. None of us belongs to a "category" that can be easily defined or portrayed. Artists and writers need to focus on authenticity--one person, in one moment, unique, individual. No pre-defined characteristics. That was the problem last century, which is what we're talking about. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anything has changed. There was a brief moment in the mid sixties when it appeared we might free ourselves from categorizing and stereotyping. Dr. King offered a vision of a color-blind society which now is being jettisoned by the so-called antiracists. We're back to being defined by skin color, relegated, once again, to categories. While I don't think this presages the extinction of humanity, it probably presages the end of MLK's dream.

Creatures of our Times

We are creatures of our time.

Judging, condemning, and erasing people by "today's" standards is not only illogical, it's suicidal. Because 100 years from now, each of us stands a very good chance of being judged, condemned and erased by the things we said, did, or even posted during the time we lived.

Someday, in the not-too-distant future when all people eat are vegetables or "cultured" meat, someone will discover my social media posts of pulled pork sandwiches. Or they'll stumble on posts of you scarfing down an In-n-Out burger. Or that Instagram post of you getting on a plane or riding your motorcycle.

And even though these are things that most people did during the years we lived, the future "woke" will not approve of meat eating or carbon-based fuel.

And that will be the end of you and me.

To judge and "erase" people who lived during a different era is both arrogant and ignorant. The woke may feel smug, but they oughtn't. As Martin Niemöller famously wrote, "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Ironically, perhaps I shouldn't even be quoting Niemöller. Though he would later join the group of pastors (among them, Dietrich Boehoffer) who opposed the Nazis, he was an early supporter of der Führer. Cancel him!

But he learned. He changed.

Do we judge him, cancel him, for what he once believed, or accept him, flaws and all, for what he learned, for his growth, for his evolution?

I know what the woke would do.

Theodor Seuss "Ted" Geisel was born in 1902 and he died in 1991. Illustrations in his children's books reflect the era in which he lived, illustrations that were likely standard for the industry. I haven't heard anything about him being a racist. Have you?

The woke of 2021 will cancel Dr. Seuss.

Just as the woke of 2121 will cancel them for doing things most people did in 2021. Like eating a nice steak dinner or getting on an airplane.

Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

"The times change, and we change with them."

Here is the statement from Dr. Seuss Enterprises.