I was fortunate enough that my birth lottery specifics resulted in me missing service in Vietnam. I turned eighteen in 1976, one year after its inglorious ending. This also means that I was not old enough to participate in the Vietnam protests which peaked in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
I often wonder how my life's trajectory would have been altered had I been born five, even three years earlier. If I had been on a college campus from 1972 to 1976 instead of in high school, would I have participated in the protests, been active enough to have been arrested? Would I have fled to Canada rather than be drafted and sent to Vietnam?
Based on the things I wrote, how I thought during my high school years, I am not completely sure how activist against the war I might have become, but I do know that if I had been able to overcome my fear of leaving my home country, or spending time in prison for my beliefs, or even sacrificing the good will of some of my family who would have been disappointed, if not antagonistic about my actions, my life would have taken a much different path.
I relate this revelation because of my concern at the reactions to the current college protests against how Israel is conducting its war against the Palestinians.
First, I wonder how many of those who protested in some way the Vietnam War see similarities in today's campus unrest, and wonder what percentage of those who participated in those protests are actively condemning today's students' protests.
The cynical side of me, the side which has expressed my disappointment with the Boomer generation in many previous posts, calculates the percentage of Vietnam protesters as supportive of today's protesters at 25% at best. Of course, I have no way of knowing if I am correct or not, but I do know that support of the protests is restricted to the more liberal TV commentators, and that the reactions of those "in charge" has been mostly negative, ranging from "they are just too naive or stupid to understand the situation" to "we should expel them from school" to "they hate America".
For the record, I support the protesters, not just because I support their cause, but because I support their activism, their willingness to express their opinion, be arrested even, for a principle. To be honest, such actions, for principle, are not exactly common place today. Far too many people have compromised their principles, their alleged morals, for so long, they can't even recognize when they are doing it anymore.
The fact that at least some of today's young people feel strongly about a catastrophic war in a far away land and are willing to express those feelings publicly should give us hope for the future.
I told my wife yesterday that I don't understand the theory behind forcing the young people to take down their encampments, or go back to their dorms. It is the exact approach that will make them dig in, the exact method that will empower them to continue their actions. In the history of civil disobedience, when did "you can't do that, or you must not do that" ever work?
What do the protesters want? During Vietnam, they wanted the United States to stop killing innocent Vietnamese people. They wanted less taxpayer money for bombs, and less of their tuition money invested in the military industrial complex.
As it turned out, by the way, those protesters were correct. We wasted billions of dollars, wasted thousands of young lives, and ruined tens of thousands of American families by our actions. History has proven those protesters correct.
In the case of those protesting the destruction of Gaza, they want President Biden to be more aggressive in demanding a ceasefire, they want less tax payer money to be spent assisting this slaughter, and they want their colleges to divest in those investments that enable this atrocity. Similar demands, one might say as their 1960's predecessors. And, in light of our burgeoning obsession with calling America a Christian nation, seemingly consistent demands with that movement.
I expect that history will again demonstrate that these admirable students were correct, and that killing Palestinian women and children only created more hate and future violence.
As it relates to these protests, it appears that many Americans are not able to entertain two thoughts in their head at the same time. It is possible to condemn the slaughter of October 7th as a terrorist attack, as well as condemn the murdering of Palestinians. Doing both does not make you anti-Arab or anti-Semitic, but it does make you pro humanity.
I wrote a story earlier this year which detailed the discovery of a Hole which has formed in our atmosphere, a Hole that has exacerbated our tendency to selfishness. Perhaps this hole has also reduced our capacity to have two thoughts in our head at the same time as well, two thoughts that on their surface seem to contradict each other but actually have something in common more encompassing.
I could apply this theory to pretty much all of our current national issues.
For instance, being an advocate for liberal abortion laws does not mean you are in favor of killing unborn children. It reflects the very real scientific facts that maternal death rates in America are far too high, that a significant percentage of fertilized eggs do not become healthy people for all sorts of medical reasons, that forcing women to give birth to babies that will die after their first breath, or that were conceived through violence and/or incest, is not pro-life for the people effected by those draconian laws. In other words, respecting human life includes all life, not just that of the embryo.
This is also true for immigration. Being in favor of less stringent immigration policies does not equate to a desire to replace white Americans with brown ones, just as being in favor of stronger border security doesn't make you a racist. We can have both thoughts in our heads, a more secure border as well as a more humanitarian approach to immigration at the same time, could even achieve that lofty goal, if we weren't so adverse to thinking about both thoughts at once.
Of course, having two thoughts in one's head requires some effort. It requires a rejection of simple solutions to complex problems and the politicians who present them. It requires spending less time playing games on the phone or betting on sports or watching reality TV shows, and more time reflecting on how we might want to be treated in similar circumstances.
I mention the birth lottery earlier in this post. If we were born in Guatemala or El Salvador, would we not strive to take our family to a country with more opportunity, and if so, would we wish to be treated with kindness, or labeled vermin?
The story The Hole, for which I have provided a link below, does not end happily. Science does not save humanity (see climate change), God does not intervene with an ark. We have made our bed, and now have to lie in it, so to speak.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-hole.html
But it is just a story. What has really caused us to be reluctant or unable, I'm not sure, to hold two thought in our head at once.
I have posted under the heading Philosophy a few times before. One such post, which can be accessed by using the link below, was inspired by the writings of Simone Weil. She blames tribalism in general, but political parties in specific for our inability to think outside the constraints of the institutions which seek to control us.
Here is a link to that post.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/intellectual-leprosy.html
I especially liked her use of the term intellectual leprosy. I think this sums up precisely the inability for people to have two thoughts in their head at once. Sometime I wonder if the root of that deficiency has something to do with the nature of our instant gratification society, although Weil died in the 1940's before we really dove deep into the culture that glorified new and shiny over old but working, and planned obsolescence seemed to be the foundation for manufacturers.
Has our obsession with material possessions driven out our ability to understand the conflicting nature of life, the give and take, sacrifice and callousness.
Animals in the wild are beautiful to see, but also violent and unmerciful towards each other as well.
The sun setting over the ocean or against the backdrop of a majestic mountain is spectacular but that same mountain should it erupt or that ocean when in all its rushing fury can be fatal.
Understanding, nay, embracing the dichotomy of life could be the very essence of happiness yet all our institutions, political, national, religious, seem bent on explaining away that dichotomy, or worse, providing us with dogma that replaces the seeming contradictions with simplistic maxims.
Whether the answer lies in The Hole, or Simone Weil's theories, sometime soon, we need to demand more of ourselves and our elected leaders. Who knows, perhaps in the future, one of those student protesters currently being vilified will show us the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment