Category: history

6 A dream of a time that never was

February 10, 2011
by Crommunist
· blog · conservativism · history · news

There’s a lot of rhetoric in conservative circles about the need to “take the country back”. It’s become a favoured battlecry for that depressingly lackwitted abdicator of responsibility, Sarah Palin. For some reason, this line resonates in the minds of her followers. Those of us who were paying attention in history class are therefore moved to ask “back to what?” My mind personally goes back about 50 years to a time when my parents wouldn’t have been allowed to marry in many parts of the country, and where my dad wasn’t allowed to vote. I have no particular nostalgia for the 1950s or 1960s (as I point out every time Mad Men is discussed).

Our entire history as a civilization is a series of circumstances where people worked their asses off to make things suck just a little bit less. The 1900s saw us struggling to deal with the backlash of the industrial revolution, the 1910s saw the world thrown into the chaos of war, 1920s saw an attempt to recover from the war and the ramifications of women’s voting rights, the 1930s saw us in the grips of major economic collapse, the 1940s saw yet another war, the 1950s were marked by horrible racial segregation and conflict, as were the 1960s. The 1970s we struggled with a paranoid overreaching state grappling with its own citizens, and more economic uncertainty and human rights issues marked the 1980s. The 1990s saw us coming to grips with technology that far outpaced our public knowledge and comfort. The past decade was defined by global war, food shortage, political instability, and even more overreach by a paranoid state.

Which of these decades does Sarah Palin want us to “go back” to? Or does she want us back in the 1800s where there was no middle class, and living to 50 was considered miraculous?

Of course Sarah Palin has no idea what she’s talking about (shock! gasp!), preferring to rely on soundbyte-length policy that is completely free of any kind of scrutiny. Of course she’s merely a self-perpetuating symptom of the larger problem, like having an eating disorder that causes you to binge – she is a feed-forward mechanism that drags an already-flawed view of the world even deeper into crazy-land. It is interesting to note, however, that this kind of false nostalgia for an idyllic era that has never existed is beginning to crop up elsewhere:

Recent years have seen renewed interest in works by Norman Rockwell, the famed 20th Century American artist behind some of the most nostalgic images of small-town America… His iconic works featured a cast of kindly – and almost entirely white – policemen and soldiers, baseball players, quirky neighbours in the state of Vermont, awkward young couples, Christmas homecomings and other images of an America that seems to have receded into the past – if it ever existed at all.

I remember back in grade 6 art class when we were made to study some of the elements of Norman Rockwell’s portraits of the United States. This was well before I had any insight into racism, when my definition was more or less what everyone else thought of – police dogs and fire hoses. As a result, I took away from the images exactly what the teachers expected us to take away – cartoonish depictions of a simpler time.

Despite my history as a musician, there is very little about me that can be described as “artistic”. I have visited art museums a handful of times in my life (always at the request of someone else), and have struggled to understand why some paintings are considered “great” while others get sold for $75 at coffee shops or on the streets by homeless guys. I do, however, have a great deal of appreciation for the medium of visual art as a means of expressing new ideas, as I’ve mentioned before. In fact, that article, in which I discussed my experience with Kerry James Marshall, specifically references the surreal fantasy world that Norman Rockwell is supposedly capturing.

The fact is that there’s no truth in these Rockwell paintings. If anything can be derived from them, it’s that when those images were created there existed a fantasy of a kind of world where such things would be considered normal. Pretending that those are a depiction of reality is like using today’s pornography as an anthropological study of the relationship between bored housewives and pizza deliverymen.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!

1 Black History in Canada moment: British Columbia

February 7, 2011
by Crommunist
· blog · Canada · history · race

This year for Black History Month, I have decided to do a bit of research into black history in my home and native land, Canada. Since there are 4 Mondays in February, I am going to focus on 4 different regions of the country. This week, I am focusing on British Columbia, the land of my birth and where I currently reside.

British Columbia joined the Canadian federation in 1871, four years after Canada became a country. A coastal province, much of British Columbia is covered in thick forests, the result of abundant rains coming from the ocean and falling on the windward side of the Rocky Mountains. British Columbia is predominantly populated by the descendants of British immigrants, including English, Irish, Scottish, and even many Germans and Dutch. A more recent influx of South Asian (Indian and Pakistani) immigrants has been matched by one from China, Japan, and Korea. In fact, the history of British Columbia cannot be told without making repeated reference to China, as workers from China connected the province to the rest of the country through construction of the railroad. This construction should not be thought of as some sort of equal partnership between the British and Chinese, but rather immigrants leaving their homeland and facing dangerous work for little pay, working for British-Canadian companies.

However, this view of history does neglect the meaningful contributions that black immigrants and Canadians have made throughout the province’s history. To be sure, the black population of British Columbia has always been vanishingly small. However, in my pokings around the internet, I discovered that the first governor of Vancouver Island was a black man, one Sir James Douglas. It’s the result of the fact that he was a Hudson’s Bay Company man that we know so much about his life – the Bay was the single largest corporation in the territories at the time (of a relative scale to the British East India company).

Reading his history, I am reminded of One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez – the story of a people who come to a ungoverned wilderness and through backbreaking labour manage to wrest it into a thriving community, while being beset with the consequences of their own human foibles:

As senior company officer west of the mountains, Douglas encouraged the traders at Fort Langley to supplement fur exports with farm produce and other commodities. Knowing that the innovations on Vancouver Island would in time destroy the fur trade, he jealously guarded the company’s rights in New Caledonia, on the mainland. He scrutinized the company’s civil and military expenditures in the island colony, and paid into a trust fund all revenues from sales of land, timber, and mines.

…

A fur preserve boasting a single stockaded fort only a few years before, Vancouver Island was now a colony with limited representative government. Compared with neighbouring Washington Territory where land was free, the colony’s population was small, but it lived in peace without Indian warfare. Through Douglas’ efforts, large-scale farming, saw-milling, coal-mining, and salmon fishing had been established. He had plans for government buildings for his diminutive capital, and was endeavouring to have Esquimalt become a naval base. His accomplishments offset the criticism of his rule by Blanshard, Cooper, and Admiral Fairfax Moresby before the select committee of the British House of Commons in 1857. When the government converted Vancouver Island into a crown colony in 1859, the governor it chose was James Douglas. It was already known in London in 1857 that gold had been discovered on the mainland, still under HBC control. A colonial officer of Douglas’ experience would be a good man to have standing by.

…

“I spoke with great plainness of speech to the white miners who were nearly all foreigners representing almost every nation in Europe,” he reported to the Colonial Office on 15 June 1858 after his first visit to the goldfields. “I refused to grant them any rights of occupation to the soil and told them distinctly that Her Majesty’s Government ignored their very existence in that part of the country, which was not open for the purpose of settlement, and they were permitted to remain there merely on sufferance, that no abuses would be tolerated, and that the Laws would protect the rights of the Indians no less than those of the white men.”

History likes to make heroes of its great men, and so we must be careful when viewing the accomplishments of Sir Douglas. I am sure that the miners had no shortage of criticisms for the heavy-handed enforcement of company policy by this foreign Guayanese half-breed who had managed to get himself appointed governor. While he appears to be defending the native people in the above quotation, he had a long series of struggles and what would be, in today’s view, be called abuses with the Native population. There was apparently little love lost between Douglas and the various Native bands that inhabited the area. I don’t doubt that Douglas’ own view of them was steeped in the anti-aboriginal racist attitudes of the time, but it is still commendable that he at least appeared to consider them as equally deserving of rights and protections as the white miners. To the extent that he viewed them both as interlopers on Her Majesty’s rightful lands… well let’s just say he’s not a saint.

What’s curious (may not so much) and interesting about the linked writeup is that it makes nearly no mention whatsoever of the fact that Douglas was black. To be accurate in a mathematical sense, he was “half” black, but by the standards of the time he would have been considered black. He was an advocate of the abolition of slavery:

He was disturbed by the presence of slavery. “With the Natives, I have hitherto endeavoured to discourage the practice by the exertion of moral influence alone,” he informed the company in London. “Against our own people I took a more active part, and denounced slavery as a state contrary to law; tendering to all unfortunate persons held as slaves, by British subjects, the fullest protection in the enjoyment of their natural rights.” In 1849 he ransomed a slave with goods worth 14 shillings.

This account is somewhat confusing, as the British Slavery Abolition Act was signed in 1833, before the supposed “ransoming” of the slave. There may have been de facto slavery still practiced in British Columbia after the act was signed, or the date might be confused with an earlier time. At any rate, Douglas’ story is an interesting one.

Other notable stories

While Douglas’ story is interesting, there are a couple of others I found particularly cool. The first is of the area formerly known as “Hogan’s Alley”. This is an area of Vancouver that technically still exists, although it looks a bit different from then:

To now:

This was an area settled by newly-arrived blacks in the early 1900s, many of whom had jobs as railway porters. It is still very proximate to the train station, but the area was mostly wiped out by the construction of the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts (which can be seen in the background of the picture). You can actually see my old apartment in this particular shot.

There’s more information about Hogan’s Alley and some more famous names from British Columbia’s black history at this link, as well as info about a few events that I am going to try and check out.

Next week, the prairies.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!

3 It’s Black History Month!

February 1, 2011
by Crommunist
· blog · Canada · history · race

February is Black History Month here in Canada and in the USA. It s a month that is set aside to teach about the contributions that people of African descent have made to American culture and history. Last year I celebrated by writing a series of essays and posting them on Facebook:

What is “black” – pt. 1: skin colour
What is “black” – pt. 2: self-identity
What is “black” – pt. 3: my working definition
“The N Word”
“Polite” racism
Three steps toward ending black-white racism

While these posts were meaningful to me, and provided the basic underpinning of this entire blog exercise you’re currently reading, they’re not particularly relevant to black history. In my personal life I read a bit about pre-colonial African history and archaeology, which cast a great deal of doubt about the idea that technology and civilization were European imports to Africa.

This year, my plan is to read and blog about black history in Canada. There’s a lot of it, but we weren’t taught it in school. Like it is done in most places, black history begins and ends with slavery. Black history is much richer and more ingrained with Canadian history than the issues specifically related to slavery. I am going to do some of my own reading and throw up one article per week summarizing what I’ve learned.

So… look forward to that I guess.

0 THIS

January 27, 2011
by Crommunist
· blog · funny · history · race

I’ve been looking for this comic forever, and I’m glad someone on one of the only tumblrs I can stand to read re-posted it.

I am re-posting it here so I never have to go hunting for it again.

If you’ve been directed to this page by me, it’s because you have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to grasp what is, in essence, a really fucking simple concept. So here you go. Feel free to go back to being wrong, just know that your argument is so stereotypical that there is a comic about it.

3 Canada doesn’t have a race problem

December 9, 2010
by Crommunist
· blog · Canada · history · race · racism

Wow, it’s been a while since I did one of these.

Remember a month ago when I talked about a campaign to get the Crown to recognize the abhorrent and racist treatment of New Brunswick’s black population?

This is an interesting bit of history that I wasn’t aware of. Apparently under the charter that created the city of St. John, its black inhabitants were not granted the rights of citizens. They were barred from living within the city’s walls or fishing in the outlying rivers. Even though they helped build the city, they were disallowed from reaping the fruits of their labour – not because of systematic, subtle racism, but because of an official decree.

The whole point of apologies like this isn’t to make people feel guilty for what their ancestors did, but to have an honest accounting of our history. Knowledge of our history allows us to put the present into context – how did we get here? The alternative is to just make up explanations that fit our prejudices (a.k.a. conservatism).

However, an element of these apologies has to be official recognition that it happened. Part of an apology is the admission that an act was wrong. Simply saying “well you got over it, so it couldn’t have been that bad” is not sufficient. Well, at least not unless you’re David Johnston:

The Governor General won’t apologize to Saint John’s black community for a 1785 decree that severely restricted where they could live or fish in the southern New Brunswick city.

Buckingham Palace forwarded the request to Gov. Gen. David Johnston so that he could consult with federal ministers. An official at Rideau Hall said in a letter to Peters that they could not meet his request for an apology.

Racism isn’t abstract or historical. It is real, and it still lives with us. I went to Waterloo while David Johnston was the president – he struck me as a good and fair person. However, to deny the black community even the courtesy of an official apology – a move that has ample precedent – smacks of racism.

I’m going to follow this story and see if I can get more information about why the request was denied, but I’m not holding out any hope for a forthcoming explanation.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!

5 Understanding of Canadian history shifts

November 23, 2010
by Crommunist
· blog · Canada · critical thinking · history · race

This week is going to be extremely education-heavy. I am not sure why, but there have been a cluster of stories that caught my interest this week and the thread that ties most of them together is education.

There is a fantastic German word – zeitgeist – which refers to the general cultural understanding of a subject. For example, the current North American zeitgeist is moving towards an understanding of ecology and conservation that did not exist 50 years ago. It is not too long ago that recycling or having a compost pile or using energy-efficient appliances was the exclusive domain of hippies and academics. Now, the zeitgest toward environmentalism has shifted to normalize those behaviours, pushing the fringe out to veganism and brewing sun tea – who knows how mainstream those things may become in the next 10 years.

Shifting the zeitgeist is not done by changing individual minds. Those on the accommodationist side of the Gnu Atheist camp seem to think that the goal should be dialogue with people in order to change their minds; those of us who adhere more closely to the “firebrand” label recognize that a cultural shift is needed. There are many ways to shift the zeitgeist, including public campaigns and demonstrations, influential books and articles, and legislation. However, one of the most effective ways to start a shift of an entire culture (at least in time) is to educate the young:

Ask Canadians whether it was the French, British or aboriginal nations who played the leading role in founding the country, and the answer will depend largely on the respondents’ own ethnic roots — and age — a new national survey suggests. A poll of 1,500 Canadians commissioned by the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies shows French- and English-speaking citizens — centuries after the rise of New France and the formation of British North America — still have starkly different views about who is chiefly responsible for creating the country.

But [ACS executive director Jack Jedwab] adds that “sharp” differences of opinion “rise to the surface” when Canadians are asked to identify the most important founding group in Canadian history.

Mr. Jedwab talks about the “collective psyche” of Canadians, which is certainly a good analogue to zeitgeist. The way we understand history differs depending on our background. Not too long ago I was accused of favouring affirmative action policies that discriminate against the “founders of Canada”. My retort was to ask which founders my interlocutor was talking about – the French? The First Nations? The Ukranian and Polish immigrants who built the prairies? The Chinese who built the railroad and much of Western Canada? The African immigrants who were instrumental in building the maritime provinces?

The point is that our understanding of history affects the way we see the world. A simplistic understanding of history says that British Christians built this country. A more informed understanding shows that there are several groups who played instrumental roles in the country we live in today – it would be a very different nation without them (if it could exist at all). Failure to recognize this fact makes us more likely to ignore or dismiss the important contributions of those people not in the majority.

One way to combat this propensity to funnel history along a majority narrative is to change the way we teach history. This seems to be working:

And Jedwab highlights another intriguing result that shows the youngest Canadians surveyed — those 18 to 24 — giving significantly more credit than other age groups do to aboriginal people in the founding of the country. Twenty-five per cent of respondents from the survey’s youngest cohort said aboriginal groups played the most important role in Canada’s formation, while 28 per cent chose the British and 19 per cent said it was the French. That result, said Jedwab, “raises the question of whether the latest cohort of students is being offered a version of history that directs more attention at the ‘founding role’ of Canada’s First Nations.”

This, incidentally, is the reason I support public apologies for past injustices – not because I think guilt is a useful emotion (I don’t – things done out of guilt are seldom noble), but because it raises public awareness of history. The more aware we are of our history, the less likely we are to repeat the mistakes of the past. Hopefully as we begin to educate ourselves (and our children) with a broader understanding of historical events, we will shift the zeitgeist away from outmoded ideas and learn to use the study of history the way it is intended – to provide a pathway to a brighter future.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!

0 Canada taking steps forward in race discussion

November 4, 2010
by Crommunist
· blog · Canada · cultural tolerance · culture · forces of stupid · good news · history · race

Every now and then I spot a news item that makes me optimistic that my vision of Canada as a model of multiculturalism might actually come to pass. As I’ve said, I think that Canada is in a unique position to host people from all over the world without forcing them to comply to an overwhelming and jealously-guarded national identity. And things like this are maybe a step in that direction:

A shared concern to preserve their distinct languages and culture by first nations in British Columbia and minority ethnic groups in China have brought representatives from the two groups together. Following discussions between the groups, aboriginal people here feel there is a need for language protection legislation, which is already in place in China. The Chinese delegation learned new ideas on how to implement projects within smaller communities, said Tracey Herbert, the executive director of the First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Cultural Council.

I’m a fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation. The show explores some themes that, if they hadn’t been already universal, would have been almost prophetic. One of the characters that I found particularly compelling was that of The Borg – a collectivist civilization that had completely abandoned individual autonomy in favour of a hierarchical regimented existence. It would go from place to place, swallowing up entire civilizations into their hive-mind.

The fear experienced by the crew of The Enterprise when confronting such overwhelming obliteration of individuality is certainly akin to that felt by new immigrant Canadians. In order to prevent traditions that they see as valuable from being completely swallowed up by the lure of conformity, the Chinese community has sought allies in the First Nations community. Amazingly, this was not an example of a post-industrial civilization engaging in one-sided exploitation of a minority group, but an equitable sharing and exchange of ideas.

Now I will be the first to admit that this kind of co-operation threatens me as a rich, English-speaking, privileged male Canadian. I am acutely aware of the fact that the hair on the back of my neck stands up when I see two groups with which I do not identify work together to change the status quo that puts me at the top of the heap, but that’s my own problem to deal with. I can tamp down that fear somewhat by recognizing that whether you were born somewhere else, or your parents were, or it’s been hundreds of generations since your people came to this land, we are all Canadians. As long as our focus is to make this country stronger and more just, I’m fine being knocked down a couple of pegs.

Of course, in order to take steps forward, we need to acknowledge our own history:

Saint John’s black community is appealing directly to the Queen Elizabeth for an apology for a 1785 decree that severely restricted where they could live or fish. Saint John is celebrating the 225th anniversary of the royal charter that created the southern New Brunswick city. But that same charter made white loyalists the only free citizens of the city and black loyalists, who fought for King George III in the American Revolution, with few exceptions, were denied the right to live or set up businesses within city boundaries.

This is an interesting bit of history that I wasn’t aware of. Apparently under the charter that created the city of St. John, its black inhabitants were not granted the rights of citizens. They were barred from living within the city’s walls or fishing in the outlying rivers. Even though they helped build the city, they were disallowed from reaping the fruits of their labour – not because of systematic, subtle racism, but because of an official decree.

Pop quiz time! What is the subtext of the following comments?

“Just think though , if it wasn’t for the British and American slavery practices most of the North American black population would still be living in some oppressive, 3rd world, war torn African country trying to get refugee status to live here in Canada.”

“Why would someone apologize for something they had no control over? Better call Ghosthunters to call the dead.”

“Get a life people of the St. John’s Black Community !!! What happened in 1785 happened. That’s it. And you don’t deserve an apology from someones great great great great great grand daughter for something that happened to your great great great great great grand parents.”

If you guessed “Get over it, black people!”, you’re right!

There’s a pernicious lie that you’ll see pop up in any discussion of immigration or minority civil rights – “the white man built this country, and if you don’t like it you can leave!” At least part of the reason this lie gets repeated so much is because we fail to recognize the history that underlies (and directly causes) our present-day realities. Africa isn’t war-torn because Africans are dispositionally warlike – it’s because it was financially exploited by Europeans, beginning with slavery. The apology is not to appease some ghosts, it’s to force present-day Canadians to own up to our history. We did these things – ignoring them is to lose the lessons they can teach. The white man didn’t build this country, he just wrote the history books and the laws.

If you’re not interested in improving the racial climate in Canada that’s your right. However, sitting on the sidelines and sniping at those who are actually putting in the work makes you look like an asshole at best, and a racist asshole at worst.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!

2 Accommodation vs. Confrontation

September 27, 2010
by Crommunist
· blog · civil rights · crommunism · history · secularism

I suppose I have been remiss in formally commenting on one of the major debates currently going on in the atheist/agnostic/secular movement. There is a camp of people that thinks that the pathway to achieving the goals of a secular world is to work hand-in-hand with religious groups, and avoid offending the sensibilities of the religious at all costs. This camp believes that the path to peace can only be achieved if atheists are perceived not as a threat, but as welcome allies in the struggle to achieve a more stable, democratic society.

The other camp wants the first camp to STFU and GTFO.

This debate has been colloquially referred to as “accommodationism” vs. “confrontationalism”. Accommodationists want to work with religious people and find ways to ally the goals of the atheist movement to those of the religious movement, being very respectful at all times of the beliefs of others. Confrontationalists think that the path to achieving the goals of the movement is to assertively articulate our position and push on both the legal system and the large unengaged middle to highlight the important issues and bring about large-scale change.

There is currently a dispute, some might call it a fight, over which of these approaches is the correct one. I have not yet, at least in print, expressed which camp I ally more closely with.

Before the “big reveal”, I want to talk about a similar situation that was happening during the Civil Rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. If I may be so grotesque a mangler of history, we can contrast the approaches of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as the “accommodationalist” and “confrontationalist” camps (respectively).

I will say at this point that Malcolm X began his political career as the mouthpiece of a fundamentalist Muslim who advocated mass conversion of black people, and complete segregation of those people from white America – essentially establishing a self-contained religious theocratic state within the USA. Martin Luther King Jr. was no saint either – he was happy to use segments of Christianity as justification for his struggle, without acknowledging the fact that it was that same philosophy that was used to justify the enslavement and systematic oppression of the very people he was fighting for. The two men were not really fighting toward the same goal, except insofar as they were both interested in increasing the autonomy and independence of black Americans. However, for the sake of convenience and familiarity, I hope you will allow my somewhat ahistorical comparison.

It was directly due to the influence of MLK that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed, granting equal protection and access under law to people regardless of their ethnicity. His doctrine of non-violent resistance and co-operation with white leaders and people, coupled with his amazing powers of public persuasion and charisma reached out to all corners of society, even those who might not otherwise agree with the aims of the movement.

As a contrast, Malcolm X was far more militant (in the literal sense, not this ridiculous pap of “militant atheism” that basically just means speaking your mind directly and unashamedly) and confrontational than his counterpart. He famously disdained the inclusion of white people in the black nationalist movement, referring to them (using the language of the Nation of Islam under Elijah Muhammad) as “white devils”. He galvanized his audience – disillusioned and disheartened black youth – by presenting them with a vision of black people as a group under oppression, rather than as a lesser race. He advocated disciplined uprising against the current socioracial system, albeit under theocratic direction.

What those who favour staunch accommodationism are suggesting is that the contribution of Malcolm X, namely the doctrine of black power (which I will take a moment to say should not be contrasted with “white power”, an entirely different concept), was not valuable and/or necessary to the civil rights movement – a claim which is far more ahistorical than my own admittedly crude analysis. The Nation of Islam and its confrontational doctrine accomplished two simultaneous goals. First, it unified and attracted black youth to a cause that was, to many, viewed as just more political posturing that would not improve the day-to-day reality of being black in America. Second, it terrified the white establishment out of its complacency and forced them to find alliances in the black community that would show their sympathy to the cause.

Failing to recognize the influence that black nationalism, which experienced several resurgences (most notably in the 1970s under the Black Panthers, the 1980s in the burgeoning hip-hop movement, and currently with the rise of anti-racism and afrocentric black intellectualism) played in the establishment of civil rights is painting a picture of history that is fundamentally doomed to repeat itself. This is happening currently within the atheist movement. Phil Plait, alongside Chris Mooney, Sam Harris, and other prominent atheists, seem to take an approach that accommodationism is the path toward mainstream acceptance, whereas confrontation is unwelcome and pushes the atheist movement backward.

I have used a metaphor that is unfortunate in its level of violence, but apt in its ultimate meaning. Imagine a battlefield between two opposing forces, one force with both infantry and archers, arrayed against one that is purely infantry. As the two footsoldier contingents meet in the middle, the unbalanced force is cut to ribbons by the arrows of the archers, resulting in a trouncing. Similarly, one that is purely archers would be overrun by brutes wielding swords. However, two equal opposing forces are forced to use tactics and real strength to prevail. The hole in this analogy is, of course, that people die in war. Nobody is seriously proposing that atheists be killed, nor would any self-respecting secularist call for the violent removal of the faithful.

The point of this analogy is that different people are persuaded by different things, and to use only one tactic (either accommodation or confrontation) will result in the rapid trouncing of the atheist/secularist movement by the religious, who use a variety of methods to advance their points. However, when the opposing forces are balanced in their armaments, the battle is decided by that which remains – the evidence. In that case we win, because by definition the evidence is on the side of the skeptics.

We need the Malcolm X school to bring apathetic atheists out of the closet by pointing out the evils and influence of the religious establishment, and to put the fear of the godless in the believers. To balance that, we need the Martin Luther Kings of the movement to be reaching across the aisle to find mutual ground with the more moderate and freethinking elements within the theist camp. Saying that one group is counterproductive is short-sighted and foolish – buying into the fear and discomfiture of the oppressors to justify throwing your compatriots under the bus.

As a caveat to this diatribe (which has gone far beyond the TL/DR barrier, for which I apologize), it is important to recognize that even the two paragons of accommodation and confrontation recognized the need for balance. MLK often expressed his contempt for the philosophy of “gradualism” – the idea that human rights should be given out slowly over time, to protect the oh-so-sensitive feelings of racist whites. After his Hajj, and after leaving the tutelage of Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm (at this time known as Malik El-Shabazz) began to reach out to non-black people who expressed a desire to advance the cause of black nationalism. Tragically of course, the fundamentalists on either side of the debate weren’t having that, and both men were assassinated.

The fact is that in the struggle for civil rights, there must be both a carrot and a stick; a voice that pulls dissenting groups together, and one that drives the points forward without fear. I was not alive at the time, but I can’t imagine that MLK didn’t have at least one (and likely hundreds) of conversations with concerned white people saying “that Malcolm X is driving the civil rights movement backward by alienating people!” We know from transcripts of his speeches that Malcolm had a great deal of contempt for those he viewed as selling out the Negro birthright to capitulate to the white man. The forces worked in opposition, but toward the same ultimate goal. How much more powerful would the atheist/secularist movement be if we stopped this petty (and meaningless) squabbling among our own ranks and instead marshalled our respective forces toward the ultimate goal of a society in which we are free to have our own opinions, regardless of dogmatic interference of any kind?

TL/DR: Much like Malcolm X’s confrontational style was a necessary balance to Martin Luther King’s accommodationalist style, the respective philosophies within the atheist/secularist movement are both required for the long-term progress towards civil rights. Failing to recognize this is a weakness within the movement.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!

0 New Westminster still doing it right

September 22, 2010
by Crommunist
· blog · Canada · good news · history · race

Back in July, I applauded the city of New Westminster for taking positive, tangible steps to correct a history of racism against Chinese immigrants. I thought that it would stop there, but apparently they’re keeping the train of being smart people one step further:

New Westminster will be the first municipal government in Canada to offer a formal apology to Chinese Canadians for historic racism and discrimination. The apology, which will be offered in English and Chinese on September 20, is part of a continuing reconciliation initiative undertaken by the city of New Westminster.

Stuff like this happens so rarely, I thought it was a good idea to highlight it. There have been many apologies in the past – by the Canadian government, by various church groups, by corporations, the list goes on. The difference between a real apology and a fake one is that when you’re actually sorry about something, you take steps to fix it. The city of New Westminster is setting an example for the rest of Canada, showing that an apology doesn’t mean simply dragging yourself through the dirt and debasing yourself out of guilt. An apology can be, and in this case, a noble show of moral character and strength:

Acknowledging the difficult history is part of developing a healthy relationship based on historical truth and a sense of justice, said Chu. Mayor Wayne Wright said the city assigned senior staff to do historical research on Chinese history in the region. Historical facts came out,” said Wright. “The Chinese community helped build our region, and we found out some of the things that went on that weren’t so pleasant.” Wright said making a formal apology will be just one more step in the process of reconciliation and moving forward.

The truth, in this case, is that a rich and important part of the history of the region (and indeed, the entire province) was being systematically ignored. Chinese immigrants contributed generations of lives to the building of this beautiful place, and were repaid for their efforts by deeply-ingrained discrimination. Acknowledging the truth of this doesn’t diminish the city of New Westminster, nor does it oblige white people in British Columbia to don sackcloth and rub ashes in their hair. It is a formal recognition of the truth of the past, and it is coupled with an ongoing platform to correct for the mistakes of history.

I’m proud of New Westminster in this matter, and hope that their example is emulated by other municipalities.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!

0 Fraud, perjury, child molestation, and now terrorism

September 8, 2010
by Crommunist
· blog · Catholic church · history · news · religion

There’s a particularly disturbing story developing in Northern Ireland:

The police, the Catholic Church and the state conspired to cover up a priest’s suspected role in one of the worst atrocities of the Northern Ireland Troubles, an investigation has found.

Forgetting for a moment the face-palmingly euphemistic name “North Ireland Troubles”, this is a poignant illustration of what happens when religious leaders collude with secular authority. Police found evidence implicating one Father James Chesney, and instead of acting on it, collaborated with politicians and the Church to cover up the evidence and move the suspected terrorist to another parish.

Now I’m sure some of you will think it’s unfair of me to pick on this organization based on acts that were committed 30 years ago, but you’d be missing my point. If the accused had been a member of a secular organization, there would have been no such cover-up or collusion. The Catholic Church wielded (and continues to wield) power that was sufficient to shield its members from any kind of justice. This is another example of the willingness of the RCC to subvert secular authority to preserve their veneer of respectability and shield their power from scrutiny.

Besides, this is not something that happened once 30 years ago and has been dealt with. The Church still refuses to co-operate with secular authority, demanding special exemption from justice at every turn like a petulant child protesting the punishment of a fair parent. When caught and forced to face up to their systemic corruption, they offer non-apologies in the hope of mollifying critics, simultaneously demonstrating that they don’t understand the nature of the problem, and virtually guaranteeing that it will continue in the future.

As disgusted as I am with the RCC for this latest atrocious betrayal of human decency and justice, they cannot accept the entirety of the blame:

[Ombudsman Al Hutchinson] said he told his superiors he was going to raid Fr Chesney’s parochial house within 30 minutes unless he was told to do otherwise. He said he had soldiers standing by in Magherafelt police station as back-up for the search and arrest operation. “They (senior officers) gave me an answer back within 15 minutes that things were under control, not to go. I was told, leave it alone, we’re looking after it. Then the next thing I heard was that he was transferred to Malin Head (in Donegal).”

The corruption was widespread enough to touch the police force, and the political establishment. The entire country was in turmoil, and authorities feared that arresting a priest would result in widespread violence and rioting, touching off a civil war. Perhaps it would have.

The problem is in allowing a group – any group, religious or otherwise – to hold that kind of unchecked power. There was no check on the Catholic Church either from within or externally. The religious authority held such control over both the people and the secular powers that it could thwart the judicial system at its whim. Secular authorities are subject to the approval of the populace (for good or ill), and in many cases are also limited by other branches of government. Religious authorities, however, are accountable only to themselves, and have demonstrated their ability to confuse “the good of the Church” with what is good for the people time after time. There is no mechanism of voting out the Pope, and the threats of excommunication and social ostracism (not to mention hellfire and other fun supernatural punishments) ensured that no citizen group could or would form to check the power of the Church.

Perhaps Ivan Stevenson of Northern Ireland says it best:

The Church is right in saying that they didn’t cover up an evil act. It would seem that the British government offered to do it for them. However, this doesn’t negate their moral responsibility to respond more appropriately. All in all it stinks of hypocrisy, considering recent disclosures relating to child abuse and whatever else lies festering in the closet. The Catholic Church’s self declared divine mandate to be the moral conscience of the world is nothing but the pompous, self-righteous posturing of a large group of very sad and desperate men.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!

Page 9 of 10