The reunion of the Ruston (La.) High School Class of 1959 was, I imagine, very much like the 50th reunions of countless high school classes.
At the last reunion I attended, the 30th, the erosive qualities of time and gravity had begun to alter the landscape of the class of ’59, but now they had plowed deep furrows and dragged away our youth. I could have passed a lie detector test that I had never seen some of those people in my entire life.
(Memo to class reunion planners: Make the name tags really big, so people with fading eyesight aren’t so obvious in trying to read a name as they squeeze a hand and say something like, “Hey, Robby, of course I remember you.”)
I did not keep in touch with my classmates after I went away to college and essentially left my hometown for good. Many classmates remained in town or nearby, but over the years when I returned to visit, I spent most of the time with my brother and sister and with the diminishing number of other kinfolks.
The reunion events were limited: a tour of the old alma mater – it has been renovated and expanded, but it was more recognizable than some of the alumni – and a party at the home of a class member.
In the weeks leading up to the reunion, it was natural to try to recall what school felt like at the time.
Racial segregation was still the order of the day, so our high school was all white. It was the only white high school, though, and as small as it was (about 110 in our class), it comprised a wide variety of people.
There were the kids who rode in from the country on big yellow buses. Many of the boys took classes in agriculture and shop and were distinguished by their blue corduroy Future Farmers of America jackets. Many of the girls took home ec and wore dresses that had been sewn by their mothers or had come from the bargain rack or a catalog. (There were exceptions, of course; no group is totally homogenous.)
There were the town kids – the children of business people and professors at the college – who constituted the school’s social elite.
There were, of course, the athletes who were a group in themselves and who had, at least for a time, acceptance by the elites.
The largest group was no group at all, that faceless middle that fell into that category simply because it did not fall into any other. I was one of those.
So, in some sense, the gathering of the Class of ’59 was only partly a reunion, since for some the only unity had been in being a member of that particular year’s graduating class.
The high school years may be more difficult for girls than it is for boys. Our school, for example, had sororities, which by their very nature exclude people.
It started, I think, with one sorority – the upper tier as it were – followed by formation of another sorority, which I guess was composed of those who hadn’t quite made the first cut. They were pretty exclusive themselves, so during my high school years, a group of girls who had not been invited to join either of the other groups formed their own club..
But some girls – and boys – were rejected by everyone, even that faceless middle.
There was a girl I remembered who always seemed as frightened as a cornered animal. She was obviously poor. Her clothes had the appearance of hand-me-downs, and I am not sure they were always clean. She did not seem to have any friends; I don’t recall seeing her chatting with anyone in the halls or in the lunchroom. She never participated in class. I remember a time or two trying to start a conversation with her, but by then she must have been so wounded that she was suspicious of everyone.
I hadn’t thought of her for at least 50 years, but she came to mind as I tried to recall those years. I wondered what had happened to her.
The reunion committee had done a good job of tracking down the members of the Class of ’59, and they handed out a sheet with the names and addresses of the living and a list of the departed.
On the entire list there were only two names that had no information at all. Hers was one of them. No one knew her then; no one knew her now.
Contract the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Friday, July 3, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
I Don't Think Hendry Is Coming Back
It has been four weeks since Hendry went missing, and I am gradually acknowledging that she is not coming back.
Still, every morning when I come downstairs, I look out the door to the side deck, half expecting her to be sitting there waiting for me to let her in and ready to give me a scolding for leaving her outside so long.
When I am dressing in the morning, I automatically reach out to the small step ladder I use for getting things down from the closet shelf as though she had hopped up to the top step and was waiting for me to scratch her ears.
When I sit down on the stair to put on my shoes, I expect her to come sit by my right side, always the right side, and to butt my hand with her head until I stop and give her the attention she craves.
Although Hendry technically is not our cat, we have been her people long enough for her to be a part of our daily lives. In theory, Hendry belongs to our son’s family, but even as their cat, Hendry showed an independent streak that led our oldest granddaughter, Nora, then eight years old, to proclaim, “Hendry belongs to the world.”
It was Nora who gave Hendry her name. Her family adopted a small kitten when Nora was four. They thought it was a male, and they named it Henry. When Nora tried to say the name, though, it came out Hendry. So Hendry it became, and the name stuck, even after it turned out that Hendry was a she.
Our son’s family lived next door to us in Montgomery then, and although Hendry spent a good deal of time outdoors, she never displayed any particular interest in us.
But a few weeks after our son’s family moved several miles away, Hendry showed up at our house. Our son, who happened to visiting us at the time, took Hendry home, and they kept her inside for several more weeks.
Hendry kept coming back, crossing several busy thoroughfares en route. So, even though we had decided not to have any more pets after Lightnin’, our little Manx cat, disappeared, we took Hendry in, reasoning that sooner or later she was going to get hit by a car as she crossed one of those streets.
When we moved fulltime to the lake, we brought Hendry with us. We kept her inside for months, fearing she’d undertake a long trek back to her old neighborhood. She made no such effort; she was as content with the peace and quiet of the lake as we are.
Hendry craved attention only on her terms, and most of the time she was content simply to be in whatever room we were occupying. She would curl up on the couch in the living room, or sprawl on the floor in our bedroom as we slept. If we walked down to the dock, she followed along, although after having taken an unhappy ride on the pontoon boat she kept out of reach.
One of the times that she did demand attention was right after dinner. She seemed to sense when I had finished eating, and when I pushed away from the table, she would come sit by my chair until I made room for her to jump up beside me and have her ears scratched. When she’d had enough, she would jump down.
After the Yellow Cat died, Hendry began spending more time outdoors, but she was mostly an indoor cat. She often wanted to go out in the evening. When we were ready to go upstairs at bedtime, I would go to the door. She was usually waiting to come in or sitting on the stoop or the railing contemplating the evening.
So when she was eager to go outside on a Wednesday evening, I opened the door and she scampered out. A couple of hours later we were ready to go up for the evening and I went to the door to let her in. She wasn’t at the door or on the steps or on the railing. Nor was she on the hood of the car, another of her favorite perches.
She did not come when I called, which was not unusual. Dogs come when you call them; cats respond with studied indifference.
I expected that she would be waiting at the door the next morning, as she had been several times before, complaining loudly about being left out all night. But she was not there. We checked around the property; no sign of her or of a fight of any kind. The neighbors said they had not seen her. I checked along the roads near the house; no sign of a dead animal.
I had not wanted another pet, but with cats, you are chosen about as often as you choose.
But this time, like Sherman, if elected I will not serve.
Still, every morning when I come downstairs, the first thing I do is look to the door.
Contract the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Still, every morning when I come downstairs, I look out the door to the side deck, half expecting her to be sitting there waiting for me to let her in and ready to give me a scolding for leaving her outside so long.
When I am dressing in the morning, I automatically reach out to the small step ladder I use for getting things down from the closet shelf as though she had hopped up to the top step and was waiting for me to scratch her ears.
When I sit down on the stair to put on my shoes, I expect her to come sit by my right side, always the right side, and to butt my hand with her head until I stop and give her the attention she craves.
Although Hendry technically is not our cat, we have been her people long enough for her to be a part of our daily lives. In theory, Hendry belongs to our son’s family, but even as their cat, Hendry showed an independent streak that led our oldest granddaughter, Nora, then eight years old, to proclaim, “Hendry belongs to the world.”
It was Nora who gave Hendry her name. Her family adopted a small kitten when Nora was four. They thought it was a male, and they named it Henry. When Nora tried to say the name, though, it came out Hendry. So Hendry it became, and the name stuck, even after it turned out that Hendry was a she.
Our son’s family lived next door to us in Montgomery then, and although Hendry spent a good deal of time outdoors, she never displayed any particular interest in us.
But a few weeks after our son’s family moved several miles away, Hendry showed up at our house. Our son, who happened to visiting us at the time, took Hendry home, and they kept her inside for several more weeks.
Hendry kept coming back, crossing several busy thoroughfares en route. So, even though we had decided not to have any more pets after Lightnin’, our little Manx cat, disappeared, we took Hendry in, reasoning that sooner or later she was going to get hit by a car as she crossed one of those streets.
When we moved fulltime to the lake, we brought Hendry with us. We kept her inside for months, fearing she’d undertake a long trek back to her old neighborhood. She made no such effort; she was as content with the peace and quiet of the lake as we are.
Hendry craved attention only on her terms, and most of the time she was content simply to be in whatever room we were occupying. She would curl up on the couch in the living room, or sprawl on the floor in our bedroom as we slept. If we walked down to the dock, she followed along, although after having taken an unhappy ride on the pontoon boat she kept out of reach.
One of the times that she did demand attention was right after dinner. She seemed to sense when I had finished eating, and when I pushed away from the table, she would come sit by my chair until I made room for her to jump up beside me and have her ears scratched. When she’d had enough, she would jump down.
After the Yellow Cat died, Hendry began spending more time outdoors, but she was mostly an indoor cat. She often wanted to go out in the evening. When we were ready to go upstairs at bedtime, I would go to the door. She was usually waiting to come in or sitting on the stoop or the railing contemplating the evening.
So when she was eager to go outside on a Wednesday evening, I opened the door and she scampered out. A couple of hours later we were ready to go up for the evening and I went to the door to let her in. She wasn’t at the door or on the steps or on the railing. Nor was she on the hood of the car, another of her favorite perches.
She did not come when I called, which was not unusual. Dogs come when you call them; cats respond with studied indifference.
I expected that she would be waiting at the door the next morning, as she had been several times before, complaining loudly about being left out all night. But she was not there. We checked around the property; no sign of her or of a fight of any kind. The neighbors said they had not seen her. I checked along the roads near the house; no sign of a dead animal.
I had not wanted another pet, but with cats, you are chosen about as often as you choose.
But this time, like Sherman, if elected I will not serve.
Still, every morning when I come downstairs, the first thing I do is look to the door.
Contract the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Friday, May 29, 2009
What's Wrong with a Decent Respect for the Opinons of Mankind?
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson took care to explain the reasons for the colonies’ separation from Great Britain out of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. …”
The founders understood that they would need the goodwill of other nations if the fledgling nation were to succeed.
If an e-mail I got the recently is representative, many Americans, perhaps a large number of Americans, no longer think the opinions of mankind matter.
The e-mail came from a friend who I assume sent it to a list of right thinkers in his address book and perhaps to a few like me who just don’t get it.
The e-mail began:
“While on Obama's trip to Europe, he stated that ‘we are an arrogant country.’”
It listed the number of American dead in a military cemetery in France
“We Apologize.” it continued with undisguised sarcasm.
It listed the number of American dead in a cemetery in Belgium.
“We are arrogant.”
It listed the American dead in another cemetery in France.
“Excuse us.”
It listed more American dead in cemeteries in England, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Italy.
“IF ADDED CORRECTLY THE COUNT IS 104,366.”
“Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don't confuse arrogance with leadership.
“As Americans, let's all look forward to the next elections - to find a President who doesn't think we need to be ashamed.
“May God have mercy on us until this presidential term is over!”
What has the writer is foaming at the mouth is President Obama’s trip to Europe where he did in fact apologize for some of the strains in relations between the United States and Europe in the recent past.
What eludes me is the connection that the author of the e-mail tries to make.
What do American deaths on European battlefields in World Wars I and II have to do with whether in recent years we have been arrogant and dismissive?
Certainly, American sacrifices tilted World War I in favor of Britain and France. And without the United States, Britain and much of the rest of the world may have fallen to the Germans and their allies.
But in both wars we weren’t solely altruistic. We were fighting to preserve freedom in our own country.
When President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress on April 2, 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany, he cited Germany's violation of its pledge to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and its attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance against the United States, as his reasons for declaring war.
In asking Congress to recognize that a state of war existed between the United States and Germany and between the United States and Italy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote, “On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.”
If, as the e-mail’s author suggests, we are exempt from criticism from Europe because of the sacrifices we made in two wars, then we have no right to criticize France, because without that country’s support, the colonies probably would have lost the War for Independence.
President Obama didn’t crawl to Europe on his knees. In its coverage of his speech in Strasbourg, France, The Telegraph of London said that he went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.
“But,” The Telegraph said, “he sought to use the mea culpa as leverage to alter European views of America and secure more troops for the war in Afghanistan.
“He declared that there had to be a fundamental shift on both sides of the Atlantic. ‘America is changing but it cannot be America alone that changes,’ ” he said.
“Addressing a crowd of some 2,000 mainly students from France and Germany, Mr. Obama said: ‘In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.’
“He then balanced this striking admission with a tough message to Europeans that blaming America was foolish.
“’But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad.’
“On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.’"
In his debate with Al Gore at Wake Forest University on Oct. 11, 2000, George W. Bush said he didn’t think other nations should look at the United States with envy. “It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
I think we have to cut the Bush Administration some slack in light of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
But we also have to admit that his promise to treat foreign countries with humility quickly went by the boards. We divided nations into those that were for us or against us, ignoring the fact that other nations might have their own national interests and problems. We were dismissive and derisive of those who didn’t fall into lockstep. Remember “Freedom Fries?”
We were the most powerful nation on earth and that was what counted. We based our national strategy on our military dominance.
That has its drawbacks. In his 1987 book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” Paul Kennedy observed that “…the United States now runs the risk, so familiar to historians of the rise and fall of previous Great Powers, of what might roughly be called ‘imperial overstretch’: that is to say, decision makers in Washington must face the awkward and enduring fact that the sum total of the United States’ global interests and obligations is nowadays far larger than the country’s power to defend them all simultaneously.”
Time has validated Kennedy’s thesis.
For the moment at least (watch the Chinese), we are the greatest military power on earth. But like Gulliver among the Lilliputs, we have found that a giant can be hamstrung by midgets.
We cannot go it alone. President Obama ought to be cut a little slack in trying to regain the respect and cooperation of the Europeans, especially since we did a lot to alienate them.
“…don't confuse arrogance with leadership.” Right. Leaders have followers. People follow out of respect, not fear.
“Apologize to no one. …”
That strikes me as, well, arrogant.
Contract the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
The founders understood that they would need the goodwill of other nations if the fledgling nation were to succeed.
If an e-mail I got the recently is representative, many Americans, perhaps a large number of Americans, no longer think the opinions of mankind matter.
The e-mail came from a friend who I assume sent it to a list of right thinkers in his address book and perhaps to a few like me who just don’t get it.
The e-mail began:
“While on Obama's trip to Europe, he stated that ‘we are an arrogant country.’”
It listed the number of American dead in a military cemetery in France
“We Apologize.” it continued with undisguised sarcasm.
It listed the number of American dead in a cemetery in Belgium.
“We are arrogant.”
It listed the American dead in another cemetery in France.
“Excuse us.”
It listed more American dead in cemeteries in England, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Italy.
“IF ADDED CORRECTLY THE COUNT IS 104,366.”
“Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don't confuse arrogance with leadership.
“As Americans, let's all look forward to the next elections - to find a President who doesn't think we need to be ashamed.
“May God have mercy on us until this presidential term is over!”
What has the writer is foaming at the mouth is President Obama’s trip to Europe where he did in fact apologize for some of the strains in relations between the United States and Europe in the recent past.
What eludes me is the connection that the author of the e-mail tries to make.
What do American deaths on European battlefields in World Wars I and II have to do with whether in recent years we have been arrogant and dismissive?
Certainly, American sacrifices tilted World War I in favor of Britain and France. And without the United States, Britain and much of the rest of the world may have fallen to the Germans and their allies.
But in both wars we weren’t solely altruistic. We were fighting to preserve freedom in our own country.
When President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress on April 2, 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany, he cited Germany's violation of its pledge to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and its attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance against the United States, as his reasons for declaring war.
In asking Congress to recognize that a state of war existed between the United States and Germany and between the United States and Italy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote, “On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.”
If, as the e-mail’s author suggests, we are exempt from criticism from Europe because of the sacrifices we made in two wars, then we have no right to criticize France, because without that country’s support, the colonies probably would have lost the War for Independence.
President Obama didn’t crawl to Europe on his knees. In its coverage of his speech in Strasbourg, France, The Telegraph of London said that he went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.
“But,” The Telegraph said, “he sought to use the mea culpa as leverage to alter European views of America and secure more troops for the war in Afghanistan.
“He declared that there had to be a fundamental shift on both sides of the Atlantic. ‘America is changing but it cannot be America alone that changes,’ ” he said.
“Addressing a crowd of some 2,000 mainly students from France and Germany, Mr. Obama said: ‘In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.’
“He then balanced this striking admission with a tough message to Europeans that blaming America was foolish.
“’But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad.’
“On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.’"
In his debate with Al Gore at Wake Forest University on Oct. 11, 2000, George W. Bush said he didn’t think other nations should look at the United States with envy. “It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
I think we have to cut the Bush Administration some slack in light of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
But we also have to admit that his promise to treat foreign countries with humility quickly went by the boards. We divided nations into those that were for us or against us, ignoring the fact that other nations might have their own national interests and problems. We were dismissive and derisive of those who didn’t fall into lockstep. Remember “Freedom Fries?”
We were the most powerful nation on earth and that was what counted. We based our national strategy on our military dominance.
That has its drawbacks. In his 1987 book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” Paul Kennedy observed that “…the United States now runs the risk, so familiar to historians of the rise and fall of previous Great Powers, of what might roughly be called ‘imperial overstretch’: that is to say, decision makers in Washington must face the awkward and enduring fact that the sum total of the United States’ global interests and obligations is nowadays far larger than the country’s power to defend them all simultaneously.”
Time has validated Kennedy’s thesis.
For the moment at least (watch the Chinese), we are the greatest military power on earth. But like Gulliver among the Lilliputs, we have found that a giant can be hamstrung by midgets.
We cannot go it alone. President Obama ought to be cut a little slack in trying to regain the respect and cooperation of the Europeans, especially since we did a lot to alienate them.
“…don't confuse arrogance with leadership.” Right. Leaders have followers. People follow out of respect, not fear.
“Apologize to no one. …”
That strikes me as, well, arrogant.
Contract the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Thursday, May 21, 2009
There's No Right not to be Offended
Heaven help us if the desire not to be offended is ever enshrined as a right. There seems to be no end of people who think they have some inherent right to be sheltered from anything that offends them, and some pursue it, even to the point of violence.
"Angels & Demons," the latest Ron Howard/Tom Hanks/Dan Brown religious blockbuster, received mixed faith-based reviews. Hanks plays a Harvard professor on the trail of a sinister religious society plotting to install their candidate as Pope and blow up the Vatican.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of India would like to have the movie banned, but will settle for a disclaimer that states the movie is a work of fiction. "It deliberately denigrates the Catholic Church and is intended to offend the faithful," said Father Babu Joseph.
Here in the U.S., the Catholic League and the Universal Society of Hinduism asked the film's producers to add a disclaimer wherever the movie is shown.
You may recall that the earlier Howard/Hanks/Brown film of “The Da Vinci Code” was condemned by the Vatican as “an offense against God.” The condemnation didn’t seem to affect the film’s box office, and the Vatican’s reaction to the new film is low key.
Some years ago, Muslims took offense to Salman Rushdie’s novel, “The Satanic Verses,” and to the works of a Danish editorial cartoonist. They were so offended that they sanctioned the killing of the offenders.
Of course, it is not just religious matters that raise hackles.
Closer to home, an Auburn, Ala., city councilman was so offended by the small Confederate battle flags on the graves of Civil War soldiers at a city cemetery that he removed some of them.
They had been placed by members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to commemorate Confederate Memorial Day.
The councilman, who is black, said the flags were “offensive to me.”
“It’s intimidating to black folks, and it’s intimidating to me as a civil rights leader,” he said.
One can understand the councilman being offended, but it’s difficult to imagine him being intimidated by much of anything.
It is equally difficult to imagine the United Daughters of the Confederacy setting out to intimidate anyone.
It’s not just symbols that offend, of course. Words do, too.
Take the word niggardly, which means stingy. It dates back to the 1300s in Middle English and has no racial origin, unlike the Romance language root of the infamous N word.
Niggardly has caused a world of commotion over the years, mostly from people presuming to know what it means without bothering to look it up.
Several years ago, a white aide to the black mayor of Washington, D.C., in a discussion with two city employees used the word to describe a budget appropriation. He was accused of using a racial slur. In the uproar, he offered his resignation and it was accepted, though eventually reason prevailed and he was rehired.
An English major at the University of Wisconsin complained to the Faculty Senate that a professor teaching Chaucer had used the word "niggardly" and continued using it after she told him that she was offended. "It's not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid," she said.
Someone is always getting outraged by a book in the pubic schools or in the public library and they want to make certain not only that they are not offended but that others don’t get to judge for themselves whether they are offended.
Almost any writer, philosopher, artist or composer whose work has endured has offended someone.
I am offended by many things. I am sure you could make your own list.
I am offended by the burning of the American flag, for example. But as much as I am offended, I would be much more offended by any action to punish those who burn the flag. Nearly any speech (and that includes symbolic speech) that is worth its first amendment protection is likely to offend someone.
When someone argues that the thing that offends him or her is somehow different, that it deserves to be suppressed, it is time to be particularly wary. We have already surrendered too many of our ideals. We must now surrender our support of the first amendment right of free speech and the other rights it guarantees.
As Benjamin Franklin observed, “…If all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed.”
Write Bill Brown at billatthelake@gmail.com
"Angels & Demons," the latest Ron Howard/Tom Hanks/Dan Brown religious blockbuster, received mixed faith-based reviews. Hanks plays a Harvard professor on the trail of a sinister religious society plotting to install their candidate as Pope and blow up the Vatican.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of India would like to have the movie banned, but will settle for a disclaimer that states the movie is a work of fiction. "It deliberately denigrates the Catholic Church and is intended to offend the faithful," said Father Babu Joseph.
Here in the U.S., the Catholic League and the Universal Society of Hinduism asked the film's producers to add a disclaimer wherever the movie is shown.
You may recall that the earlier Howard/Hanks/Brown film of “The Da Vinci Code” was condemned by the Vatican as “an offense against God.” The condemnation didn’t seem to affect the film’s box office, and the Vatican’s reaction to the new film is low key.
Some years ago, Muslims took offense to Salman Rushdie’s novel, “The Satanic Verses,” and to the works of a Danish editorial cartoonist. They were so offended that they sanctioned the killing of the offenders.
Of course, it is not just religious matters that raise hackles.
Closer to home, an Auburn, Ala., city councilman was so offended by the small Confederate battle flags on the graves of Civil War soldiers at a city cemetery that he removed some of them.
They had been placed by members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to commemorate Confederate Memorial Day.
The councilman, who is black, said the flags were “offensive to me.”
“It’s intimidating to black folks, and it’s intimidating to me as a civil rights leader,” he said.
One can understand the councilman being offended, but it’s difficult to imagine him being intimidated by much of anything.
It is equally difficult to imagine the United Daughters of the Confederacy setting out to intimidate anyone.
It’s not just symbols that offend, of course. Words do, too.
Take the word niggardly, which means stingy. It dates back to the 1300s in Middle English and has no racial origin, unlike the Romance language root of the infamous N word.
Niggardly has caused a world of commotion over the years, mostly from people presuming to know what it means without bothering to look it up.
Several years ago, a white aide to the black mayor of Washington, D.C., in a discussion with two city employees used the word to describe a budget appropriation. He was accused of using a racial slur. In the uproar, he offered his resignation and it was accepted, though eventually reason prevailed and he was rehired.
An English major at the University of Wisconsin complained to the Faculty Senate that a professor teaching Chaucer had used the word "niggardly" and continued using it after she told him that she was offended. "It's not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid," she said.
Someone is always getting outraged by a book in the pubic schools or in the public library and they want to make certain not only that they are not offended but that others don’t get to judge for themselves whether they are offended.
Almost any writer, philosopher, artist or composer whose work has endured has offended someone.
I am offended by many things. I am sure you could make your own list.
I am offended by the burning of the American flag, for example. But as much as I am offended, I would be much more offended by any action to punish those who burn the flag. Nearly any speech (and that includes symbolic speech) that is worth its first amendment protection is likely to offend someone.
When someone argues that the thing that offends him or her is somehow different, that it deserves to be suppressed, it is time to be particularly wary. We have already surrendered too many of our ideals. We must now surrender our support of the first amendment right of free speech and the other rights it guarantees.
As Benjamin Franklin observed, “…If all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed.”
Write Bill Brown at billatthelake@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)