What you find "understandable" depends on who it is you choose to understand. On the national current, and using discernment in an age of moral cowardice.
I read sections of this multiple times because there are so many great points in this piece. Somehow, "My observation is: people decide who and what it is they want to understand" is the line that sticks with me. Simple, but with deep meaning and consequence.
I find the analogy of the river’s flow and the inevitable destination at its mouth compelling! I really felt a sense of the rivers flow picking up steam in “I’m told” section. Thoughtful and compelling piece!
"a supremacy that conveys to the abuser the right to define not only the identity of their victim, but to **define what their victim’s experience of the abuse was**"
I think you'll find that is a feature shared by all abusers, irrespective of the form the abuse takes. It also helps gain an intuitive sense of what is meant by the term 'gaslighting'- the abuser tells the person they abuse that it is not, as the abused well knows, abuse at all, and the abuser is not in reality an abuser.
Which begs the question of whether fascists are fundamentally indistinguishable for abusers, even if not all who perpetrate abuse are fascists.
Stated differently, fascists concoct ideological gibberish precisely to obscure (to their own ears at least, and perhaps to that of complicit media types) the simple reality that //they revel in perpetrating violence against others//, others the fascists believe they can, and believe they are entitled to, dominate and brutalize.
"People who have scorned equity in women’s sports are very concerned about equality in women’s sports, I’m told.
"People who treat every free school lunch as a moral calamity and any attempt to prevent school shootings as tyranny are very concerned about the safety of children I’m told.
"People who want laws passed enforcing christian prayer and the pledge of allegiance in public school classrooms are vigorously opposed to indoctrination, I’m told.
"People who have corrupted the supreme court to push their supremacy are opposed to judicial activism, I’m told.
"People who defend every coverup of every youth group leader and college sports trainer are very opposed to grooming, I’m told.
"People who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and freedom and equality for all also believe that a carceral state that uses a militarized police force, targets racial minorities, and uses prisoners as slave labor is what makes us safe and that anyone who attempts to reform it hates America, I’m told.
"And our War to Expand Slavery was actually about state’s rights I’m told."
Yeah, I've been told that too -- and I no longer believe a single word of it. I've seen where the river goes. Lying Liars, every one of 'em...
"And we can look down to the mouth of the river, to observe that people in recent history who opposed school segregation and the Civil Rights Act(...)"
You mean *de*-segregation, don't you? Because the racists who opposed the Civil Rights Act were *pro*-segregation.
"Other people want to understand the rationale of those who are doing the harming, not to understand why they would do such a thing, but to find that rationale understandable."
I know several people like this. It's important to give people the benefit of the doubt when, like you said, they admit their mistake and change their actions. However, I believe a lot of what people do and say (myself included) isn't always justifiable by the morals we claim to have. I think often we react in the moment without fully considering our words or actions. One thing is very true: you can always justify someone's actions after the fact, but I think very often the justifications don't line up with the outcome or the original intent (if in fact there was any conscious intention in the first place). It's much better to judge the effects than some nebulous concept of intent. The New Jim Crow did a great job showing why the standard of proving "racist intent" to indict police officers is almost impossible and gives free reign to anyone who continuously does racist things as long as they aren't stupid enough to say it was because of racism.
When I hear people and media both sides an issue it always feels like they are refusing to discern. The continual both sidesing in the public and the media I think is inhibiting discernment.
"What gives people whose ideology observably results in harm and menace and death such an irrevocable right to always have their understandable bullshit spun into the gold flax of reasonableness, and why have you chosen to be their Rumpelstiltskin?"
When I read this, I raised both arms in the air, like I was sticking an Olympic gymnastic dismount, exclaimed "YEAH!" and then went (finally! what took me so long?!) and became a paid subscriber.
"Some people want to understand the experience of people who have been harmed by supremacist abuse: bigotry, violence, harassment, structural injustice, and so they listen to those people."
I can't imagine understanding what people say who have been harmed by supremacist abuse without wanting to push against the current you describe. There are, fortunately, multiple currents running in different directions in the US. We can choose.
"Some people want to understand the experience of people who have been harmed by supremacist abuse: bigotry, violence, harassment, structural injustice, and so they listen to those people.
And that lets them just go with the flow. Going with the current is the easiest thing, and who doesn’t like ease? Going against the current, that’s work."
Isn't listening to the people who have been harmed the thing that might (and might not) stop me from just going with the flow?
this is gaslighting, the Martha Mitchell effect, what every woman growing up in this JaneCrow country, every person of color, every exploited worker has always known along with the price for poking the bear. I am en outraged that more are taking this risk which I believe is why we are seeing more push back. The mothers for Liberty aren’t that different than the many women in the south depicted in the movie The Help. Humans have always had cons, flimflam men, cults, dictators and those that fight them and support honesty, empathy, compassion, a democratic government . It is up to each of us to pick a side.
Great essay, as always. I think you used the wrong pronoun in this sentence: “You might believe you do, or you might be maliciously lying, but you definitely don’t care.” Should be “I,” right?
I read sections of this multiple times because there are so many great points in this piece. Somehow, "My observation is: people decide who and what it is they want to understand" is the line that sticks with me. Simple, but with deep meaning and consequence.
I find the analogy of the river’s flow and the inevitable destination at its mouth compelling! I really felt a sense of the rivers flow picking up steam in “I’m told” section. Thoughtful and compelling piece!
"a supremacy that conveys to the abuser the right to define not only the identity of their victim, but to **define what their victim’s experience of the abuse was**"
I think you'll find that is a feature shared by all abusers, irrespective of the form the abuse takes. It also helps gain an intuitive sense of what is meant by the term 'gaslighting'- the abuser tells the person they abuse that it is not, as the abused well knows, abuse at all, and the abuser is not in reality an abuser.
Which begs the question of whether fascists are fundamentally indistinguishable for abusers, even if not all who perpetrate abuse are fascists.
Stated differently, fascists concoct ideological gibberish precisely to obscure (to their own ears at least, and perhaps to that of complicit media types) the simple reality that //they revel in perpetrating violence against others//, others the fascists believe they can, and believe they are entitled to, dominate and brutalize.
"People who have scorned equity in women’s sports are very concerned about equality in women’s sports, I’m told.
"People who treat every free school lunch as a moral calamity and any attempt to prevent school shootings as tyranny are very concerned about the safety of children I’m told.
"People who want laws passed enforcing christian prayer and the pledge of allegiance in public school classrooms are vigorously opposed to indoctrination, I’m told.
"People who have corrupted the supreme court to push their supremacy are opposed to judicial activism, I’m told.
"People who defend every coverup of every youth group leader and college sports trainer are very opposed to grooming, I’m told.
"People who believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and freedom and equality for all also believe that a carceral state that uses a militarized police force, targets racial minorities, and uses prisoners as slave labor is what makes us safe and that anyone who attempts to reform it hates America, I’m told.
"And our War to Expand Slavery was actually about state’s rights I’m told."
Yeah, I've been told that too -- and I no longer believe a single word of it. I've seen where the river goes. Lying Liars, every one of 'em...
A really compelling piece and I plan to share it widely. Thank you.
"And we can look down to the mouth of the river, to observe that people in recent history who opposed school segregation and the Civil Rights Act(...)"
You mean *de*-segregation, don't you? Because the racists who opposed the Civil Rights Act were *pro*-segregation.
It's clearly time for my vacation.
Clearly...
(Have fun! 😉 )
"Other people want to understand the rationale of those who are doing the harming, not to understand why they would do such a thing, but to find that rationale understandable."
I know several people like this. It's important to give people the benefit of the doubt when, like you said, they admit their mistake and change their actions. However, I believe a lot of what people do and say (myself included) isn't always justifiable by the morals we claim to have. I think often we react in the moment without fully considering our words or actions. One thing is very true: you can always justify someone's actions after the fact, but I think very often the justifications don't line up with the outcome or the original intent (if in fact there was any conscious intention in the first place). It's much better to judge the effects than some nebulous concept of intent. The New Jim Crow did a great job showing why the standard of proving "racist intent" to indict police officers is almost impossible and gives free reign to anyone who continuously does racist things as long as they aren't stupid enough to say it was because of racism.
Well said.
When I hear people and media both sides an issue it always feels like they are refusing to discern. The continual both sidesing in the public and the media I think is inhibiting discernment.
Absolutely true. And when the media does it, they think it’s a virtue.
"What gives people whose ideology observably results in harm and menace and death such an irrevocable right to always have their understandable bullshit spun into the gold flax of reasonableness, and why have you chosen to be their Rumpelstiltskin?"
When I read this, I raised both arms in the air, like I was sticking an Olympic gymnastic dismount, exclaimed "YEAH!" and then went (finally! what took me so long?!) and became a paid subscriber.
So many quotable quotes in this one.
"Some people want to understand the experience of people who have been harmed by supremacist abuse: bigotry, violence, harassment, structural injustice, and so they listen to those people."
I can't imagine understanding what people say who have been harmed by supremacist abuse without wanting to push against the current you describe. There are, fortunately, multiple currents running in different directions in the US. We can choose.
This confused me:
"Some people want to understand the experience of people who have been harmed by supremacist abuse: bigotry, violence, harassment, structural injustice, and so they listen to those people.
And that lets them just go with the flow. Going with the current is the easiest thing, and who doesn’t like ease? Going against the current, that’s work."
Isn't listening to the people who have been harmed the thing that might (and might not) stop me from just going with the flow?
Haha yep great call. I mixed up two paragraphs. Fixed now, should make a bit more sense.
Thanks!
this is gaslighting, the Martha Mitchell effect, what every woman growing up in this JaneCrow country, every person of color, every exploited worker has always known along with the price for poking the bear. I am en outraged that more are taking this risk which I believe is why we are seeing more push back. The mothers for Liberty aren’t that different than the many women in the south depicted in the movie The Help. Humans have always had cons, flimflam men, cults, dictators and those that fight them and support honesty, empathy, compassion, a democratic government . It is up to each of us to pick a side.
I haven't been in church for years, but reading that felt like I was listening to a powerful, motivating sermon. On point, as always.
Great essay, as always. I think you used the wrong pronoun in this sentence: “You might believe you do, or you might be maliciously lying, but you definitely don’t care.” Should be “I,” right?
Yeah. Sigh. Saw it the moment I hit send. It's already fixed.
honest to God, sometimes I wonder "wtf is wrong with white people"? (and yes, I'm caucasian)