On taking down monuments

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

July 23, 2020

 

On taking down monuments

I’ve been thinking about all the monuments that have been toppled and/or vandalized recently in the U.S. by mobs because of their anger over slavery. Here are a few of my thoughts.

1. History is messy. Contrary to what seems to pass for common knowledge these days, whites aren’t the only people who owned slaves. It turns out that Native Americans owned slaves. It turns out, too, that Arabs and Asians were heavily involved in slavery. And it turns out that blacks also owned slaves and sold fellow blacks to slave buyers. Rich African chiefs even protested the abolishing of slavery—an abolition that started first in 18th century England which was for the most part … white.

For further reading and substantiation, see The Native Americans Who Owned Slaves and Africa’s Role In Slavery and 'After All, Didn't America Invent Slavery?' and 'My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves' and The Real History of Slavery.

2. I think some monuments should come down, especially if they celebrate some kind of moral atrocity. I’m okay with taking down monuments that celebrate Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the like. These men are responsible for the murder of well over a hundred million people. I think the monuments of some Confederate slave-holders should come down, too. I would also favour the taking down of the monument of Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood to use abortion to help rid the world of black people.

3. About the method of taking down monuments: I think it would be wise to do this in a way that respects peaceful and law-respecting democratic processes. We should take time to investigate the actual history of the person whose monument is on the chopping block, then petition the city council or state/province (or whomever) that’s in charge, and then present our case, providing carefully thought out reasons (including pros and cons and alternatives for the monument, besides destruction, e.g., placement in a museum). Otherwise a mob mentality takes over, resulting in some “innocent” monuments (among other things) getting destroyed.

Speaking of “innocent” monuments, I think of the recent destruction of a statue of Hans Christian Heg in Wisconsin. Ironically, it was destroyed in the name of anti-racism. But Heg was an anti-slavery activist who fought and died for the Union during the U.S. Civil War so slavery could be ended. Other innocent monuments that have been recently toppled or vandalized include those of Matthias Baldwin (an abolitionist), John Greenleaf Whittier (another abolitionist), Ulysses S. Grant (a Union general and later president who helped end slavery in the U.S.), and Frederick Douglass (yet another abolitionist). (Note: Some speculate that the destruction of the Douglass statue was some sort of “retribution” for the destruction of statues like that of Heg—but this strengthens my point. Peaceful and law-respecting democratic process is to be preferred over mob mentality/rule.)

So, yes, some monuments should come down. But let’s do it wisely. Also, if there are monuments honouring black people, indigenous people, or people of colour, it’s probably also wise—and fair—to discern whether they had slaves or committed other moral atrocities.

4. The desire to take down monuments seems to be related to seeking justice for past injustices related to slavery. But when it comes to reparations of past injustices having to do with slavery, things get complicated. Slavery was practiced by all peoples, including whites, blacks, indigenous people, and people of colour (see the above linked-to articles for substantiation). So attempts to seek justice for those who were enslaved gets seriously complex. For example, it gets very difficult to seek justice for the offspring of black people who were sold by other blacks and enslaved by indigenous people who in turn bore injustices. We may have noble goals about sorting out the injustices of the past—and those goals ARE noble—but history is, as I said, messy. This means historians need to be given time to do the necessary historical work, without pressure from the mob, and citizens should become familiar with history and respect the rule of law—and thereby resist becoming a mob.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

Neutrality? Yeah, right. Get off my lawn!

Clint Eastwood as Walt Kowalski in the movie Gran Torino (2008)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

July 17, 2020 (slightly revised and improved July 20, 2020)

 

Neutrality? Yeah, right. Get off my lawn!

I can relate to the character Walt Kowalski played by Clint Eastwood in the fine 2008 film Gran Torino. Like Walt, I’m fed up with foolishness.

Let me explain. I’ve noticed that many people attempt to appear neutral on certain moral issues, but actually aren’t. When I was young I used to think these folks seemed sophisticated and intelligent—so above the fray, so “with it.” I used to get fooled, but no more. Maybe I’ve turned into a cranky old fogey, but I’m pretty sure that at least some of these attempts at neutrality are epic fails.

Here is an example from a few years ago: “I’m neither for abortion nor against abortion.”

Sounds “neutral,” doesn’t it? But it isn’t. It actually assumes a particular view on the abortion issue. It takes the view that others can make the choice for an abortion if they want to. If you hold the view, it means that you don’t think the fetus is a human being with the right to life. That is a particular view—not neutral at all.

Think of it this way: If one says about slavery that one is neither for it nor against it, then one is assuming/taking the view that the slave isn’t a full human being with rights. And it means one will let people choose to have a slave if they wish. That ain’t neutral, folks.

Here is a more recent example. Hawk Newsome of Black Lives Matter stated the following: “I don’t condone nor do I condemn rioting.” And: “I just want black liberation, and black sovereignty. By any means necessary.”

Newsome seems to be taking a neutral position on rioting. After all, he says he doesn’t condone it nor does he condemn it. Neutral, right?

Wrong. Newsome’s I-don’t-condone-or-condemn-rioting claim is NOT a neutral position. Rioting hurts innocent people. It destroys their livelihoods, and it usually escalates to such an extent that innocent people get killed.

Again, think about slavery. Not condemning or condoning slavery is not neutral. It’s to suggest that if you want a slave, then go ahead and have one. Or think of it this way: Not condemning or condoning, say, killing Jews isn’t neutral, either.  It’s to suggest that if you want to kill a Jew, that’s your choice. Newsome’s I-don’t-condone-or-condemn-rioting suggests/implies that you can go ahead and riot—it’s merely a matter of your choice. No big deal.

Yeah, right. Say that to the folks in Minneapolis who lost their livelihoods and to the families of those who lost their lives.

What is worse (for Newsome’s view) is that Newsome’s so-called neutral position—especially when it doesn’t condemn rioting—is legitimized as appropriate or right if it serves his ends (which are righteous in his eyes). Recall that he wants to get what he wants “by any means necessary.” But this anything-goes-if-it-supports-my-ideology is the reasoning of ruthless authoritarians, as history shows. (Think of the 1985 film The Killing Fields.) In other words, it’s anything but neutral. It’s like a bystander who shrugs his shoulders and walks away as somebody gets raped and murdered.

Here is another example. In Canada, a recently passed Calgary city bylaw concerning conversion therapy (helping a person resist his/her same-sex attractions if the person wishes to do so and asks for such help) requires that such therapy should be allowed only if it involves a “person’s non-judgmental exploration and acceptance of their identity or development.”

Jyoti Gondek, a Calgary city councillor, defended the bylaw as follows: “I think that the bylaw that’s before us has been written in such a manner that it is open to any conversations that people want to have as long as they’re non-judgmental. And for me it’s that phrase ‘non-judgmental’ that is key. The minute you pass a value judgment and call it a truth, you are going to hurt somebody. And that’s really all I want to say about this. We cannot say that just talking to somebody is not dangerous because it is. The words that you say will hurt that person.”

Sounds neutral and non-judgmental, doesn’t it?

Nope. It isn’t. First, Jyoti Gondek is talking to us and assuming that her view is true—so her assumption is a judgment that she’s already made and is passing off as “non-judgmental.” Her words aren’t hurting me, but her illogic is hurting my brain.

Second, for the law to claim under the banner of “non-judgmental” that it's okay only to promote views that go one particular way (i.e., “acceptance” in terms of how the city councillors such as Gondek think it should go) is also to make a judgment. It is to be the opposite of “non-judgmental.” And it is to be deceptive, whether wittingly or unwittingly. The banner of “non-judgmental” may make it seem that the position is neutral, but in fact it isn't neutral!

So, like Walt Kowalski, I’m fed up with foolishness. And maybe, like Walt, I’m even getting a bit cranky in my old age. It turns out that, nowadays, when I see people claim to be neutral on certain moral issues when in fact they’re not neutral, I just want to shout, “Get off my lawn!”

And maybe throw an empty beer can in their general direction.

 

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a cranky retired professor of philosophy who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

For further reading

 On abortion

• Untangling popular “pro-choice” claims and arguments concerning abortion

 On Black Lives Matter

• When we’re immersed in turmoil, what we need is clear ideas and a clear head
• De-what the police?
• Do two wrongs really make a right?

On conversion therapy

• The Empirical Case against “Conversion-Therapy” Bans
• JK Rowling is Right—Sex Is Real and It Is Not a “Spectrum”
• When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment
• A defense of the binary in human sex
• The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands of Young Victims

Defund the Police?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

July 16, 2020

 

Defund the police?

These days we often hear and see the slogan “Defund the Police.” I would like to draw our attention to the word “defund.” And I would encourage the sloganeers to heed the words of the famous swordsman Inigo Montoya (from the wonderful film The Princess Bride): “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

My friend and former colleague Tim Perry, PhD, adds refreshing clarity: “Now that I know that ‘Defund the Police’ means ‘Stop treating every social problem as a police problem,’ I'm all for it. Just don't understand why the people who pick slogans picked this one. Because what it says is not what they tell me they mean.”

To back up Dr. Perry’s observation on “what it says,” consider the following dictionary definitions of “defund”:

• to withdraw funding from (Merriam Webster)
• prevent from continuing to receive funds (Google search result)
• to withdraw financial support from (Dictionary.com)
• to stop providing the money to pay for something (Cambridge English Dictionary)
• to remove the funds from (a person, organization , or scheme) (Collins English Dictionary)
• prevent from continuing to receive funds (Oxford Dictionary)
• to withdraw financial support from (The Free Dictionary)
• to stop providing funds, esp. government funds, for (a program, group, etc.) (YourDictionary)
• to cancel funding for (Wiktionary)
• cancel continued funding  (WordWeb Online)
• to stop the flow of funds to (Definition.org)

Also, consider why (besides the above lexicons' definitions of “defund”) many English-language users might take “Defund the Police” to mean what the dictionaries say it means, i.e., to stop funding the police:

• When I derail a train, I get the train off the tracks.
• When I decaffeinate coffee, I take out the caffeine from the coffee.
• When I deforest an area of land, I get rid of the trees.
• When I deactivate something, I make it inactive or ineffective.
• When I defrost my windshield, I get rid of the frost.
• When I debone a fish, I remove the bones from the fish.
• When I debug/delouse my cat, I get rid of its fleas and lice.
• When I dealcoholize a substance, I remove the alcohol from it.
• When I decongest my sinuses, I get rid of the congestion.
• When I declog the drain, I get rid of whatever clogs it up.
• When I dehorn a bull, I remove its horns.
• When I decolonialize, I make a nation free from colonial influences.
• When I dekulakize, I get rid of prosperous peasants.
• When I dematerialize, I disappear by becoming immaterial.
• When I dehydrate something, I remove the water/hydration from it.
• When I deinvest, I withdraw my investment.
• When we defrock a priest or judge, we remove them from a position of honor or privilege.
• When the government defunds Planned Parenthood (which many of us hope they will do!), the government stops providing funds for it.

Also, consider why many reasonable people are legitimately concerned about defunding the police (when the word “defund” is understood in its normal lexical usage as canceling/ withdrawing financial support). That is, consider these observations from Steven Pinker, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University: 

When law enforcement vanishes, all manner of violence breaks out: looting, settling old scores, ethnic cleansing, and petty warfare among gangs, warlords and mafias. This was obvious in the remnants of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and parts of Africa in the 1990s, but can also happen in countries with a long tradition of civility. As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin’s anarchism. I laughed off my parents’ argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that had competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call in the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters (and offered a foretaste of life as a scientist).

 —Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (Penguin Books, 2003).

Happily, there is some calm in the sloganeering storm. Enter: Calgary Chief of Police Mark Neufeld. Here is a portion of a news report “Defund the Calgary police: Need to define it first, says chief”:

While Black Lives Matter movements have spurred calls for cities to defund the police, Calgary’s police chief said defund needs to be defined first.

In a meeting earlier this week with media, Calgary’s Chief Constable Mark Neufeld said everyone has a different idea of what defunding police means.

“For some, this is about diverting money, for some this is about dismantling police and for others, it’s about disarming police,” he said.

“I think we’re talking about defunding the police before we define what we want them to do, and what we don’t want them to do and perhaps exploring legitimate options for addressing the demand in a practical and effective way.”

Permit me to close with a heavily embellished paraphrase of our earlier quote from the famous swordsman Inigo Montoya: Protesters keep using the slogan “Defund the Police,” but I don’t think the slogan means what many protesters claim it means—and I’m deeply troubled and even suspicious that those protesters continue to use the slogan because there are also many protesters who do think it means what it clearly says it means.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.

Various thoughts about recent race-related protests and riots

Minneapolis affordable housing development (189 units under construction) in flames due to riots, May 27, 2020. Photo credit: Mark Vancleave, Star Tribune

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

June 7, 2020

Various thoughts about recent race-related protests and riots

Like many others, I’ve been thinking about the recent race-related protests and riots. I definitely don’t have all the answers. Nevertheless, here are a few of my thoughts, which I hope will be helpful.

1. I think a distinction should be made between (1) black lives matter (the claim) and (2) Black Lives Matter (the organization). The first is a moral claim/judgement that's true and with which we should all agree 100%, whereas the second is an organization that holds various ideological tenets about which reasonable people can respectfully disagree.

For further thought about Black Lives Matter (the organization), see Ryan Bomberger’s article, “Top 10 Reasons I Won't Support the #BlackLivesMatter Movement.” See too Jonathan Van Maren’s article, “The Black Lives Matter leadership and platform is part of the problem, not the solution.”

2. There is an ambiguity in the phrase “Black Lives Matter” (when capital letters are used): it can mean (1) the general BLM protest movement that seeks merely to ensure that black lives matter just as much as white lives, or it can mean (2) the BLM organization that has an ideological agenda. Many in the general BLM protest movement do not support or perhaps are not aware of the ideology of the BLM organization. This ambiguity should be kept in mind, because one's support for BLM in the first sense as a good moral principle may inadvertently be misunderstood as favouring the second ideology-laced sense (which some, myself included, see as problematic).

I am reminded of the ambiguity of “Planned Parenthood”: planning parenthood (via savings, preparing a child-friendly home) versus getting rid of unplanned children (via abortion by an organization that sells babies’ body parts). Under the banner of “Planned Parenthood,” one’s support for the first meaning may be misunderstood as support for the latter. (For more of my thoughts on Planned Parenthood, see my column “Planned Parenthood is a Scam.” More importantly, since we’re thinking about racism, see this article: “Former Planned Parenthood board member: Defund this ‘racist’ organization.”)

3. About the phrases “all lives matter” and “black lives matter”:

I think that sometimes people (myself included) have unintentionally caused misunderstanding with the use of these phrases. When some folks (myself included) say “all lives matter” they intend to agree that black lives matter and wish to show support to the cause (broadly speaking) that black lives matter. I think they intend to say (in shortened form) what my friend and former colleague Daryl Climenhaga says so well: “black lives matter because all lives matter—and black lives are currently under greatest threat.” But the last part gets lost, unwittingly.

One of my nieces shared a post recently, which is helpful:

If my spouse comes to me in obvious pain and asks “Do you love me?”, an answer of “I love everyone” would be truthful, but also hurtful and cruel in the moment. If a co-worker comes to me upset and says “My father just died,” a response of “Everyone’s parents die,” would be truthful, but hurtful and cruel in the moment. So when a friend speaks up in a time of obvious pain and hurt and says “Black lives matter,” a response of “All lives matter,” is truthful. But it’s hurtful and cruel in the moment.

Several of my other FB friends shared the following recently, which is also helpful:

The father was waiting there with a big sign: #ProdigalSonsMatter

When the older brother saw it, he was angry, wouldn’t attend the party, and moped around with his own sign: #AllSonsMatter

Father: “Dude. It’s not about you right now.”

So, those of us who have used (merely) the phrase “all lives matter” should stand corrected. Some nuance would be helpful.

But I would also add that maybe those who have used (merely) the phrase “black lives matter” could also have added some nuance, such as “black lives matter, too.” I believe that’s what’s intended, but clarity helps.

4. The killing (murder) by police of George Floyd is wrong. But does this justify looting and killing (murdering) innocent others? No.

The murder of innocent life is wrong—terribly, terribly wrong. Rioting, looting, causing the suffering of innocents by destroying their livelihoods may be less wrong—but they are wrong, too. Deeply wrong. It’s terribly, terribly wrong to murder someone, AND it’s deeply wrong to hurt innocents.

Peaceful protest and peaceful political action, as difficult and slow as they may be, are the way forward. This was the way of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement of the 1960s (see the movie Selma); this was the way of William Wilberforce in the abolition of the slave trade (see the movie Amazing Grace); and this was—and is—the way (for the most part) of the pro-life movement (read the story of Mary Wagner, a peaceful protester who has been in prison many years and whose life will, no doubt, inspire many). Also, International Justice Mission (a bunch of lawyers) engages in peaceful legal action via courts to help oppressed people.

Rioting, looting, causing the suffering of innocents by destroying their livelihoods, and the killing of innocents—these taken as a justified response to a wrong is to fall prey to the reasoning that two wrongs make a right, which is a textbook fallacy of logic. It’s also dangerous. If the faulty logic is accepted, then another wrong can be justified to make the latest wrong right, and so on.

At this juncture, it should be noted that George Floyd’s family very apparently agrees that two wrongs don’t make a right. See the article, “George Floyd’s Son Calls for End to Violence, Saying Rioting Won’t ‘Solve Anything’.”

5. Related to the above point, I saw a Facebook post in which the poster justified the recent riots and destruction by claiming that sometimes it’s okay to destroy so we can rebuild.

My thought: Okay, but as long as you only destroy your own house or business—or you don’t mind others destroying them to further their cause. I’m pretty sure the Facebook poster didn’t think about the implications of her view.

This moral doublemindedness is clearly seen in the now-famous hypocrisy of former NBC reporter Chris Martin Palmer. When rioters had put to flame an under-construction affordable housing project in Minneapolis (see photo above), Palmer tweeted, “Burn that s**t down. Burn it all down.” But later, when the rioters were getting close to his home, Palmer tweeted, “They just attacked our sister community down the street. It’s a gated community and they tried to climb the gates. They [police] had to beat them back. Then [the rioters] destroyed a Starbucks and are now in front of my building. Get these animals TF out of my neighborhood. Go back to where you live.”

6. Is it true that more blacks than whites are being killed by white police or are otherwise more likely to be recipients of police violence? Well, yes and no.

Ryan Bomberger in the above-mentioned article (see links in his article for substantiation) writes the following:

The premise [that more blacks than whites are being killed by white police] isn’t true. … According to the FBI’s latest homicide statistics, I’m 11 times more likely to be killed by someone of my own brown complexion than a white person. Also, a comprehensive 2019 study concluded: “White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.” Every loss of life is tragic, but Washington Post’s database on police-involved deaths puts things into further context. In 2020, among those killed were (all males): 2 Native Americans, 9 Asians, 46 Hispanics, 76 blacks, 149 unlabeled individuals and 149 whites (whose deaths don’t get reported by national mainstream media). Only nine black individuals were actually unarmed.

See also: “New Study: White police officers not more likely to shoot Black suspects.”

But it should also be noted that the plot thickens—that is, matters get more complex—if we look at specific geographical areas. It turns out that in Minneapolis things seem significantly different. Consider this June 3, 2020, report from The New York Times: “Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7 Times the Rate of Whites”:

Since 2015, the Minneapolis police have documented using force about 11,500 times. For at least 6,650 acts of force, the subject of that force was black.

By comparison, the police have used force about 2,750 times against white people, who make up about 60 percent of the population.

All of that means that the police in Minneapolis used force against black people at a rate at least seven times that of white people during the past five years.

It seems that a case-by-case/ region-by-region assessment is needed, and thus region-specific adjustments and reforms might also be needed. I recommend further study and appropriate corrections.

7. The fact remains that there are race-related tensions and concerns and injustices. (For other examples, see here and here and here and here.)

Let’s address these tensions and concerns and injustices, even if it requires protests. But let’s also keep in mind that a just peace can best be served through careful truth-seeking coupled with actions in which we show gentleness and respect to those with whom we disagree—and to all others.

And, if our protests end up requiring civil disobedience to change an unjust law, let’s keep in mind these words from Martin Luther King, Jr., from his Letter from Birmingham Jail:

One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly … and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.

A lawful, just society is important for the well-being of all of us. In a just society, we show respect to others when we also treat the laws that govern us with respect—even as we seek to change unjust laws.

I hope the above thoughts about recent race-related protests and riots are helpful. As I mentioned, I don’t have all the answers. No doubt much more thinking needs to occur, much more needs to be said, and much more needs to be done. I pray that we would do our best to walk together in wisdom, truth, and love. May God help us.


For additional thought:

• Denny Burk, Can we weep with those who weep?
• Kurt Mahlburg, The race rhetoric that causes more harm than harmony

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba, Canada.