Today, we live in a world constantly shrinking, brought about by vastly-improving communications and transportation. Persons of language- and nation- backgrounds of which many of the rest of us knew decades ago but vaguely, if at all, are now becoming our near neighbors. Those of us descended from forefathers who also lived on this soil generations ago, are baffled to hear of such languages as Tamil, Aymara, Guarani, Yoruba, Zulu, etc. At the same time, first-generation foreign immigrants to America are equally-baffled, if their nation had no previous historic relation to other nations, and are not inclined to learn the other's language for the sake of getting acquainted in this salad-bowl land called America: The Hispanic will learn Hindi, the Chinese will learn Arabic, and and the Frenchman will learn Malay-Indonesian when pigs fly. Yet every one of these afore-mentioned languages are major in the world scene, being used by well over one hundred million people.
The computer virtually assures to English the number-one position as the world's premier international language. Furthermore, that position is further-guaranteed by the vast number of languages from which English borrows. Nevertheless, this fact does not presage the disappearance of other languages from the face of this earth any time soon, especially those languages which are written, have a long tradition of literature, and whose speakers number in the several or many millions. Therefore, living in a multi-lingual world and knowing only one language is like living in a huge multi-chambered mansion and yet staying only in one room.
Thinking in terms of another language is not just an idle exercise in lexical translation only. It is looking at the world around us through a different prism, a different perspective, from that which we know in terms of our own language. Very often, any given language will have vocabulary items not precisely translatable into other languages, because said vocabulary items refer to experiences more-or-less unique to the society of speakers of the language in question. Sometimes, too, ideas common to all people may be expressed differently from one language to the next, as the society may have a unique perspective on the matter. For example, there are several Asian languages which have two distinct personal pronouns for the first person plural "we": listener included, or listener excluded. In Tamil, the notion of possession is differentiated between whether the possessor is actually the owner of the item possessed, or whether a third party possesses the item, and it is just temporarily in the possessor's keeping. In Hindi, possession is indicated in three ways: is the thing possessed an abstract concept? Is the thing possessed readily transferable from one person to another, or not? In Russian, if you care to announce your success in accomplishing a particular task, you use a separate verb to indicate that you got it accomplished within a time limit, as distinguished from saying you had the physical strength and/or mental acumen to accomplish the task. Especially fascinating is the phenomenon of gematria in Arabic and Hebrew: this is the assignment of numerical values to each letter of their respective alphabets, and is associated with messaging in religious concepts. For example, Hebrew: the gematria of "KHAY"(the word for "life") is 18. We live best when we are closest to God. If we add up the number of festive days commanded by the Torah, we find for the Passover, 7 days; for the Shavuot, one day; for Rosh Hashanah, one day; for Yom Kippur, one day; for the Sukkot, 7 days; and for Shemini Atzeret, 1 day. Total of all holy days=18. They are both life on this earth and a preview of life to come, as we live closest to God on those days.
So, speakers of other languages do not all look at the world the same way. This creates a serious communication gap which may not always be successfully bridged by English alone. Decades ago, there was a standing joke about computer translation of one language to another. Enter into the computer in one language, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". Translation into the other language: "The liquor is great but the meat is atrocious." Can computers be programmed to have the same contextual intuition the human mind has? Maybe. But many jobs requiring such intuition, now occupied by human beings, will not be totally filled by computers any time soon.
At the present time, many universities and colleges are making progress in the quality and quantity of foreign languages they teach. But the preparatory public junior high and high schools are a very different story. This is just at the crucial time when younger people are more capable than older adults to learn a foreign language; and yet, for the 21st century, the foreign language instruction curriculae in most secondary schools is altogether inadequate and unsatisfactory.
All too often, the justifications given for studying foreign languages in educational institutions are negative: some other country is a military/ideological threat to us, or else it is a major economic competitor. An institution truly interested in academic excellence for its own sake should offer study of language for reason of positive scientific, technological and cultural contribution a particular peoples and civilization have made to the world scene. What can we learn, too, by examination of the literature of other languages? What, even, can we learn about the history of peoples, by comparison of historically-related or geographically-proximate languages? For example, the Western Romance languages--French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Catalan--evolved from ancient Latin more-or-less together. But "that other" Romance language--that Eastern one called Romanian--while also definitely of Latin origin, is distinctly different in grammar from the Western languages. What does this tell us about the history of the Roman Empire? And why do two closely-related Western Romance languages--Italian and Spanish--have the same words for "father" and "mother"(i.e. padre and madre), and yet have divergent words for "brother", also a familial kinship word: "fratello" in Italian, but "hermano" in Spanish? And how do the two languages have the same word for "sky"--"cielo"--albeit pronounced slightly differently--and yet their words for "bird"--that animal which flies through the sky--is different between the two languages: "uccello" for Italian, and "pajaro" for Spanish. From whence come these lexical divergences, if both languages are derived from Latin? And why divergence on these vocabulary items and not on others? Investigation into such scholarly questions as these, for what light they can shed on past human history, ought to be the real , positive reasons justifying the study of various languages in public schools, and not the negative reasons relating to politics and economics.
America misses many opportunities for improved relationships with the rest of the world, through its collective non-acquaintance of various foreign languages. Even our own English would be given a great lift of appreciation through the study of foreign languages, when the extent of foreign language contribution to it is seen. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar, and were America to sell its manufactured products abroad in the language of the local folks, they may get more customers, once the prospective customers understand in their language properly, what is the purpose of the item being sold. This, as opposed to the linguistic and cultural embarrassments American corporations have faced abroad in the past, by not packaging their products in terms of correct linguistic jargon of the local populace. To be sure, proper language packaging of American products alone does not guarantee a sale abroad, the item itself might be culturally offensive to other societies. For example, no reference to pigs and alcoholic beverage in Islamic countries, please! Some American TV shows sent to Islamic countries have had to thusly modify their content, in order to be popular there.
In summary, the ability to communicate through knowledge of other languages is crucial to the ability of the American nation to live in good harmony with the rest of the world. Even though English is the linguistic "king of the world", it is still true that the more languages each of us knows, the more access to knowledge and understanding of the perspectives of other peoples in the world we have. It should be added that mere understanding between governments is not sufficient to create a true climate of friendship between nations: the ordinary common people of the various countries, too, must take some degree of responsibility for the creation of good will between the denizens of the various countries through foreign language-learning.
The United States of America is not by far and away the only country failing to acceed to all possibilities in international relations improvement through knowledge of other languages: other nations are also undoubtedly just as guilty, and there is universally a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" in everybody. The author of this article, for example, is not holding his breath for a definitively scholarly book on the history of the United States to be written by a Chinese or a Japanese any time soon, despite the fact that both East Asian peoples in significant numbers have chosen to make America their home. Nevertheless, America and the American people, as the world's last standing global power, would do well to take the initiative to set the example to the rest of the world.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Gender Relationships Question
This will be the shortest of articles in LKM Speaks Out. That is because all that needs to be said on this issue was once succinctly said by the famous late-great Hollywood movie star, John Wayne. The Duke had this to say on gender relations: "Women can do anything they want to----as long as they have supper ready for us men when we come home from work." Amen!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court: Not So Very Supreme
The United States Supreme Court, a supposedly auguste and grim symbol of the nation's highest and best justice, bears the words EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW on its front doorway entrance, to tell all who would look upon this noble mantra that the high court means business, in the business of righting all of society's wrongs of Constitutional significance. There, the casual visitor also sees the magnificent godess of justice, with her blindfold over her eyes, holding a sword in one hand, and a set of balance-scales in the other, to accomplish this task with the utmost of impartial finesse.
There exists a great chasm between image and reality, however. Are highly-educated judges, very humanly fallible despite their impressive backgrounds in legal-eagledom, up to the task for which they were supposedly appointed and confirmed? Are they truly proverbial shadows of God on earth? Former New York governor Al Smith once said, "Let's look at the record." So, let us, the American people, not fear to judge the judges!
To begin with, it costs $3000, just to file a case with the high court. The court justices agree to hear only 1% or fewer of all petitions presented to it, usually only on appeal from a series of lower courts. This represents a financial expense prohibitive to the average American citizen, with odds most likely that the cost of filing a petition to the high court will be for nought. Not many of us have that kind of money to just throw away, and this presents great discouragement to those who may even rightly deserve by constitutional standards to have their cases heard. Justice before the nation's highest bar of justice is only for rich people, and for wealthy institutions, organizations, and for various political entities.
Some justices of the Supreme Court believe it acceptable, even desirable, to sacrifice American sovereignty by traitorously looking to foreign law, as a guide to decide issues of U.S. Constitutional importance. Would that such justices had been among the first brave American patriots who knew what it meant, to take up the gun and fight for this nation's independence from Great Britain in the latter half of the 18th century. The blood of such noble patriots cries out for divine revenge against those on the high court bench, who would betray that for which the same-said courageous souls gave their lives at Cambridge, the Boston Commons, Lexington, Concord, Valley Forge, Yorktown and elsewhere, so that this fledgling young nation might be free of all foreign control.
Other justices of the Supreme Court believe the Constitution should be played with, like a piece of legal Silly-Putty, as they read into that founding document values and concepts not explicitly stated in its text, per se. Perhaps the most infamous example of this legislating from the bench is the pernicious doctrine of "separation of church and state". It is to be granted that our ability today to discern the original intent of the Constitution's authors is very limited. It is also to be granted that the wording of certain provisions of the Constitution may be applied to modern contemporary situations not foreseen at the time by the founding fathers. Indeed, they provided for an amendment process, acknowledging their own inability to foresee the nation's future, and know at the time, what would be most beneficial to future generations of Americans. Nevertheless, the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, to suggest that high court decisions should be made only after a thorough inspection of the Bible, to insure that no Biblical values and concepts should be included therein. The First Amendment mandates that legislatures shall make no law which interferes with religious freedom per se. That is very different, from attempt to kick God completely out of all public consciousness, and out of all public life. Instead, government is mandated to remain neutral towards, not hostile towards, religion, i.e. refraining from using its coercive powers to come between a man and his conscience, between a man and his god. In short, any area of human legal concern not explicitly addressed in the text of the U.S. Constitution is to be left to the legislatures to resolve. Judges are not to legislate from the bench, injecting into their rulings their personally-felt preferences in place of the Constitution's textual requirements. Indeed, even with words explicitly present in the text of the Constitution, judges still say words mean only what they, the judges, say they mean, and at least in this sense, they remain guilty of judicial activism.
Congress is often grievously egregious, in its attempt to destroy the independence of the judiciary, and make it a mere auxilliary adjunct to the legislature. That is, when the U.S. Senate considers a presidential appointment to the high court, it will usually try to coerce the judicial nominee to promise in advance to rule a certain way on certain issues(most notably, abortion), as a corrupt quid-pro-quo of winning the Senator's confirming vote. Such practice in the U.S. Senate should not be tolerated by the American people. Rather, the job of the Senate should be confined to the ascertainment of the nominee's academic excellence in jurisprudence, as well as a record of previous legal service demonstrating unquestionable impartiality.
In summary, the American people are thoroughly justified to feel a complete lack of confidence in their ability to get justice from the highest court in the land. Its historic record reveals decisions which have done more socio-political damage to America, than any bomb-throwing college campus terrorists. Perhaps it is best, that we leave the slogan, "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our money, as we certainly cannot trust men for anything even vaguely approaching His absolute divine justice.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
There exists a great chasm between image and reality, however. Are highly-educated judges, very humanly fallible despite their impressive backgrounds in legal-eagledom, up to the task for which they were supposedly appointed and confirmed? Are they truly proverbial shadows of God on earth? Former New York governor Al Smith once said, "Let's look at the record." So, let us, the American people, not fear to judge the judges!
To begin with, it costs $3000, just to file a case with the high court. The court justices agree to hear only 1% or fewer of all petitions presented to it, usually only on appeal from a series of lower courts. This represents a financial expense prohibitive to the average American citizen, with odds most likely that the cost of filing a petition to the high court will be for nought. Not many of us have that kind of money to just throw away, and this presents great discouragement to those who may even rightly deserve by constitutional standards to have their cases heard. Justice before the nation's highest bar of justice is only for rich people, and for wealthy institutions, organizations, and for various political entities.
Some justices of the Supreme Court believe it acceptable, even desirable, to sacrifice American sovereignty by traitorously looking to foreign law, as a guide to decide issues of U.S. Constitutional importance. Would that such justices had been among the first brave American patriots who knew what it meant, to take up the gun and fight for this nation's independence from Great Britain in the latter half of the 18th century. The blood of such noble patriots cries out for divine revenge against those on the high court bench, who would betray that for which the same-said courageous souls gave their lives at Cambridge, the Boston Commons, Lexington, Concord, Valley Forge, Yorktown and elsewhere, so that this fledgling young nation might be free of all foreign control.
Other justices of the Supreme Court believe the Constitution should be played with, like a piece of legal Silly-Putty, as they read into that founding document values and concepts not explicitly stated in its text, per se. Perhaps the most infamous example of this legislating from the bench is the pernicious doctrine of "separation of church and state". It is to be granted that our ability today to discern the original intent of the Constitution's authors is very limited. It is also to be granted that the wording of certain provisions of the Constitution may be applied to modern contemporary situations not foreseen at the time by the founding fathers. Indeed, they provided for an amendment process, acknowledging their own inability to foresee the nation's future, and know at the time, what would be most beneficial to future generations of Americans. Nevertheless, the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, to suggest that high court decisions should be made only after a thorough inspection of the Bible, to insure that no Biblical values and concepts should be included therein. The First Amendment mandates that legislatures shall make no law which interferes with religious freedom per se. That is very different, from attempt to kick God completely out of all public consciousness, and out of all public life. Instead, government is mandated to remain neutral towards, not hostile towards, religion, i.e. refraining from using its coercive powers to come between a man and his conscience, between a man and his god. In short, any area of human legal concern not explicitly addressed in the text of the U.S. Constitution is to be left to the legislatures to resolve. Judges are not to legislate from the bench, injecting into their rulings their personally-felt preferences in place of the Constitution's textual requirements. Indeed, even with words explicitly present in the text of the Constitution, judges still say words mean only what they, the judges, say they mean, and at least in this sense, they remain guilty of judicial activism.
Congress is often grievously egregious, in its attempt to destroy the independence of the judiciary, and make it a mere auxilliary adjunct to the legislature. That is, when the U.S. Senate considers a presidential appointment to the high court, it will usually try to coerce the judicial nominee to promise in advance to rule a certain way on certain issues(most notably, abortion), as a corrupt quid-pro-quo of winning the Senator's confirming vote. Such practice in the U.S. Senate should not be tolerated by the American people. Rather, the job of the Senate should be confined to the ascertainment of the nominee's academic excellence in jurisprudence, as well as a record of previous legal service demonstrating unquestionable impartiality.
In summary, the American people are thoroughly justified to feel a complete lack of confidence in their ability to get justice from the highest court in the land. Its historic record reveals decisions which have done more socio-political damage to America, than any bomb-throwing college campus terrorists. Perhaps it is best, that we leave the slogan, "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our money, as we certainly cannot trust men for anything even vaguely approaching His absolute divine justice.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Monday, July 13, 2009
Ethnic Minority America Cuts Its Own Political Throat
It is no secret, that most Hispanics and black African Americans vote knee-jerk for liberal Democrats, in hopes of being able to secure their own civil rights and prosperity. They make a faulty presumption that ever bigger government will give them more personal freedom. NOT SO!
Former President Ronald Reagan once said that government has a tendency not to solve problems, but merely to re-arrange them. This is true of slavery. It was supposedly abolished with the passage of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, when in fact, slavery was not abolished, but merely re-arranged. In 1900, "tax freedom day"--the day when Americans stop working to earn money to pay their taxes in support of their governments and start working to keep the fruits of their labor for themselves--came at the end of January. Today, it does not come for most Americans until the end of April, and "tax freedom day" threatens to be pushed back ever later into the year, as government grows and becomes ever-more expensive. Americans of all races and colors are thus to an increasing extent denied the right to keep the fruits of their own labors for themselves, and use them according to their own wishes. It is indeed a basic civil right, for people to be able to dispose of the fruits of their own labors as THEY see fit, rather than as government sees fit.
Ethnic minority persons very rightly clamor for and demand their God-given rights, they are altogether justified to do this. However, their approach towards this goal is all wrong. By voting for liberal politicians--mostly Democrats, but RINOs too--they are voting for the continuation of one of America's most sinful and egregious practices: ABORTION.
It is known, that most Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are set up in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. It is also known, that proportionately, more black and Hispanic babies are aborted, than are white babies. Planned Parenthood was started originally by Margaret Sanger, a woman who was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and his race theories. The original purpose behind abortion had nothing to do with women's rights; rather, Margaret Sanger had in mind the limitation of reproduction of races of people deemed "not fit to live", because they were allegedly diseased and/or defective one way or another. Today, under the pretense of supporting women's rights, the liberal Democrats--and RINOs too--support this shameful practice of abortion, even to the extent of compelling the tax payer to support it with tax money, even if for reason of religious belief the tax payer opposes abortion.
Again, black and Hispanic America is absolutely right to see their rights as God-given, not man-given, and thus not negotiable with any men anywhere. But if we do not have, first and foremost, the right to life, we can just forget about all the other rights ethnic minority persons might otherwise enjoy. Ethnic minority America makes a most grave mistake, to fail to realize this truth, and continue to perennially put into office with their votes those politicians who are pro-abortion. There is no doubt about it, abortion devalues and depriviledges all human life. With human life thus cheapened, there is no way those races of people most heavily victimized by abortion can possibly feel themselves to be worth anything.
The institution of marriage is also under severe attack from Democrats and RINOs, as quick-easy divorce laws enacted by them encourage the dissolution of marriage for light and transient causes. What is badly needed for ethnic minority America is re-commitment to strong family values, beginning with a solid and uncompromising commitment to the institution of marriage. Much of the source of ethnic minority social troubles can be summed up in three words: DAD NOT HOME. Ethnic minority America definitely votes to cut its own political throat, by voting for liberal politicians who sneer at traditional Bible-based marriage and other associated family values.
It is time for black America to come off the liberal Democrat plantation. Agreement to the proposition that government knows best, rather than I know best, what is best for me, is merely a warmed-over version of the "yassuh, massuh" response of the black slave to his white master prior to the Civil War. By voting for "liberal" politicians, black and Hispanic America is cutting its own collective political throat. It is a universal truism that as government power waxes, human freedom wanes. The sooner ethnic minority America awakens to this reality and starts voting at the polls accordingly, the better.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Former President Ronald Reagan once said that government has a tendency not to solve problems, but merely to re-arrange them. This is true of slavery. It was supposedly abolished with the passage of the 13th amendment to the Constitution, when in fact, slavery was not abolished, but merely re-arranged. In 1900, "tax freedom day"--the day when Americans stop working to earn money to pay their taxes in support of their governments and start working to keep the fruits of their labor for themselves--came at the end of January. Today, it does not come for most Americans until the end of April, and "tax freedom day" threatens to be pushed back ever later into the year, as government grows and becomes ever-more expensive. Americans of all races and colors are thus to an increasing extent denied the right to keep the fruits of their own labors for themselves, and use them according to their own wishes. It is indeed a basic civil right, for people to be able to dispose of the fruits of their own labors as THEY see fit, rather than as government sees fit.
Ethnic minority persons very rightly clamor for and demand their God-given rights, they are altogether justified to do this. However, their approach towards this goal is all wrong. By voting for liberal politicians--mostly Democrats, but RINOs too--they are voting for the continuation of one of America's most sinful and egregious practices: ABORTION.
It is known, that most Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are set up in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. It is also known, that proportionately, more black and Hispanic babies are aborted, than are white babies. Planned Parenthood was started originally by Margaret Sanger, a woman who was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and his race theories. The original purpose behind abortion had nothing to do with women's rights; rather, Margaret Sanger had in mind the limitation of reproduction of races of people deemed "not fit to live", because they were allegedly diseased and/or defective one way or another. Today, under the pretense of supporting women's rights, the liberal Democrats--and RINOs too--support this shameful practice of abortion, even to the extent of compelling the tax payer to support it with tax money, even if for reason of religious belief the tax payer opposes abortion.
Again, black and Hispanic America is absolutely right to see their rights as God-given, not man-given, and thus not negotiable with any men anywhere. But if we do not have, first and foremost, the right to life, we can just forget about all the other rights ethnic minority persons might otherwise enjoy. Ethnic minority America makes a most grave mistake, to fail to realize this truth, and continue to perennially put into office with their votes those politicians who are pro-abortion. There is no doubt about it, abortion devalues and depriviledges all human life. With human life thus cheapened, there is no way those races of people most heavily victimized by abortion can possibly feel themselves to be worth anything.
The institution of marriage is also under severe attack from Democrats and RINOs, as quick-easy divorce laws enacted by them encourage the dissolution of marriage for light and transient causes. What is badly needed for ethnic minority America is re-commitment to strong family values, beginning with a solid and uncompromising commitment to the institution of marriage. Much of the source of ethnic minority social troubles can be summed up in three words: DAD NOT HOME. Ethnic minority America definitely votes to cut its own political throat, by voting for liberal politicians who sneer at traditional Bible-based marriage and other associated family values.
It is time for black America to come off the liberal Democrat plantation. Agreement to the proposition that government knows best, rather than I know best, what is best for me, is merely a warmed-over version of the "yassuh, massuh" response of the black slave to his white master prior to the Civil War. By voting for "liberal" politicians, black and Hispanic America is cutting its own collective political throat. It is a universal truism that as government power waxes, human freedom wanes. The sooner ethnic minority America awakens to this reality and starts voting at the polls accordingly, the better.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Prejudice and Stereotyping Are Normal
On first glance, this essay title would be outrageously immoral and inexcusable to most people. Yet, a closer, dispassionate examination of facts in this matter would verify the truth of the title's assertion.
Firstly, a distinction should be made between "normal" and "just". Most people would agree that for the most part, we live in an unjust world, where lack of fairness is the unfortunate norm. Every disparity between people always comes across as unfair, to those on the "short end of the stick".
It is human, to attempt to interpret and discern all that which we see and hear around us, and attempt to make sense of it in terms of our own expereiences. But when it comes to judging members of a particular group of people--be the grouping based upon race, gender, religion, age or national origin--we make our assessments of other people based upon very limited knowledge and experience with that other group of people. More often than not, this is because the entire group of said people is composed of several millions of people, with all of whom we cannot possibly be closely familiar. We therefore draw our conclusions about entire groupings of people, based upon the few with whom we have had some kind of experience, PLUS what we read and hear of them through the national news media. It is to be admitted that the news media is a very powerful opinion-shaper.
Every individual person likes to show his best side to the rest of the world, in order to win its approval. This author remembers, as a boy, frequently going to a men's clothing store, in the which he always bought his clothes. In that clothing store was a three-way panel mirror, which afforded those who stood before it an opportunity to see themselves from six different sides and angles. It is not every day that each of us gets to see himself/herself from the same sides and angles from which others see us. Therefore, in some cases, it may take us by shock surprise, to understand that somebody else sees us as being something somehow less than noble, when all along, we ourselves wanted to project a glorifying and even deifying image of ourselves.
This author also remembers, long years ago, reading about the training of FBI agents at their Quantico, Virginia training base. An instructor would be lecturing to a class of prospective agents, when suddenly, a completely strange man would frantically crash into the classroom, look wildly around the room, grab an object in the room, and make a quick dash to the exit. All this would take place within a ten-second time frame. The instructor would know in advance that this incident was scheduled to happen, but he did not tell the class about it in advance. Afterwards, each student is asked to describe to the best of his ability, the man he saw, and what he saw him to do during his brief presence in the classroom. Very often, there would be considerable disparity, between what the students saw, and what they THOUGHT they saw.
Likewise, when each of us sizes up another person for the first time, there is usually a considerable gap, between what we see, and what we THINK we see.
We can all observe the outward actions and behaviours of other people; but more often than not, their motives for said actions and behaviours is anybody's guess.
Yes, prejudice and stereotyping are normal, based on a primitive human need to make sense out of the world around us. There is nobody who feels no such need and so does not act accordingly. Otherwise, people would not feel prepared at all, to respond to and deal with the world in which they live. Yet, it is to be admitted always, that our information upon which we act is both flawed and incomplete. It is all like the story of five blind men, who touched five different parts of an elephant's body, and came to five different conclusions, as to what it is that they are touching.
One dark night, when the moon was bright, two dead boys got up to fight. Back-to-back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the noise, came and killed the two dead boys. If you don't believe this story is true, ask the blind man--he saw it, too!
-LKM
Firstly, a distinction should be made between "normal" and "just". Most people would agree that for the most part, we live in an unjust world, where lack of fairness is the unfortunate norm. Every disparity between people always comes across as unfair, to those on the "short end of the stick".
It is human, to attempt to interpret and discern all that which we see and hear around us, and attempt to make sense of it in terms of our own expereiences. But when it comes to judging members of a particular group of people--be the grouping based upon race, gender, religion, age or national origin--we make our assessments of other people based upon very limited knowledge and experience with that other group of people. More often than not, this is because the entire group of said people is composed of several millions of people, with all of whom we cannot possibly be closely familiar. We therefore draw our conclusions about entire groupings of people, based upon the few with whom we have had some kind of experience, PLUS what we read and hear of them through the national news media. It is to be admitted that the news media is a very powerful opinion-shaper.
Every individual person likes to show his best side to the rest of the world, in order to win its approval. This author remembers, as a boy, frequently going to a men's clothing store, in the which he always bought his clothes. In that clothing store was a three-way panel mirror, which afforded those who stood before it an opportunity to see themselves from six different sides and angles. It is not every day that each of us gets to see himself/herself from the same sides and angles from which others see us. Therefore, in some cases, it may take us by shock surprise, to understand that somebody else sees us as being something somehow less than noble, when all along, we ourselves wanted to project a glorifying and even deifying image of ourselves.
This author also remembers, long years ago, reading about the training of FBI agents at their Quantico, Virginia training base. An instructor would be lecturing to a class of prospective agents, when suddenly, a completely strange man would frantically crash into the classroom, look wildly around the room, grab an object in the room, and make a quick dash to the exit. All this would take place within a ten-second time frame. The instructor would know in advance that this incident was scheduled to happen, but he did not tell the class about it in advance. Afterwards, each student is asked to describe to the best of his ability, the man he saw, and what he saw him to do during his brief presence in the classroom. Very often, there would be considerable disparity, between what the students saw, and what they THOUGHT they saw.
Likewise, when each of us sizes up another person for the first time, there is usually a considerable gap, between what we see, and what we THINK we see.
We can all observe the outward actions and behaviours of other people; but more often than not, their motives for said actions and behaviours is anybody's guess.
Yes, prejudice and stereotyping are normal, based on a primitive human need to make sense out of the world around us. There is nobody who feels no such need and so does not act accordingly. Otherwise, people would not feel prepared at all, to respond to and deal with the world in which they live. Yet, it is to be admitted always, that our information upon which we act is both flawed and incomplete. It is all like the story of five blind men, who touched five different parts of an elephant's body, and came to five different conclusions, as to what it is that they are touching.
One dark night, when the moon was bright, two dead boys got up to fight. Back-to-back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. The deaf policeman heard the noise, came and killed the two dead boys. If you don't believe this story is true, ask the blind man--he saw it, too!
-LKM
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
LKM On The National Immigration Issue
There can be no doubt that immigration from various countries of the world has enriched the cultural fabric of the United States of America. Some people say the racial and cultural diversity associated with immigration makes socio-political conflict inevitable, but the history of both America and other nations proves that war and conflict did occur even when their racial composition was more-or-less homogenous. In the American Civil War, for example, men of more-or-less similar racial background from both North and South engaged each other in horrific mortal conflict. It was after that dark chapter in American history came to an end, that immigration to the United States from foreign countries began in earnest.
Associated with the immigration issue is the problem of cultural assimilation, i.e. assimilation on whose terms? What shall be the cultural, spiritual and moral values of the emerging immigrant society? There is often conflict in this arena between those whose ancestral families have also lived in America for several generations, and newly-arrived foreign immigrants. It is to be admitted that the former group has a sense of ownership of the land not possessed by the latter, simply because men's historic roots are meaningful to them. Furthermore, people coming to America from foreign countries still retain in their hearts at least a latent loyalty to their former homeland, of which the native-born American is completely incapable. Many immigrants seek not a completely new life in America, but rather, a replication of their Old World habits and customs in a new physical land. With the presence of a multiplicity of nations in America, the national challenge will be to come to a common concensus of values, with which everyone can comfortably live.
The problem of illegal immigration is especially difficult. America was founded on the proposition of equal justice under law, a blind and impartial law, not recognizing distinctions of such considerations as race, sex, religion, national origin, or other non-merit factors. Amnesty for illegal immigrants threatens to destroy this notion and turn us back to an arbitrary government of men, rather than one controlled by the rule of impartial law. Most foreigners come to America from countries whose social and political institutions do not understand this concept, so it will be a major task, to persuade the new immigrants of the notion of constitutionalism, i.e. explicitly ordered government with precisely-enumerated powers and authorities.
Granting that America's core populace, i.e. those descended from the Pilgrims and the Puritans, is not completely without sins and vices of its own, the fact of increased crime and the cost it brings to America, from certain immigrant nationalities, cannot be denied or ignored in the name of political correctness. A visit to our nation's prisons would convince the most casual and impartial of observers that some ethnic groups of people are more inclined towards criminal and other anti-social behaviour than are other ethnic groups. Members of certain racial and nationality groups frequently populate American jails, while members of certain other racial and nationality groups almost never do. A serious study of this disparity and its causes is long overdue. All immigrant groups which came to America after the core populace settled here, initially came to America economically poor, linguistically challenged, culturally disadvantaged and often victimized in their new land by racial discrimination from earlier nationality groups of immigrants. Still today, there is considerable disparity of outcome between the different immigrant groups, after a century and half of being here, in terms of being societal successes or failures.
The 1970s and 1980s world of TV featured a very popular program called All In The Family, depicting the life of a socially-dysfunctional and all-too-typical lower middle-class "red-neck" American family. It very strongly resonated with millions of Americans, while deeply offending millions more. In both cases, the reason for strong emotional reaction is identical: IT HIT HOME WITH VIEWERS! Many more people are deeply offended and hurt by truth, than they are by lies. But a casual observation of various peoples all over the world will reveal a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" personality in everyone. Reconcilliation of nationality and race differences in America will thus be a major task, to which all Americans must be committed. Cultural sensitivity and appreciation must be a two-way street, not just a one-way street only.
Can a new-comer to America from a foreign land ever be "one of us"? This is certainly possible, but it would entail full understanding of who "us" is, and of the full range of sacrifices and modifications necessary for the foreign immigrant to reach that goal.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Associated with the immigration issue is the problem of cultural assimilation, i.e. assimilation on whose terms? What shall be the cultural, spiritual and moral values of the emerging immigrant society? There is often conflict in this arena between those whose ancestral families have also lived in America for several generations, and newly-arrived foreign immigrants. It is to be admitted that the former group has a sense of ownership of the land not possessed by the latter, simply because men's historic roots are meaningful to them. Furthermore, people coming to America from foreign countries still retain in their hearts at least a latent loyalty to their former homeland, of which the native-born American is completely incapable. Many immigrants seek not a completely new life in America, but rather, a replication of their Old World habits and customs in a new physical land. With the presence of a multiplicity of nations in America, the national challenge will be to come to a common concensus of values, with which everyone can comfortably live.
The problem of illegal immigration is especially difficult. America was founded on the proposition of equal justice under law, a blind and impartial law, not recognizing distinctions of such considerations as race, sex, religion, national origin, or other non-merit factors. Amnesty for illegal immigrants threatens to destroy this notion and turn us back to an arbitrary government of men, rather than one controlled by the rule of impartial law. Most foreigners come to America from countries whose social and political institutions do not understand this concept, so it will be a major task, to persuade the new immigrants of the notion of constitutionalism, i.e. explicitly ordered government with precisely-enumerated powers and authorities.
Granting that America's core populace, i.e. those descended from the Pilgrims and the Puritans, is not completely without sins and vices of its own, the fact of increased crime and the cost it brings to America, from certain immigrant nationalities, cannot be denied or ignored in the name of political correctness. A visit to our nation's prisons would convince the most casual and impartial of observers that some ethnic groups of people are more inclined towards criminal and other anti-social behaviour than are other ethnic groups. Members of certain racial and nationality groups frequently populate American jails, while members of certain other racial and nationality groups almost never do. A serious study of this disparity and its causes is long overdue. All immigrant groups which came to America after the core populace settled here, initially came to America economically poor, linguistically challenged, culturally disadvantaged and often victimized in their new land by racial discrimination from earlier nationality groups of immigrants. Still today, there is considerable disparity of outcome between the different immigrant groups, after a century and half of being here, in terms of being societal successes or failures.
The 1970s and 1980s world of TV featured a very popular program called All In The Family, depicting the life of a socially-dysfunctional and all-too-typical lower middle-class "red-neck" American family. It very strongly resonated with millions of Americans, while deeply offending millions more. In both cases, the reason for strong emotional reaction is identical: IT HIT HOME WITH VIEWERS! Many more people are deeply offended and hurt by truth, than they are by lies. But a casual observation of various peoples all over the world will reveal a certain amount of "Archie Bunker" personality in everyone. Reconcilliation of nationality and race differences in America will thus be a major task, to which all Americans must be committed. Cultural sensitivity and appreciation must be a two-way street, not just a one-way street only.
Can a new-comer to America from a foreign land ever be "one of us"? This is certainly possible, but it would entail full understanding of who "us" is, and of the full range of sacrifices and modifications necessary for the foreign immigrant to reach that goal.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Monday, June 29, 2009
Those "With Intent To Commit...." Laws
Should the state be granted a presumptive power to read people's minds, in order to discern the intentions of their actions? Or should criminal suspects, upon conviction, be penalized for their outward actions only?
There is always a tendency for government powers to grow, at the expense of individual liberty. Often, a previous power exercised by government will serve as a pretext to arrogate unto itself further logical extensions of that previous power. Should society exchange its liberty for its security, by condoning government pre-emptive and pro-active prior restraint of criminal behaviour, based on presumption of government to read people's minds, and act on their mere thoughts in advance?
All freedom is inherently risky business: so long as other people are free, each of us feels insecure, as to what those other people might do to us. America was not established by cowards, and its very national anthem contains the words "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to describe it. Certainly, if our neighbor points a loaded gun at us, we wish the government would exercise prior retraint upon him, to stop him from shooting us. But should the government prohibit all gun ownership, absenting any proof of intent by would-be gun owners to use the guns for clearly-illegal purposes, simply because they "might do so" otherwise? Some people say "yes", while others say "no".
Our system of law and government is based upon a presumption of innocence until guilt is clearly proven. Under such a system, the burden of proving criminal intent(mind-reading) is always upon the claimant; in most cases, the government. In absence of hard physical evidence, the thoughts of the human mind are at least difficult, if not impossible, for other men to accurately discern. Herein lies the controversy behind the passage of "hate crimes" laws.
To the extent we permit the government to arrest and penalize people just for the thoughts of their minds, to that same extent we will give up freedom. This is a system of government which bases itself upon fear, rather than upon trust. On the other hand, American law does recognize, for example, differing degrees of murder, based upon perception of the degree of intent on the part of the accused to actually take other human lives. Should this notion continue in the law, or should it be scrapped? Surely, in all cases, people are fully accountable for actions which contributed towards or led up to, the taking of other human lives. This would argue in favor of abandoning all consideration of intent in murder cases, and punishing equally for all murder, regardless of the state of mind, or even the external context, in which the murder occurs. Still, we cannot forget the horrors of a Nazi Germany or a Communist-Stalinist Russia, wherein citizens were arrested, tried and executed for allegedly "thinking thoughts against the state".
Every power afforded to government is a two-edged sword which can be used either to our benefit or to our detriment. Suppose we consider a portrait of a naked human person, should the intent context in which the portrait was created make a difference in the eyes of the law, as to whether or not the creator of the portrait is penalized? Should the law consider, whether the portrait showed up in Larry Flynt's "Hustler" magazine, as opposed to being displayed in a respectable public art gallery, and the painting is that of a famous Classical artist, who says he wishes to show man as God sees man? If we consider intent in such matters, we may risk coming to a point of saying the end justifies the means, in all matters of human behaviour. It is OK to break the law, if one is of honorable intention in doing so, we would then be saying. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court defined pornography as an appeal to prurient interests, "without any redeeming qualities". The problem of who defines redemption, and by what criteria, still remains.
So long as the American people wish to maintain a free society, it would be best to disregard motive, in the issue of separating legal from illegal behaviour. A society based upon the empowerment of government to read people's minds and hearts when deciding their fate at its hands is altogether terrifyingly inimical to the concept of freedom itself.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
There is always a tendency for government powers to grow, at the expense of individual liberty. Often, a previous power exercised by government will serve as a pretext to arrogate unto itself further logical extensions of that previous power. Should society exchange its liberty for its security, by condoning government pre-emptive and pro-active prior restraint of criminal behaviour, based on presumption of government to read people's minds, and act on their mere thoughts in advance?
All freedom is inherently risky business: so long as other people are free, each of us feels insecure, as to what those other people might do to us. America was not established by cowards, and its very national anthem contains the words "the land of the free and the home of the brave" to describe it. Certainly, if our neighbor points a loaded gun at us, we wish the government would exercise prior retraint upon him, to stop him from shooting us. But should the government prohibit all gun ownership, absenting any proof of intent by would-be gun owners to use the guns for clearly-illegal purposes, simply because they "might do so" otherwise? Some people say "yes", while others say "no".
Our system of law and government is based upon a presumption of innocence until guilt is clearly proven. Under such a system, the burden of proving criminal intent(mind-reading) is always upon the claimant; in most cases, the government. In absence of hard physical evidence, the thoughts of the human mind are at least difficult, if not impossible, for other men to accurately discern. Herein lies the controversy behind the passage of "hate crimes" laws.
To the extent we permit the government to arrest and penalize people just for the thoughts of their minds, to that same extent we will give up freedom. This is a system of government which bases itself upon fear, rather than upon trust. On the other hand, American law does recognize, for example, differing degrees of murder, based upon perception of the degree of intent on the part of the accused to actually take other human lives. Should this notion continue in the law, or should it be scrapped? Surely, in all cases, people are fully accountable for actions which contributed towards or led up to, the taking of other human lives. This would argue in favor of abandoning all consideration of intent in murder cases, and punishing equally for all murder, regardless of the state of mind, or even the external context, in which the murder occurs. Still, we cannot forget the horrors of a Nazi Germany or a Communist-Stalinist Russia, wherein citizens were arrested, tried and executed for allegedly "thinking thoughts against the state".
Every power afforded to government is a two-edged sword which can be used either to our benefit or to our detriment. Suppose we consider a portrait of a naked human person, should the intent context in which the portrait was created make a difference in the eyes of the law, as to whether or not the creator of the portrait is penalized? Should the law consider, whether the portrait showed up in Larry Flynt's "Hustler" magazine, as opposed to being displayed in a respectable public art gallery, and the painting is that of a famous Classical artist, who says he wishes to show man as God sees man? If we consider intent in such matters, we may risk coming to a point of saying the end justifies the means, in all matters of human behaviour. It is OK to break the law, if one is of honorable intention in doing so, we would then be saying. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court defined pornography as an appeal to prurient interests, "without any redeeming qualities". The problem of who defines redemption, and by what criteria, still remains.
So long as the American people wish to maintain a free society, it would be best to disregard motive, in the issue of separating legal from illegal behaviour. A society based upon the empowerment of government to read people's minds and hearts when deciding their fate at its hands is altogether terrifyingly inimical to the concept of freedom itself.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
