home
about
archives
|
US VS. THEM
09/28/2009
"Once every hundred years Jesus of Nazareth meets Jesus of the Christians in a garden among the hills of Lebanon.
And they talk long; and each time Jesus of Nazareth goes away saying to Jesus of the Christians, "My friend, I fear we shall never, never agree"….....Khalil Gibran
******************************************************************
The history of the entire human race could be written as a series of exercises in "us vs. them."
As I wrote previously on this site, humans have a natural tendency towards tribalism, towards being more comfortable with those of their family or tribe, their race, religion and nationality than they do with strangers. However, tribalism left unchallenged always leads to problems.
In the early days of humanity, when people lived together in actual tribes of between 20 and 40 people, the minute a member of another tribe appeared, there was an uptick in fear and a potential for violence. A stranger appearing on the scene threatened to disrupt the orderly nature of ritual and tradition in the tribe and gave rise to fears of extinction. One stranger could be the scout for another tribe, a rival for land and raw materials needed for existence.
Over time, as tribes grew, some members set off and founded new tribes, related to the mother tribe, and those tribes learned to cooperate with each other. Religions were developed that added another dimension to the tribes. Eventually, tribes banded together and became nations. The religions and the nations, however, created new forms of separation.
In other words, the early history of man was one of separation and tribalism, but also of an attempted cooperation between tribes that overcame some of the fear and paranoia that individuals had towards those that were different from them.
The history of man has consistently followed this developmental pattern. There is a tension between tribalism and cooperation, between unity and division, between fear of those who are different and a desire to understand and cooperate with them. The "us vs. them" divisions continue to this day, as do the attempts to diminish their influence and the damage they can do.
The United States was founded as an experiment in overcoming "us vs. them," yet even in its founding it created a category of "us vs. them" that we have not overcome. By allowing white citizens to own African slaves, and to consider them not fully human, the founders of this country ensured that the new nation would not overcome tribalism, and in fact would perpetuate it on the basis of race. But even broader than that, when the founders wrote the words "we the people" they did not mean all of the people. They meant white, male property owners. Only over time have we overcome some of these restrictions on who constitutes "the people."
But "us vs. them" is still with us in this country and in fact, seems to be getting stronger. "Us vs. them" is everywhere: in religion, in moral values, in political parties, in attitudes towards sexual orientation, race, immigrants and foreign countries.
The "us vs. them" mentality was seen in full flower a week ago at the "Values Voters Summit" in Washington, where speaker after speaker highlighted this mentality. The conference could be summed up in the motto: "We're better than you in every way and we intend to either make you one of us or destroy your voice as one of them."
The attendees and speakers at the Values Voters Summit" were mostly white, evangelical Christian Republicans who hate homosexuality and illegal immigration, and who condemn atheists, non-Christians, Democrats, the current president, and many foreign countries, and who believe they are the most moral people on the planet, destined to lead the United States back to the moral values they wish to enshrine in the laws of the nation.
A partial list of the break-out sessions at the summit had these titles:
The threat of illegal immigration
Obamacare: rationing your life away
Global warming hysteria: the pro-death agenda
Silencing the Christians
Thugocracy: fighting the vast lift wing conspiracy
Each of these titles implies an "us vs. them" mentality. If you read the descriptions of the sessions you get the following clear messages. Illegal immigrants are the enemy. Obama will destroy your health and life and is your enemy. Those who want to stop global warming are lying and want to kill your babies. Climate change is a lie based on an "unbiblical view of God." Those who are atheists, agnostics, Muslims, "secularists," or even traditional Christians want to persecute other types of Christians. Feminists (i.e. women who believe in gender equality) hate marriage, children and men, because they do not subscribe to a certain biblical view of women's place.
Today's Republican Party has been captured by those with an "us vs. them" mentality. The very fact that powerful leaders in the party call themselves "values voters" or say they stand for "family values" implies (and frequently says outright) that their political opponents, and many of their fellow American citizens, do not, which is of course absurd. They want us to believe they are the only ones who espouse moral values. Therefore, any opposition they have to others (like Democrats, Obama, progressives, liberals, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, homosexuals, feminists, scientists who are committed to stopping global warming, etc.) must be framed in terms of moral vs. immoral, godly vs. satanic, good vs. evil.
It is dangerous in a diverse and multi-cultured democracy, where all voices are free to speak, to try to silence some citizens, to work to deprive them of rights, to paint law abiding, fully contributing members of society as traitors or heathens, and to believe your people are the only people deserving of a say in governance.
When Michelle Malkin screams about school children singing a song about the president many months ago, (even though the children also sang songs about Lincoln, Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr., among others) she labels it a "creepy cult message," implying some sort of tribal worship of Obama ("cult"). She sees this not as an exercise in learning about the president and our form of government, but as a sort of brainwashing of children. Parents who kept their kids home from school when the president spoke to school children, or schools that succumbed to the propaganda that Obama was trying to sell his liberal agenda to them, also gave in to sentiments of "us vs. them."
Every day Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs promote an "us vs. them" mentality. Dobbs, who is married to a Latina, a daughter of Mexican immigrants, is particularly loathsome in his rants against Mexican undocumented workers. These people, and bloggers like Malkin, actively search for ways to divide Americans from each other. That is what constitutes their programs, and that is what energizes their viewers, readers and listeners. It is shameful, but it is more than that. It is incredibly dangerous.
Bill O'Reilly of FOX ranted for weeks about an abortion doctor until one of his listeners killed the man in church. Representative Michelle Bachmann rants about census workers coming to find you so that Obama can put you in a concentration camp, and a census worker in Kentucky, a mild mannered single father, recent recipient of a teaching credential, and survivor of cancer, is found naked and hanging from a tree with the word "fed" written on his chest, his census badge taped to his neck.
Obviously, the worse outcome of an "us vs. them" mentality is war. War has never been entered into without the cultivation of an "us vs. them" mindset in the people. Hitler did it prior to WW II. He convinced his people that they were the superior race, entitled to take land from their neighbors, entitled to retribution for what had been done to them after WW I. Further, he convinced them that the Jews and homosexuals were responsible and that they therefore deserved to be put in concentration camps.
During WW II, it should be remembered, we rounded up people as well and put them in camps. No, there were no ovens and no one was killed, but hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans were separated from their homes and families, lost their jobs and farms, and were never the same afterwards. We did this because we were at war with Japan and succumbed to the "us vs. them" mindset that told us all Japanese were the same, members of a tribe that was not us. We fought many small wars with Native Americans as well, first taking their lands from them, and then killing them when they fought back. We called them savages, never seeing the savagery in our own actions. As recently as my own childhood (which truth be told isn't really that recent) at the advent of television, the most popular shows on the tube were the genre called "Cowboys and Indians." The Cowboys, all white of course, were the good guys, and the Indians were all bad guys (except for Tonto, the Lone Ranger's sidekick, who spoke in broken English and wore Indian clothing, obviously still giving us the message that he was one of them).
More recent memory gives us a stark example of how "us vs. them" leads to violence and war. When we were attacked on 9/11, it was because a group of fanatical Muslims in Afghanistan saw the United States as "them," the infidel, the "Great Satan," and thought it perfectly acceptable to kill American citizens. In response, we as a nation went to war against the entire nation of Afghanistan, and then the nation of Iraq, but not before the Bush administration created a case for "us vs. them" in Iraq. That case turned out to be exaggerated, if not deliberately dishonest, but the American people and a majority of their representatives in Congress accepted the case. Saddam Hussein was a terrible, evil monster, had ties to 9/11, supported terrorism, and therefore we needed to go to war against his people ("towel-heads many began calling them). Sure, Bush tried to separate the people from the dictator, saying we needed to liberate them, (thus the propaganda name of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"), but the reality is that most people in this country didn't much care if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were bombed to tiny little pieces of flesh and bone, because we really saw all Arabs and all Muslims as the enemy – as "them."
Guess who didn't buy into "us vs. them." Guess who didn't support the war. Yup. Barack Obama. Obama is still trying to work with Republicans in Congress, even as they have openly and unjustly declared him their enemy, many of them still refusing to believe he was born in this country, some of them willing to treat him as an uppity black man and call him a liar.
Obama doesn't give in to an "us vs. them" mentality. He didn't give in when the news media went crazy over Jeremiah Wright, trying to show that Obama was not one of "us" but a member of a church that preached black supremacy. Though he ultimately condemned Wright's speech, he never condemned the preacher, and used the opportunity to teach lessons about overcoming our racial problems, our "us vs. them" legacy from the days of slavery, and the imperfect compromise made by our founding fathers.
He didn't succumb to "us vs. them" when Hillary Clinton tried to make him the enemy in the primary, nor when Sarah Palin and John McCain used the tactic against him in the general election, accusing him of "palling around with terrorists" ( he's not one of us, he's one of them), nor when Glenn Beck called him a racist and a hater of the white culture (he's not one of us), and not even when leaders in the radical religious right want us to believe he just might be a Muslim (one of them) or that he wants to kill babies or grannies (he's a killer, one of them). He doesn't take the bait, he doesn't allow his rhetoric to stoop to that violent, hateful and dangerous level. Even when talking to foreign leaders, he doesn't act boastful or imply God speaks to him, as George Bush did. He doesn't say "you're with us or against us" or "bring it on." He wants to talk, to solve problems, to find a common humanity that can lead to conflict resolution, and for that the "us vs. them" crowd calls him weak.
I have no doubt that if it is necessary to defend this country, Barack Obama will defend this nation with all the military might necessary. But I also have no doubt that in Obama we have a new kind of leader, a leader who doesn't promote an attitude of "us vs. them," a leader who wants to find a way to get opposing parties in his own country, and opposing nations in the world to work out their differences, and see in some way how we are really all the same. He won't succeed, of course, in solving this unsolvable problem. But the history of the world is rife with steps forward, towards reconciliation and unity, and steps backwards, towards conflict and strife. We have had conflict and strife for many, many years, both within the country and around the world, and if Obama can, by force of his personality, his ethical core, and his vision, move us just a bit further along in the direction of reconciliation, especially in this nuclear age, he will have done all of us a great service. And he will have well served not just those who support him, but those who despise him as well.
The only ones who can't see this are the paranoid ones who cannot recognize a peacemaker, the ones who don't trust anyone who does not voice an "us vs. them" mentality, the ones who project their own divisiveness, fear and hatred on their enemy Obama, and make him one of "them." Yes, they are also the ones who, had they been born more than 2000 years ago in the Holy Land, might have yelled "Crucify him."
In the end, for those of you who are Christians, not the new warrior Christians who are an invention of people like R. J. Rushdoony, but those Christians who see in Jesus the ultimate teacher of peace, and the abandonment of an "us vs. them" mentality, a true understanding of the message of Jesus would prompt a new dedication to cooperation, love, forgiveness, and treating our brothers and sisters (of all races, religions, nationalities, genders and sexual orientations) as ourselves.
UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 29
Two current examples of the increasing mentality of "us vs. them" among some segments of the population of the United States:
Over the weekend, at the "How to Take Back America conference," Republican Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) called the president "an enemy of America." I'll let this speak for itself.
And in Arizona, a law was passed allowing people with concealed carry permits to bring their guns to bars and restaurants. Now why would you need to carry a gun into a bar or restaurant unless you are suffering from extreme delusions that you have enemies ("them") out there waiting to harm you?
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
