Tag: racism

Apologies and Regrets

crimson

Today’s post is a bit different. It will still have a strong philosophical aspect to it, however, it will also be much more personal at the same time. Today I want to discuss how to apologize to someone for deeds of the past.

In some cases, apologizing to someone for harm done is an easy choice. If the person who has been harmed continues to experience the effects of the harm, then it is fundamentally critical that the person who initiated the harm should apologize and do what they can to alleviate the ongoing effects of the harm. I do not believe there would be many people out there who would argue against this. Put more simply, if you harm another person, you should apologize to that person for doing them harm, and then you should do what you can to undo the effects of the harm.

But what if the effects are long passed? Or perhaps the effects of the harm have become integrated deeply into the person’s psyche? It may have become an integral part of their current personality, and the manner in which they coped with the harm may have become simply another aspect of them now. In some cases, this could include when a person has suppressed the effects in order to cope. Should you apologize in this case?

The concern I am raising is the situation whereby apologizing to someone for harm from the past may dredge up old buried memories and pain. If my intention is to sincerely apologize for past harm, I ought not generate new current harm in the process. In some cases, the past is the past, and it may be prudent to let the past remain the past.

In order to clarify what my concern is and how this may play out, consider a hydroelectric dam. While many seem to believe that a dam is an extremely environmentally friendly form of generating electricity, I would like to point out simply how wrong those people are. Take a body of water, such as a flowing river or stream. That environment exists in its form, and all the life that exists around it is accustomed to the body of water as it is: as a flowing river or stream. Those creatures who are “fit,” in Darwin’s idea of fitness, under those circumstances, with a flowing river or stream, will flourish, while those who are not “fit” will not flourish. The environment exists as it does, with a flowing river or stream.

Now add the hydroelectric dam to the equation. The flowing water becomes something else. The river becomes a lake. The water is no longer moving but has become static. Those creatures who flourished in the previous environment may not be as “fit” in the new environment. Furthermore, other creatures who did not flourish in the previous environment may be more “fit” and start to flourish. The environment changes. Some creatures die out and go extinct, while other creatures become the new dominant species in the area. Irreparable damage has taken place. Irreparable harm.

It may be argued that one can simply remove the hydroelectric dam and allow the previous environment to reassert itself, however, if a particular species really has gone extinct, then there will be no way for that species to return. Furthermore, now that the new environment has been created, is it really justified or appropriate to take a new thriving species and kill it in the name of the past?

I do not have an answer to the hydroelectric dam dilemma. Once an environment has been changed, it has been changed. There is no “going back.” And it might even be argued that “going back” is undesirable anyway. This I compare to harm done between people.

When I was young, I was bullied a lot. When I was young, I was considered a nerd and a geek. When I was young, being a nerd or geeky was the furthest thing from popular. Times have changed. My childhood was quite challenging for me. But I do not regret my own childhood. The bullying I experienced gave me the skills and tools needed to deal with bullying in my adult life. Admittedly, I still learn more skills and tools even today to deal with such situations, but the bulk of my abilities come from my youth. I know how to stand my ground, and I know how to not be taken in by the bully. I can “turn the other cheek” as some might call it. I can diffuse the bully.

But. Sometimes I also was the bully. There have been times in my life where I abused my power over others as well. I have inflicted harm upon others. The worst part was that I had no idea I was doing it at the time in most cases. And even when I did realize I was doing harm, the methods I used to try and undo the effects often created even more harm than the original harm. It is for all my actions that I wish to apologize.

It may be true that I am as much a victim of the systemic structures of society (such as patriarchy and consumerism) as anybody else. But I don’t feel like that is a good excuse. In the past, I thought I was a “nice guy,” much like I referred to in my last post. I thought I was doing what I ought to do with regard to women. I know now how wrong I was. I regret my behavior and I want to apologize for it.

However, I cannot apologize. At least not in the normal sense. To seek out those I harmed and try to apologize to them amounts to reintroducing the harm, or introducing new harm. Seeking those people out is itself a harm. Like the hydroelectric dam, those individuals I am thinking about have become who and what they are today and it is certainly not my place to interfere in their lives. I ought not approach them at all.

I’ve thought a lot about all of this, for many, many years. I understand that a large part of my desire to apologize is for my own relief from pain. To apologize can also be a selfish act. For me, this may be part of the story as well. So I believe I have come up with a sort of way to deal with this situation. If I cannot approach those people, perhaps I can make known my apology, and leave it in a place where they can find it. And then, if they go looking for it, they can find it and know that I regret my actions. In that way, they have control of the situation and can decide for themselves if they wish to seek me out. They can have the power, instead of me.

This solution is far from perfect. Posting a mostly anonymous blog in the void of the information superhighway is certainly not going to make things easy for them. However, I do know that those people are connected to others that I know, and so they will be able to find me if they desire to do so. It is possible for them to find this blog and my messages. And so, this is what I will do now.

To M, who said I was a monster, and who suggested she only dated me to protect other women in the world from me, I apologize. I know our relationship was so strange and innocent at the time we had it. I clearly did not know what I was doing, nor the harm I was causing you. I feel like you may have been in the same situation, though I realize I do not know your mind in these matters. I thank you for enduring me, as the lessons you taught me have endured all this time as well. However, I am sorry for being the monster. And I am sorry for causing you harm.

To L, who suggested I did not want to date her, but that I was only interested in what she could do for me. You were right, of course. Your assessment of me was accurate, as your maturity likely showed you. I often think about your past history, the history you refused to share with me, and I find the possibilities simply make me regret even more how I treated you. I was clearly too young and immature to understand the nature of our relationship. It was you who suggested I go out and explore myself in the world, and I have. But I am still sorry for how I treated you. I am sorry for causing you harm.

To M, who revealed to me that the drugs were taking something from me. I was in a bad place when you met me, and the drugs were simply an escape from a reality I needed to feel. I was supposed to be the mature one, but I did not handle my position as I ought to have. I am sorry for causing you harm.

And to all the others who I have not mentioned, I am sorry as well. Part of my writing this blog has been to come to terms with the reality of this world, and part of that coming to terms is the realization of precisely how bad people are toward each other. The prejudice and the sexism is so thick, it almost seems like it exists as a thing in itself. But I know that it does not. Or, to be more accurate, it doesn’t have to be. As my philosophy instructors would often phrase it, “it could be otherwise.”

There is absolutely no good reason that men ought to treat women as they do. Nor is there any good reason for treating anyone else as anything less than human. Or, perhaps to be more accurate, to treat any other living being as anything less than a living being, for even humans ought not be privileged. My pet rabbit ought not be my pet, and be allowed to simply be himself, as a rabbit.

I believe in Simone de Beauvoir and her suggestion that revolution is the only real answer. That we cannot change the system from within the system. Only from outside can we even hope to gain a proper understanding of the state of affairs we have created for ourselves. And only from the outside could we even hope to find an appropriate course of action to follow to make the world a better place.

I apologize to everyone for my part in being a man in patriarchy. I apologize for my sexism, my racism, and all my other -isms. I’d like to tell you all that I am no longer those things, but the truth is I am still. I don’t think I can escape it, just as I believe that everyone else is just as sexist and racist as I am. The difference is not whether we are an -ism, it is what we choose to do with that knowledge. To check myself and not allow my prejudices to unduly affect my decision making and other choices. I may be sexist, but I don’t have to allow that sexism to inform my decisions.

It is like the issue of staying at home during a pandemic. Just because the government doesn’t tell me I must stay at home full time doesn’t mean I ought to look for every little loophole in order to leave my house. As my father suggested about laws, it is more important to recognize the spirit of the law instead of the word of the law. To understand the intention behind. To understand that I ought to do my best to stay at home, as that will help others stay safe during this pandemic. To understand that thinking of others helps me be better toward everyone else. And to recognize that others are not really others at all, but simply another part of me.

The Challenge of Being Free

crimson2 Comments

As I suggested with the first blog, I had a plan regarding how I would proceed when I created this website. I wanted to talk more about time, what I think it is, and what the repercussions such a view of time would have. Perhaps I will get to it eventually, but not any time soon. Like all the other things that happen in my life, there always seems to be forces at work pressuring me to do different things than I want to do. This blog is no exception.

A good friend of mine recently started his own blog. You can find it here. He has decided to share his experiences in his attempt at “financial freedom.” So far, it sounds like he is doing quite well. But I would suggest he may still be in the “honeymoon phase” of his project. The real test of success, as I’ve observed, is the commitment to continuing in one’s project for the long term, especially when faced with distractions and outside pressures that interfere with said project. I have high hopes that he will succeed, but only time will tell. I just have to wait and see.

His project is well timed for my current discussion on freedom, and with regard to Black Lives Matter. In both cases, much of the discussion revolves around breaking out of a chain of predetermined events. In the case of Black Lives Matter, the issue is that there is a traditional world view that puts certain humans at a disadvantage with respect to other humans, in this case in particular, that black people are at a social and economic disadvantage with respect to white people. The social structures that support this fabricated dichotomy are complex, and changing them will certainly be challenging. To change them means breaking out of a chain of predetermined events. To change them means breaking the social structures, and possibly completely destroying them.

As for freedom, if freedom exists, its expression is literally the breaking out of the causal sequence of events. It sounds simple, but really is not. What I might call true freedom, the sort of freedom I’ve been trying to describe in the past few posts, requires making choices that are not determined by previous events or conditions. The very thought of such a freedom is challenging at best.

When my friend wants financial freedom, he is talking about this sort of freedom, though focused specifically in the area of his finances. He wants to no longer belong to the causal chain of events that has been preconstructed by the structures that exist around him. In this part of the world, consumerism and capitalism (at least in some form) run rampant. These structures, and many others, influence the decisions made by those individuals who exist within those societies. One simple and very insidious example of such a pressure is in the form of always carrying debt. In this culture, it is not only considered acceptable, it is considered necessary to always be in debt. Consider how one needs to behave to improve their credit rating. As I was instructed in my youth, one needs to have a credit card, use said credit card (thus entering into debt), and then immediately paying of that debt. In other words, those with the best credit ratings are those who constantly enter into debt, but immediately leave it as well, frequently, likely demonstrating that they are capable of some sort of self control, and that they can be relied upon to pay back what they owe when it is demanded of them.

A part of my friend’s attempt at financial freedom involves removal of all his debt. The very act of not being in debt contradicts the pressures society has placed upon him, but that is also why it is considered a freedom. To not be in debt is to contradict the traditional role of the individual in his society. To be debt free is to be financially free.

It is here I would like to introduce another example of freedom that I think is even more insidious, and yet even more telling. I drink water. That may sound particularly uninteresting, but I assure you it is not. I prefer the consumption of water over all other beverages. I prefer not to consume alcohol, soda, coffee, tea, milk, juice, or any other beverage you can imagine. It is true that I do engage in the consumption of non-water beverages occasionally, and that is part of why this discussion is so interesting to me. However, if given the choice, I would only ever consume water as a beverage for the rest of my life.

Just last year, in January of 2019, a new simplified Canada Food Guide was released. In it, it suggests I “make water [my] drink of choice.” I was quite happy in discovering this change, but others have not been so impressed. For example, politician Andrew Scheer expressed concerns regarding the new food guide’s removal of milk as a beverage of choice. This simple question of what people ought to drink has sparked a great deal of controversy in many circles.

Regardless of the scientific or health benefits associated (or possibly not associated) with the consumption of water, what I find most interesting is how the structures of society pressure me to not drink water. Commercialism would have me believe that there are a plethora of superior options to water that I ought to consider when the time comes to quench my thirst. If I am exercising, I ought to drink a sports drink. If I am at a pub, I ought to drink alcohol. If I am sitting at home watching television, I ought to drink a soda. Even at breakfast, as Scheer would likely suggest, I ought to drink milk.

It does not seem to matter at all what my preference is. When I hang out with friends in a restaurant, if I ask the server for water, both the server and my friends give me looks and make me feel guilty for my choice. After all, the server is working hard, and so I should choose a beverage that presents a cost that will support the effort they are putting into getting me something to drink. Furthermore, being in a restaurant represents a luxury from the monotony of being at home, so I ought to get myself something to drink that is more than I might otherwise do if I were at home. I am scolded for my choice, often in subtle ways.

If the restaurant is also a bar or pub, then alcohol becomes the topic of discussion. I ought to have a drink. It does not matter whether I like the taste of the beverage (I cannot explain it exactly, but I can actually taste the alcohol, and that flavour is very unappetizing to me), I ought to drink an alcoholic beverage in particular. In that I am taken to be of the masculine sex, I am frequently scolded for not drinking beer, a beverage that is strongly associated with masculinity in the society I belong to. In my youth, I was told by a friend that “no one likes beer, we all just get used to it.” That one was expected to build up a tolerance to the bitter taste, as a show of one’s manhood.

I didn’t always drink water. In my youth, I tended to drink flavoured beverages like most people. I didn’t even think much about it for a very long time. However, after some fairly significant events in my life, I decided to switch to water exclusively. Initially, I was put off by the taste; water was flavourless and uninteresting, and I missed the previous thrill of a mouth full of sugar. But after about a month of strictly drinking just water, I stopped missing the sugar, and started finding the refreshing features of water to be more palatable. Furthermore, I found my body responded positively to the change, having more energy and less “heaviness.” I figure what I was feeling is similar to what some people consider as “detoxifying.”

It was a challenge to switch from other beverages to simply water, but it was much easier than I expected to switch myself. I like water. I prefer water now. However, the ongoing challenge is not from within but from outside me. As I have described above, social pressures continue to be exerted against me, suggesting I ought to do otherwise. I am strange, and perhaps less healthy as a result of my choice. As Scheer suggested, “the idea that these types of products that we’ve been drinking as human beings, eating as human beings for a millennia—that now all of a sudden that they’re unhealthy, it’s ridiculous.” This represents an incredibly powerful pressure against my choice to drink water, especially after discovering that milk itself seemed to be the culprit to years of heightened allergic reactions to dust and other debris in the atmosphere.

The point of this discussion is not whether water is healthy or not healthy as a beverage, or whether science agrees or disagrees with such statements. The point is that the social structures of my community are focused on influencing my choice of beverage, using whatever tools are available to them to encourage me to behave in a very particular way. Like when my friend encourages me to drink beer because it is the masculine thing to do, a politician encourages me to drink milk because it is the traditional thing to do (and because it will support local businesses as well).

My preference to drink water, and my actually being able to do so, expresses my freedom. What makes it more apparent that it is a freedom is that it seems to be in direct opposition to the pressures that take place around me. Were my preference to be aligned to the social structures of my community, it may not be as clear whether it was a freedom expressed, or a conforming to outside influences. So freedom might be understood as the situation where one contradicts the pressures and influences. But then there may not be a way to determine if a freedom can be (or is) expressed when it happens to agree with the pressures and influences.

Returning to my friend, why we might understand it as “financial freedom” is not necessarily that it is free. We might interpret it as suggesting he simply wants to practice his personal economics in a manner that is unlike the that which is practiced by most people in our society.

Black Lives Matter

crimsonLeave a comment

I wanted to continue with my discussion on time, but with all that is going on in the world, I thought I’d take a break to discuss another matter. As you are probably aware, events in the United States of America (USA) have escalated and the pandemic has been lowered in priority in that country. This has occurred in some other countries as well. And the short response I would like to offer up is: it’s about time.

Actually, that response is far from complete. It is too short a response to really reflect what my feelings are on this matter. And, it is a little misleading, as the revolution that I think is needed is still a ways off. Peaceful protest, I believe, will be insufficient to affect the sorts of long term changes that are required by the human race in this situation. Allow me to explain.

While the following will be an over simplified view of humanity, I think it captures a lot of what has led us to this point. When I look upon the world, I am struck by what I see. I find that there are those things that are similar or the same as I am familiar with, and those things that are different. For example, there are these other beings that wander the world as I do; these other beings are very similar to me in some ways, but very different in other ways. The more similar they are to me, the more comfortable I might feel; the more different, the more uncomfortable I might feel. When I am comfortable, I tend to relax and trust. When I am not comfortable, I tend to fill with anxiety and become protective of myself.

Perhaps my personal history is unusual or unique, but I find that the differences vastly outweigh the similarities most of the time. I focus on the differences far more than the similarities. Personally, I don’t find many other beings like myself. Now, I could choose to be hostile to all these different other beings. I could choose to lash out and harm these other beings. But I don’t. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I was pretty well alone in the world—alone in that I cannot experience the world from the perspective of those other beings, and those other beings could not experience the world from my perspective—and so I would have to withhold my complete, blind trust from those who had not in some way given me a reason to trust them. I am paranoid. I am resistant. I feel compelled to ALWAYS assess knowledge and information for myself. This is a large part of the reason I was not cut out for military service; I am unable to blindly follow orders without first thinking about what is being asked of me, and assessing whether I ought to obey or resist the command.

For me, I exist in a world full of challenges and obstacles. Like the philosophical Existentialists, I desire to exercise my freedom to assign value in a world that I believe holds no intrinsic value. It is a lot of work assigning value to everything, but it is what I expect and I am comfortable in that situation now. But it also means that I am reserved in expressing my hostility and aggression as well. I am slow to make decisions, and I am slow to choose my actions. I’d rather take some time to “get to know” another being, before I pass judgement. I’m far from perfect at doing this, but I try my hardest.

Yes, my skin is on the lighter end of the spectrum. Furthermore, when others observe me, I am categorized in the masculine class of beings. And, as may be obvious by this blog, I think and understand in the language of English. This places me squarely in the category of the privileged. In my youth, I did not understand what this meant, but now I do. The world appears to me in a certain way. I understand the things I see in a certain way. I fear some things, and do not fear others. My privilege allows me to move through this world mostly unimpeded. My privilege allows me various advantages with things such as employment and commerce. My privilege is a large part of my world view. What I think is most important for me to always remember is that most of those beings around me do not share this world view.

In the USA, those beings with skin on the darker end of the spectrum than mine have become outraged because an authority figure—who happens to have skin on the lighter end of the spectrum—clearly and purposefully overstepped his authority in a situation that lead to the demise of another being—who happens to have skin on the darker end of the spectrum. The issue that is of concern is that the authority figure chose to behave in the fashion he did as a direct result of the world view that he holds, a world view that diminishes the status of those with skin on the darker end of the spectrum. In my personal opinion, those beings—who now hold frequent and vast peaceful protests in response to this incident—are more than justified in their actions. My largest fear is that the peaceful protesting is not sufficient to bring about the sort of change we appear to desire.

I admit, most of the conversations I usually have are not concerned about the colour of a being’s skin. My conversations more often are concerned with the configuration of the being’s physical body, and what categories those beings are assigned as a result of their configuration. I am more concerned with the issue of sex and gender than I am with the issue of “race,” especially as I think categorizing humans by “race” is completely ridiculous. It would be like deciding to categorize humans by the colour of their hair, or the colour of their eyes, or the length of their bodies, or any number of other physical qualities. There is no good reason to believe that these physical attributes have any direct correlation to other aspects of those beings, such as mental acuity, or ethical ability.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there isn’t a difference that occurs between those of various “races.” But those differences occur not because of direct differences in physical attributes; they occur as a result of social pressure, which is often related to cultural and political structures that exist in those societies, that have already categorized those beings and afforded different opportunities to those beings, which as a result provide different levels and forms of education and employment to the different “races.” In other words, the game is rigged, which is what the protests are all about.

It should be of no surprise to anyone that the COVID-19 virus has disproportionately affected the black community in the USA, and probably in many other places in the world as well. The reason we ought not be surprised is because those people have more challenges and less resources with which to deal with the situation. Unlike those of us who are privileged enough to have a savings account, and are not living paycheck to paycheck, they cannot simply stay home and self-isolate to protect themselves and their families from a pandemic that is sweeping the world. This simple fact means that there are likely to be more black people wandering the streets, as they go to and from work, to and from the grocery store, etc. And there being more black people wandering the streets means that there is a much higher probability of an authority figure encountering such a person. And if that authority figure is already disposed to believing that a black person is more likely to pose a threat, and then happens to encounter that black person, they are more likely to manage the encounter poorly.

I’ll put this another way. If I tell you that it is considered a bad thing to hold a lit stick of dynamite, because it will likely be poor for your health in the long run, and then I hand you a lit stick of dynamite, because that is the only light source you are allowed to use while travelling in a dark passage, what do you expect is going to happen? You could refuse the lit stick of dynamite, citing my first statement, deciding that your heath in the long run is more important to you than being able to see in the dark passage. You could then muddle your way through, with great challenge, having to feel your way along the walls. Or you could accept the lit stick of dynamite, using it’s meager light to aid you in travelling through the dark passage, bearing the constant risk that the dynamite will explode in your hand, injuring you grievously. This is the situation of many people in our world, including black people in the USA.

So what is the correct answer? Well, how about “why do I need to travel through a dark passage?” Or, “why do I not have access to an alternative light source than a lit stick of dynamite?” Or, “can I talk to someone other than you for assistance, because you are not doing a very good job of providing assistance right now.” These “solutions” clearly don’t address the immediate concern—travelling through a dark passage. They point to something outside the immediate situation. They acknowledge, at least on some level, that there is something like a “bigger picture” that needs to be considered.

In the case of racism, peaceful protests may improve the situation marginally, but I do not believe they will provide a lasting, long term solution to the problem. Yes, change is something that happens slowly over vast periods of time. However, in some situations, change occurs very quickly and violently. And in those situations, it may be necessary to affect the needed change.

Putting this another way, what is needed is not policies of employment equity or defunding the police. While these measures may produce seemingly desirable results in the immediate, short term, the repercussions in the long term would be/are disastrous. What is needed is a cultural/political shift, and not a small one. Institutions need to be broken down. Marriage needs to no longer be a thing, because men don’t need an excuse to enslave women. And people need to not be judged by the colour of their skin, or any other physical features they possess. I would like to say that people should instead be judged by their actions, however, I am not so naive as to think that behaviors have only simple reasoning; that they may instead be extremely complex networks of perfect rationality if considered at length.

I do not have the answer to this issue for one very good reason; I don’t have an alternative. I can talk in negatives as much as I want, saying how things ought not be. What I am not able to provide is a positive response, saying how I think things ought to be. I do not know how the world ought to look. I do not know what world view is best to hold. I obviously privilege my own world view, but that does not make my world view the correct world view. This is simply the opinion of one individual in a world full of billions of individuals.