What’s in a Name?

Since the 1990s, various sports teams at all levels have gone through a transformation.  These teams were among those who had, as a nickname, some reference to Native Americans.  While various tribes have authorized some use as legitimate or while others benefit from their ambiguous names, others still find themselves in the crossfire.  Throughout the controversy, one team has been more criticized than others – the National Football League’s Washington Redskins.  While the pinnacle of opposition coincided with the team’s appearance in the Super Bowl in the early 1990s, there have been renewed attempts, namely the Oneida tribe, to convince the team’s ownership to change.  

There are three types of Native American-connected names the subject of debate over the last several decades.  One dealt with teams whose names are a direct reference to a tribe such as schools like the Utah Utes, Florida State Seminols and Eastern Michigan Chippawas.  The second are those who use as their moniker more indistinct names that do not reference a particular tribe such as MLB’s Atlanta Braves, NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks and NBA’s Golden State Warriors.  The last category are those who have used names that have either an obvious or vague racist tones such as the Redmen of St. John’s University, the Louisiana-Monroe Indians and the aforementioned Washington Redskins.  St. John’s and Louisiana-Monroe have changed their names but the football team that calls the nation’s capital its home has stood resolute. 

I do believe that racism exists and I do believe that the Washington Redskins are on the wrong side of this issue.  Its name is clearly a reference to the more racist connotations of days gone by.  Having said that, I’m reluctant to mandate a change.  In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy used his muscle to force the Washington to accept black players, the last NFL team to do so.  A combination of political and economic forces compelled the team to do what public opinion did not.  However, if Washington changes its name, it must come from the marketplace.  I mentioned in an earlier article about the Boy Scouts of America that I feel a little queasy when organizations or individuals are forced to do something.  This is no different but I understand the backstory. 

For Native Americans, their recent history is one of societal, economic and political subjugation.  They have endured racism and worse, near ethnic annihilation.  Since the heyday of the Native American civil rights movement and the militancy of groups like the American Indian Movement (AIM), activists have tried to right wrongs.  For the most part, the American public has agreed and has supported changes that favor America’s indigenous population.  However, groups like AIM have not always been disciplined in their attacks and have subsequently unleashed their efforts on things that are questionable.  Therefore, when a real case emerges or a real argument is put forth, people have begun to tune it out.  This could be the case with the Washington Redskins.  

I don’t believe the team or its administrative staff are racists nor does it have a predilection towards racist overtones.  Yet, it would be better if Washington changed its name.  The Oneida tribe has made it clear that they are going to protest and push until the organization does so.  However, the fans have not been a part of the chorus, at least to the point where they have chosen not to attend games or purchase merchandise.  If the Oneida tribe can do what many other activists could not do – convince the fans that this is a racial issue – so be it and we are probably better off for it.  If they can’t, the name should remain the same.   

Uneasy Lies the Head

I once wrote an article about the supposed “red line” issued by President Obama over the usage of chemical weapons in Syria and the president’s lack of action.  I worried then and still do now that the lack of action sent the wrong message.  Whether action should be taken or not is no longer the question for the president has already committed us to action.  The question is, when, where and how should that action now proceed?  Once more, the Syrian government has unleashed an even heavier and deadlier attack of Sarin gas.  President Bashar al-Assad jabbed the sleeping giant and it growled and snarled but ultimately, went back to sleep.  Now, he has done it again and if we do not respond, it could have catastrophic effects.   

As the Syrian conflict first erupted a couple of years ago, the president suggested, as we tangled ourselves in Libya, that we had no interest in the conflict and would not join or assist in the fight.  Some observers wondered why Libya and not Syria but the Americans were in agreement – we had our fill of getting involved in the internal conflicts of Middle Eastern countries.  Then, there was intelligence that suggested Mr. Assad could use chemical weapons against those who opposed his government.  The U.S., along with Israel, declared chemical weapons to be a Rubicon that could not be crossed without a response.  Syria did and the U.S. decided that their “red line” was not as definite has had been suggested.  Recently, Mr. Obama suggested the “red line” was still in place and he would not tolerate the usage of chemical weapons.  Syria did and the president has taken an interesting stance. 

Earlier this past week, it seemed as if the U.S. was on the precipice of committing military action in Syria against the Assad regime and its chemical capabilities.  The president mentioned imminent action in an interview; the Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an impassioned case for the need to do something now.  The White House press secretary also suggested that the president had the power to do something now.  However, in the last twenty-four hours, the president and his administration have taken a different tone.  Now, the president declares that he will wait until the Congress is back in session (about a week from now) and communicate and work with them to get congressional input.     

There are a couple of things that I should add as a caveat.  One, the president is in possession of intelligence that no one else knows which might explain his actions or lack thereof.  Yet, as I said before, it begs the question of why the president has come out so strongly against Syria if evidence or intelligence would suggest a murkier picture.  Second, the Congress has been harping, rightfully so, that it needs to recapture some of its authority as it relates to the president’s power.  However, this is not the time to appeal to Congress and help them regain their authority if the situation requires more immediate action.  Lastly, the president is on the verge of emboldening forces that are carefully watching his actions – Mr. Assad, Hezbollah (the Shi’a extremists who operate in Syria and Lebanon) and Iran.  They are all watching things carefully and determining what to do next. 

Again, no one outside the White House has the complete picture yet, what can been seen is the impact of the decisions being made by the administration.  The president needs to know that off-the-cuff remarks and the need to say something at every turn has created some unnecessary quagmires.  At this point, the U.S. needs to follow an acta non verba policy and in the future, the administration needs to be more discipline regarding what they say about foreign issues.  It is not helping the administration and it certainly is not helping the United States.

The Trait of the Strong

His heart was as great as the world, but there was no room in it to hold the memory of a wrong.
            Ralph Waldo Emerson, Letters and Social Aims, 1876

Forgiveness is a nebulous concept these days.  When I consider the things that have happen around the world and within my country, I wonder how things would be different with the concept of forgiveness.  What would happen to the cultural and societal quagmires if clemency could be employed?  All major religions have a great deal to say on the matter – making it more puzzling why the adherents of these many faiths forget their teachings.  When we despair at the state of the world and our own communities, it is refreshing and healing to look back and remember our teachings.   

In Judaism, one of the most amazing stories of forgiveness lies with the story of Joseph.  It might be known to readers that Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery.  However, Joseph rose to prominence and was later in a position to confront his brothers during a time of famine and he in a position to distribute food.  As mentioned in Genesis, Joseph forgave them saying that God had brought him to his current position, not them.  The Talmud emphasizes this Mitzvah by stating, “Whose iniquities does God tolerate?  A person who forgives the transgressions of another.”   

The most telling story of forgiveness in Christianity is seen when Jesus address the masses during the Sermon on the Mount.  In Matthew, Jesus cautions that before one can go to God in prayer, in their heart, they must first forgive their fellow man.  The Lord’s Prayer is filled with the virtue of a forgiving heart while Jesus, in His last moments on the cross, forgave those who placed him upon it.  In Islam, there are many names of God including the “most Forgiving,” “the most Merciful” and the “most Compassionate.”  The Prophet Muhammad epitomized this trait and its importance when he forgave the leaders of Mecca who had attacked, belittled and railed against him since leaving his hometown seven years prior.  The Quran states, “The reward of the evil is the evil thereof but whosoever forgives and makes amends, his reward is upon Allah.”   

In Hinduism, forgiveness is such an honored trait that Vishnu said only one born with the virtues of the divine forgives.  Gandhi underscored this trait saying only the strong can forgive.  As an element of Karma, it is what defines one’s life and therefore, the lives that are yet to come.  As Hinduism emphasizes this trait, so does Buddhism.  The way one achieves Enlightenment is through something called the Eightfold Path.  A part of this path is “right thoughts.”  A begrudging heart can never achieve the right thought required of all Buddhists and therefore, forgiveness is an essential part to inner peace and spiritual awakening.  One who cannot expunge hatred or resentment carries it with them and is soon enveloped by it. 

As when I wrote about thankfulness a couple of years ago, I do not profess any expertise with the trait of forgiveness.  In some ways, I’m worse because I know what God expects from me but do not always meet His demands.  It is a struggle but one that I strive to overcome each day.  To forgive is to love – it eliminates hate and therefore, eliminates conflict.  Within each faith that I’ve alluded to here are simple guidelines to how to live with our brothers and sisters and ourselves.  If we can do this, imagine the world we can create. 

The Messiness of Democracy

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have tried from time to time.
            Winston Churchill, 1947

The immediate failure of the Egyptian democracy experiment is not tragic – to call it such would suggest that it was unpredictable.  Unfortunately, the travails in one of our oldest civilizations are banal with a litter of broken civilizations lining the years since democracy was first conceived.  In the movie Body Heat, Teddy the arsonist (played by Mickey Rourke) says “you got fifty ways you can (screw) up and if you can think of twenty-five of them, you’re a genius and you ain’t no genius.”  So fall those who attempt democracy.  The situation in Egypt today is dangerous, regionally threatening and requires the strongest language and action from President Obama and other of the world’s democratic leaders.    

The United States undoubtedly was lucky.  Our government was put together by men who understood and valued the law.  Yet, despite the fact that our founding fathers were geniuses for their time, they screwed up and often.  The Federalist government during the Adams administration passed a law making it essentially illegal to criticize the government.  There was a presidential donnybrook in the aftermath of the 1800 presidential election when a tied electorate threw the outcome in doubt.  When President William Henry Harrison died in 1841, it created an uncertainty as to who was indeed the president.  Vice President John Tyler became president but was constantly challenged by Harrison’s cabinet, doubting his legitimacy.   

Civil War broke apart the country for five years over our inability to understand and implement the best intentions of our founding fathers.  Presidents during the Gilded Age of the late 1800s were mere bystanders to the events that transpired around them.  Historians have charged various presidents ranging from Abraham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush of overstepping their power.  Leaders ranging from Andrew Johnson to Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton have broken laws.  We’ve denied rights to many of our citizens at one time or another.  Our country has faced scandal, defeat, embarrassment and uncertainty.  Yet, we are extolled as one of the oldest, operable democracies on the planet.  We are, as John Winthrop called us, a city upon the hill – an example to the rest of the world.   We take our mistakes and always try to learn from them in the spirit of creating a more perfect union. 

And so, we turn our war weary heads to the bedlam that is Egypt.  The worst thing that could have happened was the military control of the government and the imprisonment of Mohammad Morsi.  He is flawed, he is possibly corrupt and he was at times dismissive of the constitutional restraints of his office.  He was likely not what the majority of Egyptians wanted but for the sake of future democracy in the land of the pharaohs, it was paramount that he remain in office and finish out his term.  The course that the country is taking is not towards stability but towards anarchy and a permanent distrust of the will of the people.  The lasting gift of democracy is a people’s belief that the government will act as it needs to in times of turmoil and when faltering, right itself.  For a democratic government to work, the people must have faith in it.  The Egyptians, certainly the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, do not, though the aforementioned group does not help by persecuting various religious minorities. 

The military leaders are serving as an éminence grise but the beauty of democracy is that rule and authority are out in the open and available for all to see.  The world’s democratic leaders need to up their pressure on the Egyptian military while at the same time putting measures in place that could assist a righted Egypt back on the course of democracy.  George W. Bush was right in that all people have an inherent desire for the freedoms of democracy.  Yet, democracy demands a heavy responsibility from the leaders who wield authority and from the people who must accept the decision of the nation, however misguided they might think the majority to be.  Prime Minister Churchill was correct.  Let us hope that the Egyptians have the chance to understand and embrace that. 

The Case Against Howard Zinn

Over the last eighteen years, I have taught U.S. history with the last fourteen years spent teaching its Advanced Placement variety.  During those fourteen years, I’ve used American Pageant, one of the more popular textbooks used in AP classes throughout the country.  However, it is not the one about which people talk.  That distinction falls to the late Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.  It is a favorite among liberals and some university professors.  Mr. Zinn, who died of a heart attack in 2010, wrote this account, ostensibly, to give voice to the historically mute.  Instead, he created a book that is neither history nor particular deserving of its reputation.   

At the center of the debate is the role of the historian.  Famed American historian Arthur Schlesinger once said that Howard Zinn was not a historian but rather a polemicist.  Through various professions, we see people moving away from objectivity and towards personal opinion.  Journalists have forgone any and all pretense of objectivity and use their paradigm to present and comment on the news.  Mr. Zinn made a career of doing the same through the prism of U.S. history.  History professor Eric Foner of Columbia University called A People’s History of the United States as “deeply pessimistic” and this partly explains Mr. Zinn’s impact on the study of the United States history.  We complain about young people having little knowledge and even less appreciation of our country’s history.  Why should they?  When the mark of a “good professor” or history writer is based on how much one tears down the country and its efforts, is it little wonder that teens find nothing appealing. 

Mr. Zinn and his supporters would likely say that the United States, as a people and as a government, have done horrible things and it would be irresponsible to not present such events.  Fair enough but the “crimes” of the U.S. are presented as something unique and not common place when imperfect people seek to create a perfect union.  Every country has done horrible things but the mark of a great country is the tireless effort to get it right.  The U.S. has displayed their crimes for all to see and have openly attempted to deal with its past mistakes.  For every mistake the country has committed, it has been followed by a sincere attempt to right the wrong.  This does not invalidate a nation and its objectives – it is a mark of a great country.  Mr. Zinn’s pessimism is misguided and ultimately harmful to the country in the long run.   

The second major criticism of Howard Zinn’s work, in particular that of his famed textbook, is that it fails in its usage of historiography.  German historian Leopold von Ranke pioneered the usage of primary and secondary resources as a means of better understanding the past and to do so more accurately.  However, Mr. Zinn never approached his study in that manner.  It was so bad, that other history professors have railed against it for years.  Christopher Phelps, an American historian, once said that many historians have looked at Mr. Zinn’s work with equal portions of exasperation or condescension.  So bad was his use of primary resources, historian Oscar Handlin of Harvard University said it was unfair to critically judge A People’s History because, unlike a true historical tome, the survey book was “patched together from secondary sources…torn out of context.”  Herein lies the more heinous component of Howard Zinn’s textbook – it depends on people not understanding history to be effective.   

I’ve often said that just because Oliver Stone’s JFK was pure propaganda and not history did not mean it was not a good film.  The same could be said of A People’s History.  Still, within the walls of academia, standards should be higher.  Recently, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels declared his opposition to Howard Zinn’s book from being used because of its bias makes it inappropriate.  If we are to rebuild the reputation of history instruction in the United States, we must begin with how we present the subject.  Mr. Zinn’s seminal work stands as the worst of historical scholarship and certainly, the American education system can do better.

An Economic Litmus Test

Just as a poetic discussion of the weather is not meteorology, so an issuance of moral pronouncements or political creeds about the economy is not economics.
            Thomas Sowell

Since 2006, Ben Bernanke has been the Federal Reserve Chairman.  The South Carolinian holds the highest position in the U.S. government’s economic structure.  Much more so than his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, Mr. Bernanke has had to deal with an economy for which few people want to be responsible.  Both Republicans and Democrats have attacked him and he has served both a Republican and Democratic president.  As the position was designed to be, Mr. Bernanke has attempted to carry out his duties without delving into the politics.  Yet, in a recent press conference, President Barack Obama said that he hoped the next Fed chairman would do their job considering the pains and suffering of the individual.  That kind of naïve thinking, not to mention a fundamental misunderstanding of the job, could land the country into worse economic troubles.   

In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve System into law to avoid the banking crisis that had cyclically hurt the country’s economy since the beginning.  By instituting a government oversight, in the progressive spirit that infected both parties of the day, it was hoped that the banking system would be stronger and less prone to bankruptcy.  Today, the Fed is responsible for the country’s monetary system.  In short, the Fed, through the Board of Governors and carried out by the twelve Federal Reserve banks, regulates the amount of money in circulation.  The Fed chairman is answerable to Congress but is responsible for carrying out his duties regardless of political pressure.  The goal of the Fed is to seek solutions that help the country as a whole.  

All this to say, President Obama’s litmus test is antithetical to the job of the Federal Reserve Chairman.  Mr. Obama’s declaration is not only symbolic of his administration’s difficulties but also part and parcel of the problems that lay within the liberal political framework.  Liberals often get themselves worked up over the plight of an individual.  They will refer to them ad nauseum in speeches and while politicking for a particular piece of legislation.  However, the president’s job (like that of Congress and the Federal Reserve Board) are responsible for what is good for the country as a whole.   

Addressing problems that affect individuals instead of a portion of the population can bring unintended consequences – such as meandering mandates and conflicting objectives (not to mention staggering funds required) as seen in the president’s health care law.  It is not that conservatives disregard the plight of the individual – no matter the demagoguery the Democrats often employ.  Conservative thought suggests that policy that engenders national growth and prosperity will uplift the country as a whole.  The appeal of the individual is an example of pathos – a form of rhetoric that is usually employed where logos fails.   

Meanwhile, the politicians in Washington, D.C. and the Federal Reserve chairman must make their decisions for the good of the state.  They must keep the broader picture in mind.  The Fed chairman is working on the principles of macroeconomics and that, as the name suggests, require him (or her) to work for what is best for everyone.  The plight of an individual might score political points and stoke the fires of populism however, it serves little purpose in setting a national economic course and that is the Federal Reserve chairman’s job. 

The American Dilemma

In 1964, in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s death, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into the law the Civil Rights Act.  In short, it became illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, skin color, national origin, religion and gender.  It was the culmination of decades of work by civil rights activists and a step towards a promise fulfilled in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  Since the passage of the law, the country has tried to live up to the best intentions of the act.  Perhaps, the country’s measure of progress is highlighted by the actions of “civil rights’ leaders” on issues of little racial importance.   

In light of the Treyvon Martin case, the acquittal of George Zimmerman and the context in which both transpired, we have a classic example of what has happened to the civil rights’ movement.  More importantly, we have an idea of what has happened to its standard bearers.  To put succinctly, the civil rights’ activists have turned what is not racism into racism and have turned a blind eye to the true issues that face the black community.  To exemplify their lack of interests in solving real issues and in the midst of all of the protests, gesticulations and prognostications, there is a demand for a “conversation” on race.  Generally, when someone tells me there needs to be a conversation, it is never a true conversation they seek.  What they seek is a one-way channel of dogma to be digested and swallowed whole.  Anything short of that and the labels come out, be it racist or whatever.   

Reverend Al Sharpton, a man who built his career as a racial ambulance chaser, throwing out racist epithets toward Jews and other groups, has somehow, by the media and other interested parties, been re-cast as an arbiter of racial harmony, justice and equality.  None of his actions seem to support that image.  Mr. Sharpton’s power stems from the continuation of outrage and victimhood, following a two-step process.  First, he turns his rage upon things that has little to do with racial justice or equality, such as the Duke lacrosse team rape fiasco or George Zimmerman.  The real threat, in his mind, lies outside the community and not within.  Second, he continues the role of outraged speaker, stoking and maintaining support by not focusing on the community.  In short, his support is based on finding fault with others.  Fortunately, not all black leaders have been so detached.

Actor, comedian and activist Bill Cosby has drawn much criticism for his remarks about how the black community needs to get its own house in order.  He has gone after parents who are failing in their job in raising their children.  He has attacked the black community for accepting that which denigrates them such as certain entertainment and community standards (teen pregnancy, single-parent homes and some music).  He has further faulted its leaders for not calling enough attention to the problems tearing at the fabric of black society.  In recent weeks, there has been much attention drawn to the fact that since Trayvon Martin was killed, hundreds of black youths were killed in Chicago alone at the hands of other black youth.  However, Mr. Sharpton has nothing to say about that.  There is no “day of outrage” or mass demonstrations throughout the country on this subject.  There are no speeches, no threats of boycotts on the city (as Mr. Sharpton has threatened on Florida) and no bombastic charges about the threat the city poses to the black community. 

Ultimately, tactics used by men like Mr. Sharpton are counter-productive – certainly for the black community.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that destructive means cannot create constructive ends.  However, the politics being played by the good reverend as hysteria over reason and thought have held the black community back, creating a perpetual victimhood mindset.  It has also created a national atomism that can be ultimately destructive for the country as a whole.  Let me be clear.  There are real examples of racism that need to be dealt with and done so in a way that fixes the problem and does not exacerbate already high emotions.  One who deals with racism must also keep the legacy of past leaders in mind.  They can do this by rationally addressing real concerns and not focusing on trivial (from a racial point of view) matters that only stoke fear and distrust.