They Failed, but We Shall Not

I will not name their names because they had lots of company. Or maybe, somehow, they didn’t know the history they didn’t teach us. But it was not hidden from them. Our teachers were all old enough to have heard about the treatment of the Native Americans.

They were history instructors, after all. Did they lack curiosity? Were they afraid of breaking from the expected public school curriculum? They never mentioned the unsavory, tarnished America absent from our textbooks.

Surely they realized that West Coast American citizens were taken from their homes and incarcerated because they were of Japanese descent. It happened during the lifetimes of the male and female educators at Mather High School in Chicago.

There was no evidence that the Japanese betrayed their country, the USA. Nothing justified FDR’s decision to intern 120,000 people in 1942, of whom two-thirds were citizens. Fear and suspicion drove it.

Whose responsibility is it to inform young people of the world’s dark side? I did some of this with my children, but that information was about half a century old at the time. And most of it happened elsewhere: in Germany during World War II and in other occupied countries. The land of genocide, and what most of us thought was over there, somewhere else.

It couldn’t happen here, right?

Well, that’s complicated. When I was just about to enter my teens, I recall seeing a newsreel film about the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, better known as Hitler’s Nazis. I watched and heard Hitler ranting at one of his many rallies. In German, of course. But I wondered to myself, what if he spoke English?

Another thought followed. If he spoke English and delivered it in a way that made his followers enthusiastic acolytes, maybe it could happen here.

Why not?

Were people here so different from those 4000 miles away in central Europe? Didn’t Germans of the first half of the 20th century pride themselves on their technology, scientists, visual artists, writers, and musicians?

I knew two German families who immigrated to the USA. They were more than kind to me. Just regular people.

But didn’t the United States have a pro-Nazi organization during the 1930s? It was called the German American Bund. 

Later I learned that Hitler took notice of the Jim-Crow American South before he launched a world of evils on the Romani and the Jews. His attention focused on the South’s racial laws and segregation, after which he modeled his own regime, applying much of what our country had done to blacks. The Jews, in particular, were targeted by Hitler in ways similar to those that happened here first.

The answer to the question then changed. To those who wondered whether it could happen here, one could state, of course! It already did!

What do we do with this knowledge? Again, it is complicated.

We do not want to think that our friends, relatives, or children might be steered toward an authoritarian dictator. But we also know that many of our countrymen have been. Nor can we comfortably fix our minds on the awfulness around us, on TV, in the news, in podcasts, in the streets, and the endless commercials that praise one candidate, disparage the next, and remind us of Orwell’s Big Brother, a leader not easily escaped.

Who will educate children about the real U.S. history, including the history of our time? The texts? The school teachers? Ourselves? At what age? To what extent?

Under what conditions?

It seems to me that we should hope, make certain, and pray that their history books include something like this.

It happened here once, during which there were terrible injustices visited upon people of color and the Native Americans who lived here before we took their land and many of their lives.

And it was almost here when the country was 250 years old.

But decent people rose up and did everything they could to make sure the USA’s founders vision of our country wasn’t lost again.

Those people, the ones who lived here in 2026 were brave.

As your textbooks will tell you, 2026 was a long time ago, before you were born.

Now, really, finally, we live ‘in the land of the free and the home of the brave.’

God bless America.

==========

The top photo is of “Dr. Kier Klepzig is a Research Entomologist at the Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southern Research Station. He is teaching 5th graders about town ants at Phoenix Magnet School in Alexandria, LA.” It was sourced from Wikimedia Commons.

Next comes Julie Mehretu’s  — “Retopistics: A Renegade Excavation, 2001.”

Looking For Trouble? Why Being “Friends With Benefits” Might Not Be To Your Benefit

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/US_Navy_091107-N-6214F-008_A_Navy_SEAL_shows_a_child_an_M4_carbine_during_the_2009_Veterans_Day_Ceremony.jpg/512px-US_Navy_091107-N-6214F-008_A_Navy_SEAL_shows_a_child_an_M4_carbine_during_the_2009_Veterans_Day_Ceremony.jpg

Like a parent putting a weapon in the hands of someone too young to use it safely, Mother Nature has given teenagers sex. And, along with its novelty and thrill, come bodies that are drawn to each other with an out-of-control animal magnetism. They are spring-loaded even before spring time, aching to be launched.

And, perhaps worst of all, Western culture has made sex into something almost as impersonal as buying your groceries.

Like those groceries, it is a thing to be consumed. And, like food, it produces sensations, with particular attention to appearance, shape, smell, taste, and texture.

But unfortunately, this thing that we consume with alacrity, just might eat the consumer alive.

Sex has always been a problematic commodity, even before the days when it began to be used to sell other commodities: cars, soft drinks, and the like.

Now the idea of “friends with benefits,” with No Strings Attached as the movie title promises, has added a new wrinkle to the long list of carnal complications.

For ages sex has put young people in the position of trying to figure out how to have it, without the concomitant problems of shame, disease, and pregnancy. For a long while access to young women was restricted by their families and trustworthy chaperones, with religious institutions casting a long shadow over the entire reproductive process. Perhaps George Orwell’s Big Brother wasn’t involved in surveillance of one’s comings and goings, but your own big brother was likely to be if you were female.

What the church couldn’t monitor, it condemned. Punishment by shunning and shaming was Hester Prynne’s reward for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy in Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter. Church-derived predictions of a hellish afterlife and a powerfully ingrained sense of guilt also contributed to hesitation even when your older male sibling wasn’t close by.

Eventually, however, several things happened. Urbanization made people more anonymous and independent than when they lived in small communities. They were now less easily watched and controlled. Women asserted their rights, and politicians and voters followed their lead in granting them. The automobile assisted a couple in getting away from watchful eyes and offered a place, even if uncomfortable, where sex could occur.

Meanwhile, more women began to go to school in co-ed institutions and economic necessity brought them out of the kitchen and into the work place. The weakening of religion’s governance and the invention of the birth control pill further undermined the likelihood of negative consequences if the female became sexually active.

With less to constrain them, young people did what comes naturally. Casual sex always existed, but now it was a game that the woman could play with less chance of social disgrace. The 1969 movie John and Mary portrayed the very young Dustin Hoffman and Mia Farrow as two characters who become sexually involved and only introduce themselves by name at the film’s end.

One night stands, of course, can last more than one night. “Hook ups,” can hook you permanently. But the once common expectation of something meaningful coming from a sexual encounter has been relegated to a past that many young people see as a relic from the prehistoric age of their grandparents.

Which brings us to the idea of “friendship with benefits.” There are even instructions on the internet on how best to achieve this (apparently desirable) change in a platonic relationship. You are expected to think clearly, recognize in advance whether you can keep your emotions in check, choose the right person, and create clear and mutually agreeable rules about how often and under what circumstances you will see each other.

Unfortunately, even with some guidance, you are working against biology and psychology. And, you are risking the conventional friendship (without benefits) that existed before. As Robert Burns put it, “the best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men” often go awry.

Let me count the ways, leaving out such complications as sexually transmitted disease, religion, and pregnancy:

  1. The human heart is hard-wired to “care,” especially the female heart. Having won equality and the right to control their own bodies, women are well-advised not to assume that they can objectify the opposite sex with the ease that men can.
  2. Even in friendships jealousy can be an issue. Despite the new set of “rules” that govern your sexualized relatedness, how might it feel to you after intercourse if your companion finds other things and people to occupy himself? Eventually, at least one of the parties is likely to attach to someone permanently. How will the “old friend” like it when his or her status is changed unilaterally back to what it was before sex?
  3. A “romance” with no commitments, no responsibilities, and no future is not likely to bring out the best in either person. It encourages treatment that is callous or indifferent.
  4. Do you believe that it is possible to make the relationship sexual without changing it? A kind of vulnerability can come with nakedness; the other person now knows some very personal things about you. Will he look at you and you at him in the same way later?
  5. Performance questions are almost inevitable. Was the sex good? Good enough? How did it compare to others? If it was not satisfying, how do you move back to a platonic relationship without injuring your friend?
  6. Perhaps you believe that you will get out of the “benefits” portion of the connection before your emotions get in the way. This represents a pretty basic misunderstanding of how (and how rapidly) love can bloom. If I had a nickel for every time one of my patients predicted incorrectly that her brain was in charge and would signal the moment in which to exit, I would be the richest man in the world.
  7. Even if you are able to keep your head dominant over your heart, your decision to get out might leave your friend devastated. Why would you want to risk something (your friendship) that you claim is so important to you?
  8. Does your mate-of-convenience have a different agenda than you do? Does he hope that love will follow sex, even if he states that he does not want or expect that?

One more point. Why would you want to give up the romance, the mystery, the allure of growing intimacy that might lead to love? Why debase something that can be precious and make it a commonplace?

We lose our appreciation of things too easily achieved. If gold grew on trees, it would not be so highly valued as it is. Few of life’s offerings escape the law of supply and demand.

Society puts young people, even including some not quite so young, in a tough spot. “Choose!” it says at the extreme, between an inflexible abstinence based on religious text and physical contact that has been so commoditized it is little more than the raw reproductive act of our mammalian cousins.

Remember: song writers write love songs, not songs about friends with benefits.

—

The photo above captures a Navy Seal showing a child an M4 carbine at the Veteran’s Day Ceremony of November 7, 2009 at Ft. Pierce, Florida. The author is Chief Mass Communications Specialist Robert J. Fluegel. Sourced from Wikimedia Commons.