Cultures demands mythology, as this week we are about to celebrate one, the joining of the European Christian culture with that of the indigenous people of this new continent who were known in my childhood as Indians. Just as the name was based on a sizable geological error of location, the end result of the destruction of a native civilization is subordinated to the myth of comity between the two cultures, rather than a slow cultural if not complete actual genocide.
Mythology, from earliest tribal images to modern national historiography, provides something vital for any culture, something that we may not be able to appreciate until it starts to collapse. Exploring this subject presents the, "Fish don't know they are living in water" problem, that we have no way of grasping or discussing something so universal that there are no handles, words or concepts to deal with it. If fish are removed from water, there is no problem to be resolved or corrections to be made -- they are dead. So too, our American-Western-Enlightement culture is so vital for our civilization that when there are processes that are like the loss of water environment for aquatic creatures there are no evolutionary adaptations for combating this occurrence. A shark may slap his fins, bare his teeth, blood would rush to his organs of flight or fight, but to no avail, as the change is so beyond any even ancient forebears faced that there is nothing, even in incipient form, available.
I'm writing this essay based on this premise: first that civilization is to humanity as water is to aquatic animals, and further, that civilization, in the aggregate meaning all of the systems and norms of a given time; or viewed over all of human existence require a common frame of reference that is beyond scientific verification, but rather in the realm of common belief. Myth, or Mythos and the word Ethos is the best approximation for this discussion.
I'm writing this essay at a time of personal loss, meaningless for the world but profound for me. My interpersonal connections are tenuous at best, really for almost a decade being on a single liberal website, Dailykos, with a million members and a few who know me from my handle Arodb. And then there is a group who play tennis every morning at a public court, where after the informal doubles sets some of us, maybe a few, sometimes a dozen go to our coffee shop to shoot the breeze. These conversations, my joining right after Obama's election, can be mundane (finding the best tire shop) to the most personal and profound. It's the diversity that makes it work when it does. As I write this I have come to the conclusion that even if I were to continue with both of these settings, the magic that made them so important to me over so long a time are not sustainable under the stresses of this particular moment in history.
"Ethos" happens young, to this child before I had anything to compare Union Station crowded with soldiers who enjoyed a connection with a cute kid. I reached my fifth year in the protected environs of the white side of the street of Washington D.C. feeling the sadness when Roosevelt died and the joy when we had won the war. In the Washington Post when I was just starting to read, I remember this heading, "American is great because American is good, if American ever ceases to be good she will cease to be great." At the time, almost seventy years ago, there was no reference I can remember to the author of this aphorism, Alexis de Tocqueville so I pondered it in my very naive brain, and felt it just seemed too simplistic, even though everything that was printed must, of course, be true!
At that tender age, the "idea" of a nation being "good" made me think, but with no possibility of clarifying the point. I knew enough not to raise the issue with my dad, who happily ending his formal education at thirteen, and with this, his own exploration of such conundrums. As far as the United States being good, always having been and in the future being so, was not really in doubt. We were the "good guys," with movies showing heroes who killed Indians and Japs and benevolently dominating "gals" and "colored people" with any moral qualms not being raised as even existing.
There was a slight problem, which was that we were Jews, a group not that common in that neighborhood of D.C at that time. The American ethos was intertwined with Christianity, as we followed our teacher's instructions to sing hymns to the one "born as the king of Israel." I knew that the new nation did not have a king, and if it did it would not be Jesus Christ, since my Rabbi would have told us. But, years later, when he was pressed during my daily classes leading to my Bar Mitzvah, he unleashed an explosion of ridicule of that "crazy person" that my teacher, classmates and country so revered. He forgot to add as I walked away somewhat stunned, "Lot's of luck dealing with this, kid"
Before I give anyone the idea that what I say here is meant to be the sum total of my formation, I have no such illusion. Millions of Jewish kids of my era faced these conflicts, and managed to deal with them and thrive in this country. I'm writing this because my experiences forced me to grapple on a personal level challenges similar to what this country, probably the world is facing on this Thanksgiving day. One of the most quoted lines of the Poem by W.B. Yeats "The Second Coming" is "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;" I had felt the power of these words, yet never till now
understood his dire warning. He wrote those words in 1919, when a horrible war was ending not in real resolution, but a time-out when the conflicts of the previous conflagration were to fester and metamorphose into genocidal monstrosities. Yeats could only sense the consequences of this loss of the center, the common values, too deep and amorphous to be codified into law, but which allowed human beings to connect on this vital indefinable level.
I will miss my after-tennis group, yet how can I expect a more profound conversation than that which takes place among the political leaders of our country. All that's left is taking sides, choosing the most vivid expression of vilification of the opposition to endorse. There is no appreciation that we are reliving the words of Yeats' poem.
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity
The "Centre" that could not hold in 1919, is now being overwhelmed by an even more cacophonous machine of a media made more graphic and intrusive. Only those blessed with a simplicity of thought have the hubris to stand up and shout- with each outburst -- if looking up would see:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
How "XYZ-ophobic" is "begging the question" and " 'He/she' is now 'they' "
This relates to this article printed after this one, in the N.Y. Times, on Phobic as a weapon, that includes my comment at this link, with two readers who agree with my view, which given how it goes against the grain of the writer and stereotypical Times readers, is a real affirmation for my thoughts.
It’s hard enough to try to express thoughts in words without the abundance of traps that make language serve two purposes, conveying viewpoints and information while also remediation of injustices in society. Among species that have different words for the two sexes, it’s customary to use the male as indicating both genders. The most common is our pet “dog,” which in casual discussion can also mean what in breeder circles is referred to with a word that is a serious insult when referring to a human female.
We have no official agency for the English language such as the French Academy which puts out an official dictionary of usage. Their last one was published in 1935 but they are working on an update. So in the U.S. we have several benchmark style manuals which include words in flux, and of course many competing dictionaries. This article about current changes in the Washington Post was interesting for the extensive discussion of the mixed gender pronoun, which has been a thorn for decades since the current women’s movement of the 1960s. Here’s a peek from the article:
And of course anyone reading this knows well that political ideology comes complete with its own language, IE, death or estate taxes, pro life or choice, or the buzzwords, equality or opportunity. I’m not sure how this can ever be solved, but it should be. When the very choice of words defines ones political orientation, and more and more it is this, rather than the substance of an argument that is attended to, there not much hope for real exchanges of perspectives. The word itself, contains the arguments as the proliferation of the form, “XYZ-ophobic.” It means that the opposition to XYZ is inherently not based on any rationality, so responding to such a question tacitly is accepting the answer that is within the question. And speaking of changing meanings of words and terms, the phrase, “Roger hates XYZs because he’s “XYZ-ophobic” is actually a rare example of “begging the question”
This is one example of why “preaching to the choir” is so prevalent. As humans we need to belong, to feel part of a tribe, religion, country or ideology. When we speak only among ourselves, we learn the language and get slapped down if we vary from it. This has been working for quite a while now, but the question is whether it is compatible with a complex diverse polity such as the United States of America as we face ever greater stresses.
It’s hard enough to try to express thoughts in words without the abundance of traps that make language serve two purposes, conveying viewpoints and information while also remediation of injustices in society. Among species that have different words for the two sexes, it’s customary to use the male as indicating both genders. The most common is our pet “dog,” which in casual discussion can also mean what in breeder circles is referred to with a word that is a serious insult when referring to a human female.
We have no official agency for the English language such as the French Academy which puts out an official dictionary of usage. Their last one was published in 1935 but they are working on an update. So in the U.S. we have several benchmark style manuals which include words in flux, and of course many competing dictionaries. This article about current changes in the Washington Post was interesting for the extensive discussion of the mixed gender pronoun, which has been a thorn for decades since the current women’s movement of the 1960s. Here’s a peek from the article:
There was one change, though, that I knew would cause controversy. For many years, I’ve been rooting for — but stopping short of employing — what is known as the singular they as the only sensible solution to English’s lack of a gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun. (Everyone has their own opinion about this.) He once filled that role, but a male default hasn’t been palatable for decades. Using she in a sort of linguistic affirmative action strikes me as patronizing. Alternating he and she is silly, as are he/she, (s)he and attempts at made-up pronouns. The only thing standing in the way of they has been the appearance of incorrectness — the lack of acceptance among educated readers.Often, the change in meaning of a word can be contentious, and then when researched become fascinating as for this diary I wrote in 2012. It showed how the word “Hoi Polloi” was used became very personal, but in researching this, going back to articles from the 19th century, I learned a great deal about language, how some words develop an emotional aspect. This one for instance, no matter whether one uses the original Greek meaning, or the one used by myself, and the Three Stooges, still is denigrating to the perceived target population.
And of course anyone reading this knows well that political ideology comes complete with its own language, IE, death or estate taxes, pro life or choice, or the buzzwords, equality or opportunity. I’m not sure how this can ever be solved, but it should be. When the very choice of words defines ones political orientation, and more and more it is this, rather than the substance of an argument that is attended to, there not much hope for real exchanges of perspectives. The word itself, contains the arguments as the proliferation of the form, “XYZ-ophobic.” It means that the opposition to XYZ is inherently not based on any rationality, so responding to such a question tacitly is accepting the answer that is within the question. And speaking of changing meanings of words and terms, the phrase, “Roger hates XYZs because he’s “XYZ-ophobic” is actually a rare example of “begging the question”
This is one example of why “preaching to the choir” is so prevalent. As humans we need to belong, to feel part of a tribe, religion, country or ideology. When we speak only among ourselves, we learn the language and get slapped down if we vary from it. This has been working for quite a while now, but the question is whether it is compatible with a complex diverse polity such as the United States of America as we face ever greater stresses.
Al Jolson Blackface - Was he Racist?
Those who know of Al Jolson’s relationship with “colored people”
would have difficulty understanding how a man who brings him back to
life, long after his fame and courage is a passing memory, is castigated
for this. At 67 years old, Bobby Berger, never remembered seeing him
live, yet the spirit of his singing and what it meant to transform
himself by putting on blackface makeup came through in his
performance over decades. But no more.
This Washington Post article with videos of his performance tells Berger’s story, and the man whom he admiringly imitates.Lets get this out in front- Berger was an ex-Baltimore cop, who was fired a few decades ago for doing this act, but eventually was reinstated with back pay for the department denying his freedom of speech. The last act was a benefit for those accused of the murder of Freddy Gray, and so much has changed that even some of the indicted officers don’t want to get any funding from this performance.
I write this to clarify the life of the man born Asa Yoelson in a ghetto in Lithuania in 1886, who became the most famous entertainer in the United States by the 1930s. Wearing blackface meant something different in those days, that should be passed on to those who don’t know this. From Wikipedia:
-----------------------------------------
Here’s the link to Wikipedia’s section no “His relations with African Americans” that conveys more than natural affection, but these examples of using his fame to break barriers as itemized here:
--------------------------—
It certainly doesn't mean the same thing now, but does that override what it was in the decades of the turn of the twentieth century. Does the meaning today, taint the life and the affections of this celebrity whose resistance to what was common racism of the time must have affected masses of Americans? At the least, should this not be an example of how symbols can overwhelm understanding that can bring diverse groups together.
Difficult questions for difficult times.
This Washington Post article with videos of his performance tells Berger’s story, and the man whom he admiringly imitates.Lets get this out in front- Berger was an ex-Baltimore cop, who was fired a few decades ago for doing this act, but eventually was reinstated with back pay for the department denying his freedom of speech. The last act was a benefit for those accused of the murder of Freddy Gray, and so much has changed that even some of the indicted officers don’t want to get any funding from this performance.
I write this to clarify the life of the man born Asa Yoelson in a ghetto in Lithuania in 1886, who became the most famous entertainer in the United States by the 1930s. Wearing blackface meant something different in those days, that should be passed on to those who don’t know this. From Wikipedia:
-----------------------------------------
Performing in blackface makeup was a theatrical convention of many entertainers at the beginning of the 20th century, having its origin in the minstrel show.[28] Working behind a blackface mask gave the performer "a sense of freedom and spontaneity he had never known".[14] According to film historian Eric Lott, for the white minstrel man "to put on the cultural forms of 'blackness' was to engage in a complex affair of manly mimicry.... To wear or even enjoy blackface was literally, for a time, to become black, to inherit the cool, virility, humility, abandon, or gaité de coeur that were the prime components of white ideologies of black manhood."[29]-------------------------—
As Metaphor of mutual suffering
Jazz historians have described Jolson's blackface and singing style as metaphors for Jewish and black suffering throughout history. Jolson's first film, The Jazz Singer, for instance, is described by historian Michael Alexander as an expression of the liturgical music of Jews with the "imagined music of African Americans," noting that "prayer and jazz become metaphors for Jews and blacks." [30] Playwright Samson Raphaelson, after seeing Jolson perform his stage show Robinson Crusoe, stated that "he had an epiphany: 'My God, this isn't a jazz singer', he said. 'This is a cantor!'" The image of the blackfaced cantor remained in Raphaelson's mind when he conceived of the story which led to The Jazz Singer.[31]
Upon the film's release, the first full-length sound picture, film reviewers saw the symbolism and metaphors portrayed by Jolson in his role as the son of a cantor wanting to become a "jazz singer":
Here’s the link to Wikipedia’s section no “His relations with African Americans” that conveys more than natural affection, but these examples of using his fame to break barriers as itemized here:
--------------------------—
"at a time when black people were banned from starring on the Broadway stage,"[35] he promoted the play by black playwright Garland Anderson,[36] which became the first production with an all-black cast ever produced on Broadway;
he brought an all-black dance team from San Francisco that he tried to feature in his Broadway show;[34]
he demanded equal treatment for Cab Calloway, with whom he performed a number of duets in his movie The Singing Kid;
Al Jolson once read in the newspaper that songwriters Eubie Blake and Noble Sissle, neither of whom he had ever heard of, were refused service at a Connecticut restaurant because of their race. He immediately tracked them down and took them out to dinner, "insisting he'd punch anyone in the nose who tried to kick us out!"[37] Subsequent to their meeting, according to biographer Al Rose, Jolson and Blake became friends -Jolson became famous and beloved, not because of the careful creation of a persona, but because he was able to express his feelings in song like no one else. When he sang of longing for Mama, or Mammy, it wasn’t a parody, but something his fellow immigrants knew in a time when leaving home meant never to see his parents again, ever. His painting his face black was a convention, one he embraced.
It certainly doesn't mean the same thing now, but does that override what it was in the decades of the turn of the twentieth century. Does the meaning today, taint the life and the affections of this celebrity whose resistance to what was common racism of the time must have affected masses of Americans? At the least, should this not be an example of how symbols can overwhelm understanding that can bring diverse groups together.
Difficult questions for difficult times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)