Live And Let Die

Here are a few things you won’t see written here:

- That what happened in Charleston wasn’t a terrible tragedy.

- That it wasn’t based in ignorance and a hatred of black people.

- That racism in this country is a thing of the past.

- A defense for the use of the Confederate flag in the United States of America.

- The N-word.

It is around those issues that the conversation has gone since the shooting in Charleston.  The Confederate flag has to go down, and President Obama said the N-word on a podcast.

Gun control has been discussed as well, but an impassioned argument on gun control is another thing you will not get here.  I’m not a supporter of guns, but there are no gun laws that could have stopped the tragedy, short of banning all legal guns.  The problem with that is that all we would have then on the streets are illegal guns, and I am not comfortable with all of the guns out there being in the hands of criminals.  Or at least the vast majority of guns, since the police are outnumbered by criminals who likely only have their guns to cause mayhem and harm.

So with gun control being a non-starter, we return to race and hate.  We return to the heart of the matter, where the gun gets its power and its impetus.  And we return to the Confederate flag and the N-word.

Should President Obama have said the N-word?  No.  And I’ll take it a step further: he shouldn’t be allowed to.  And if you’ll permit me, just a little further: no one should.

The N-word was a way to demean and abuse black people.  It’s a holdover from a time when black people weren’t considered human and it’s a word that was held over black people to make sure they knew it.  It’s grotesque that it’s not only still used today, but it’s used by the descendants of the people who were tortured with it.  

These descendants use it today with the defense of re-appropriation, but they don’t have the right to re-appropriate it.  No one alive today who uses that word like it’s nothing was bought and sold as property.  None of these people were whipped to death or had their children ripped from their arms and sold off like cattle.  None of these people slaved under the hot sun with little hope of a better life.  The people alive today who call each other by that word are the people who those people hoped would be able to live a life without being called that word.

Using the N-word is a living reminder of the darkest period of this country.  A period of hatred and division.  A period whose shadow we still do live in, and I don’t believe that shadow can subside as long as we have living reminders.  We shouldn't forget what happened- we can't, but we need to let the hatred and the word become relics of the past and give them a chance to be only memories, and not perpetuate them and allow them to remain current events. That hatred and that word needs to be deprived of the oxygen used to utter it and be allowed to die.

The N-word is also, in many respects, synonymous with the Confederate flag.  A reminder and a symbol of that dark time.  If the Confederate flag can’t be saved or re-appropriated, then neither can the N-word.  And this is not a case for the salvation or re-appropriation of the Confederate flag.

If the Confederate flag needs to be placed in a museum, then so does the N-word.  And the Confederate flag needs to be placed in a museum.

Born Which Way

I will start with disclaimer: I don’t fully understand the LGBTQ community.

I sort of understand the L and G.  They’re attracted to who they’re attracted to.  It’s uncontrollable and natural in the same way everyone can’t control what gets their pulse racing for another human being.  In that regard, I understand it, though I admit will probably never be able to fully understand it in the same way I will never fully be able to understand anyone whose shoes I don’t wear.   Not that anyone of the gay or lesbian orientation needs mine or any other heterosexual’s understanding or approval.

The B I understand a little less.  The reasoning for gays and lesbians should follow- it’s uncontrollable who we’re attracted to, but there’s something left wanting.  Maybe it’s because I have never met any bisexuals.

The Q I’m not even going to bother with.  For a society and generation so against labels, they get really specific with their sexual labeling.  Questioning? Do we really need to stamp a TBD on a person?  Not everyone needs to be labeled at every point along their journey.  Enough with the letters.  I understand the reasoning behind the inclusionary acronym: they want these people on the fringe of society to feel part of a community, but what happens when the Questioner ultimately realizes s/he is a heterosexual?  Are they banished from the community?  Let’s let some people just be for a little while.

That brings us to the T, and right now, that pretty much means Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.  For the most part, Jenner’s transition and Vanity Fair outing has been widely applauded.  But Jon Stewart and the Daily Show found another level to the parade of praise and pointed out how a lot of the coverage in the news went from “Ya, ya it was brave, blah blah blah…”  to,  “but would you look at her!”  The coverage quickly went from congratulations and bravo to objectification.  Jenner was compared in “hotness” to other women, “slut-shamed” for wearing a corset, and even reminded that there is now an expiration date on her looks.  As Stewart put it, “welcome to being a woman in America.”

And if you don’t really think about it, as with a lot of The Daily Show, it’s very funny and smart.  But just for the opposite of fun, let’s really think about it.

Who did Bruce Jenner become?  What was changed?  We’re to understand, and I’m not Q-ing this assertion, that he was becoming who he always was on the inside.  In that case, we already know how brave and strong and courageous and inspiring he was.  We knew that way back from the early Bruce days when he was becoming an Olympic champion.  That’s not really the breaking story now, then, is it?  The story is the physical, superficial change to the exterior to match what was always the interior.  So is it then surprising, and even wrong to wash over the bravery aspect of this and discuss Caitlyn on a superficial level?

Furthermore, if it is a superficial change, should we be praising it?

At this point, I will repeat that I don’t fully understand the LGBT community and what I say here isn’t a statement accompanied with a downed foot.  If you would notice, there are many question marks being employed here because I am asking questions in hopes of better understanding.  And the one thing I thought I understood about the gay and lesbian experience was that it was something they couldn’t control, it was innate, inside them.  It was natural.  But transgender isn’t natural.  There’s a very superficial change that takes place, changes that are not as laudatory in other parts of society.  

If a woman wants to go through a procedure to alter her appearance because when she looks in the mirror she doesn’t see the reflection of the person she feels is on the inside, society widely presses her not to go through with it.  We try to make her see she's perfect just the way she is.  That it’s all about the bass.  I don’t understand why, then, there is such support and praise for the transgender movement from a society where we encourage everyone to be proud of who they are and love who they are without changing themselves?