A learning moment?

[No image available for this post because the most appropriate image is one that holds strong negative connotations, so this is a better option.]

I think I had a learning moment yesterday in a realization that slowly dawned on me last night while reading Hesse's Siddhartha in bed. This may be a long wordy post, and it may be a somewhat selfish way to organize my thoughts, but I think and hope my potential insights may be beneficial to others.

Background

I got involved in a FaceBook thread around whether or not the Confederate Flag (more accurately the Battle Flag of Virginia) is a racist symbol. I was quickly outnumbered in this thread with several people defending its use, using the history argument - that it's part of American history and is a symbol of Southern Heritage. My viewpoint is that this Southern Heritage is explicitly tied to racism, which many articles and videos support. It's even a clear conclusion from viewing the Wikipedia page.

I approached the discussion from a rational viewpoint and carefully worded my posts as not to be argumentative. I gave the other participants the benefit of the doubt that they were arguing their position from a non-racist viewpoint. I did have my doubts about this, however. One participant's background image on his FB page looked like a shot from Duck Dynasty, with several bearded white men presenting their middle fingers in an aggressive manner. The person's page on which this thread appeared also showed strong Fox News-leaning tendencies as well, but I wouldn't have called him out on being a racist.

The thread went in strange directions. Many defensive links were posted, all with the same History argument. I pointed out that the swastika dates from neolithic times as a peaceful symbol (yeah, yeah Godwin's Law), but that no one in their right mind would every fly such a flag today. While historically a positive symbol, it was corrupted beyond repair by the Nazi Party. It's even illegal to fly it in Germany except in a museum setting. While nobody is suggesting outlawing the Confederate Flag, those flying it should recognize what a majority of people feel it represents.

Clearly we all disagreed and the discussion wasn't heading anywhere. We all seemed to be reaching a point where the thread had run its course (into a brick wall), and I was ready to let it die. I'm totally OK with not trying to have the last word in these kinds of debates, and it was time just to let it end.

The Escalation

And then my FB friend posted a fresh comment. This was a post shared from Fox News around President Obama's decision to allow private citizens to pay ransom without fear of prosecution. I am not well versed on this point, and I can see at least two sides to that issue. What grabbed my attention was my friend's commentary added to the posted link. It began "Our Muslim President has declared..." and then ranted about this decision.

Right here, I stopped. I made a public comment on this new thread quoting his words and thanked him for letting me put his views on the Confederate Flag in perspective. He is clearly more racist than I had wanted to give him credit for. I don't have any interest in that level of bullshit on my FaceBook feed, or in Real Life, and promptly unfriended him.

He then decided to air this publicly, calling me out by name, which was quickly pointed out to me (after all, we still have many friends in common). Clearly misunderstanding my reason for the abrupt end to our conversation, he called me out on getting "all bent" because of History and Southern Pride. In order to clear this up for him concisely and to close the loop for myself, I messaged him privately letting him know the "Muslim President" comment shows me where he really stands on the flag debate. He has not replied, and I have not further investigated his public airing of his grievance against me. So this is the end, right?

The Aftermath

I found myself in bed, reading, but still thinking about this. If you've read other posts on this blog, or know me at all, I'm very much into the "Be Here Now" philosophy. The past is the past, and there's nothing productive in dwelling on might-have-beens or carrying around past negative events. Yet this exchange kept popping into my mind.

If I was OK with everything I said (I still am - everything was backed up with facts, and I was not argumentative or mean in anything I said), why was this still with me? So I contemplated his side of the events. Was he sitting at home stewing and angry? I've seen and heard how he behaves, especially with alcohol involved, and I know there is a deep streak of anger in this man. I pictured him stewing in anger, feeling persecuted yet again. Maybe he is thinking of me, and pictures me similarly angry and still raving on this? With this thread still in my mind, am I? While contemplating this view, a new thought popped in my mind.

What if he's actually questioning himself? He claims he's not racist, then posts something literally racist. He was seemingly embarrassed enough by my response to on the second thread that he appears to have removed the whole thing. Maybe my pointing this out had some positive effect on him? That would be a great outcome from a pointless debate. Contemplating this, yet another angle came to mind.

The Learning Experience

Maybe he's not questioning anything. Maybe he is just sitting there angry. This, sadly, is the more likely path given my experiences with him. In this case, I've made him angry; I have caused suffering in another living being. Is this keeping me up because I'm ashamed of my actions? But I was trying to do the right thing here, trying to get people to understand the negative connotations associated with a symbol, trying to get them to see the other side of the story. And I'm still confident that I'm on the right side of this debate - history will show that. I was trying to help, and maybe, just maybe, I did.

But... maybe I caused suffering for another living being. Where does that fall in Buddhist teachings? I know well enough that I cannot be the root cause of another's anger - that exists entirely in their mind. However, for one to experience the root delusion of anger, one needs to have an Object on which to exaggerate bad qualities or consider to be undesirable. What if you are that Object to someone else? Is there negative Karma associated with this?

I guess there is always risk in trying to do Good that you will fail. After all, we're all traveling through Samsara together, and if we didn't cause suffering in one another, the amount of suffering in the world may not be enough for us to learn any lessons. Regardless, my take-away here, at this stage in my journey, is learning for myself that what's good for me may not be good for all. I shall endeavor to tread more lightly down these slippery paths where rational debate becomes heated discussion, leading to anger and suffering for someone involved - on either side of the discussion. Once your subject becomes angry, you've lost the ability to teach them anything. If they're angry from the start, having a rational debate is meaningless.

"In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves." -- Buddha

Loving For All

Yesterday I learned a bit about Mildred Loving. It's fascinating the stuff you learn about in History and Social Studies classes in high school and the stuff they just skip right over. This is probably somebody (or an issue) that I should have been aware of. Even with all the gay marriage stuff going on now, it actually never occurred to me that it was literally illegal to marry someone from another race. Sure, it was clearly not socially acceptable for a long time there, but I didn't think there were actual laws against it.

About a year ago, Mildred Loving released a statement on the 40th anniversary of her lawsuit against the state of Virgina. The details of the case can be found in Wikipedia and elsewhere, but I've pasted her statement below (taken from the Positive Liberty web site) because it's very revealing of the culture at the time -- note the judge's comments.

As a "privileged" straight white male in America, there are lots of things I haven't had to contend with directly. Sexism, racism, and heterosexism are words and issues I know -- but I've never had to deal directly with them. It is appalling to me that people think the way the judge's comments reveal; like I said, it just never occurred to me that this kind of marriage would be illegal. I figure it's about time I become a little more vocal on these issues. I'm not sure where to begin with that, but starting off at UUCY is probably as good of a starting point as any.

I can only hope my kids someday will read something similar about this time period and be similarly appalled about today's restrictions on marriage.



Loving for All

By Mildred Loving, June 12, 2007, the 40th Anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.