Columns
Lessons From Moms
President Trump announced his main goals during his second inaugural address on January 20, 2025:
“We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and a unifier.”
President Trump also declared:
“After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.”
President Trump’s stated goals are the bedrock of our fragile democracy. It takes very little to get mired in endless wars, especially when voices calling for peace and reason are silenced. History is littered with great societies who charged headlong into their own destruction for the silliest of causes.
The most famous war of ancient western civilization was the Trojan War between Greece and Troy. It lasted ten years, cost countless lives and treasure and was started over one woman, Helen, whose face, according to the poet Homer, “Launched a 1,000 ships”.
World War I was often called the “war about nothing”, cost the earth millions of human lives, including over 100,000 Americans, and was started over the assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria-Hungary, Franz Ferdinand.
America’s Viet Nam War spanned over twenty years of conflict, but it was a questionable attack on a United States ship in the Tonkin Gulf in 1964 that was used to justify America’s involvement in the “endless war”.
The United States had no quarrel with Iraq but false intelligence alleging Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” got us involved in the costly military slog that has continued since 1990. In this pointless and endless war America has expended and is still expending countless lives and treasure. What President Trump recognized in his inaugural address is that war can be slid into easily but may result in catastrophic consequences and never end.
Since his inauguration, President Trump has frequently compared the fighting between Israel and its neighbors to a school yard dustup between boys. As President Trump has frequently said, America has no reason to be involved. U.S.A. involvement might lead to another world war but it could lead to a permanent Middle East Peace if we put into practice the lessons of history or simply those from our mothers.
When I was in the first grade, for some never fathomed reason, another first grader and I developed a routine of fighting every day after school. As do most schoolboy contests, they amounted to little damage to either of us but did result in the destruction of numerous tee shirts. Well, our mothers banged our heads together and ended our “endless war”. He and I, of course, became good friends and still are today. Neither of us has a clue what we fought about back then.
I respectfully suggest to President Trump that he tell Israel and Iran they should neither one have nuclear or atomic weapons and neither should attack the other or their neighbors. Instead of arming one country to attack the other, America should use its enormous motherly power and wisdom to sit Israel and Iran down with the stern warning that no more tee shirts will be lost by anyone, including us.
Wise Fools Needed
Arthur Miller’s 1953 play The Crucible was a metaphor for the dangers of the McCarthyism era. Senator Joseph McCarthy wielded virtually unchecked power using Red Scare tactics. Governments, the news media and the public devoured allegations that Soviet Communists had infiltrated American culture and the only solution was to excise the traitors. Thousands of careers were ruined as was the social standing of countless loyal citizens by innuendo. Senator McCarthy’s most powerful weapon was fear. Freedom of speech could have been America’s best defense, but fear of being painted with McCarthyism’s red brush kept truth at bay. As with many dangerous social problems, America’s solution had already been provided by our 18th century Founders, scholars and historians who had studied thousands of years of great civilizations that had destroyed themselves through hubris and stifled debate. Freedom of Speech is not just a shield, it is also a democratic society’s most powerful sword. To concede this ultimate right is to voluntarily disarm.
Our Constitution was crafted by human beings who were steeped in the lessons of civilizations that had been forged on an anvil of free speech but had declined when truth could or would no longer confront power. Our Founders knew their history, especially that of the brilliant ancient Greeks who realized:
“…democracy insisted on complete freedom of speech, and thought it well to mock the personalities and
air the burning problems of the moment.”
Charles A. Robinson, Jr.
In his Introduction to
An Anthology of Greek Drama (1949)
From Sophocles’ twenty-five-hundred-year-old Oedipus the King to Shakespeare’s (1564-1616) Macbeth and other countless examples from civilizations of old to modern times, we have warnings that leaders who do not heed voices cautioning against hubris can bring down great societies. A common theme in both monarchial government and literature for thousands of years is that of the Wise Fool who, without fear of repercussions, both whispers in the emperor’s ear and speaks truth to his or her face. In the plays of ancient Greece this role was often played by the chorus which would presage the harm a ruler’s pride was going to bring about later if he did not heed the warnings or if the populace did not replace the ruler. This is the ultimate in free expression. However, often times those in power surround themselves not with “Wise Fools” who tell them unwelcome truth, but with fearful fools who cling to power through sycophantic flattery.
When the victims of Salem, Massachusetts were executed in 1692-1693, it was not because they were witches but because superstition, personal grudges, prejudices, ignorance or religion trumped truth. In the McCarthy era, the Red Scare did not put America in peril, the fear of it did. The cure then as always is Freedom of Expression. The disease of misguided or corrupt power is best cured by a free flow of ideas and most exacerbated by silence, or worse, capitulation. When even our universities cower into silence before threats of our government, the rotting of our moral core as a free people has taken root. We have the recent example of the 1950’s to awaken us to what silence in the face of government power run amok can wreak on our democracy. History is littered with the rubble of previously once great societies that have committed the sin of lassitude in the face of ignorance.
The voices of campus protesters in the 1960’s and 1970’s helped bring America back from the precipice during the Viet Nam War era much as the courage of those such as Arthur Miller, who refused to be silenced, did during the 1950’s Red Scare. One might ask where the prophetic and courageous Greek chorus and wise fools are today as our government sends our soldiers into our streets?
An Anniversary
Just over one hundred years ago (June 1921), what historians consider one of the worst incidents of White on Black racial violence occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma. An entire Black business district and many Black owned residences were destroyed by White vigilantes. Approximately 300 Negro citizens were murdered. The matter was omitted from official historical records until 2001. As a student in Oklahoma public schools from 1950-1961, I never heard of this event. It is now being included in school curricula. I recently was doing research for this column when I referred to a book, The Oklahoma Story, by former Oklahoma University Professor of History Arrell Morgan Gibson (1921-1987). In an informative and interesting book on the history of Oklahoma published in 1978, there is no mention of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre even though Professor Gibson does include Oklahoma’s history of segregation and racial prejudice.
For example, the book points out that the first Legislature of Oklahoma formally adopted legal segregation of public schools, public transportation, public toilets, water fountains and other facilities. While I have never forgotten living in a culture steeped in Jim Crow formal and societal expected segregation, Gibson’s book sharpened my memories and caused me to return to my frequently sublimated curiosity about America’s caste systems. One of my most difficult father/son experiences I had was attempting to explain the apartheid of my youth to my son who could not comprehend the incomprehensible. It is difficult to explain what one does not understand. I approached our numerous conversations about Jim Crow by relating my personal experiences with it. Of course, my experiences remained almost as mysterious to me as they were to my young son.
I had no explanation for why White society used its majority power to keep Blacks, what we called Coloreds, at a distance and a disadvantage. Why was the water from a White’s only public fountain better than that from a Colored fountain when they were both connected to the same source only a couple of feet apart? What difference did it make if Colored waste was separated at a commode when the sewers claimed both? And why was it okay for Coloreds to pay White restaurant owners for food to go but it was illegal for Coloreds to sit at the counter? What was so vile about Colored bodies that they could not ride in the White only seats? Most puzzling of all was what was so sinful about Colored Christianity that it could not be expiated along with White sin on Sunday?
Well, Gentle Reader, if you did not live under apartheid, this probably makes no more sense to you than it did to my son, or frankly, to me. On the other hand, I do wonder if we still have far to go as a society when it comes to race, or religion or gender or…. I also wonder if such public spectacles as the Sean Diddy Combs trial would be the titillating social phenomenon it is if the participants were White. Does America still suffer from a 400-year-old need to keep Black culture in a separate category from White?
Have we progressed or have we found ways to assuage our prejudice with bemusement? Even our President appears to fear that any recognition that America has need to make reparations is somehow morally wrong. As for that conversation with my son who now has children of his own, well, his daughter’s best friend is Black. However, the better news is, I do not think either his daughter or her friend knows there is a distinction.
Souls In Jeopardy
Societies of people, including nationalities, often have histories that help form a country’s culture. The members of a group may not realize their contemporary behaviors are a product of or are, at least, influenced by these shared histories. They also may fail to recognize similar Volksgeists in other societies.
American college students today may be puzzled by the reaction of their federal government to the wars between Israel and its neighbors. While Israel may have been created mainly by Great Britain and the United States in 1948, many Israelis and even certain fundamentalist religious Americans have been taught it was created by a Hebrew god just for Jews over two thousand years ago.
A great number of Americans of European ancestry believed their cultural god, Manifest Destiny, was offended by what was seen as a sinful sloth and fallowness by Native Americans. Therefore, it was morally justified to take and use the land the indigenous peoples had inhabited for thousands of years but failed to develop. Contemporary Jewish “settlers” use the same justification to squat on property owned by Palestinians.
For both Israel and the United States, the mantra was, “A land without people, for a people without land”. It is difficult for many Americans to fault Israel for taking Arab lands when we have generations of subliminal cultural evidence that we would not have the sweet lives we enjoy had our European ancestors not done the same thing. One might dream that the expiation of our national guilt could be somewhat assuaged by refusing to aid Israel to behave similarly. However, hope is a poor plan when it comes to seeing ourselves as others might. In today’s America we may not realize our conclusions and prejudices concerning conquest and settlement of Palestinian lands by Israelis are subconsciously determined by our own cultural history of genocidal actions towards Native Americans.
Another interesting phenomenon occurs when one culture not only does not learn from the ills cast upon it by another morally corrupt society but instead emulates and repeats it. Such is the juxtaposition of Zionist Israel and Nazi Germany. Reason calls for a culture that never forgets the Holocaust to be ever mindful of unfettered power coupled with unaware depravity. Thinking Israelis know the war in Gaza was not started by Hamas on October 07, 2023, but by Israel that began to eliminate Palestinians in 1948. This is much like thinking Germans in the 1930’s and 40’s knew Jewish people in post-WWI Germany were not responsible for the hardships suffered by their country regardless of what the Nazis preached as justification for a Jewish genocide.
To many Zionists in Israel, Hamas and even Palestinian civilians are an evil that should be destroyed even if countless innocents are slaughtered in the process. But to many Palestinians, Israel has been an occupying, oppressive evil throughout the past seventy-seven years. To the oppressed peoples of Gaza, October 07 was a desperate act of resistance. We should recognize the similarity between Palestinian resistance and that of Native Americans at the Little Big Horn and other acts of desperation that brought down the wrath of the United States against many other innocent Native Americans.
Israel may not see itself as a pariah among nations in its genocide against Palestinians any more than our European ancestors saw their desire to take Indian lands as genocide. After all, both Israel and America had their god on their side. However, America does have an opportunity to somewhat atone for our past sins and to help Israel put an end to their present ones. If gods truly are involved, we better do both for Israel’s salvation and our own.
All In The Family
The Book of Ruth has four pages. One paragraph of one page is perhaps the Bible’s most often recited passage by brides and grooms:
“Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you;
For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge;
Your people shall be my people, and your God my God;
Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried.”
Ruth 1:16-17
These beautiful promises were made by Ruth to her mother-in-law Naomi. The family and cultural inter-connections are closely intertwined. Ironically, Naomi, her husband, Elimelech, and their two sons, Mahlou and Chilion, were originally Ephrathites who lived in Bethlehem in Judah, what is now not only the birthplace of Jesus but also Palestine. A further historical irony is that just as today there is famine in Gaza, part of Palestine, in Naomi family’s time “the judges” (the government?) “ruled there was a famine in the land”. So, Naomi and her family left Bethlehem and “sojourned” to the country of Moab that was in what is now the country of Jordan.
Naomi’s sons both married Moabite women but then both sons and Elimelech died. Thereafter, times were hard for Naomi and her daughters-in-law when Naomi heard that, “the Lord had visited his people (in Bethlehem) and given them food”. So, Naomi, Ruth and Orpah decided to seek new lives in Bethlehem. While Orpah turned back to Moab, Naomi and Ruth ventured on to Bethlehem where Naomi’s husband still had a wealthy Israeli kinsman named Boaz. Ruth and Boaz eventually married and had a son named Obed. Obed fathered Jesse who fathered Israel’s most famous king, David. The genetics of the Israeli-Palestinian Naomi, the Moabite (Jordanian) Ruth, the Israeli-Palestinian Boaz and the Israeli King David are closely related. They are all of Semitic culture and history and are all deeply embedded in the general genealogy and geography of the area. In essence, they are all related, leading to possible fratricide or genocide if indiscriminate slaughter should occur.
Yet, according to many authorities that is exactly what the Zionists of Israel are doing today as a matter of government policy. As former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, recently stated in an interview on BBC, what Israel is doing in Gaza is, “very close to a war crime”. And more evidence of Israel’s intent comes from Israeli Cabinet Members, Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who have publicly called for the “conquest and depopulation of Gaza”.
More graphically, as recently reported in The Washington Post’s World View Newsletter by reporter Ishaan Tharoor, former Israeli Defense Force general and current head of the Democrats Party in Israel, Yair Golan, stated:
“Israel is on the way to becoming a pariah state among nations if it doesn’t return to behaving like a sane country. A sane country doesn’t engage in fighting against civilians, doesn’t kill babies as a hobby and doesn’t set the expulsion of a population as a goal.”
As for America, with the cooperation of Egypt and other allies, we should immediately force massive amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza through Egypt. America should also guarantee the accessibility and safety of impartial international journalists into Gaza so the world can witness the facts on the ground. And, the immediate cessation of America’s enablement of the killing and destruction by Israel in Gaza should be a priority.
Not only are the descendants of Ruth and Naomi responsible for and entitled to humane treatment, the United States, as part of the human family, must help assure such outcomes.
Sláinte
Not long ago Peg and I visited the Isle of Skye in Scotland. We took a bus ride to the small town of Portree and chuckled when we were let off near an intersection with a sign that said, “Caution, Elderly People Crossing”. The sign had a drawing of a bent at the waist old woman holding onto an even more acutely bent old man leaning on a cane. It looked strangely familiar.
Portree is the capital of the Isle of Skye. It has a little more than 2,000 residents, most of whom pretend to speak English, but who really communicate among themselves in Scottish Gaelic. Alcohol is available as long as you do not order “Scotch”. The Scotch drink is “whiskey”. The locals are reservedly polite but do not hide their bemusement at American tourists, especially if the tourists resemble the Elderly Crossing signs.
Just as many other societies, the Scotch have an arcane yang and yin approach to regulating the use and abuse of alcohol. At our hotel the tiny bar was intimate and comforting. Dark walls and heavy wooden furniture were accented by the lone barkeep who was obviously accustomed to explaining the local customs to hapless American tourists. He was of ruddy, bewhiskered visage and a roguishly engaging attitude. He was reminiscent of the 19th century immigrants who brought their Viking-like culture with them to America. Peg and I were his only customers that bleary afternoon after our bus trip. He put on his best Scottish brogue to disguise the true meaning of his responses to my haltingly timid order for a double shot of Bailey’s as though I were addressing Cerberus guarding the Bar. He scoffed, rolled his eyes and his tongue then condescendingly informed me it was illegal to buy a double for one person. Then, with a twinkle he said, “Now, should you wish to buy a single for your wife and a separate single for yourself, that will work”. So, even though I had already ordered a “Scotch” for myself and received a primer on it being properly called a “whiskey”, I ordered as instructed.
This experience reminded me of my days as an underage American trying to procure 3.2% beer from a drive-through beer joint. It always seemed to me that the only thing the Volstead Act accomplished was to sharpen the imaginations of thirsty Americans and, according to my family’s lore, to keep my Uncle Henry’s moonshine still in business. It looked to me like Scotland had approached alcohol prohibition and regulation in a similar fashion.
Regardless, Peg did get to drown her ennui about “Elderly People”; the two Baileys did the trick. However, we both have remained acutely aware of how our strides might appear; we strive to walk straighter and more briskly, and, of course, without a cane.
