Category: White Guys Guide to DEI

A recent headline claimed that “Whites Believe They Are Victims of Racism More Often Than Blacks” at http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/whites-believe-they-are-victims-racism-more-o). I didn’t bother to read the study itself since so many published studies are simply wrong, but the article states that the study authors “asked a nation-wide sample of 208 blacks and 209 whites to indicate the extent to which they felt blacks and whites were the targets of discrimination in each decade from the 1950s to the 2000s. A scale of 1 to 10 was used, with 1 being ‘not at all’ and 10 being ‘very much.’”

Well, just look at the methodology, and you can see why the evaluation of racism in the 2000s, after first priming subjects to think of racism in the 1950s, will seem better for blacks and worse for whites. So the study doesn’t tell us what people really think. What interests me, though, are other ways that context can affect our thinking about racism.

If you are white and expect that you will not be put into your skin in a way that makes you self-conscious, because it rarely happens to you, then any instance of it happening to you will stand out, and you may overestimate the degree of racism in your life. Also, when the news of the day is that colleges discriminate against white applicants and the 1965 Voting Rights Act is unconstitutionally forceful in protecting the rights of black voters (these are upcoming Supreme Court cases), then the availability heuristic—we overemphasize whatever comes to mind—is likely to make you think that there is a lot of anti-white racism.

If you are black and have been forewarned by your family about the ubiquity of racism in America, then you are likely to be struck by the many instances of not encountering it, and you are likely to underestimate the anti-black racism in America. Also, even though your friends tell each other stories of racism, many mainstream news and entertainment outlets don’t. (“’Man bites dog’ is news.”)

My own view is that whites and blacks in America have about the same number of racist moments, but that the cost for blacks is much greater. Most people self-select for situations where they are not constantly put in their skin, either by looking for (or staying stuck in) social networks and neighborhoods and jobs where they are not stigmatized, or by making places more comfortable with them just by being there and behaving well. So most people lead lives that do not produce racist encounters. But the places that blacks have to avoid to avoid racism are more potentially valuable to them than are the places to whites that whites avoid to avoid racism. This is partly because white-oriented places are richer and are paths to wealth, but it is also because there are just a lot more white-oriented places in America than black-oriented or neutral places. In that sentence, I mean by “white-oriented” a place where you don’t stand out if you’re white, but you do stand out if you’re black. The odds of finding the best college, job, friends, romantic partner, or entertainment for yourself are greater if there are more places you can look.

In a completely racist marital market, for example, with 10% blacks and 90% whites (I’m oversimplifying) in a city of 200,000 people, a young black woman might find that of the 10,000 black men in the city, a thousand of them are in her age bracket and 500 of them are single. A young white woman is looking at 4500 prospects. The white woman is 9 times more likely than the black woman to find a man who matches her desired profile of traits. If they’re lesbians, they’re even worse off. If race is not a barrier, both straight women are looking at 5000 prospects. In this example, the straight black woman still gets married but only because the black man she marries also has to settle. My point is that just by being the majority, financial opportunities aside, anti-black racism is more costly than anti-white racism when cost involves happiness.

Jesus, like many of my heroes, was seriously flawed.

(It is not my intention to offend anyone. Really. But as you know from my prior posts, I think free speech is more important than tiptoe-ing around people’s religious anger. And I do have a point I want to make about doubt and sin, and their relationship to multiculturalism. I read the Bible regularly with absolutely no religious training.)

I can’t accept Jesus as divine. I’m always ready to forgive some flaws in historical characters, because it isn’t fair to judge them out of temporal context. A man may be forgiven for owning slaves at a time when it was customary, but God would have known better than to condone slavery. God would have known something about the benefits of the free enterprise system, the equality of women in all matters, and germs.

I admire Jesus’ use of analogy and his concern for the marginalized. I also admire, above all else, his admonition to remove the log from my own eye before trying to help others with their specks. This is the cornerstone of my approach to psychotherapy, marriage, parenting, and friendship.

Now, it’s quite possible that everything I dislike about Jesus was something tacked on to him by the gospel writers. Since there are no other sources of information about Jesus the man, all we have is what the gospel writers provided. I suppose I would like to think him perfect, and blame all his flaws on them. But it’s impossible to distinguish what reflects the man himself and what reflects the writers’ varying agendas. They, after all, were trying to start a religion, so they may have been primarily responsible for what, in my reading of the gospels, sounds like a lot of bullying. On the other hand, Jesus’ worst attributes, to me, sound like those of the bullying preachers of contemporary America, so I have to consider the possibility that he was one of those sorts of preachers: a lot of good ideas mixed in with obsessive concern about whether you believe in him.

Like some contemporary preachers, he says terrible things about anyone who doesn’t believe in him, demanding not only obedience but a kind of totalitarian thought-control (if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out!!—please; everyone would be blind). I prefer the morality implied by my unprepared reading of the Ten Commandments. By saying not to commit adultery, I think the Bible implicitly condones the occasional glance and the prurient fantasy. By saying not to kill, I think the Bible implicitly condones anger.

So I don’t know whether I am calling Jesus a bully or the gospel writers, but he comes across to me as the sort of bully who forces you to say nice things about him under threats. When a bully of that sort is really determined, like a batterer or child abuser, the best strategy is to genuinely believe the nice things you must say about him to protect yourself from expressing skepticism and getting a beating.

People at sporting events hold up signs that say John 3:16, which I think may be the single most despicable verse in the Bible. It says, in effect, that to get eternal life, all you have to do is believe. It says, in effect, that you have to choose between going to Heaven with Hitler and going to Hell with Gandhi. Who in good conscience could choose the former?

In Luke, Jesus tells the parable of the lord who goes off to Rome to get his kingship papers and leaves money with his slaves to invest. Jesus means that he himself is the lord, soon to depart, and the slaves are the people who can get him a return on the investment he has made in his ministry. The slaves who make money for the lord are rewarded. One slave, however, tells the lord that he did not invest the money. “I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.” This is as fine a dressing down of slave-owners as you could hope to find. But in the parable, it is the outspoken slave who is punished, not the cruel master. The lord adds, “As for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.”

The Bible, like all history, is replete with stories of kings who solidified their power by murdering everyone who questioned, or might question, their authority (though none that I can think of besides Jesus who take so much glee in the murders as to insist on witnessing them). You’d think that if the Christians were to draw any conclusion at all from his crucifixion, it would be that we shouldn’t punish, much less kill, people for their religious beliefs. But Luke’s Jesus is just as bloodthirsty as the Pharisees (who, after all, sought Jesus’ death for the same crime—blasphemy—that Jesus condones killing and torturing for). The master of analogic thinking somehow failed to appreciate the analogy between his heresy toward his own religion and the doubt of those who don’t believe in him.

Why am I writing about Jesus in a multicultural blog? His attitude toward the marginalized is at times inspiring. Sinners, especially, are well treated. But then he creates whole new classes of marginalization that are treated from badly to horribly. In Matthew, this includes gentiles; in John, it includes Jews. Throughout, it includes nonbelievers. I want to face my doubt, and my sins, and other people’s doubt about what’s important to me with the same acceptance I have when I face the sins of the people I love. Jesus is a lovely model of the latter, but not the former.

Recently, an overweight Wisconsin television newswoman denounced a “bully” who had written her an email telling her she should model a healthier lifestyle for young female viewers. A colleague of hers posted the email on Facebook to rally her defense. On television, her peroration went as follows: “To all of the children out there who feel lost, who are struggling with your weight, with the color of your skin, your sexual preference, your disability, even the acne on your face, listen to me right now, do not let your self-worth be defined by bullies.”

I’m not sure how I feel about fat people. I definitely don’t think they should be bullied, but I don’t accept the analogies to those other targets of bullying. It’s true that I’m grateful that my own vices aren’t covered by the law of conservation of energy and don’t show on my face. But if you say it’s not people’s fault that they eat more than they need, don’t you have to say that it’s not the bullies’ fault that they bully?

There are a lot of reasons why some people consume more calories than they burn, and it’s hard not to look at fat people through the lens of my own desire for food. If I didn’t care what other people thought of me, I’d weigh at least a hundred pounds more than I do now. It took me a long time to realize, then, that not all fat people lack impulse control and express disdain for others (which is what it would mean if I got fat). In fact, rather than congratulate myself for caring what others think of me, I could as easily condemn myself for vanity. Fat people aren’t vain about their figures.

I don’t have negative thoughts about fat people, but I prefer to look at slim people. I dislike slow walkers quite a bit (unless they’re old or infirm), and I’ve noticed a correlation with weight. When I get on an airplane, I hope the person in the next seat isn’t encroaching on mine, but I’ve had worse luck with men on this score than with fat people (or am I supposed to say, “people with fat”?). Some men will take up the whole armrest and spread their knees into my space. (I am an alpha dog only verbally.) I prefer it when fat people wear loose clothing for general aesthetic reasons, but it doesn’t irritate me like slow walking because I don’t have to look at anything I find aversive.

Anyway, back to the overweight newswoman. Why did her friend publish the email? To me, it seemed like her buddies gathered around her for support and dumped on whoever wrote the email. Myself, I wondered what the man who wrote it was so upset about. Probably hating himself and trying to feel superior, maybe even feeling as if he was not suitable for the company of children, since that what he accused the newswoman of. I get the argument that the denunciation is supposed to make fat kids feel better about standing up to bullies and to make potential bullies back off and see the error of their ways, but there’s something about the publication of the email that seems opportunistic, a chance to vent anger at people who notice how other people look. It struck me as more than standing up to a bully. When she reads the email on air, she pronounces the word, obesity, as if it’s a racial slur. And yet, that is the word for her condition, as she herself acknowledges. I don’t suppose it’s good manners to comment on other people’s bodies, generally, but when they put themselves on television, aren’t viewers authorized to notice what they look like?

Another possible response to bullying is to stand up to it without fighting back, to acknowledge that we all do it, to ourselves, to others, for whatever otherness or weakness we condemn in ourselves that we see in others. Responding in kind with denunciations makes us feel better but gets us nowhere. I’m pretty sure this is what Jesus was talking about when he said to turn the other cheek and not cast stones.

We say that an immigrant can adopt a new culture, but actually it’s the other way around. An immigrant can accept or resist adoption by his new culture, just as a child can accept or resist adoption by a new family. Relevant factors include the age of the person being adopted (which is really a stand-in for the degree of identification with the prior culture), how welcome the person is in the new culture, and how ambivalent the culture is about adoption.

It bugs me when newborns are adopted and the parents are required to promise that they will teach the infant about her “cultural heritage.” A newborn has no cultural heritage—unless you believe that language, clothing, ritual, and values are genetic traits. What is really meant is that society is so literal about category membership that the parents should not try to raise the child as if she is theirs, thereby practically ensuring a sense of otherness at her core. For immigrant children, this means they are made to feel guilty if they allow themselves to be adopted by their new country, as if they are not preserving something that it is their duty to preserve. One of my more lasting pet peeves is my childhood irritation with the idea that Clark Kent is Superman’s secret identity. The guy is Clark Kent, adopted by the Kents, raised by the Kents, nurtured by the Kents, and guided by the Kents. Superman is his secret identity.

Older immigrants, of course, do have a heritage, and they may naturally prefer to preserve it. Venezuelan immigrants might enjoy getting together with compatriots, eating arepas, and speaking Spanish. I feel the same way when I take a break from academia once a week and connect with child welfare colleagues. An adoptive family can lovingly arrange for their child to spend time with members of his biological family, as long as the arrangement is not construed as a backup plan reflecting ambivalence by the adoptive family.

Except for the sexual component, falling in love is a pretty good analogy for adoption, and I have never met adoptive or foster parents who didn’t know exactly what I meant when I asked them if they had fallen in love with the child. Things go badly when the parents don’t fall in love with the child, and things go badly when the child doesn’t or can’t fall in love with the parents. Falling in love means that the parents are added to the short list of people the child can never fire, and vice versa. Yes, I realize that divorce and even parent-child discord leads to people firing people they should have had on their short list, but it sure is nice to believe fully that there are some people who just can’t fire you, even if you turn out to be wrong. It sure is nice to think you can’t be deported. Someone once told me that this is what she gets from worshipping Jesus.

I suppose I am suggesting the possibility of an emotional, rather than a legal, test for residence status. You can’t expect a child to commit to a family if the family won’t commit to him, and you can’t expect an immigrant to commit to a country if the country teases him with citizenship. The central issue for me in immigration policy is how to tell if it’s true love. It’s a lot easier to look at a family and assess true love than to look at an immigrant and a nation, but I suspect the relevant variables have to do with the immigrant’s feelings about the Bill of Rights, regulated capitalism, and the separation of church and state, and the country’s feelings about the immigrant’s past behavior and reasons for coming here. I wish all Americans knew as much about the Constitution as naturalized citizens are required to know; maybe then we’d have less conflict about which values define us.

Most multiculturalists, I think, are trying in their own way to make the world a better place. Those who are motivated by guilt, however, try to get others to do good by getting them to feel guilty. They tell you they are racists themselves and then try to get you to say bad things about yourself. (Guilt can be described as a relationship between the part of you that is telling you what to do and the part of you that is being told; it’s guilt when the message is filled with “shoulds” and condemnation.)

Those who are motivated by anger try to get you to do good by getting you angry. At worst, they put you in humiliating positions; at best, they confront you with terrible things that happened to innocent people. Those who are motivated by a feeling of superiority try to do good by getting you to feel superior to your old, benighted, unaware self and, eventually, superior to other, benighted, unaware folks.

My own motives have a mix of these elements, even if they are not the motivations I endorse. Sometimes I feel guilty about how well off I am, but I’m pretty good at converting those feelings into a sense of being a lucky so-and-so. Injustice, especially based on certain political categories, angers me. I hope I don’t inspire anger by humiliating people but by reminding them of injustices. I am susceptible to feeling superior to people who are unaware of their own privileges, but I’m pretty good at converting feelings of superiority to feelings of humility. A quote from George Eliot is never far from my mind: “A man likes to assume superiority over himself, by holding up his bad example and sermonizing on it.”

I try to concentrate on the way my interest in social justice makes me feel good about myself. I don’t mean that it makes me feel like I am a good person, like I am doing good in world, although I acknowledge that comes up in me more than occasionally, and it’s not a motivation that I think has much of a downside, except that it’s often difficult to determine how to do good, and it’s clear to me that it is often the case that the best good can be done by doing nothing.

I mean it makes me feel good about myself because it makes me feel whole. I think the politics of power and marginalization play out in each of us. Everyone is dominated by a hegemony of interests that ignore, exclude, or condemn other aspects of the self. If I can accept myself, I have found, then I can accept others. And if I can accept others, then I can accept myself. This is obvious when it comes to disability—the avoidance of the wheelchair is not the avoidance of the person in it, but the avoidance of the thought of me in it, the avoidance of my own physical incapacities and fear of helplessness. I don’t think all or even most homophobia is a reaction to the homophobe’s internal homosexual urges; but I do think it’s a reaction to the homophobe’s internal confusion about sex and rigidity about gender roles. So perhaps selfishly I want to be embraced, and I find that this is facilitated by the extent to which I can make embracing a way of life.

A nice moment with my dad: He was driving me somewhere when I was 13. At a stoplight, an elderly black man hobbled past the windshield, ragged clothes, ragged beard, beaten down, exuding ill health. I had just learned a cool quote, so I tried it out on my dad as we both followed the poor old man with our eyes. I said, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Dad said, “Just say, ‘There go I.’”

Cultural relativism—the reluctance to champion one set of values as superior to others—is at the heart of most versions of multiculturalism, but it is itself a cultural value, and asserting cultural relativism is itself a form of cultural absolutism. I doubt that anyone who preaches cultural relativism seriously thinks it’s anything but backward to kill women for wearing makeup or men for not wearing beards. So if we hold values to be dear, and superior to their alternatives, why not state them and defend them?

I believe that my values are superior to other people’s, not because they happen to be mine, but because when I encounter a superior value, I adopt it, and when I discover a flaw in one of my values, I amend or discard it. As an avowed cultural absolutist, one of my dearest values is, perhaps ironically, a form of cultural relativism called free speech. The value of free speech asserts that all ideas are not equal, but all are protected from violence or governmental restrictions on liberty. The value of free speech says that almost all speech is protected from government censorship (the exceptions are well known and include shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, truth in advertising, conspiracy, and few others), and that the best response to objectionable speech is more speech. Free speech finds itself defending objectionable speech because only objectionable speech needs defending. It’s a form of cultural relativism because the value of free speech fosters the evolution of values in the marketplace of ideas; it doesn’t presuppose which ideas are superior.

Most religions presuppose which ideas are superior, and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a history of killing people who express certain ideas. At the heart of Christianity is anger at the killing of someone for his ideas, but rather than learn from this that it is not a good idea to kill people for their ideas, Christianity spent many centuries operating as if the lesson was that the only problem with Christ’s crucifixion was that the wrong person was killed and the wrong kind of thoughts criminalized. Currently, there are some important Muslims who think that any depiction of Mohammed should be responded to by executing the people responsible for the depiction. No democracy can be established on such a premise, which is why the separation of church and state is so central to our way of life.

I don’t know whether our foreign policy should project more American strength or more American cooperation. Here’s what I learned from living through Vietnam: I don’t know what’s going on overseas, and neither do you, and neither does the State Department or the CIA. It takes an extreme commitment to critical thinking, self-examination, study of the human condition, and interrogation of my own perspective just to get an inkling of what’s going on in the room I’m in, so it’s no surprise that we don’t know what’s going on overseas.

But I do think that we can’t choose oppressors of ideologies, regardless of which ideology is oppressed, and expect democracy to be the result. The greatest threat to American democracy in my lifetime was indeed Communism, not because Communism had a real chance to take root in this country, but because the effort to rid the country of Communism almost took root, and that produced our closest brush with totalitarianism so far. I hope America stands up for free speech, and I am not much interested in risking American lives to protect people who are no more democratic than their oppressors. Whether that describes the body politic of any particular country, I don’t know, but it seems to me to be the crucial question.

We put people into racial categories for various reasons, some of which are quite sensible from an evolutionary perspective. In a tribal society that describes its members as human and outsiders as something less, you have to know whom to include in the human embrace, whom to trust, whom not to waste resources on. Where homicide between tribes is among the main causes of death, categorization is even more crucial to survival. One need only read the Bible to realize how much of history is concerned with the violent movement of tribes, be they Israelite, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Median, or Greek.

Emotionally, people need to make sense of tribes that, whether recently or historically, inflicted death, rape, and devastation on the tribe they identify with. The easiest solution is to conclude that one’s own tribe is good and the other tribe is evil. An even more difficult problem that also leads to the derogation of other tribes is making sense of one’s own tribe’s violent behavior. What that happens, it is overwhelmingly tempting to justify it by trashing the worthiness or humanity of the victims. On a personal rather than societal level, my experience has been that the people who really despise me are those who have mistreated me, not those that I have mistreated—the latter as a rule accept my apology and move on.

In America, there are still places where tribalization is useful for survival, especially as a reaction to other people’s tribal conduct. A black man in Boston must learn that it is dangerous to venture into Charlestown, even in broad daylight, just as an Israelite from Ephraim had to learn not to get caught among Israelites from Gilead in Jephthah’s reign. Many prisons become tribal, and inmates find they must gang up if they are to survive. When tribal hatred was between Israelites, those from Gilead had to find a way to distinguish themselves from those from Ephraim, and they made the latter say the word, shibboleth, because they believed, apparently accurately, that the hated Ephraimites could not pronounce the “sh” sound. Skin color is an easier marker for categorization than a phoneme, and is often relied upon, but Hutus murdering Tutsis in Rwanda had, like the Israelites, to find more subtle distinctions to know whom to kill.

In most parts of America, tribalization is used for financial advantage rather than for killing, but in a country like ours (compared to Nazi Germany, say, or slavery-based America), you don’t lose your money and opportunity and feel grateful for just being alive, so even though survival is a relatively rare concern, people understandably fume over physical abuse, lack of safety, derogation, and lost money or opportunity. Economic disadvantages to being perceived as Protestant or Catholic in parts of Utah, to being perceived as white in certain sports and occupations, and to being perceived as black nearly everywhere breed less, but similar, avoidance and hatred than is bred by concern about survival. It’s only sensible, knowing that another group hates the category you are placed in, whether the hatred is based on the way they have treated us or on the way we have treated them, to teach one’s children that the other group is best met with suspicion and caution.

Race is in the eye of the beholder, but racism is not. I refuse to take responsibility for harms inflicted on people by members of my race or sex, because I don’t consider myself to be a member of my race or sex just because someone else puts me in those categories. Plus, as I’ve said, to the extent that I do at times identify as a man, I think it is part of being a man to feel guilty about other people’s suffering only if I caused it. But it would be stupid not to take notice of how one’s physical presence alarms some people and doesn’t alarm others, or not to take notice of the harms done by such alarms, or not to take notice of how much easier it is for me to avoid alarming people in the vast majority of American scenarios than for someone perceived as black. One of the few times it’s useful to think in categories is when you’re trying to decode what has happened to people because of the categories they have been placed in. But in so doing, we must be very careful not to get literal about the category or the individual’s membership in it.

When I was five years old, my father cursed the New England winter and took a job in Miami, then (pre-Castro) a one-story, major Southern city rather than the sky-lining capital of the Caribbean it is today. On our first shopping trip, my sister and I wandered to the back of the store in search of a water fountain and we felt lucky to find two! One had a sign on it that said, “White,” and the other had a sign that said, “Colored.” We were smart enough to read, but not smart enough to know what the signs meant. The signs could not possibly, I reckoned, describe the water, so they must describe the users. I knew I wasn’t white, because white was a specific color that you found in snow, clouds, and paper. “Colored” sounded like a box of crayons, and that didn’t seem to fit either. We had already lived in enough states (Florida was my fifth, her sixth) to know that you don’t go drinking water like you own the place; you have to account for local cultural practices. So my sister, age six, whispered in my ear, “Let’s just go.” We found our mom and avoided that confusing corner of the store.

Soon after, I walked out to the front yard of my house and saw eight or nine neighborhood kids sitting in a circle on the lawn across the street, annoying a dog, pulling up grass and chewing the oniony roots, and half-heartedly complaining about having nothing to do while reviewing television sitcom plots from the previous evening—in other words, being Southerners, except no one had socked anyone else while I was watching, which I eventually learned was a long time to go without a fight with one’s close friends. Suddenly, Mrs. Biferie—Italian, dressed in black—stormed out of her nearby house, took me by the shoulder, and marched me across the street to the group of children.

“What’s your name, little boy?”

“Michael,” said I.

“Everybody! This is Mike. He plays.” She stormed back into her house. The kids in the group looked me over, looked back toward each other, and forgot I was there.

I tracked the ball and wanted to tell them I knew how to throw and catch it. I tracked the dog and wanted to tell them I wasn’t afraid of it (this was before the big dogs showed up). I tracked the conversation and wanted to tell them that I had also seen those shows the night before. I shifted my weight from foot to foot and tried not to look too eager, failing miserably.

Suddenly, Mrs. Biferie was beside me, her hand again on my shoulder. “His name is MIKE! If I say he plays, HE PLAYS.” And that was that. The circle parted like the Red Sea, and I found the promised land of friendship.

Morals: 1. You don’t have to choose a category. 2. Channel your inner Mrs. Biferie and insist on playing.

A colleague of mine named Joel Dvoskin recently wrote that “conservatives are for individual freedoms, so long as no one ever tries to use one, and liberals are for diversity and tolerance, so long as no one disagrees with them.” What I have found is that when I tell my conservative friends that I like Barack Obama, they are likely to say, “I hate Barack Obama.” When I tell my liberal friends that I like George Will, they are likely to say, “I hate you.”

I think this has to do with how personal a political issue can be for the particular liberal or conservative. There can be an intellectual, mutually respectful disagreement about whether government is too big, and about how much income tax is too much. But the intellectual tone and mutuality of respect disintegrate around certain personal issues. These include abortion on the conservative side and some civil rights on the liberal side. Some people idiosyncratically personalize other issues as well, such as the liberal who gets quite activated at the idea of genetically-altered food and the conservative who gets irate on the issue of the capital gains tax. When the subject of politics becomes personal, you have to expect the discourse to become emotional.

What makes me crazy is the issue of gay rights. I would have thought racism or the First Amendment would do it, if I’d had to guess, knowing what I know about myself and my upbringing. I suppose this has to do with the fact that I came late to understanding that gay people and straight people are just the same, so I get angry at the self I was, not just at the issue in front of me. I’m not saying this is true of every angry reaction in politics, that it is psychological—I’m saying it’s true about me. I always knew (I always had been taught) that black people and white people are just the same, but it wasn’t until Stonewall that I even began to think about gay rights, and it wasn’t really until my twenties that I made friends with a few gay people and could see the idiocy of invented distinctions between gays and straights. (There are uninvented distinctions that make perfect sense, such as matchmaking your straight friends with members of the opposite sex.)

Because I’m personally implicated, I can also get a little heated on the issue of white guys.

When I was growing up in the protected middle class, politics had a lot to do with elections and not much else. Disenfranchised people worried about political issues, not us. Even during the violence around race, I sympathized, but it didn’t seem to have much to do with me, much like Sudan and Syria now. Then, the Vietnam War made everything political. For one thing, I was personally involved, since the wrong lottery number could have sent me packing. For another, the discourse got ugly because it was accompanied by ugly pictures of people dying at the hands of Americans. Either you were a murderer, an abetter of murder, or someone calling other people murderers, many of whom were mainly (if clumsily) trying to protect the world from totalitarianism. Everything got ugly.

You can be a liberal without imputing racism, homophobia, and callousness to conservatives. You can be a conservative without imputing immorality, communism, or hyper-emotionality to liberals.