The Future of White People

Ta-Nehisi Coates, in his recent book We Were Eight Years in Power, professes to be an atheist. By that he does not mean that he does not believe that God exists. He means that for him and for other African-Americans there is no hope for a better world. The book is an extended meditation on the eight years of the Obama presidency and his conclusion is very dark: there is no prospect for significant change for the lives of the majority of Black Americans.

The background to this way of talking is not unfamiliar. Most people's religion in our world involves belief in a deity who is a person. We can pray to God, we can ask for God's help in great life crises. We can celebrate the life events – births and deaths – of this personal God. This God is a creator. He shall be referred to as male – we say "God, he…" Most white people certainly think of this God as white. Being a person, God has the attributes of person s. He is kind, he is powerful, he did not only make the world but he can change the course of events for faithful who pray really hard.

But many people have trouble with that sort of conception of God. We are told that that God is good but all around us people suffer terribly. Many people work too hard, many die of terrible diseases, many are left alone when parents or spouses die. There are the victims of wars, of droughts and famines, of hurricanes and tsunamis. If the world we live in is the work of a benevolent God, we must conclude that this God is terribly incompetent or simply does not pay any attention to us. What ever super human powers this God may have, judging by the state of the world, He does not care to use them in favor of the millions and millions who faithfully pray to Him.

One way to escape these difficulties and doubts is to deny that God is a person. Yes there is a spiritual dimension to our lives. Many of us may believe that the world is capable of amelioration, that it makes sense for us to struggle to improve the world in this way or that. There is hope. Looking at the actual state of the world at the half million Syrians killed in the civil war in that country, to mention just one of many examples, having hope for a peaceful future may well require an act of faith. But sometimes human beings do well and are chartable to each other. It is not time to give up hope.

But according to Coates this is not true for African-Americans. Having been exploited and oppressed by Whites for 500 years, since the early 1600s, Coates denies that there is hope for Black Americans. Their situation seems hopeless to them. In spite of centuries of brave and dangerous struggle for freedom and equality, he tells us, there is no hope for them and for that reason he calls himself an atheist.

For white people it still makes sense to have hope. It makes sense for them to be politically active, to spend their time and energy supporting improvements, agitating for a more perfect democracy, defending the rights of those two are being threatened by the forces of political reaction. Since these possibilities of improvement are open, we have an obligation to work towards a better world, a world that is kinder, more peaceful, more generous in opportunities for everyone.

But this openness to betterment is not guaranteed. It is possible for us, at least for white people, to ignore our obligations to better the world until life for everyone becomes a grim and more often than not hopeless struggle for survival. It is easy for us to destroy its natural processes which now allow us to grow food. If most of the globe is made infertile by extended droughts and other regions become uninhabitable from extreme heat or extreme cold or regular deluges of rain, we will loose the power to improve our lives. The possibilities we now have can easily disappear or if we take measures utterly hostile to our continued existence.

If we follow the theology that Coates hints at when he declares himself to be an atheist, we do indeed have an obligation to use all our powers to make this world better, to fight against the people who praise ignorance, who ignore facts in order to enrich themselves, against the owners of coal mines who deny that burning coal destroys our environment, against the growers of tobacco who deny that smoking causes many terrible diseases. To be religious is, in part, to believe that there is a better future ahead. But this future is enormously precarious. We are close to destroying it. We are well on the way of making our situation as hopeless as we have already made it for many people of color.

Just Open your Eyes

In his latest book, We Were Eight Years in Power, Ta-Nehisi Coates argues that the Obama presidency did not substantially alter the condition of African-Americans in America. Yes, the White House was occupied by a Black family and a Black man was in charge of the government and was the Commander-In-Chief of the American military. But the deep misery of the majority of African-Americans in this country remains unchanged. Whites continue to have more power and to have all kinds of privileges compared to their African Americans fellow citizens.

Coates makes a strong case for this pessimistic view of American society today. What he does not give sufficient weight to is one important change. Not too long ago the plight of African Americans was not easily accessible to Whites. Today one must be deliberately blinding oneself to the information readily available if one is not going to see how Whites continue to dominate and deliberately disadvantage African-Americans.

When I was in college, soon after leaving Europe, having survived Nazi persecution, I made friends with one of the few African-American students in my class. He would come over occasionally to have dinner and would tell us what it was like to be Black in the US at the end of World War II. Having escaped the Nazi oppression and feeling free for the first time in many years, we did not believe that the America in which we felt liberated could treat its citizens of color so brutally. We did not believe his stories. The friendship withered.

In the 1960s I spent a summer teaching at a Black college outside Birmingham, Alabama. I am not sure the students profited substantially from listening to me talk about Plato’s Republic, but my understanding of what it meant to be Black in America was turned upside-down. A few years later, the world would learn of four young girls killed by racist bombs in church in Birmingham and could see with their own eyes the television reports of high-pressure hoses and attack dogs turned on peaceful demonstrators. Having lived there, in a Black community, I was not surprised. But you had to travel and expose yourself to Black lives in order to have even a very fragmentary understanding of the regime of terror to which Black Americans were exposed daily.

Not so today.

To be sure, it is general knowledge that the idea of separate races has no support in science. As far as their inherited genetic makeup goes, Blacks and Whites, Asians and different indigenous peoples differ minimally. Differences between black and white, for instance, are social creations that have a clear history. That history is now well known and open to anyone who is interested to understand how we have come to the current impasse in the relations between so-called racial groups.

In Virginia in the early 1600s, workers were imported from Europe. Some of them were white; they were so-called indentured servants, bound to work for their employer for seven or more years to pay off the cost of their voyage to the new world. Others were black. For some, their indenture never ended; others were freed to farm or follow a trade. Black and white workers lived and worked side by side, sometimes they married and had children. Around 1670 the State of Maryland passed laws that extended the indenture of white women, who had married Blacks, to their full lifetime. It was an easy way of making more labor power available.

At the end of that century small farmers and workers rose up in an armed rebellion. Black and White fought together against the ruling powers of the colony for greater opportunities to better their condition. The ruling groups responded with a series of laws, sharply differentiating the social and political rights of Blacks and Whites. These laws isolated Blacks. They deprived them of political rights they had had befores. Blacks were no longer allowed to raise their own cattle; they were forbidden to run for public office, to testify against a white persons, they could not be members of the militia or own weapons. A complex set of laws was passed in order to instill contempt for Blacks in the white workers. Racist sentiments were deliberately fostered by legislatures.

The very beginning of white anti-black racism was promoted by state governments in Maryland and Virginia. Ever since white racism has not just been a matter of the feelings of individuals. It has been promoted deliberately by states and the federal government. When slaves were freed during the Civil War, whites resorted to lynchings to keep African Americans intimidated. State governments, legislatures, sheriff's did nothing to stop these murders. They accepted them as legitimate. In the 1930s, the Social Security legislation deliberately excluded farm and domestic workers. In the southern states they were mostly black. Excluding black workers from Social Security was a condition laid down by southern senators.

After World War II, the US government offered low cost housing-- loans to returning soldiers. Black GIs however could not buy houses except in carefully outlined black neighborhoods—usually in decaying neighborhoods in the cities. With the aid of government loans, white veterans flocked to Levittowns. Not so black veterans. However bravely they fought, on their return they were second-class citizens once again. The government did not support or defend them. In many situations government lending agencies collaborated with racist exclusions practiced by the real estate industry.

Today all this is well known. It is easily accessible in many books. White people who are ignorant of these facts and continue to blame Black character flaws or the Black family for their difficulties only display their ignorance. Since the information is easily accessible, we need to recognize that this ignorance is willful and intentional.

Good books to read: the book by Ta-Nehisi Coates mentioned at the beginning of this blog. There are two very informative books by two white women, Debbie Irving, Waking up White and Shelly Tolchuk, Witnessing Whiteness. If you want to know what it is like to be Black in America today, read Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Asha Bandele, If They Call you a Terrorist. A powerful novel depicting Black experience is Jesmyn Ward, Sing, Unburied, Sing.

In his latest book, We Were Eight Years in Power, Ta-Nehisi Coates argues that the Obama presidency did not substantially alter the condition of African-Americans in America. Yes, the White House was occupied by a Black family and a Black man was in charge of the government and was the Commander-In-Chief of the American military. But the deep misery of the majority of African-Americans in this country remains unchanged. Whites continue to have more power and to have all kinds of privileges compared to their African Americans fellow citizens.

Coates makes a strong case for this pessimistic view of American society today. What he does not give sufficient weight to is one important change. Not too long ago the plight of African Americans was not easily accessible to Whites. Today one must be deliberately blinding oneself to the information readily available if one is not going to see how Whites continue to dominate and deliberately disadvantage African-Americans.

When I was in college, soon after leaving Europe, having survived Nazi persecution, I made friends with one of the few African-American students in my class. He would come over occasionally to have dinner and would tell us what it was like to be Black in the US at the end of World War II. Having escaped the Nazi oppression and feeling free for the first time in many years, we did not believe that the America in which we felt liberated could treat its citizens of color so brutally. We did not believe his stories. The friendship withered.

In the 1960s I spent a summer teaching at a Black college outside Birmingham, Alabama. I am not sure the students profited substantially from listening to me talk about Plato’s Republic, but my understanding of what it meant to be Black in America was turned upside-down. A few years later, the world would learn of four young girls killed by racist bombs in church in Birmingham and could see with their own eyes the television reports of high-pressure hoses and attack dogs turned on peaceful demonstrators. Having lived there, in a Black community, I was not surprised. But you had to travel and expose yourself to Black lives in order to have even a very fragmentary understanding of the regime of terror to which Black Americans were exposed daily.

Not so today.

To be sure, it is general knowledge that the idea of separate races has no support in science. As far as their inherited genetic makeup goes, Blacks and Whites, Asians and different indigenous peoples differ minimally. Differences between black and white, for instance, are social creations that have a clear history. That history is now well known and open to anyone who is interested to understand how we have come to the current impasse in the relations between so-called racial groups.

In Virginia in the early 1600s, workers were imported from Europe. Some of them were white; they were so-called indentured servants, bound to work for their employer for seven or more years to pay off the cost of their voyage to the new world. Others were black. For some, their indenture never ended; others were freed to farm or follow a trade. Black and white workers lived and worked side by side, sometimes they married and had children. Around 1670 the State of Maryland passed laws that extended the indenture of white women, who had married Blacks, to their full lifetime. It was an easy way of making more labor power available.

At the end of that century small farmers and workers rose up in an armed rebellion. Black and White fought together against the ruling powers of the colony for greater opportunities to better their condition. The ruling groups responded with a series of laws, sharply differentiating the social and political rights of Blacks and Whites. These laws isolated Blacks. They deprived them of political rights they had had befores. Blacks were no longer allowed to raise their own cattle; they were forbidden to run for public office, to testify against a white persons, they could not be members of the militia or own weapons. A complex set of laws was passed in order to instill contempt for Blacks in the white workers. Racist sentiments were deliberately fostered by legislatures.

The very beginning of white anti-black racism was promoted by state governments in Maryland and Virginia. Ever since white racism has not just been a matter of the feelings of individuals. It has been promoted deliberately by states and the federal government. When slaves were freed during the Civil War, whites resorted to lynchings to keep African Americans intimidated. State governments, legislatures, sheriff's did nothing to stop these murders. They accepted them as legitimate. In the 1930s, the Social Security legislation deliberately excluded farm and domestic workers. In the southern states they were mostly black. Excluding black workers from Social Security was a condition laid down by southern senators.

After World War II, the US government offered low cost housing-- loans to returning soldiers. Black GIs however could not buy houses except in carefully outlined black neighborhoods—usually in decaying neighborhoods in the cities. With the aid of government loans, white veterans flocked to Levittowns. Not so black veterans. However bravely they fought, on their return they were second-class citizens once again. The government did not support or defend them. In many situations government lending agencies collaborated with racist exclusions practiced by the real estate industry.

Today all this is well known. It is easily accessible in many books. White people who are ignorant of these facts and continue to blame Black character flaws or the Black family for their difficulties only display their ignorance. Since the information is easily accessible, we need to recognize that this ignorance is willful and intentional.

Good books to read: the book by Ta-Nehisi Coates mentioned at the beginning of this blog. There are two very informative books by two white women, Debbie Irving, Waking up White and Shelly Tolchuk, Witnessing Whiteness. If you want to know what it is like to be Black in America today, read Patrisse Khan-Cullors and Asha Bandele, If They Call you a Terrorist. A powerful novel depicting Black experience is Jesmyn Ward, Sing, Unburied, Sing.

An Orgy of Hypocrisy

Today's New York Times devoted no less than four articles to President Trump referring to some other countries as "shitholes." Why the uproar? We knew that the President is a crude and vulgar person. He expresses himself in ways that offend many people. But many people also agree with the sentiments he puts into his unpleasant language. His contempt for most foreign countries, except Norway, and their inhabitants is simply an expression of nationalism that has been a serious component of his platform from the very beginning.

This nationalism consists of two major theses. The first of these describes the United States as one unified nation. Politicians constantly talk about the wishes of "the American people" as if we all wanted the same thing. But that is an obviouspropaganda move to assert that all citizens want what this Senator's or Congressperson's campaign donors want. The politicians speak for the donors to their campaigns and try to persuade the people who vote for them that they want the same thing.

This being, as we keep repeating daily, a nation of immigrants we are, in fact, fairly uncertain about our identity as one nation. Why else would we make our school children repeat five mornings a week that ours is "one nation indivisible"? The original author of the Pledge of Allegiance project was a retired admiral and then public school educator concerned to inculcate nationalism in the children of immigrants. (Among later versions of the pledge one was the brainchild of a man who wanted to sell American flags to schoolchildren.)

The talk about this one united American nation is, moreover, telling a big lie. Native Americans are not members of this American nation, neither are African-Americans, immigrants from south of the Rio Grande, chicanos. The President who advocates nationalism does not pass a day without bad mouthing his Black predecessor for no other reason than he is Black. For years he asserted that Barack Obama was not an American. The unified American nation leaves out many who dwell on this North American continent.

Even those included do not speak with the same voice or speak quite the same language. There are many deep cleavages between the inhabitants of Northern New England and the folks who live in the south of Louisiana , Mississippi, or Alabama.  “One nation indivisible” has always been wishful thinking.

This first thesis of nationalism, that there is one unified American nation, is as false as the second one, namely that this nation is the most perfect nation history has ever seen. The bumper sticker "USA # 1” is an especially inarticulate expression of that belief. But we encounter it anywhere when people tell you that our educational system, our health care, our standard of living, or what have you, is better than corresponding institutions anywhere else in the world. A quick look on Google will show you that on the different dimensions of education, of health, of quality of life, etc., ten or twenty countries in the world are ahead of us. Given the amount of money we have and spend, we are actually not doing very well.

Nationalism rests on colossal self deceptions. It can maintain itself only by constantly reiterating falsehoods and that of course is what the President is doing and why so many people love him. Hearing him repeat the lies about national unity or how we are better than anyone else reassures people who have their secret doubts about this.

All the people who are nice nationalists, who don't swear when journalists hear them, who don't use vulgar names to refer to other countries, at least not publicly, have a complete fit if the arrogant nationalism so pervasive in this America is phrased vulgarly. They don't want their belief in American superiority put in the barnyard language.

But the truth is that there is no way of being a nice nationalist because to be any kind of nationalist you have to be a hypocrite and a liar and that is definitely not nice.  You have to lie about America being one unified nation. You have to be a hypocrite when you ignore the failures of our health care and large parts of our education system. You have to be a hypocrite to denigrate foreigners as well as inhabitants of this continent while bragging about our dedication to equality and democracy.

Should the Poor be Made to Work?

Many Americans answer this question in the affirmative. The poor, they say, should not be allowed to receive assistance from the government without doing some kind of work. Recent government attempts to force work on recipients of Medicaid illustrate that conviction. If someone receives government financed health insurance, the common opinion goes, they need to have a job or work in some other way. 

People have different reasons for this opinion.

A certain number are plainly racist. When they hear the word "poor" they have the image of a black person in front of their inner eye. They think that people of color are lazy ne'er-do-wells and they do not want their own taxes to support them. That reason for advocating work for the poor does not deserve discussion.

A similar reason moves those who believe that their poverty is the fault of the poor. If only they had paid better attention in school, had not gotten pregnant in their teens, had not become addicted to hard drugs. If only they had worked hard as I have always worked hard, they would not be poor. But poverty has many different causes. This kind of uninformed blaming is completely unhelpful.

But there are reasons that deserve taking seriously. One of them we often referred to as the "work ethic." Many of us believe that everyone should work. Perhaps we owe this belief to the Puritans but it is certainly true that many people in America today work a great deal. Many complain of being overscheduled, of being too busy and being stressed out by working so much. In spite of all those complaints, however, many of us believe that not working is in some way morally objectionable.

Let's look at that.

Government aid to the poor should only be given to those who work , we say, because work is what makes you a respectable citizen. But we don't have the same feelings about the errors of rich people not working. There are obviously many Americans who have inherited a great deal and can spend their days running nonprofits, going to charitable teas and cocktail parties, being photographed for the Sunday paper and sailing their yachts to the Caribbean when winter is inclement in the northern United States.

I have never heard a proposal that we should make these playboys and playgirls do an honest day's work. Our abhorrence of life without work seems to apply mostly to the poor.. Are we wanting to punish the poor for their condition when we insist on everyone working? I'm not sure.

Think some more about this moral rule that people should work. Does it matter what sort of work people do? Can one gain respectability by cleaning toilets? There are literally armies of people cleaning offices in huge skyscrapers every night. Does their life gain moral value behind their vacuum cleaners?

Not all work seems to me to be valuable. Good work is. If your working makes someone's life better, if it makes you feel that you contribute to the well-being of others, that what you do is truly worthwhile and contributes to making the world better than it is, then work is good. But not all work makes that sort of beneficial contribution to the world around you. Much of it is routine, if not downright unpleasant and it's only contribution is to make money for some corporate stockholders.

Does Sisyphus gain moral stature from his work. Working, as such, is not morally valuable.

Many people hate their jobs with a passion. They would be glad to give it up but they are not willing to leave the poor life one gets by relying exclusively on government assistance. So they go back every Monday morning looking forward to Friday night and being miserable in between and envious of people who managed to survive without the pain of a job. Why should they have to do a job they hate so much and others not?

I don't think the work requirement for the poor can be justified in that way by envy and wishing one's own pain on others.

Here another principle enters our reflection. Many people believe that one needs to be self-sufficient. There are elderly persons in our country who refuse

Social Security which they actually have paid into for most of their life, because as a matter of principle they do not want to accept government assistance. Nor would they accept assistance from their church or a club they belong to.

    One can respect that attitude but it is, of course, ill-conceived. "No man is an island" as the poet said. The people who refuse government assistance will certainly call the fire department when their house is on fire, and they will call the police when a burglar breaks into their house. They may have fond memories of teachers who helped them learn their letters and parents and ministers who helped them become upstanding citizens. We all depend on each other. If you are richer than I you may pay more taxes. You may therefore contribute more to the upkeep of the roads which I nevertheless use even though I contribute hardly anything to fixing the potholes at the end of winter. Many citizens are proud of America's military might even if they have never served or if no one in their family died in America's wars. They are dependent on the military service and perhaps the death of others for their pride in their country. They sing our national anthem with tears in their eyes even though they have not written it and are perhaps completely tone deaf.

    No one can claim to be independent of the support of others. Why impose that requirement on the poor?

    The work requirement for those who receive government assistance cannot be justified

Why we do good?

 
In our dealings with each other, human beings make assumptions about what others are interested in, what they will react to. We need to have some ideas of how we can get others to respond to our needs and desires. Say, we live in the same apartment building and you like to play your music really loud at 3 AM. How can I make you be quiet in the middle of the night? I could come upstairs at 3 AM with my assault rifle and threaten or actually shoot you. I could come upstairs with a plate of cookies hoping that that will make you turn the music down. I could come and ask you what I could do for you so that you would let me sleep.

Human beings have different theories about this. Some people believe that all relationships are about power and violence is an effective way of being powerful. Some believe, on the other hand, that being kind and generous will persuade others to be kind in their turn. Then there are the believers in social life as a grand bargain. You will choose to do what I want if I give you something in return.

Different people are inclined to different theories about human interactions. It is a common belief that if you want something from someone else you have to pay them in some way to get what you want. People will only work if they get paid – that's a piece of common wisdom. With that goes the opinion that we value only things we pay for. But this bit of common sense is very incomplete. Men and women who believe strongly that everyone needs to get paid in order to work, still spend many hours generously playing with their children or caring for their elderly parents. They never notice how their actions are not consistent with their beliefs about human interactions. Their belief that everyone needs to get paid for working, is modified by the other belief that some things should be given without payment. Different human beings have different rights. Children are entitled to loving care. The elderly, the parents that raised you with considerable effort, are now entitled to have as comfortable an old age as possible.

Between conservatives and people on the left of the political spectrum there are disagreements of what sorts of things our fellow citizens are entitled to without working for them. Most Americans, left or right, believe that everyone should work and should contribute to the society. (Some of us believe that work should be fulfilling, but that is definitely a minority opinion.) But there is considerable disagreement as to how much everyone needs to work in order to have a reasonably comfortable life.

We all agree that children should not have to work and should receive good care without paying for that care. There is widespread agreement that children are entitled to a secondary education to age 18. There is disagreement as to whether they should pay for their college education or whether it should be available free of charge to anyone who wants it and is qualified. Children should have enough to eat. They should have a clean and comfortable space to live. Most agree that children are entitled to health care without payment. When we come to adults disagreements are more serious. What are homeless people, who have no jobs, entitled to? Should those of us with some money pay for health care for the poor or should they simply work longer hours to earn their keep as you and I earn ours? Should taxpayers pay the rent for people who are unable to pay for their own apartment? The poor have done nothing for me, why should I help them?

The obvious answer is: your children have done nothing for you either. Your infants eat and sleep and soil their diapers. But you take care of them anyway. To that you reply: "that is different." But whether it really is different and in what way is a matter of permanent controversy. Some rewards should be earned, we tend to agree and others we receive without making any effort or earning the rewards we get. What belongs in each category is open to serious disagreement.

These reflections lead up to another question. It being the end of another year, I am inundated with requests for charitable contributions. My Congressman promises to change the balance of Democrats and Republicans in Congress in the new year if I give him five dollars. Well meaning Americans offer to get justice for Palestinians if I send money to their specific non-profit. Some other organization will help country folk in India or in Africa to dig wells or build schools for their children.

Should I respond to all these requests even though I know the promises are extravagant? My car is fifteen years old and shows its age. I can keep my money and buy a new car and look more respectable when I drive down the street, not to mention be more comfortable. What reasons do I have for giving my money to others, however well-meaning their efforts might be, rather than spending it on myself? I earned this money. I worked for it. I should be allowed to enjoy it.

I have no problem supporting my Congressman. He provides faithful and reliable service and, given our political system, I need to pay for the possibility of retaining him in his job. He works for me. I pay him. But what right do Palestinians have to ask me for money? What have they ever done for me? Every so often they attack my Jewish brothers and sisters in Israel. Why in the world should I pay for wells or schools in places I have no connection to, places I would not even be able to find on a map. When I am old and in need of help will these country people come and feed me, or help me to the bathroom? Fat chance.

How I decide these quandaries depends very much on how I think human beings function in relation to each other. If I believe that most human transactions are bargains of one sort or another, where you do something for me and I reward you for that, I will not give any money to dig wells in India or in Africa. If I believe, on the other hand, that all human beings are entitled to decent lives including a source of potable water, I might put off buying a new car and send some money in this nonprofit that deals with water problems in faraway places.
How can we settle this disagreement?

We could try to take the easy way out and say that everyone should follow their best wisdom and leave this controversy unresolved. But we need some sort of accord when it comes to passing legislation and deciding what amount of public monies will be used to care for the indigent, the sick and the old. We could try to persuade those who are reluctant to spend taxpayer money on charity of one sort or another by accusing them of being racist, of violating the supreme maxim of Judeo-Christian morality, love your neighbor as you love yourself. We could ask our opponents what sort of world they would want to live in. Would they not prefer a world of little suffering as possible? They would respond by opting for a just world where people are rewarded for their efforts, not allowed to be lazy and of indulgent. Efforts at persuasion are not promising.

These reflections recall us to reality. After a season of sending each other cards calling for peace, calling for goodwill towards all men and women, we need to remind ourselves that this goodwill is actually in short supply. Love of their neighbor is not valued by all. Advocates for a world where everything needs to be paid for ridicule proponents of neighborly love as "bleeding heart liberals."

Welcome to 2018.

What Matters at Year's End

It is the season of the shortest day of the year, of Hanukah, of Christmas, of celebrations and gift giving. Christmas cards have begun to arrive and some of them contain the annual family newsletter.  They chronicle the family's last year, their trips to exotic places, the sports their children play, the professional conventions they attended, and perhaps the prizes and honors they garnered.
I enjoy getting the news of friends and relatives I have known for many years. But amidst all the information I was pleased to receive, something seemed to be missing. I kept thinking that the chronicle I read recounted a year in various humans' lives. But lives consist of more than travel, soccer games lost or won, or even professional recognition.

Human lives consist of growth and then of decay. Humans learn. They draw lessons from their experiences. They develop new skills when their experience pushes them to learn to solve problems they had perhaps not recognized before or had been unable to overcome. They find that the assumptions they had relied on for a long time were false; they needed to reorient themselves to different assumptions. They may, for instance, have thought that the election for two presidential terms of an African-American signified a significant reduction of racism and the racial oppression experienced by many fellow citizens. But then new experiences may lead them to question this optimistic view in the light of the cancerous growth of racist and white supremacist organizations, action, and speech.

During the past year some of the authors of these family histories passed important milestones. They celebrated their 50th or 60th birthday. Some family letters acknowledged these milestones but were content to assert that they did not bring up disturbing thoughts. But if you are 60 years old, should you not occasionally entertain disturbing thoughts? Should you not consider your health, your diet, and whether you get enough exercise? Should you think about when to retire and what that would mean? For many professionals their occupation is the central component of their identity, of who they are. How will retirement affect their sense of who they are? It is surely worth thinking about that before the event. It is utterly evasive to say: "I'll deal with that when I have to." Humans, unlike, say, dogs, are able to look ahead and plan. Should we not do that?
Many newsletters speak of sons and daughters who are close to going to college. They are in their late teens when young people experience amazing growth and change. But none of the newsletters I read recount the blossoming of their children They remained with the impersonal surface fact that this young woman or man is thinking of college. No mention of moral development, the discovery of politics, the experimentation with serious relationships, the many questions about how this world works in which they find themselves.

This may seem to be unkind complaining about people who want to share some of the very public milestones in the last year without revealing the more private, and, to be sure, more important experiences and developments of their family members. They do not know who all will read their holiday letter and do not want strangers to know about very personal and very important events in their lives. Their privacy is of great importance to many Americans. It matters to them that strangers not know about the more exciting or more troubling events in their lives.

But there is a different way of reading these bland and uncommunicative holiday missives. Americans have accustomed themselves to avoiding controversy. When we get together for a meal, or wait our turn in the barbershop or beauty parlor, or wait for the doctor in her waiting room we may talk about the weather, we may talk about sports, but politics, religion, moral controversies are off-limits. In other words it is forbidden to talk about serious matters that anybody really cares about. The essential traits of our lives, what gives us strength and hope to persevere as well as what makes us despair is prohibited. It is unspeakable. It may not be brought up for conversation.

"Different people choose to talk about different things in public. Who are you to judge people who are more reticent than you are? It is not up to you to choose to embarrass others by mentioning matters they are reluctant to discuss. It is simply unkind of you to start controversies thereby making other people uncomfortable." Such might be a response to the preceding paragraphs. Religion, politics, morality are private matters. People disagree about them and that's just how it is. Discussions of religion, politics, or morality are most often emotional, upsetting and unproductive. We should avoid them in order to have a smooth social life.

We see the result of this attitude towards, especially, morality in the present uproar over widespread sexual harassment and abuse. One half, according to some, one third, according to others, of all women have been sexually harassed or abused. No woman can ever feel safe from sudden unwanted sexual overtures. No woman can ever be certain that her relationships with men are professional or friendly without any sexual overtones.

Until now that has not been widely discussed because the women were afraid for their jobs and their advancement but also because we don't talk about serious matters like sexual domination by a male family members, male employers, male teachers, male coaches, random males. There is little serious discussion of a president who boasts of sexually harassing women. There is no one who asks: "What is the state of moral health of America when no woman, even female children, can feel safe?"

If America sent out an end of the year chatty chronicle, it too would have to avoid talking about morality or politics or religion because it has neglected those issues for too long and were it to speak of it now, it would have to be profoundly ashamed.

Were we to make America great again, we would have to expand our annual accounts of our lives to the issues that really matter, we would have to begin by thinking and talking about how we treat each other, about the political system which we called mendaciously a democracy, and our religion which more often than not preaches hate and imaginary superiority.

End sexual harassment!

So many women coming forward with stories of sexual harassment! This is a large step forward. No longer is male aggression on women to be born silently. The guilty can now be called out.

We have known for a long time that as many as one in three women have been harassed or attacked by men. But men, on the whole, have not understood this statistic. They have not been willing to understand that of every three women they know one may have been subject to more or less serious sexual violence. We should have known a long time ago that women we know, women who are friends, or relatives, or coworkers may have been injured seriously by male aggressions.

During the last presidential campaign a video surfaced of the then candidate Trump boasting of kissing or groping unwilling women. Candidate Trump excused his behavior as "locker room talk." The significance of such an excuse has not been understood so far.

The discussion of violation of women has focused on individuals on movie producers, on actors, professors, on employers and others. Aggression against women is discussed as the immoral and exploitative actions of this or that man abusing his power. When Donald Trump mentioned "locker room talk" he reminded everyone that these individuals could only act as they did with impunity in a culture that demeans women.

Everyone is part of a culture. In ours, sexual attacks on children are not acceptable. They do occur but if the culprit is found no one will say, "oh well, men will be men." But if the victim is a teenager or a grown woman people – mostly men – chuckle and change the subject. The amazing and terrifying frequency of sexual assault on women is possible only where such attacks are tacitly permitted.

This culture has different themes and some of them have roots in the distant past. Despising our bodies is one theme. Bodies are somehow thought to serve only sexual purposes and are somehow dirty. Bodies need to be hidden. Bodies are not beautiful, or graceful or dignified. Bodily functions cannot be talked about. One source of that contempt of the body is in the Judeo-Christian religion that regards those parts of us that don't seem to be bodily – mind, spirit, soul – as immortal and valuable and has nothing but contempt for the body where all these immortal functions live.

Sexuality in that culture is just plain dirty. What is more, woman's sexuality is seen as seductive. It was she who gave the apple to Adam. Had he been by himself, Adam presumably would have remained pure. It was the woman who seduced him to discover his and her nakedness. Human ambivalence about sexuality became one tool for denigrating women.

In our culture ambivalence about sexuality becomes a tool for asserting male power over women. Women are supposed to be "modest." In many situations such "modesty" involves strict dress codes for women. The requirement for modesty still remains even in the West where female nakedness is daily used to sell products. But here men have the power to define what modesty consists of, which woman is "easy" or a "whore." Male attacks are justified by complaining about women not being modest.

Not only is power in the hands of men but women are to varying extents treated as property. If a man wants, he can touch a woman's body or grab or kiss her. She would be rude or a bad sport to complain. Women are frequently a possession of one man. But often also they are a possession to be touched and hugged and kissed by any man. We have a special term for that--she can be "manhandled."

Power comes with being male, with owning male genitals. Transgender persons raise the ire of men because such status undermines masculine identity and thus blurs the clear lines that are thought to legitimate the male domination of women.

Power goes with wealth, with being white. The women who have come out to complain about male attacks are mostly white, mostly well-off. We have have heard much less from poor women and women of color. They cannot afford to loose their job. But studies show that 80% of female Mexican farmworkers in California, 50% of Chicago female hotel workers, 40% of female fast food workers say they have been sexually harassed.

Cultures don't maintain themselves automatically. They are not natural phenomena that will thrive if only the conditions are favorable. Cultures need to be maintained. The locker room talk needs to continue. The same sexist jokes need to be repeated over and over. Men need to continue to believe that their worth as persons depends on the size of their penis and the frequency of their orgasms.

Ostracizing this film producer or that actor will not affect serious change. It will titillate for a while, it will encourage wagging tongues. The self-righteous will be encouraged to overlook their own failings, their own sexism. The Bible thumpers can once again exhort us to return to their particular orthodoxy. But then it will all be forgotten.

The changes that are now beginning to men's sexual domination can only be made permanent if the culture changes that allows that sexual domination. Every man must make major efforts to overcome their contributions to the patriarchal culture that makes women into sexual targets and men into sexual predators. We must cease denigrating women. We must speak out when others do.