It’s not that kindness is a moral imperative because it’s convenient. Kindness is a moral imperative because unkindness done to one turns that one’s grandchildren into monsters who will return that unkindness a thousandfold.
Even if the unkindness being done to Palestinians were to stop today, with all of the trauma that has been inflicted upon those children, what does the world have to look forward to in 80 years?
When will we begin to think about the effects of our actions on other people’s grandchildren first, rather than condemning our own to suffer the consequences?
Understanding human cognitive bias, and the psychophysical mechanisms that compartmentalize our experience so that we can navigate in a world of endless variation, let us recognize that the rainbow is not actually made up of discrete bands of color – that is an illusion created by our senses.
As comforting as it may be to align ourselves with one band of color in the rainbow, let us also be able to abandon ourselves to the imperceptible spaces between the bands, as disorienting and vulnerable as that may feel.
We truly are one, and truly need one another to understand the whole.
That sounds very Berkeley. I own it.
If we let go of the idea that we are responsible for knowing everything about the world, and accept that we are actually co-responsible, how much more important is every relationship? How much more care do we take in articulating our perspective? How much more deeply do we listen, and in listening, build connections to parts of the world that we are incapable of hearing, but for our connection with others?
If one recognizes the Palestinian people as equally human to oneself, one will experience no moral dilemma as one simultaneously condemns their slaughter, starvation, and displacement; and desires that Hamas-held hostages be released.
On the other hand, if one finds oneself making statements which include clauses such as “sad, but,” or “you’re ignoring the hostages” or “you hate [the state or people starting with ‘I’ or the people starting with ‘J’] when someone condemns the genocide, one is experiencing the belief that human beings exist on a spectrum, and that certain tribal/political/ethnic/religious groups of people are more human, more deserving of respect and dignity, than others.
This has been covered before. “Black Lives Matter” does not need to be qualified with “All Lives Matter.” “Stop the genocide” does not need to be qualified with “bring home the hostages.” In demanding so, one’s bias is revealed.
If one is not hearing “bring home the hostages,” then one has tuned out the roar of US dollars and weapons flooding the region, which are louder and more powerful than all of the voices calling for an end to the genocide.
Extreme wealth is not compatible with democracy. The ultrarich are cushioned from fluctuations in the political landscape that can have life-or-death consequences for regular people. Even if a billionaire lost their job and got hit by a truck tomorrow, they would be able to afford healthcare, send their kids to college, and provide safe living accommodations for their families, and still be earning interest from their wealth. On the other hand, many regular citizens are one missed paycheck away from homelessness, not to mention the millions who are already homeless and without resources.
Also, due to fundamental changes in the brain that go along with extreme wealth, the interests of capital accumulation and the common good are directly at odds with one another. It has been shown in multiple studies that material wealth decreases empathy, making it difficult for the ultrarich to even understand the issues that affect regular people on a daily basis.
Therefore, rather than the ultrarich participating in the political process like other people, or through means such as super-PACs that are not available to the common citizen, I believe that we should have a social contract that requires a sacrifice: hoard wealth, or participate in the political process. Not both. If a person is able to exercise personal restraint in wealth accumulation, let them participate along with those who are just trying to survive. Otherwise, Let them acknowledge their privilege and bow out. Edit: the legal term is “recuse themselves.” It’s the right thing to do.
Woody Guthrie was a DJ. He used the power of the social media of his time to spread the message of anti-fascism and pro-democracy. Pete Seeger had a television show. He used the power of social media to highlight outspoken advocates for social justice in song. Nina Simone used her platform to expose the abuses of power and hypocrisy in our society and our government. Paul Robeson traveled the world and spoke out at his concerts, championing anti-fascist causes in the US and abroad. Teresa Teng encoded revolutionary messages into her pop songs. Victor Jara lost his life for using his artistry to inspire people to defend democracy and resist authoritarianism.
All of these people were blacklisted, repressed, investigated, and trivialized by the systems of power they spoke and sang against. And many regular people went along with the program, belittling them as corny, or fringe, or eccentric, or out of touch with reality. Many people who look back on these figures as heroes might have ignored or laughed at them in their heyday.
Sometimes revolution is ignored in its time, only to be looked back upon with wistful reverence.
To heck with that.
Anyone who is called to inspire their people to coordinated action for the common good knows that the work is not sexy, and will not result in accolades or personal gain. Often, it seems like the people who are most responsible for igniting our spark are the least willing to engage in our efforts. Nevertheless, our passion and our recognition of the moment compels us to continue to reach out, connect, educate, and build alliances through whatever networks we have available to us. It’s a face-to-face, word-of-mouth, phone-call-in-the-middle-of-the-night kind of thing.
The mindset of the people dismantling our social and environmental protections is the mindset of people who go into National Parks and push over rock formations that took millions of years to form. It is a mindset that is incapable of awe, empathy, self-reflection, or vulnerability; that can only feel something when exercising power or control. There’s no point in asking why or trying to make sense of their actions–they will say one thing one day and the opposite the next. The only answer is a mindset of greed, hatred, and ignorance.
We can overcome this mindset in ourselves, through practices that promote awe, empathy, self-reflection, and vulnerability, and so spread these qualities through our interactions.
One of the things that makes the current crisis so difficult is that this particular class of disruptors as a rule do not mix with people who cultivate awe, empathy, self-reflection, and vulnerability. They would feel quite uncomfortable to find themselves among such people. Once this corrupted mindset takes hold in a government or society, it really takes sustained effort, a grand gesture, to overcome it. What will this grand gesture look like? Will we recognize the moment for action when it arises? Are we capable of such a grand gesture?
