Most readers of “First Thoughts” are likely, being mostly conservatives of some sort, to feel that things are always getting worse and that the contemporary world has fallen a few steps down the slope towards decadence from the position its predecessors held. In many ways things are getting worse, of course, but in many ways they aren’t. The world may have jumped down a few steps in some places, but in others it has taken a few steps up.
We tend to forget the sins of the past, especially if you’re an affluent WASP whose ancestors were always privileged. I was reminded of this by accident, when I stumbled across an old cartoon while looking for old Warner Brothers “Goofy Gophers” cartoons. (The gophers, Mac and Tosh, are exceptionally polite while they cause gopher-like havoc and the cartoons still crack me up.) The cartoon I saw is a 1943 Warner Brothers cartoon in their Merrie Melodies series titled “Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs” — I’m not going to provide the link — and startling in its use of racial, and racist, stereotypes.
Then I happened upon novelist Ed Falco’s When Italian immigrants were ‘the other’. He describes “the largest mass lynching in U.S. history,” the victims of which were Italian-Americans, in New Orleans in 1891.
After nine Italians were tried and found not guilty of murdering New Orleans Police Chief David Hennessy, a mob dragged them from the jail, along with two other Italians being held on unrelated charges, and lynched them all. The lynchings were followed by mass arrests of Italian immigrants throughout New Orleans, and waves of attacks against Italians nationwide.
What was the reaction of our country’s leaders to the lynchings? Teddy Roosevelt, not yet president, famously said they were “a rather good thing.” The response in The New York Times was worse. A March 16, 1891,editorial referred to the victims of the lynchings as “. . . sneaking and cowardly Sicilians, the descendants of bandits and assassins.” An editorial the next day argued that: ”Lynch law was the only course open to the people of New Orleans. . . .”
John Parker, who helped organize the lynch mob, later went on to be governor of Louisiana. In 1911, he said of Italians that they were”just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in [their] habits, lawless, and treacherous.”
I’ve run across several reminders of the accepted and unashamed anti-semitism of the past, as in a story about the literary critic M. H. Abrams, The Last Critic Turns 100, I just saw this morning (and commend to your attention). He was studying at Harvard in the early thirties when
a career as an English professor must have looked like a pretty tenuous possibility for a young man named Meyer Abrams. Indeed, while Abrams recalled that he experienced no overt anti-Semitism (though “if I looked for it, I would have found it,” he said wryly), he was given a “downright warning” by his faculty adviser that the “profession was not open to Jews.”
It’s the casual “Of course, you can’t be an English professor” aspect of this that’s so revealing.
You can’t imagine a major studio making such a cartoon today, nor Italians being lynched, nor the Times and a governor talking about them like that, nor a Harvard professor telling a student that an academic field is closed to Jews. That’s a significant change.
You will find many bigots who hate blacks, Italians, Catholics, and Jews, and more who don’t hate them but approve the bigot’s stereotypes — these are the people who tell you that they’re simply facing facts or just being honest — but they are not nearly so prominent and influential. There are some things a man just doesn’t say in public, even if he believes them, and many of those who believe them feel guilty for doing so. You can get fired from conservative magazines for expressing much milder versions of these views.
So some things do get better. As much as we reject the degradation of contemporary life — the sexualization of the culture, for example, which is not only libertine but coarse — it has been refined in some ways, particularly in the public treatment of others who are different from us. That’s something to remember.
July 11th, 2012 | 2:45 pm
Of course, what you don’t say is that this improvement in how we treat those once treated as the Other comes in spite, not because of, the efforts of conservatives, who are always on the side of maintaining the privileges of the privileged while tut-tutting about the fallen state of the world. (See also: Martin, Trayvon).
July 11th, 2012 | 3:55 pm
And to think most conservatives still romanticize about the good ole 50´s and the good ole fashioned order where women were confined into the kitchen and racial segregation was the law…
July 11th, 2012 | 3:55 pm
On the other hand, one can easily imagine, or make that document with cases ripped from the headlines, cases of religious folk (in America mainly Protestants, with a sizable minority of traditionalist Catholics and a few Jews for good measure) being told certain professions aren’t open to their kind, or the New York Times editorializing that such folk deserve to have their businesses sued out of existence for failing to observe the PC pieties (e.g., that wedding photographer in New Mexico who didn’t want to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony, or the bed-and-breakfast owners in England who don’t rent rooms to unmarried couples, including but not limited to gay couples). And I have no doubt that in ten years’ time, someone will get fired from the National Review and drummed out of polite society as a bigot for expressing mild doubt about the moral liceity of homosexual acts. And many will say, “Good thing too, moral progress in action.”
There is a certain amount of “Who? Whom?” in this, as Lenin might have remarked.
July 11th, 2012 | 4:04 pm
Siger and Sergio,
There, do you feel better now that you got that off of your chests? I just hope you didn’t hurt your shoulders reaching around to pat yourselves on the back.
July 11th, 2012 | 4:10 pm
RL: Yes, yes, of course. The defensive reaction is, though, an example of the problem. We ought to be able to say “That’s a good thing that’s happened” without immediately bringing up the bad things that have happened at the same time, as if the admission of progress here is a dangerous concession.
July 11th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
RL:
Yeah, such a tragedy. Like Pastor Charles Worley, who in 30 years was forced to change his tune about homosexuals (just from execution to incarceration*). Look what the evil PC liberals do to decent people like him! Still there is still hope: Representative Lisa Brown was censured for using the word “vagina” during a debate about abortion in Michigan** and teenager atheist Jessica Alquist recieved death treats after she sued her school for having a religious prayer text on its walls***. There is stil hope, don´t give up!
* http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/22/488614/worley-oak-gays-tree/ , http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/21/487707/north-carolina-electric-pen/
** http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/brown-kicked-out-for-saying-vagina/index.html
** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/jessica-ahlquist-prayer-banner-rhode-island-school_n_1237199.html
July 11th, 2012 | 4:23 pm
Hello, David Mills,
Have you seen the documentary Maafa 21? It makes the case that the racism of the establishment is as extreme and as aggressive as it ever was, only much more subtle and carefully kept “off the radar” of public consciousness. “Archie Bunker” racism is loudly condemned, as it should be, but only to provide cover for a much more insidious racism that is carefully kept hidden from the public.
July 11th, 2012 | 4:54 pm
Mr. Mills,
Perhaps, but if one takes the conservative pessimist’s view that human society is inevitably going to ostracize or penalize the un-PC, recognizing that the content of PC may change radically over the span of a single human life or endure for centuries, then can one really say any more than, “Being the ‘whom?’ is a bad thing. I understand why those other groups are happy not to be the ‘whom?’ any more, but I’m not too happy that I’m now the ‘whom?’ instead, or that my children look like they’re going to be the ‘whom?’ after me”? And then point out that the mechanisms that the feds introduced to enforce racial equality in the 1960s — i.e., to make sure blacks were no longer the ‘whom?’ — are now being turned on today’s ‘whom?’s as Senator Goldwater said they would back in 1964, and that we’re all less free as a result?
It’s great that our society is now less unjust toward some groups toward which it was formerly unjust, but it’s not clear to me that we’re advancing toward justice, as opposed to picking different losers in a negative-sum game. It is, as you said in the original post, a matter of jumping a few steps up in one area, and a few steps down in another.
July 11th, 2012 | 5:33 pm
affluent WASP whose ancestors were always privileged
I’ve always wondered what kind of people coined this acronym and what they were trying to communicate. A wasp is an unpleasant little insect, and it’s often a metaphor for nastiness and hatefulness. I don’t think I would want those kinds of associations created with myself, or people with a certain skin colour and/or religion. In many contexts, that might be thought to be racism.
July 11th, 2012 | 6:36 pm
RL – Let’s say you are one of the ‘whom’ now.
I’m still not aware of anyone expressing negative opinions about homosexuality who’s gone on to be hung by a rope from a tree until dead by a mob.
If nothing else, I’d call that progress.
July 11th, 2012 | 6:52 pm
So, the racism of progressives like Woodrow Wilson and the early eugenicists, the anti-slavery, free-market beliefs of the 19th century Republican Party, and the rhetoric of class warfare and segregation embraced by Southern Democrats of yesteryear and all Democrats today (yes, even today, though they use different words and target different groups), are now indicators that free-market conservatives of the 21st century are the ones standing in the way of social progress.
To think that they call conservatives the uneducated morons…
July 11th, 2012 | 10:30 pm
David Mills wrote:
“In many ways things are getting worse, of course, but in many ways they aren’t. The world may have jumped down a few steps in some places, but in others it has taken a few steps up.”
So, are we to believe that our society perdures in a state of moral equilibrium whereby any move for reform will be counteracted by an equal and opposite push towards injustice and moral mischief? If so, then why support any social reform if, following Mills’ position, (not so far) down the road different problems just as bad will arise as a consequence?
David Mills also wrote:
“There are some things a man just doesn’t say in public, even if he believes them, and many of those who believe them feel guilty for doing so. You can get fired from conservative magazines for expressing much milder versions of these views.”
It would have been better had he written
“There are some things a man shouldn’t say in public, even if he is ignorant, deluded or vicious enough to believe them, and many of those who believe them should feel ashamed for doing so. You can get – and probably should get – fired from conservative magazines or from TV channels for expressing these views.
There. That’s better.
July 12th, 2012 | 12:02 am
Lots of progress.
The extinction of smallpox.
The near extinction of polio.
Advances in dental care.
Refrigeration in most countries if the world.
Extended periods of peace on continents not used to such peace–No continent wide wars in Europe in almost 70 years.
Prgress HAS been made on a number of fronts..
July 12th, 2012 | 9:56 am
Another sign of progress–more Catholic couples are learning and using NFP than at any time in the past 3 or 4 decades.
And, small step by small step, those in leadership positions in the Church are learning to articulate our Mother’s teachings against contraception.
A small point, perhaps, and rated irrelevant by “a number of the staff and writers of First Things” who don’t see a problem with contraception.
But I say that the sacrament of matrimony, and with it the family, will continue under withering attack in our culture until those of us who claim to know Christ will recognize what many young marrieds are thankfully learning–the truth and beauty of Catholic teaching regarding human sexuality.
July 12th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
Here is another example of moral progress.
In 1906, the Chancellor of Germany (Claus von Bulow) decared “the officer corps of the army can tolerate no member in its ranks who is not ready, should necessity arise, to defend his honour by force of arms.”
Can one imagine anyone in a similar position, anywhere in the West, defending duelling in that way?
July 12th, 2012 | 12:27 pm
“And to think most conservatives still romanticize about the good ole 50´s and the good ole fashioned order where women were confined into the kitchen and racial segregation was the law…”
That’s a strangely tone-deaf response to an essay excoriating stereotyping and racism. You forgot—most conservatives drive Cadillacs, belong to country clubs, smoke cigars, wear wingtips, buff their nails, send their kids to boarding schools, own cocker spaniels, wax their floors and worry too much about weeds in the zoysia. they probably also still subscribe to afternoon newspapers—they are just the “type”.
July 12th, 2012 | 12:34 pm
David: Thank you for your optimism. This attitude is certainly not a “dangerous concession.” Nor does it need to be qualified by the partisan one upmanship displayed in many of these comments. For me, it is about having faith in God’s guidance. Life may not always be clear or pretty, but I trust that it’s going in the right direction. We need more hope, not less.
July 12th, 2012 | 1:55 pm
Peg:
Read the comments and articles in firstthings, or any other conservative or conservative leanning publication and please tell me is not true you romanticize the 50´s.
July 12th, 2012 | 2:25 pm
Sergio,
Provide examples, please……just making sweeping assertions and asking others to prove the negative isn’t argumentation….it’s epistemic closure.
July 12th, 2012 | 3:01 pm
Steve, just to take off from your point I have always wondered how certain people, when speaking of events in the past, always seem to act as though it is a given that they, of course, would have been on the side of the angels. They would have been the hero who stood up to whatever evil prevailed at the time, so it’s not just a pat on the back but a big gold star hero button presumptivley pinned to their chests.
July 12th, 2012 | 4:47 pm
Sergio, it’s seems like there are two possibilities, assuming your assertion that conservatives romanticize the 50′s:
1. Conservatives think that the 50′s were a superior time in many respects, yet claim to decry racism and sexism. Therefore, conservatives are either lying about not liking racism and sexism, or deluding themselves (your option.)
2. Conservatives think that the 50′s were superior time in many respects, yet claim to decry racism and sexism. This is because there are other no longer extant qualities of the 50′s that they appreciate and despite not believing that the decade was free from negativity in every respect.
Do you have a reason other than counter-historical (as Jack Perry points out) prejudice to opt for #1 over #2?
July 12th, 2012 | 5:45 pm
“Peg:
Read the comments and articles in firstthings, or any other conservative or conservative leanning publication and please tell me is not true you romanticize the 50´s.”
OK. It is not true that I romanticize the 50′s. It’s truly a bizarrely specific bit of pigeonholing.
July 12th, 2012 | 11:59 pm
And to think most conservatives still romanticize about the good ole 50´s and the good ole fashioned order where women were confined into the kitchen and racial segregation was the law…
It always astonishes me that left wingers get life and Wikipedia backwards.
Encyclopedias are what ought to be perfect before being experienced. Life is what you are supposed to expect to be imperfect, to be corrected and improved as you go along.
I remember many things about my childhood that were better than the way things are now. Do you therefore assert that I want my the old postmaster – the one who got busted for sexual harassment – to be postmaster again?
Do I have to reject my smartphone before I am allowed to feel regret that we no longer feature pay phones on every street corner?
It does not follow (in the minds of people who reason correctly) that if a conservative admires the many good things about society in the 1950s, that therefore the conservative is automatically required logically to also embrace the flaws.
Obviously, the society – for all its intact families, neighborly communities, and functioning institutions – had problems in that too many people were excluded, who shouldn’t have been.
But to try to link the two – as if being a conservative automatically must mean rejecting all progress – is as illogical as if I were arguing that because you are a “progressive”, you must be in favor of all potential changes – even the ones that are obviously bad. You must want a matriarchy, where feminists lynch men. You must be glad every time left wing “unintended consequences” pervert yet another social project into a parody of what it was supposed to be.
Of course that is nonsense: to the extent that you advocate obviously flawed projects, you do so out of ignorance, not malice. And you wouldn’t like it if that were misrepresented, so I must ask you to stop doing unto conservatives what I doubt you’d like done to you.
Besides, conservative critics were right in a lot of their criticism: it seems to me a no-brainer that the less help any given ethnic group got from the Left, the better off it ended up. Today the Irish and the Italians are assimilated, while the victim groups the Left has taken as what Thomas Sowell calls “mascots” are more entrenched in social misery, dependency, and blecch-factor, than ever.
July 13th, 2012 | 10:15 am
Nice essay. Christians often resist acknowledging the stunning progress civilization has made on many fronts. This is a mistake. Christians also often, more than other, appreciate the virtues of the past. In a rapidly changing world, that is a needful thing. I teach at an HBCU. Many of the older people there grew up amidst extreme racism. They also talk about many aspects of earlier days as very much superior to modern culture, where we live amidst rising extreme vulgarity. It’s a balancing act, which is what Mills seemed to hint at. The blustering combox comments are what you expect… in comboxes. Something the past did not have to contend with!
July 13th, 2012 | 10:47 am
“Read the comments and articles in firstthings, or any other conservative or conservative leanning publication and please tell me is not true you romanticize the 50´s.”
Come again? Please read these things that *other people* have written as justification for my belief about *you?*
This is the second time in three days I have seen someone from a leftward position make this kind of “someone else did this therefore I am justified in my beliefs about you” argument. Does it not even strike you as a rather hollow form of reasoning?
July 13th, 2012 | 11:30 pm
OK. It is not true that I romanticize the 50′s. It’s truly a bizarrely specific bit of pigeonholing.
I romanticize certain aspects of the 1950s, and I do so without shame or apology.
I have no doubt that nostalgia exists because it serves a purpose: it prompts us to look backward at what we are in the process of losing, so that we can salvage and save that which has value before it’s irretrievably gone beyond “the edge of history”.
July 14th, 2012 | 9:15 am
“I have no doubt that nostalgia exists because it serves a purpose: it prompts us to look backward at what we are in the process of losing, so that we can salvage and save that which has value before it’s irretrievably gone beyond “the edge of history”.
I have just been trying to knock down a simplified stereotype—the claim that “most conservatives” long for the bad old days of the 1950s. That jarred because it did not ring true with the conservatives I know well. It struck me as the same old, same old stuff that David Mills was describing. There were people who believed that “most Italians” were sneaking, cowardly bandits and assassins. Not only that, most Italians were filthy. Well, that kind of creature deserves to be lynched.
However, I guess I should admit that I live in a mid-century modern house and have some Herman Miller and Eames furniture. I could be said to “long for” a 1950s surfboard coffee table. My neighborhood is famously liberal, so it occurs to me that one could argue that many liberals—if not most—hanker for the 1950s, too. That would be silly, though.
July 14th, 2012 | 1:48 pm
I have just been trying to knock down a simplified stereotype—the claim that “most conservatives” long for the bad old days of the 1950s.
I don’t know why you say the 1950s were the “bad old days”. While it’s true that there were some bad things about the 1950s, it’s also true that in some ways things have gotten much worse.
Maybe you need to stop seeing life in terms of simplified stereotypes.
July 14th, 2012 | 4:09 pm
“I don’t know why you say the 1950s were the “bad old days”. While it’s true that there were some bad things about the 1950s, it’s also true that in some ways things have gotten much worse.”
I don’t actually disagree with you, Blake—it was the description of the social order of the 1950s “where women were confined into the kitchen and racial segregation was the law” as what “most conservatives” value. People, and history, are more complicated than that.
July 15th, 2012 | 10:20 pm
I don’t actually disagree with you, Blake—it was the description of the social order of the 1950s “where women were confined into the kitchen and racial segregation was the law” as what “most conservatives” value. People, and history, are more complicated than that.
Well, I try to be specific about saying “some aspects”.
I don’t have the best gifts of language. Sometimes what I say doesn’t match what I mean to say. My pardon if I sounded like I was denying that parts of the 1950s were problematic. It just seems to me there’s a trap there – by making the 1950s all or nothing, then either you’re with the Progressives, or you’re for the old-time racists.
It seems to me that the only way conservatives can avoid this trap is to recognize both conservativism and progressivism as being more about how and why and when to go about changing and less than we think about what to change, specifically. There’s a popular myth of “progress” that says that one generation’s progressive ideas are some future generation’s conservative ideas – which is in a sense true (compare JFK’s platform with Ronald Reagan’s) but this “narrative frame” draws attention to every position conservatives ever got wrong, while obscuring the recognition that progressives get things wrong, too. This sleight of hand is directly linked to how progressives have succeeded so well at caricaturing conservatives.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact