© 2008 and 2012, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Several years ago, I attended a conference sponsored by a professional association at a high end resort in Florida. An incredible buffet dinner was scheduled for one evening, to which everyone was looking forward.
I arrived just as the food was being taken away.
Upon my arrival, everyone inquired as to why I was so late. When I informed them that I felt compelled to watch two episodes of the Andy Griffith Show, they all howled with laughter.
Their laughter grew even louder when I mentioned that, in my opinion, one could learn more about life from that show than perhaps any other show on television. (Interestingly, my Father tells me that it was also the favorite show of my Mother, who passed away at a relatively early age.)
I saw an episode of the show yesterday, which reminded me of the manner in which this simple show, about life in small town America, has provoked many a thought throughout my lifetime.
It was the story of Ed Sawyer, a clean-cut, well-groomed stranger who arrives in Mayberry. Throughout the episode, Ed is always dressed in a conservative business suit, articulate, respectful, polite, and there is nothing visually alarming about him. In fact, he could be the poster boy for virtually any All-American organization or movement.
The first scene in the episode unfolds as Ed enters Floyd’s barbershop, where Barney Fife is in the chair getting a shave. Several other citizens, including Andy, are also present.
Ed engages them all in a pleasant, upbeat conversation, calls them each by name, and exhibits a degree of familiarity which causes the shop’s occupants to become uncomfortable. As he leaves the shop, all heads turn to follow him down the street, and they all exit to watch his next move. Almost immediately, there is a suggestion by Barney that Andy commence an investigation of this suspicious and “peculiar” stranger.
As Ed proceeds down the sidewalk, he encounters a double baby stroller parked in front of a store, where the mother is looking through the shop window. Ed greets the two twins, their mother, and then poses questions which suggest that he can distinguish between the two boys at this early stage in their development. The suspicions grow.
Ed next proceeds to the local rooming house, and when offered one room, he declines because of an incident which had occurred in the room, arguably about which few would have known. Although he has never stayed at the rooming house, he then proceeds to request a specific room, by number, which although green in color, has a cheerier décor.
At this point, Barney is beside himself, and inquires whether Ed speaks German. Fortunately, Andy, the voice of reason, intervenes and initiates a conversation more normally associated with welcoming a visitor to one’s town. At the same time, Andy poses a number of questions in an effort to get to know this fellow better, since he is also experiencing some degree of discomfort, although unarticulated.
Later that afternoon, Ed approaches Andy and seeks his advice and assistance. It appears that the local gas station is up for sale, and Ed is considering buying it. Andy suggests that perhaps Ed might be moving a tad too quickly, and that he should take the time to get to know the townspeople a little better.
He further suggests that the town’s citizens might regard Ed’s sudden emergence on the scene as “peculiar,” without some “warming up.” (By the way, I learned the word “peculiar” from this show, which was used with some frequency on episodes airing in the 1960’s.)
Ed then segues into how much in love he is with Lucy Matthews, who he has never seen. However, he is familiar with all of her physical attributes, and he inquires of Andy as to why she does not answer his calls and knocks on her door. Lucy soon walks in to lodge a complaint, to which Ed responds that she is just as pretty as he suspected. It is at this point that Andy feels, as the town’s sheriff, he must get to the bottom of this behavior, since it threatens to disturb the town’s peace.
Ed admits that his behavior might strike some as odd, but provides a very plausible, if not immediately obvious, explanation. Ed explains that Joe Larson, a long-time resident of Mayberry, was an Army buddy. While serving together, Joe received the local Mayberry newspaper, and Ed found himself reading the paper on a daily basis.
As time moved on, he began to feel that he “knew” the citizens about whom the articles were written. He further explains that over time, he began to envy Joe, because Joe was from Mayberry, a place that Ed admired, and Ed was from, well, “Nowhere.”
Ed further explains that over time, he began to wish that Mayberry was his hometown, and he eventually convinced himself that it was. When he saw the ad in the paper that the service station was up for sale, he regarded it as an opportunity to fulfill a dream.
After Ed leaves the courthouse / jail, Barney rushes in and proclaims that Ed has finally “overplayed his hand.” When Andy inquires as to what Barney is referring, Barney states that Ed has been hanging around Lucy Matthews’ house and actually crossed the line by ringing her bell.
Andy suggests that insufficient grounds exist to justify an arrest, to which Barney replies that he pulled in three 12 year olds the preceding Halloween for ringing doorbells unnecessarily.
He further exclaims that Ed doesn’t even have the excuse of being out for trick or treat. Deputy Fife then inquires as to whether Ed speaks Spanish.
Of course, Ed’s efforts to integrate himself into the community go terribly wrong. That’s even after Andy makes everyone feel pretty small and provincial after facetiously suggesting that they all were justified in their prejudicial attitudes toward this stranger, just because he was an unknown, peculiar, and somewhat different.
Ed realizes that this really isn’t the place for him, and leaves. And the town lost a potentially energizing and illuminating individual.
This 40 plus year old episode of the Andy Griffith Show made me think of several things this weekend. First, the power of the visual media came to mind, along with its potential to expand the minds of its viewers, particularly young viewers, as well as its power to narrow.
Second, it reminded me of the 30 year period when I lived in Southern California, and I interacted with all sorts of people of different races from different parts of the world. Virtually everyone was a stranger. Upon returning to North Carolina, despite the fact that North Carolina is the number one state in terms of percentage increase of Hispanics, I noticed the lack of interaction between whites and blacks on the one hand, and Hispanics on the other. Asians operate many mom and pop businesses in the black parts of town, but the social interaction ends there.
At several public meetings in my hometown, I have mentioned that despite what one may think of our immigration policies, many immigrants are here, and we need to engage them and integrate them into our society, with the goal of deriving the best that we can from their involvement. Each time I have broached the subject, many citizens in the room have lowered their heads and looked at the floor without responding.
In recent months, I have tried something different. Every time I have encountered Hispanics, I have taken the initiative to walk up to them and start a conversation. Each time, without fail, they have been pleasant folks and almost ecstatic that someone outside of their group took the risk to engage them. It has always been a rewarding experience, although guarded it may have started.
Third, this episode also struck a chord when I learned of Senator’s Obama’s reference earlier this week to the efforts of his opponents to label him as different, and thus necessarily something that we should fear.
Our fear of the unknown, caution, and prejudice, even that racially based, appear to be hard wired to ensure survival and ease of negotiation in a complex world. But we also have a bigger brain which should enable us to think and reason beyond our biggest primal fears.
Some criticism has been leveled against the Andy Griffith Show over the years because of its conspicuous absence of blacks in a show based in a southern city. However, Andy Griffith himself sure made up for that during the airing of his Matlock series.
Be that as it may, my hat is off to the Andy Griffith Show, and particularly its writers, particularly considering the era in which the show was first viewed. Perhaps more of you will have the opportunity to view the Ed Sawyer episode before the upcoming presidential election.
© 2008 and 2012, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Showing posts with label racial prejudice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racial prejudice. Show all posts
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Post No. 148c: Re-posting of "Why the Bigots and the Narrow-Minded Should Form their own Party"
© 2008 and 2010, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
This is another Logistician post from our archives, published in October 2008, prior to the Presidential Election, and prior to the Logistician leaving for his sabbatical. It is interesting to look back on it now.
People keep telling me that race relations have improved immensely over the past 40 years. They also point to advances in terms of how America treats women, the disabled, gays, and many other groups in society.
They are quick to pull up statistics to support their positions, and produce polls where the respondents express this new-found enlightened thinking.
However, I’ve never bought it.
In my view, we just suppressed the views of the bigots and the narrow-minded, and made it unpopular and impolite for them to truly express themselves. What I submit has occurred is simply a shift in which groups are encouraged or allowed to express themselves.
Stop to think about it. There were many interracial couples who wanted to marry at an earlier time in our history, and were prevented, through miscegenation laws, from doing so. Gays had sex, which was prohibited by law, and were afraid to reveal themselves and their behavior.
In the mid-1970s, one of my Caucasian graduate school classmates fell in love with an African-American man, and she did not disclose the relationship to her very liberal parents. They had only recently admonished her against going on a camping trip with another African-American friend, out of concern that “kooks” might attack them.
So you see, the suppression of expression comes in many forms. I submit that it is really all about economics, social positioning, and timing. (Religion also obviously has a role, although a complex one.) Much of what Hitler had to offer to the German masses had to do with convincing them that they deserved better than their pre-war status suggested.
Much has been made in recent days of the comments made by supporters of the McCain-Palin ticket at various campaign gatherings around the country. Some have dismissed the comments as those made by a “few kooks.” However, those kooks happen to be the brave or sick ones, and although unquantifiable, I suspect that their numbers are much larger than we are willing to admit.
Of course, the number of those willing to express themselves could quickly change. For those of you who consider yourselves students of recent history, check out France’s experience with Jean-Marie Le Pen during the late 1990s into the early 2000s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_marie_le_pen.) Some of the same issues that were central to his emergence are also present here in America at the current time.
Earlier today, in the syndicated column, “Annie’s Mailbox,” formerly known as “Anne Landers,” and currently operated by her two former editors, a couple wrote in to seek advice about their adoption desires. The couple has two girls, ages 5 and 6, and they are interested in adopting a boy. They are also willing to adopt a child of any race. Interestingly, the step-father of the husband has already let it be known that if they adopt an African-American boy, he will not be allowed in the home of his grandparents.
Quite frankly, I think that it is better that the parents know the step-grandfather’s position now, rather than permit him to spew his hatred after the fact. It is far preferable for us to create the conditions to allow the bigots and the narrow-minded to truly express their feelings and expose them. They will, of course, suffer, or benefit from, the consequences of their expression.
In my view, one of the biggest mistakes that our country has made with respect to the goals of civil rights and equal treatment has been its use of the strong arm of the law. The Warren court of the 1950s, in particular, failed to behave as a part of the judicial branch of our government, and took on a legislative role.
That America did not have the political will, until some years after Brown v. Board of Education, to legislatively pursue the goals of equality tells you that the hearts and minds of American were not ready for it. Same with the Equal Rights Amendment. It is the legislature that has the responsibility for promulgating laws, not the judiciary.
That a relatively small number of “concerned citizens,” no matter how well-intentioned their motivations, should be able to impose their value system on the many, will always be a problem.
You see, the ultimate goal of any group in society seeking equal treatment is respect, and the appreciation by others of your true, core, basic, value based on your merit. People may be forced to respect someone out of fear or intimidation; however, their minds and hearts will never respect you. Furthermore, aren’t bigots and the narrow-minded entitled to be so?
People need to learn, individually and collectively, how to love, respect, and appreciate others on their own terms. To develop artificial contrivances, particularly those imposed by governmental or legal force, only serves to pervert the system and diminish the goal by perverting the principle of fairness.
Furthermore, it provides the bigots and the narrow-minded with further arrows in their quivers to continue the ridiculous debate about equality. There simply shouldn’t be any debate.
Additionally, we need to come to the realization that no decision in the world is fair. The best that we can hope is that we devise systems to treat people processed through it fairly to the best of our ability, and recognize that it still is not going to be perfect.
We, here at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, previously delved into this subject matter. In one of our very earliest articles, we spoke of “How Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html.) In our Post No. 42, entitled “If You Really want to do Some Thinking,” we referred to an article in Edge (http://www.edge.org/) by Jonathan Haidt, entitled “What Makes People Vote Republican.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/09/post-no-42-if-you-really-want-to-do.html.) In the introduction to that article appeared the following:
I saw George Will on Charlie Rose a couple of months ago. He essentially said that conservatism has the “upper hand” because it is “pure.” The problem with liberalism, according to Will, is that it comes off as elitist, in that it essentially says that “we can do a better job of thinking about your interests than you can.”
In his article, Haidt suggests that, “Most democrats don’t understand that politics is more like a religion than it is like shopping.” Bigotry and narrow-mindedness are also like a religion. You can’t just stamp out or suppress what people feel and believe. Additionally, those individuals who hold those views are offended by those who tell them that something is wrong with them for holding them.
I submit that they need to live [I purposefully avoided using “suffer”] the consequences of being bigoted and narrow-minded, whether good or bad, on their own terms. I have always felt that in the long run, it would have been far better for African-Americans to have quietly taken their business around the corner to Caucasian merchants willing to provide them public accommodations and services, than for the law to have forced all merchants and service providers to do so. Take a guess as to the financial impact of such action. By forcing a condition on the unwilling, we as a society only made them angrier and perhaps more bigoted.
Force also further delays the creation of circumstances where one can personally recognize the value of another human being.
Let me tell you this: more and more bigotry and narrow-mindedness will come to the surface as the economic status of the average citizen further deteriorates over the next couple of years. We need an outlet valve – the creation of a prominent third political party, The American Bigot Party.
Just think about it. All of the closet bigots will join, and they’ll be happy to once again speak their minds in public, without recrimination. All of the old racists, who were Dixiecrats and voted for George Wallace before switching allegiance when Ronald Reagan came along, will march down the street in solidarity parades. The Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis will also have a political outlet. Imagine the platform of that party.
If society truly considers the bigoted and narrow-minded to be a cancer on our society, then in order to deal with it, we need to know where and how it exists, not hide it. Common sense dictates as much. Come on out, let us see and hear you, lawyers, judges, politicians, doctors, accountants, farmers, bankers, and all….
The Republicans also have a major problem right now, with which they apparently have not figured out how to deal. They are the default party for the nuts and kooks of America, as least as far as discrimination is concerned. (The Democrats have a different set of nuts and kooks.)
It would be far easier for both the Democratic and Republican parties to join forces, contribute an equal amount from their coffers, and form the American Bigot Party, to sequester the problematic elements of both parties.
Let them be heard. Let them have their say. Then perhaps the candidates of both current major parties would be not have to distance themselves from the John Hagees and Jeremiah Wrights of the world, and if they had to do so, could do so with a straight face.
One final comment. Shortly after 9-11, I attended a seminar conducted by a constitutional law professor and scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky (http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/chemerinsky/), about the importance of not allowing our government to engage in unconstitutional activity.
He noted that during times of crisis and fear, there is a tendency to ignore the Constitution and suppress individual rights. However, he further noted that the Constitution serves as a rudder to keep us on our “right path” and prevent the pendulum of public sentiment from swinging too far in either direction.
Let the concept work its magic. Just don’t pervert or distort its operation and thus encourage people to disrespect it.
Free the bigots! Let them speak and express themselves! Let them organize! We’ll be a better country for having done so, and hopefully, at the end of the day, they’ll just fade away.
© 2008 and 2010, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
EDITORIAL NOTE: We are NOT suggesting, in any way, that the Tea Party Movement is that party. Not at all. Keep in mind that this post was written in October 2008.
This is another Logistician post from our archives, published in October 2008, prior to the Presidential Election, and prior to the Logistician leaving for his sabbatical. It is interesting to look back on it now.
People keep telling me that race relations have improved immensely over the past 40 years. They also point to advances in terms of how America treats women, the disabled, gays, and many other groups in society.
They are quick to pull up statistics to support their positions, and produce polls where the respondents express this new-found enlightened thinking.
However, I’ve never bought it.
In my view, we just suppressed the views of the bigots and the narrow-minded, and made it unpopular and impolite for them to truly express themselves. What I submit has occurred is simply a shift in which groups are encouraged or allowed to express themselves.
Stop to think about it. There were many interracial couples who wanted to marry at an earlier time in our history, and were prevented, through miscegenation laws, from doing so. Gays had sex, which was prohibited by law, and were afraid to reveal themselves and their behavior.
In the mid-1970s, one of my Caucasian graduate school classmates fell in love with an African-American man, and she did not disclose the relationship to her very liberal parents. They had only recently admonished her against going on a camping trip with another African-American friend, out of concern that “kooks” might attack them.
So you see, the suppression of expression comes in many forms. I submit that it is really all about economics, social positioning, and timing. (Religion also obviously has a role, although a complex one.) Much of what Hitler had to offer to the German masses had to do with convincing them that they deserved better than their pre-war status suggested.
Much has been made in recent days of the comments made by supporters of the McCain-Palin ticket at various campaign gatherings around the country. Some have dismissed the comments as those made by a “few kooks.” However, those kooks happen to be the brave or sick ones, and although unquantifiable, I suspect that their numbers are much larger than we are willing to admit.
Of course, the number of those willing to express themselves could quickly change. For those of you who consider yourselves students of recent history, check out France’s experience with Jean-Marie Le Pen during the late 1990s into the early 2000s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_marie_le_pen.) Some of the same issues that were central to his emergence are also present here in America at the current time.
Earlier today, in the syndicated column, “Annie’s Mailbox,” formerly known as “Anne Landers,” and currently operated by her two former editors, a couple wrote in to seek advice about their adoption desires. The couple has two girls, ages 5 and 6, and they are interested in adopting a boy. They are also willing to adopt a child of any race. Interestingly, the step-father of the husband has already let it be known that if they adopt an African-American boy, he will not be allowed in the home of his grandparents.
Quite frankly, I think that it is better that the parents know the step-grandfather’s position now, rather than permit him to spew his hatred after the fact. It is far preferable for us to create the conditions to allow the bigots and the narrow-minded to truly express their feelings and expose them. They will, of course, suffer, or benefit from, the consequences of their expression.
In my view, one of the biggest mistakes that our country has made with respect to the goals of civil rights and equal treatment has been its use of the strong arm of the law. The Warren court of the 1950s, in particular, failed to behave as a part of the judicial branch of our government, and took on a legislative role.
That America did not have the political will, until some years after Brown v. Board of Education, to legislatively pursue the goals of equality tells you that the hearts and minds of American were not ready for it. Same with the Equal Rights Amendment. It is the legislature that has the responsibility for promulgating laws, not the judiciary.
That a relatively small number of “concerned citizens,” no matter how well-intentioned their motivations, should be able to impose their value system on the many, will always be a problem.
You see, the ultimate goal of any group in society seeking equal treatment is respect, and the appreciation by others of your true, core, basic, value based on your merit. People may be forced to respect someone out of fear or intimidation; however, their minds and hearts will never respect you. Furthermore, aren’t bigots and the narrow-minded entitled to be so?
People need to learn, individually and collectively, how to love, respect, and appreciate others on their own terms. To develop artificial contrivances, particularly those imposed by governmental or legal force, only serves to pervert the system and diminish the goal by perverting the principle of fairness.
Furthermore, it provides the bigots and the narrow-minded with further arrows in their quivers to continue the ridiculous debate about equality. There simply shouldn’t be any debate.
Additionally, we need to come to the realization that no decision in the world is fair. The best that we can hope is that we devise systems to treat people processed through it fairly to the best of our ability, and recognize that it still is not going to be perfect.
We, here at the Institute for Applied Common Sense, previously delved into this subject matter. In one of our very earliest articles, we spoke of “How Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Function.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-racism-although-problematic-serves.html.) In our Post No. 42, entitled “If You Really want to do Some Thinking,” we referred to an article in Edge (http://www.edge.org/) by Jonathan Haidt, entitled “What Makes People Vote Republican.” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/09/post-no-42-if-you-really-want-to-do.html.) In the introduction to that article appeared the following:
I saw George Will on Charlie Rose a couple of months ago. He essentially said that conservatism has the “upper hand” because it is “pure.” The problem with liberalism, according to Will, is that it comes off as elitist, in that it essentially says that “we can do a better job of thinking about your interests than you can.”
In his article, Haidt suggests that, “Most democrats don’t understand that politics is more like a religion than it is like shopping.” Bigotry and narrow-mindedness are also like a religion. You can’t just stamp out or suppress what people feel and believe. Additionally, those individuals who hold those views are offended by those who tell them that something is wrong with them for holding them.
I submit that they need to live [I purposefully avoided using “suffer”] the consequences of being bigoted and narrow-minded, whether good or bad, on their own terms. I have always felt that in the long run, it would have been far better for African-Americans to have quietly taken their business around the corner to Caucasian merchants willing to provide them public accommodations and services, than for the law to have forced all merchants and service providers to do so. Take a guess as to the financial impact of such action. By forcing a condition on the unwilling, we as a society only made them angrier and perhaps more bigoted.
Force also further delays the creation of circumstances where one can personally recognize the value of another human being.
Let me tell you this: more and more bigotry and narrow-mindedness will come to the surface as the economic status of the average citizen further deteriorates over the next couple of years. We need an outlet valve – the creation of a prominent third political party, The American Bigot Party.
Just think about it. All of the closet bigots will join, and they’ll be happy to once again speak their minds in public, without recrimination. All of the old racists, who were Dixiecrats and voted for George Wallace before switching allegiance when Ronald Reagan came along, will march down the street in solidarity parades. The Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis will also have a political outlet. Imagine the platform of that party.
If society truly considers the bigoted and narrow-minded to be a cancer on our society, then in order to deal with it, we need to know where and how it exists, not hide it. Common sense dictates as much. Come on out, let us see and hear you, lawyers, judges, politicians, doctors, accountants, farmers, bankers, and all….
The Republicans also have a major problem right now, with which they apparently have not figured out how to deal. They are the default party for the nuts and kooks of America, as least as far as discrimination is concerned. (The Democrats have a different set of nuts and kooks.)
It would be far easier for both the Democratic and Republican parties to join forces, contribute an equal amount from their coffers, and form the American Bigot Party, to sequester the problematic elements of both parties.
Let them be heard. Let them have their say. Then perhaps the candidates of both current major parties would be not have to distance themselves from the John Hagees and Jeremiah Wrights of the world, and if they had to do so, could do so with a straight face.
One final comment. Shortly after 9-11, I attended a seminar conducted by a constitutional law professor and scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky (http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/chemerinsky/), about the importance of not allowing our government to engage in unconstitutional activity.
He noted that during times of crisis and fear, there is a tendency to ignore the Constitution and suppress individual rights. However, he further noted that the Constitution serves as a rudder to keep us on our “right path” and prevent the pendulum of public sentiment from swinging too far in either direction.
Let the concept work its magic. Just don’t pervert or distort its operation and thus encourage people to disrespect it.
Free the bigots! Let them speak and express themselves! Let them organize! We’ll be a better country for having done so, and hopefully, at the end of the day, they’ll just fade away.
© 2008 and 2010, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
EDITORIAL NOTE: We are NOT suggesting, in any way, that the Tea Party Movement is that party. Not at all. Keep in mind that this post was written in October 2008.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Post No. 124c: Re-Posting of Post No. 30: The Dangers Assoociated with Being Peculiar
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Several years ago, I attended a conference sponsored by a professional association at a high end resort in Florida. An incredible buffet dinner was scheduled for one evening, to which everyone was looking forward.
I arrived just as the food was being taken away.
Upon my arrival, everyone inquired as to why I was so late. When I informed them that I felt compelled to watch two episodes of the Andy Griffith Show, they all howled with laughter.
Their laughter grew even louder when I mentioned that, in my opinion, one could learn more about life from that show than perhaps any other show on television. (Interestingly, my Father tells me that it was also the favorite show of my Mother, who passed away at a relatively early age.)
I saw an episode of the show yesterday, which reminded me of the manner in which this simple show, about life in small town America, has provoked many a thought throughout my lifetime.
It was the story of Ed Sawyer, a clean-cut, well-groomed stranger who arrives in Mayberry. Throughout the episode, Ed is always dressed in a conservative business suit, articulate, respectful, polite, and there is nothing visually alarming about him. In fact, he could be the poster boy for virtually any All-American organization or movement.
The first scene in the episode unfolds as Ed enters Floyd’s barbershop, where Barney Fife is in the chair getting a shave. Several other citizens, including Andy, are also present.
Ed engages them all in a pleasant, upbeat conversation, calls them each by name, and exhibits a degree of familiarity which causes the shop’s occupants to become uncomfortable. As he leaves the shop, all heads turn to follow him down the street, and they all exit to watch his next move. Almost immediately, there is a suggestion by Barney that Andy commence an investigation of this suspicious and “peculiar” stranger.
As Ed proceeds down the sidewalk, he encounters a double baby stroller parked in front of a store, where the mother is looking through the shop window. Ed greets the two twins, their mother, and then poses questions which suggest that he can distinguish between the two boys at this early stage in their development. The suspicions grow.
Ed next proceeds to the local rooming house, and when offered one room, he declines because of an incident which had occurred in the room, arguably about which few would have known. Although he has never stayed at the rooming house, he then proceeds to request a specific room, by number, which although green in color, has a cheerier décor.
At this point, Barney is beside himself, and inquires whether Ed speaks German. Fortunately, Andy, the voice of reason, intervenes and initiates a conversation more normally associated with welcoming a visitor to one’s town. At the same time, Andy poses a number of questions in an effort to get to know this fellow better, since he is also experiencing some degree of discomfort, although unarticulated.
Later that afternoon, Ed approaches Andy and seeks his advice and assistance. It appears that the local gas station is up for sale, and Ed is considering buying it. Andy suggests that perhaps Ed might be moving a tad too quickly, and that he should take the time to get to know the townspeople a little better.
He further suggests that the town’s citizens might regard Ed’s sudden emergence on the scene as “peculiar,” without some “warming up.” (By the way, I learned the word “peculiar” from this show, which was used with some frequency on episodes airing in the 1960’s.)
Ed then segues into how much in love he is with Lucy Matthews, who he has never seen. However, he is familiar with all of her physical attributes, and he inquires of Andy as to why she does not answer his calls and knocks on her door. Lucy soon walks in to lodge a complaint, to which Ed responds that she is just as pretty as he suspected. It is at this point that Andy feels, as the town’s sheriff, he must get to the bottom of this behavior, since it threatens to disturb the town’s peace.
Ed admits that his behavior might strike some as odd, but provides a very plausible, if not immediately obvious, explanation. Ed explains that Joe Larson, a long-time resident of Mayberry, was an Army buddy. While serving together, Joe received the local Mayberry newspaper, and Ed found himself reading the paper on a daily basis.
As time moved on, he began to feel that he “knew” the citizens about whom the articles were written. He further explains that over time, he began to envy Joe, because Joe was from Mayberry, a place that Ed admired, and Ed was from, well, “Nowhere.”
Ed further explains that over time, he began to wish that Mayberry was his hometown, and he eventually convinced himself that it was. When he saw the ad in the paper that the service station was up for sale, he regarded it as an opportunity to fulfill a dream.
After Ed leaves the courthouse / jail, Barney rushes in and proclaims that Ed has finally “overplayed his hand.” When Andy inquires as to what Barney is referring, Barney states that Ed has been hanging around Lucy Matthews’ house and actually crossed the line by ringing her bell.
Andy suggests that insufficient grounds exist to justify an arrest, to which Barney replies that he pulled in three 12 year olds the preceding Halloween for ringing doorbells unnecessarily.
He further exclaims that Ed doesn’t even have the excuse of being out for trick or treat. Deputy Fife then inquires as to whether Ed speaks Spanish.
Of course, Ed’s efforts to integrate himself into the community go terribly wrong. That’s even after Andy makes everyone feel pretty small and provincial after facetiously suggesting that they all were justified in their prejudicial attitudes toward this stranger, just because he was an unknown, peculiar, and somewhat different.
Ed realizes that this really isn’t the place for him, and leaves. And the town lost a potentially energizing and illuminating individual.
This 40 plus year old episode of the Andy Griffith Show made me think of several things this weekend. First, the power of the visual media came to mind, along with its potential to expand the minds of its viewers, particularly young viewers, as well as its power to narrow.
Second, it reminded me of the 30 year period when I lived in Southern California, and I interacted with all sorts of people of different races from different parts of the world. Virtually everyone was a stranger. Upon returning to North Carolina, despite the fact that North Carolina is the number one state in terms of percentage increase of Hispanics, I noticed the lack of interaction between whites and blacks on the one hand, and Hispanics on the other. Asians operate many mom and pop businesses in the black parts of town, but the social interaction ends there.
At several public meetings in my hometown, I have mentioned that despite what one may think of our immigration policies, many immigrants are here, and we need to engage them and integrate them into our society, with the goal of deriving the best that we can from their involvement. Each time I have broached the subject, many citizens in the room have lowered their heads and looked at the floor without responding.
In recent months, I have tried something different. Every time I have encountered Hispanics, I have taken the initiative to walk up to them and start a conversation. Each time, without fail, they have been pleasant folks and almost ecstatic that someone outside of their group took the risk to engage them. It has always been a rewarding experience, although guarded it may have started.
Third, this episode also struck a chord when I learned of Senator’s Obama’s reference earlier this week to the efforts of his opponents to label him as different, and thus necessarily something that we should fear.
Our fear of the unknown, caution, and prejudice, even that racially based, appear to be hard wired to ensure survival and ease of negotiation in a complex world. But we also have a bigger brain which should enable us to think and reason beyond our biggest primal fears.
Some criticism has been leveled against the Andy Griffith Show over the years because of its conspicuous absence of blacks in a show based in a southern city. However, Andy Griffith himself sure made up for that during the airing of his Matlock series.
Be that as it may, my hat is off to the Andy Griffith Show, and particularly its writers, particularly considering the era in which the show was first viewed. Perhaps more of you will have the opportunity to view the Ed Sawyer episode before the upcoming presidential election.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Post No. 68: Prejudice as Survival Instinct
[As many of you are aware, we invite our readers to become Guest Authors and submit articles to us for posting on our blog. The guidelines for the submitted articles are contained in our Post No. 34. (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/08/post-no-34-opportunity-to-serve-as.html.) Leading up to the election of Sen. Obama, there was much discussion in our country about the effect of race, and where we as a nation have come in terms of dealing with that issue. The following article has been submitted by one of our regular readers on the subject. Enjoy.]
© 2008, D. W. Haire
Every so often, I am reminded of something my Mother said to me. It was odd because it was "out of the blue," and had nothing to do with anything going on around us, or the conversation we were having. These are her words as well as I can recall them:
"I don't think I'm prejudiced but, if I am walking down the street and a black man approaches, I get very nervous and afraid."
Years later, my Father (a couple of years before he passed away) was relating a story that seemed important to him. We had been talking about various things and he was remembering a period when he was frustrated at work. There was something about a meeting and it may have been when he was leaving the company to start his own business (a small bike shop). The details are unclear, but I remember his words, and the emotion behind them, when he told me what he said to his supervisor.
"I never liked your smiling Jewish face."
My father never uttered a word of prejudice regarding anyone or any group in my presence in all the years prior to that. It was another "out of the blue" remark that sticks in my mind.
The following is not scientific. It does not have extensive research to support it, nor does it provide any references. It is strictly opinion, and my own opinion at that. You can disagree or not, as you see fit.
It will likely remain my opinion regardless of your argument unless you can show me a scientific, well researched, paper that refutes it. Even then, I will be the judge of that proof. This is not something I have just popped up with. It is opinion which is based upon what logic, knowledge, and observations I have gathered over the years. In short, it works for me. Let's start with my hypothesis and work from there.
I believe that hate and fear of others began with early man as a matter of survival. That is, prejudice and bigotry were survival techniques that actually worked to ensure the survival of individuals and of tribes. I am not condoning bigotry or prejudice, but rather I am taking an objective view, and positing a reason for their existence and persistence throughout the history of our species.
Early humans were hunter-gatherers. They banded together initially in family units and quickly into tribes or clans. It was necessary to do this in order to insure survival. It was easier for men to hunt in groups. More berries, grains, and wood (for fuel) can be gathered by a group than an individual. A family might survive on its own, but its chances are increased when it becomes part of a group. So tribes and clans are natural extensions of family and increase the odds of survival.
The first clans, as the name implies, came from family. But inbreeding would quickly destroy the group within a few generations. It is necessary to expand a gene pool. Therein lays the first dilemma - who to bring into the clan and where to find them.
To answer the question of where to find new blood, we turn to the prevailing lifestyle - hunting and gathering. For all practical purposes, men hunted and women (and children, often) gathered. It made sense. It worked. Clans migrated, as would tribes, following the herd animals they hunted. They would have to run into other clans from time to time. These clans were rivals for the food resources; game and vegetation and water. It is likely they would skirmish from time to time. The result would be one clan would be run off or wiped out.
Only they wouldn't be wiped out, would they? The women were likely to be spared because women are a resource. They provide an expanded gene pool that is non-threatening, add to a work force, and provide comfort, pleasure, and children. And they are compliant. They can be tamed (contrary to movie and novels).
Men are not resources, generally speaking. They are competition. They resist domestication. In a primitive society, the basic ingredients of power are strength and boldness. It is, therefore, more likely that women would be saved than men when a clash between clans occurs. It was not uncommon, for thousands of years, for the winning side to murder all the males, including male children, and take the women and female children.
From close breeding and a shallow gene pool, the tribe takes on common characteristics. Also, people really don't follow the "opposites attract" maxim for the most part. They are attracted to those who most look like themselves. Put another way, they are their own standard of beauty. Since the tribe has similar physical characteristics, outsiders would seem to them as "unalike."
It continues to today. I am reminded of an exchange in the O.J. Simpson trial where Judge Ito becomes unhappy when he is likened to a forensic investigator who is Chinese. To Judge Ito, the difference in physical characteristics between Japanese and Chinese was obvious, not so to the prosecutor who made the mistake. Differences may be subtle between Hutu and Tutsi but each is readily capable of recognizing the other.
In order to survive, primitive man needed to quickly determine friend or foe. And the biological answer was the precursor to prejudice. If you look like me and mine, you are my "Friend", if you do not, you are the "Enemy." Bigotry and racism also play a role in that they offer support for the belief of success in battling the enemy. If you perceive those that do not look like you as inferior, weaker, and/or less intelligent, then you feel you have an advantage and are more willing to fight.
I have heard many people express the idea that children are born without prejudice, that they learn this from their parents. I disagree. I think we are all born with it in our genetic makeup. Our parents and our peers simply teach us to articulate it, express it, and, all too often, to embrace it.
The question is, can we overcome this and rid humanity of the effects of prejudice and bigotry? Can we get people to expand their instinctual perception of their "tribe" to include all people of the planet? I think we must. Otherwise, that part of our survival instinct will eventually lead to our extinction. I know that I have learned to suppress my own prejudice, which is all I think is needed. I believe that when we understand why we think a certain way, we can control it.
© 2008, by D.W. Haire
© 2008, D. W. Haire
Every so often, I am reminded of something my Mother said to me. It was odd because it was "out of the blue," and had nothing to do with anything going on around us, or the conversation we were having. These are her words as well as I can recall them:
"I don't think I'm prejudiced but, if I am walking down the street and a black man approaches, I get very nervous and afraid."
Years later, my Father (a couple of years before he passed away) was relating a story that seemed important to him. We had been talking about various things and he was remembering a period when he was frustrated at work. There was something about a meeting and it may have been when he was leaving the company to start his own business (a small bike shop). The details are unclear, but I remember his words, and the emotion behind them, when he told me what he said to his supervisor.
"I never liked your smiling Jewish face."
My father never uttered a word of prejudice regarding anyone or any group in my presence in all the years prior to that. It was another "out of the blue" remark that sticks in my mind.
The following is not scientific. It does not have extensive research to support it, nor does it provide any references. It is strictly opinion, and my own opinion at that. You can disagree or not, as you see fit.
It will likely remain my opinion regardless of your argument unless you can show me a scientific, well researched, paper that refutes it. Even then, I will be the judge of that proof. This is not something I have just popped up with. It is opinion which is based upon what logic, knowledge, and observations I have gathered over the years. In short, it works for me. Let's start with my hypothesis and work from there.
I believe that hate and fear of others began with early man as a matter of survival. That is, prejudice and bigotry were survival techniques that actually worked to ensure the survival of individuals and of tribes. I am not condoning bigotry or prejudice, but rather I am taking an objective view, and positing a reason for their existence and persistence throughout the history of our species.
Early humans were hunter-gatherers. They banded together initially in family units and quickly into tribes or clans. It was necessary to do this in order to insure survival. It was easier for men to hunt in groups. More berries, grains, and wood (for fuel) can be gathered by a group than an individual. A family might survive on its own, but its chances are increased when it becomes part of a group. So tribes and clans are natural extensions of family and increase the odds of survival.
The first clans, as the name implies, came from family. But inbreeding would quickly destroy the group within a few generations. It is necessary to expand a gene pool. Therein lays the first dilemma - who to bring into the clan and where to find them.
To answer the question of where to find new blood, we turn to the prevailing lifestyle - hunting and gathering. For all practical purposes, men hunted and women (and children, often) gathered. It made sense. It worked. Clans migrated, as would tribes, following the herd animals they hunted. They would have to run into other clans from time to time. These clans were rivals for the food resources; game and vegetation and water. It is likely they would skirmish from time to time. The result would be one clan would be run off or wiped out.
Only they wouldn't be wiped out, would they? The women were likely to be spared because women are a resource. They provide an expanded gene pool that is non-threatening, add to a work force, and provide comfort, pleasure, and children. And they are compliant. They can be tamed (contrary to movie and novels).
Men are not resources, generally speaking. They are competition. They resist domestication. In a primitive society, the basic ingredients of power are strength and boldness. It is, therefore, more likely that women would be saved than men when a clash between clans occurs. It was not uncommon, for thousands of years, for the winning side to murder all the males, including male children, and take the women and female children.
From close breeding and a shallow gene pool, the tribe takes on common characteristics. Also, people really don't follow the "opposites attract" maxim for the most part. They are attracted to those who most look like themselves. Put another way, they are their own standard of beauty. Since the tribe has similar physical characteristics, outsiders would seem to them as "unalike."
It continues to today. I am reminded of an exchange in the O.J. Simpson trial where Judge Ito becomes unhappy when he is likened to a forensic investigator who is Chinese. To Judge Ito, the difference in physical characteristics between Japanese and Chinese was obvious, not so to the prosecutor who made the mistake. Differences may be subtle between Hutu and Tutsi but each is readily capable of recognizing the other.
In order to survive, primitive man needed to quickly determine friend or foe. And the biological answer was the precursor to prejudice. If you look like me and mine, you are my "Friend", if you do not, you are the "Enemy." Bigotry and racism also play a role in that they offer support for the belief of success in battling the enemy. If you perceive those that do not look like you as inferior, weaker, and/or less intelligent, then you feel you have an advantage and are more willing to fight.
I have heard many people express the idea that children are born without prejudice, that they learn this from their parents. I disagree. I think we are all born with it in our genetic makeup. Our parents and our peers simply teach us to articulate it, express it, and, all too often, to embrace it.
The question is, can we overcome this and rid humanity of the effects of prejudice and bigotry? Can we get people to expand their instinctual perception of their "tribe" to include all people of the planet? I think we must. Otherwise, that part of our survival instinct will eventually lead to our extinction. I know that I have learned to suppress my own prejudice, which is all I think is needed. I believe that when we understand why we think a certain way, we can control it.
© 2008, by D.W. Haire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)