I first became aware of Leonard Pitts in the days immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Leonard Pitts is a syndicated columnist whose columns regularly appear in my local newspaper, though the byline indicates he works for the Miami Herald. I have never checked his biography, and I have no idea how long he has been writing columns, or how long his columns have appeared in my local newspaper, or how many of his columns I had read prior to Nine Eleven.
In those days, there were lots of people writing columns about Nine Eleven, but it seemed to me that Leonard Pitts’ columns were especially insightful, and among the best of anything I read regarding Nine Eleven. I became a regular reader of his columns.
Some day, perhaps I will run across one of those 2001 columns, or check the archives of my local newspaper to see whether at that time they were including a photo of Leonard Pitts with his column. In those early days, I had no particular awareness of his race or ethnicity, though from the name Leonard I assumed he was male. Over time, I found that he often wrote columns concerning race, and that he himself is Black. I would not be surprised to find that his columns had always featured his photo, but I did not notice or care about his race. He was insightful, and wrote eloquently.
As I continued to read his columns, it seemed to me that most of his columns on racial issues were basically variations on the idea of “White people do not understand the Black experience, and will never understand the Black experience.” Fair enough. As a “white” person, I am in no position to argue. I am not saying Leonard Pitts is RIGHT about this, but I cannot figure out any way to know whether he is right or wrong. Perhaps I am not even understanding his point. Still, he seems to work on making this point over and over and over and over. I “get” the fact that I cannot ever “get it”, at least to the extent that I am capable of “getting” that point. Eventually I decided that I was not so fond of Leonard Pitts’ columns dealing with racial issues.
Still, I basically respected his opinions, and even when I disagreed with Leonard Pitts I found him to be intelligent and insightful. Gradually, this began to change. If I had unlimited time, and access to an army of experts, it would be interesting to go back and attempt to study how much of the change was in me, and how much of the change was in Leonard Pitts. People and their opinions evolve, so I am sure that we BOTH changed, though at this point I sincerely believe the change came more in his writing.
When it came to matters of politics, I began to view Leonard Pitts as automatically blaming George W. Bush and/or Republicans for most of our problems, and expressing a good deal of hatred for both. This may be related to my earlier dislike of his racial columns, in that now that we have a black President, I believe anyone who opposes him is almost automatically accused of being racist -- and Leonard Pitts is not above accusing those who disagree with President Obama of being racially motivated.
In my opinion, the truth is complicated. There is enough blame to go around for everyone. Each of us is partly to blame for our problems, and both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had good and bad ideas and done good and bad things, and neither the Republican nor Democrat party is always right or wrong. This is not to say that some individuals or parties are MORE right or wrong or MORE to blame than other individuals or parties, especially with regard to certain issues, but the truth is complicated. Leonard Pitts seems to have lost sight of that idea.
In fact, there was one particular column -- almost two years ago -- where he seemed to be arguing precisely the opposite, and saying that the issues were clear-cut, and that Republicans were one hundred percent wrong and Democrats were one hundred percent right. At that point, he lost me. I decided that he had little to offer me now, and that life was too short to continue reading his columns. It is NOT that I disagree with him. I can learn a lot from those I disagree with, and regularly read columns by those I disagree with, and spend time with those I disagree with. It is that I have lost respect for his entire way of thinking.
Leonard Pitts’ columns still appear in our local newspaper, and sometimes I still start to read them, but I almost always regret it, and consider it a waste of precious time. I find it to be very sad, sort of like losing a trusted friend. Granted, a friend who has never heard of me.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Debatable
I suppose that EVERYTHING is considered debatable by someone, somewhere, under some circumstances … and perhaps everything IS debatable. (As I have previously stated, most dictionaries define “debatable” with phrases like "open to dispute" and "capable of being debated".) Still, in the interest of productive communication and civil discourse, it is useful to distinguish between those concepts that are totally “open to dispute” and those concepts which are generally agreed upon.
My mother and I have long held very different views on many topics, and tend to disagree frequently. Now elderly, she is increasingly confused, and struggles to comprehend the world around her. We continue to argue regularly, as we always have, but now the “arguments” are often over relatively un-debatable ideas like what day of the week it is, and whether it is morning or evening. (Granted, in the strictest sense, even these things are open for debate -- when it is morning at one location on earth, it is evening at another, and the precise day of the week varies in relation to your position relative to the international date line, but still …) I find myself wishing there was some way to convince her that SOME ideas are much less debatable than others. I would be happy to argue with her about politics, or religion, or recipes, or even fashion, but arguing about what school I attended, or what make of car I drive, seems like a horrible waste of time.
At one time, my arguments with my mother were based on differing views and differing values. Now they tend to be based on the fact that her brain is no longer functioning particularly well. This is a special case. However, there are often arguments that are just as groundless, and just as much of a waste of time.
As our society becomes increasingly polarized, people of differing views tend to automatically oppose each other, and be reluctant to agree on ANYTHING. I myself have fallen into the trap of refusing to acknowledge the truth of someone’s TRUE statement, simply because I profoundly disagreed with them on other issues. We seem to believe that agreeing with our opponent on ANY idea somehow weakens our own position. Or, perhaps we wish to portray those who disagree with us as ALWAYS wrong, and incapable of stating a truth.
A key to successful communication, and a key to resolving our differences, lies in finding ANYTHING, small or large, upon which we can agree -- though it is unfortunately true that our words of agreement MAY be twisted by those who disagree with us, in an attempt to strengthen their positions, and weaken ours. Still, our only hope is to limit debate to those ideas which are truly debatable, and agree on those that are not.
I find myself inwardly cheering when I encounter cases of people agreeing NOT to debate those ideas which are un-debatable. Here is an emotion-charged example: Shortly after the start of the Second Gulf War -- the war that led to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power -- I heard a program on National Public Radio featuring a number of experts on International Law. At the time, many citizens were stating that the war was illegal according to International Law. The experts featured on the radio program were unanimously deeply opposed to the war, but also unanimously of the opinion that, according to International Law, the war was completely legal. One or two even argued that International Law might be viewed as REQUIRING the war, as a means of upholding the terms that ended the earlier gulf war. This was a rare moment in modern life. A group of experts on law, all opposed to something, yet all agreeing it was legal. Obviously, this made a deep impression on me, as I vividly remember it from years ago.
(Please note that I am NOT an expert on International Law, and am simply accepting the opinions of THESE experts, which I found all the more credible since they ran contrary to their own values. Also note that I am NOT stating whether I myself favored or opposed the war.)
There is considerable overlap between the ideas of “debatable” and “reasonable” -- which I discussed in an earlier blog entry. I have already stated that our society would be better off if we all broadened our standards as to what we considered “reasonable”. At the same time, we would be better off if we NARROWED our standards as to what was considered “debatable” -- or at least were more willing to acknowledge those things that are basically NOT debatable.
Truth is complicated.
My mother and I have long held very different views on many topics, and tend to disagree frequently. Now elderly, she is increasingly confused, and struggles to comprehend the world around her. We continue to argue regularly, as we always have, but now the “arguments” are often over relatively un-debatable ideas like what day of the week it is, and whether it is morning or evening. (Granted, in the strictest sense, even these things are open for debate -- when it is morning at one location on earth, it is evening at another, and the precise day of the week varies in relation to your position relative to the international date line, but still …) I find myself wishing there was some way to convince her that SOME ideas are much less debatable than others. I would be happy to argue with her about politics, or religion, or recipes, or even fashion, but arguing about what school I attended, or what make of car I drive, seems like a horrible waste of time.
At one time, my arguments with my mother were based on differing views and differing values. Now they tend to be based on the fact that her brain is no longer functioning particularly well. This is a special case. However, there are often arguments that are just as groundless, and just as much of a waste of time.
As our society becomes increasingly polarized, people of differing views tend to automatically oppose each other, and be reluctant to agree on ANYTHING. I myself have fallen into the trap of refusing to acknowledge the truth of someone’s TRUE statement, simply because I profoundly disagreed with them on other issues. We seem to believe that agreeing with our opponent on ANY idea somehow weakens our own position. Or, perhaps we wish to portray those who disagree with us as ALWAYS wrong, and incapable of stating a truth.
A key to successful communication, and a key to resolving our differences, lies in finding ANYTHING, small or large, upon which we can agree -- though it is unfortunately true that our words of agreement MAY be twisted by those who disagree with us, in an attempt to strengthen their positions, and weaken ours. Still, our only hope is to limit debate to those ideas which are truly debatable, and agree on those that are not.
I find myself inwardly cheering when I encounter cases of people agreeing NOT to debate those ideas which are un-debatable. Here is an emotion-charged example: Shortly after the start of the Second Gulf War -- the war that led to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power -- I heard a program on National Public Radio featuring a number of experts on International Law. At the time, many citizens were stating that the war was illegal according to International Law. The experts featured on the radio program were unanimously deeply opposed to the war, but also unanimously of the opinion that, according to International Law, the war was completely legal. One or two even argued that International Law might be viewed as REQUIRING the war, as a means of upholding the terms that ended the earlier gulf war. This was a rare moment in modern life. A group of experts on law, all opposed to something, yet all agreeing it was legal. Obviously, this made a deep impression on me, as I vividly remember it from years ago.
(Please note that I am NOT an expert on International Law, and am simply accepting the opinions of THESE experts, which I found all the more credible since they ran contrary to their own values. Also note that I am NOT stating whether I myself favored or opposed the war.)
There is considerable overlap between the ideas of “debatable” and “reasonable” -- which I discussed in an earlier blog entry. I have already stated that our society would be better off if we all broadened our standards as to what we considered “reasonable”. At the same time, we would be better off if we NARROWED our standards as to what was considered “debatable” -- or at least were more willing to acknowledge those things that are basically NOT debatable.
Truth is complicated.