Racism and the Fundamental Attribution Error

I recently started listening to Eliezer Yudkowsky’s fanfiction series Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality on Audible. There is an episode where Harry explains the fundamental attribution error. Living in our own heads, we are inclined to recognize the role that circumstances play in our behavior. I got angry and shouted not because I am a bad person who hates other people but because I just received some really distressing news. If did something good, it is likely because I did not find it so difficult to do so I felt it was my responsibility to offer a hand. When it comes to other people, though, we are less inclined to acknowledge such complexity. Other people act the way that they do because it is fundamentally who they are. Either they are wicked satanic sinners who act out of a conscious hatred of the good or they are heroic saints deserving of veneration. The practical implication of this mistake is that, if you believe that people act according to their fixed nature, then what people do is who they are. A person who does bad things is a bad person. 

It occurred to me that racism can be seen as an extreme version of this fundamental attribution error. Not only is Aleksis, in all of his complexity, going to be reduced to a liar, instead of someone who might shade the truth depending on the circumstances but now we are going to say that Latvians, an entity that is millions of times more complicated, are liars. It should be noted that the claim that Latvians are liars is an indisputable truth. It may also be true that Jews, Hungarians, and transgender Manhattanites are liars as well, along with the entire human race. Let us not get sidetracked here; I am talking about Latvians.  

What is really interesting is that it is not just racists that make this fundamental attribution. To be an anti-racist also requires making the fundamental attribution error. In reading someone like Ibram X. Kendi, one cannot escape the Manichean logic of either you are a racist or an anti-racist. This follows the larger critical tradition as we have seen with Paulo Freire. There is no sense that people say or do things based on particular circumstances. 

It is not practical to truly escape racist or otherwise prejudiced thinking. Everyone has a narrative about why the world is not a better place. This usually implies some sort of villain. Since the problems of this world clearly go beyond the lifespan of any individual person, it is inevitable that people will place some group or institution as their villain such as Latvian Hungarian Jews. If you are Richard Weaver, the big bad is William of Occam and 13th-century nominalism along with minor bads such as 20th-century jazz. One can hope that, with the help of a classical liberal education, a person can come to construct ever more intelligent narratives with factually more plausible groups of villains and gain a degree of skepticism even over their own narratives. That being said, just as every person shades the truth from time to time, everyone will make reductive statements about other groups that are less than charitable and demonstrate a lack of awareness or empathy for that group's historical circumstances. 

To make things even more difficult, any attempt to make a pro-tolerance statement about a particular group means that you are not making statements about other groups and, as such those groups are of lesser importance. For example, to put up a "Black Lives Matter" sign in your yard is not just to say that black lives matter but to say that, in some sense, black lives matter more than Uighur lives. To be clear, it may be ultimately defensible to argue that black lives may be more relevant to your situation as an American and therefore you have constructed a narrative in which blacks are the victims even as you lack a similar narrative to wrap your head around Uighur history. That being said, this is hardly an innocent claim. 

The anti-racist needs to take all of these very real human foibles and label people as either racists or anti-racists. It is the same temptation as racism to wish to simplify the world into either good or bad people. Clearly, people are not one thing or another. As with every other virtue and vice, people exist along a spectrum and do better or worse depending on the particular circumstance. 

Obviously, the anti-racist cannot denounce say the Trump voter as racist without making themselves vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy. In the case of Kendi, he holds up Angela Davis as a model anti-racist. This is a person who defended jailing Jewish Soviet dissidents. In a sane world, Kendi could be forgiven for being a non-Jew who never internalized the history of Jewish suffering into his psyche. If we are to play by Kendi's rules, both Kendi and Davis must be rejected as anti-Semites. 

The traditional leftist solution to this problem is to engage in special pleading. Firstly, only certain kinds of blanket statements regarding racial groups really count as racism. It is not racist to declare white gun owners responsible for a Hispanic teenager going on a shooting spree because white people are responsible for most of the evil in this world as all true anti-racists know. Second, the anti-racist redeems himself through leftist politics.   

My purpose is not to say that, since everyone is a racist to some degree, it is ok to be racist. The fact that everyone lies and that society requires the grease of some judicious "manipulating of the truth" does not make lying ok. Whether we always know precisely where to draw the line, we can still recognize, at least in theory, a difference between the person who makes the honest attempt to be truthful and the person who no longer holds that they have a moral responsibility to society to tell the truth. Similarly, even if the wheels of society need to be greased with some prejudice, there is a difference between a person who imperfectly tries to still expand their circle of moral responsibility and the person who does not believe that they have moral obligations to members of the "wrong" groups. Can I tell you, in every case, who belongs in what category? I have no wish to fall into the fundamental attribution error any more than I have to. People exist along a spectrum. I will stand up for my imperfect sense of what is right and I will leave it to everyone else to judge their own hearts. 

Fighting Star Wars: The Battle That Never Ends

Our first introduction to the deeper lore of Star Wars occurs in New Hope when Obi-Wan Kenobi explains to Luke Skywalker that for thousands of generations the Jedi stood as guardians over the Galaxy until the dark times of the Empire. In essence, once upon a time, the Galaxy was a reasonably good place. The fact that this is no longer the case must therefore be the fault of some villain.

There are clear political implications for this version of galactic history. If only that villain can be removed, the Galaxy will once again become a good place. If only Luke would be willing to abandon his moisture farm, help Obi-Wan rescue Princess Leia, blow up the Death Star with his X-wing, learn to use the Force, and put Darth Vader into a position where he has to choose between betraying Emperor Palpatine or watching his son be tortured to death with force lightening over the course of three movies then the people of the Galaxy will be able to live happily ever after. As such, Luke is morally justified in trying to do these things even though there is only a small chance of success. Furthermore, his actions will lead to a galactic Civil War with a body count escalating presumably into the billions the closer he comes to his goal.

From the Expanded Universe, we learn that Obi-Wan’s version of galactic history has as much validity as what he says about Luke’s father. Instead, the Jedi and the Sith have been locked in a cycle of combat that has gone on for thousands of years. Neither side can ever win this struggle because they are both trapped by their own ideologies. To be a Jedi means to obey the Force and not attempt to use the Force to take over the Galaxy even if it is done to refashion the Galaxy into what they think is a better place. Any Jedi who tries to "fix" the Galaxy by actually trying to eliminate the Sith will inevitably become a Sith Lord themselves. Thus, the cycle will continue even if the Sith Lord in question is defeated. We see this in the examples of Raven, Exar Kun, Ulic Qel-Droma, and Jacen Solo, all of whom become Sith Lords themselves precisely because they tried to fight the Sith. It is the Sith who believe in using the Force to refashion the Galaxy in their own image. So, anyone who tries to directly fight the Sith has already tacitly admitted that the Sith are right about fixing the Galaxy by killing a whole bunch of people. The only thing that remains is accepting that the Sith are also right about the relatively minor details such as wiping out the Jedi and destroying the Republic.  

What limits the Sith and stops them from conquering the Galaxy and destroying the Jedi is simply the fact that they are all a bunch of Sith Lords. They will inevitably stab each other in the back in order to claim the mantle of supreme Sith Lord.

The Sith Lord who understood this best was Darth Bane. He recognized that the Sith could never defeat the Jedi in head-to-head combat no matter their superiority in starfighters or lightsaber duelists. His solution was to wipe out all the other Sith Lords and establish the Rule of Two. There should be a Sith Master and a Sith Apprentice. The purpose of the Master is to train the Apprentice to be powerful enough in the Dark Side to kill them. If the Apprentice fails, they will die and the Master will find a new student. If the Apprentice succeeds, they will become the new Master and be tasked with finding an even more powerful student to kill them in turn. Following this logic, the Sith Lords of the Bane tradition left the Galaxy in the hands of the Jedi for a thousand years until Darth Sidious was able to take over the Galaxy as Emperor Palpatine by baiting the Jedi into fighting the Clone Wars.

Recognizing that there is no defeating the Sith allows one to put a different twist on the original films. It should be noted that neither Obi-Wan nor Yoda ever bother to directly fight the Empire. Instead, they submit themselves to the will of the Force and trust that the Sith will naturally be their own downfall. (Whatever Disney is planning to do with the Obi-Wan series that does not fit with this should be rejected as a retcon done in the spirit of greed and not out of faithfulness to the original.)  

When Luke comes to him with R2-D2 and the message from Leia, Obi-Wan agrees to leave Tatooine not to fight the Empire but to train Luke in the Force. Rather than fight against Darth Vader, Obi-Wan allows himself to be killed, teaching Luke the pacifist lesson that it is better to allow the Sith to kill you than strike them down and risk becoming a Sith Lord yourself. Obi-Wan guides Luke in destroying the Death Star. This is an act of self-defense and not designed to fix the Galaxy. Of true importance here is that Luke learns to trust the Force to fire the torpedo and not his ship's computer.

Later, in Empire Strikes Back, Luke wishes to go rescue Han, Leia, Chewie, and the droids. Both Yoda and Obi-Wan warn him not to go. It is more important that Luke stays in a swamp studying the Force than to try saving his friends on Cloud City as this will likely lead him to the Dark Side. Luke does not listen to this advice and because of this loses his hand. On the plus side, he does gain a father.

Discovering the truth about Vader forces Luke to internalize the lesson that Obi-Wan and Yoda had been trying to teach him. He cannot defeat the Sith in a lightsaber duel. To win such a fight, killing his own father, would actually be a worse outcome than dying as it would turn him to the Dark Side. Luke, though, still wants to help the Rebel Alliance destroy the Second Death Star so he agrees to join Han and Leia on their mission to Endor. Sensing Vader’s presence, finally causes Luke to realize that there is nothing he can do to help the Rebellion. His only option is to surrender to Vader in the hope that he can either convince Vader to run away with him or that both of them would be blown up in the Death Star along with the Emperor when the Rebel fleet arrives. 

Taken before the Emperor, Luke finds himself forced into a fight with Vader that he knows he cannot allow himself to win. Of course, the Emperor is relying on the fact that Luke is not capable of simply standing back, allowing the Rebellion to be crushed, without trying to swing his lightsaber at something. Even here, Luke tries to avoid fighting Vader until Vader baits him with the possibility that Leia might turn to the Dark Side. Without the Rebellion to use against the Empire, Leia would have no choice but to turn to the Dark Side to continue her fight. That is unless Luke is willing to sacrifice himself to the Dark Side in order to defeat the Empire. While Luke initially gives in (leading to my all-time favorite Star Wars moment as Luke beats down on Vader to somber vocals), he refrains from striking the killing blow. Palpatine tries to seal the deal on Luke's downfall by making sure that Luke murders his father with the full knowledge of the consequences, but this causes Luke to step back. Luke realizes that killing Vader would not do anything to bring down the Empire but would simply make himself Vader’s replacement at the Palpatine’s side. He, therefore, gives himself over to the Force and throws his lightsaber away, knowing that Palpatine is going to kill him. In the end, Luke is saved because he refuses to fight the Sith. Instead, he allows the Sith to destroy themselves as Vader both finds his redemption but also fulfills his duty as a Sith Apprentice to kill his Master.   

This perspective on the original Star Wars films offers us a window on part of what was wrong with the prequels and sequels and how they could have been done better. The prequels should have been about Anakin's fall to the Dark Side. Rather than focusing on Anakin's relationship with Padme, we should have been given Anakin's relationship with Senator Palpatine. (The novelization of Attack of the Clones actually tries to fix this problem.) Anakin should not have gone to the Dark Side suddenly in the second half of Revenge of the Sith out of a desire to save Padme. Instead, Anakin should have spent most of the prequels faced with the problem that the Republic and the Jedi could not save the Galaxy even from petty slave dealers on Tatooine let alone from the Separatists. The only person who can help Anakin is Palpatine. Once Anakin realizes that Palpatine is a Sith Lord, he makes the choice to submit himself to the Dark Side, sacrificing the Republic and the Jedi in order to save the Galaxy. 

In the sequels, having Luke refuse to fight the First Order was fine. That being said, he should not have turned on the Force. Luke's decision not to fight to protect the New Republic should have been what drove Kylo Ren to the Dark Side. He knows that Palpatine is out there and the Republic is not capable of standing up to him. The only solution is to use the First Order to conquer the Galaxy so there is a united Galaxy to fight Palpatine. Kylo Ren is even willing to kill his own father, Han Solo, simply to more fully submerge himself into the Dark Side. He believes that only by giving himself completely to the Dark Side, no matter the personal cost to his soul, can he possibly be able to stand against Palpatine. This would explain his adoration for his grandfather Darth Vader. From his perspective, Vader was the true savior of the Galaxy. He became a Sith Lord to fight that evil from within. 

When Star Wars is at its best, it features not just space battles and lightsabers, but a profound moral question. Is it possible to fight evil without succumbing to it? As with Return of the Jedi, we should see tens of thousands of people fighting in space over Republic or Empire, a few dozen on some mission and it all comes down to one Jedi trying to save himself from becoming a Sith Lord.     

Walking With Aslan: What Only Art Can Convey

 

In the previous post, I talked about the idea that art is needed to express those things that the artist cannot express in formal words. If the artist really understands what they want to say they should simply come out and say it otherwise what you have is mere propaganda. I wish to further explore this idea. One of the primary things that formal writing cannot express is an emotional connection to an idea. 

Consider the example of Aslan from C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series. On the surface, Aslan is simply a stand-in for Jesus. He is the Son of the Emperor across the sea. He takes on physical form as a lion to come among the animals of Narnia. In the early medieval understanding of the purpose of the passion, Satan had a deal with God where he had the right to all sinners as long as he never took anyone innocent. Jesus came down to Earth and lived a perfect life before being executed. He then tricked Satan into trying to take his soul. By doing this, Satan nullified his agreement with God, allowing Jesus to rescue the souls of all believers from Hell. Similarly, the White Witch has a deal with the Emperor that she has the right to kill all traitors including the human Edmund. Aslan makes a deal that, in exchange for giving up her claim on Edmund, he will take Edmund's place. The Witch kills Aslan. What she does not realize is that killing the innocent Aslan will break the Stone Table upon which her agreement is written and bring Aslan back to life. Aslan is then able to free all the creatures that the Witch had turned into stone. 

If Narnia could be boiled down into Aslan equals Jesus, there would be little point to the books. Lewis could have simply explained the doctrine of atonement in a straightforward child-friendly manner for kids to either accept or reject. What Narnia offers that no lecture on Christian theology could ever possibly convey is that emotional connection to the event. To me, the most profound scene in the entire Chronicles is when Aslan allows Susan and Lucy to accompany him to the Stone Table. There is that moment where Aslan's shoulders slump and asks the girls to put their hands on him. It is as if even the mighty Aslan struggles with the enormity of what he is about to do. The reader then joins the girls in surprise and horror as Aslan allows himself to be captured, humiliated, and murdered. We get to experience their despair, seeing that everything is now lost, followed by their joyous surprise to see Aslan standing alive before them with the Table broken. 

This emotional connection to the drama of the Cross is a central concept for Christian art. One thinks of the example of Michelangelo's Pieta. One of my personal favorites is the hymn Stabat Mater, which contemplates Mary's suffering at the foot of the Cross. 

This is not something that you can argue someone into. The biggest challenge to faith, even above any intellectual arguments, is the simple fact that even children raised within a particular religious tradition are still cut off from its artistic culture. You can give a kid all the Sunday school lectures in the world, but it is not going to help unless they are emershed within Christian art so they could contemplate the living faith that could compel an artist to produce such work. Narnia is not a trick to get kids to read about Jesus and make him look cool. It is an invitation to emersh oneself within a larger Christian artistic tradition where the mourning of Good Friday and the joy of Easter Sunday are not just theoretical concepts to be believed in but tangible realities to be felt. 

The Hitchhiking Pilgrim's Guide to Progressing through the Multiverse

 

I recently finished reading an advanced copy of the Postmodern Pilgrim's Progress by Kyle Mann and Joel Berry of the satire site Babylon Bee. As satirists, I take them very seriously. Whether or not conservatism has a future is going to come down to whether the next generation of conservative activists have properly internalized what the Bee offers. As a reviewer, I come to this newest offering of theirs from a fairly unique perspective. I am a Jew who has read John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, C. S. Lewis' Pilgrim's Regress as well as Douglas Adams. 

In essence, what Mann and Berry have given us is the Bunyan classic if it has been written by a Christianized Adams. In the role of the pilgrim Christian, we have the unbeliever Ryan Fleming, who agrees to attend a church service because of a last request from his teenage younger brother who died of cancer. Ryan then finds himself transported into another world called the Dying Lands where he is given a quest to wake the king and save the world. As Bunyan's original has a companion named Faithful, who helps keep him on the right path, Ryan is joined by a woman named Faith. All of this is told by an angelic narrator who is essentially the Book from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Ryan is modeled after Arthur Dent. He is a perfectly normal unexceptional person who finds himself in an insane world and insists on being his reasonable self. For example, he tries to point out to the people in the City of Destruction that, if they bothered to look up into the sky, they would see a storm of meteorites coming to destroy them and is frustrated when everyone continues eating their bread and cheese. (Granted, Ryan does find the bread and cheese to be quite marvelous and almost fails to escape himself.)  

Jordan Peterson argues that true art requires that the artist has an idea but one that they cannot directly put into words. If the artist understands the message they wish to convey then they should come outright and say it. If the artist consciously tries to smuggle a message into a story then what they have is propaganda and the inherent dishonesty of the process undermines its artistic value. What makes the original Pilgrim's Progress work, despite the fact that it is a Puritan sermon crammed into story form, is that it is so blatant and earnest as to be above the charge of guile. 

Bunyan's message that he makes no attempt to dress up is the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith. To understand it is to recognize that it is a horrific doctrine that no one would willingly accept unless they were forced to through divine revelation or the reading of scripture. You are a totally depraved sinner and there is no action that you can perform that can make you less deserving of eternal damnation. That being the case, Jesus still died to save you despite your fundamental unworthiness of salvation. To be justified through faith means to walk that tightrope and simultaneously believe both of these things at the same time. 

Christian's primary struggle in the early stage of his journey is with this balancing act. He comes to know that he is a sinner living in the City of Destruction by reading a book written by the creator of the world that tells him this fact. Christian, therefore, abandons his wife and children even to the point of covering his ears and shouting "eternal life" as he runs away from them. Evangelist tells him to stay on the road to the Celestial City as that is the only way he will eventually be able to be relieved of his burden of sin. What repeatably gets Christian off of the path is the temptation to believe that there might be an alternative way to escape his burden, such as following the Law, or despairing of ever being redeemed. 

The purpose of Bunyan is not to convince us to accept justification by faith by making it sound attractive or reasonable. On the contrary, Bunyan wants us to recognize that we need to accept this belief no matter how much it violates our every moral intuition simply because it is true. It also should be noted that Christian's struggle is not over his belief in God. The king's existence is an assumed fact. The only question is whether he can internalize the logic of justification by faith so that it carries him all the way to the end.  

This can be contrasted with Lewis, whose John utterly rejects the Landlord. It is not so much that John does not believe in the Landlord, though he is relieved when Mr. Enlightenment informs him that the Landlord was invented by the stewards, but that John rejects the sort of relationship the Landlord offers where, if you follow his rules, and you can live in his house with him forever but if you violate the rules you will be sent to his scorpion pit. John does his best to keep away from anything connected to the Landlord. His primary companion is Virtue (Kant) who insists on not caring whether the Landlord with his bribes and threats might exist. Instead, John seeks to find his island (joy). What John slowly is forced to accept is that, if he wants to cross the canyon of Peccatum Adae and reach his island, he is going to need the Landlord in the form of Mother Kirk.

In essence, Lewis was a 19th-century style romantic who came to accept that, in order to salvage this romanticism, he needed to ground it within a Christian worldview. Jesus, for Lewis, was all the best of mythology made real in human history. Lewis was not interested in the question of salvation let alone whether one could be saved through faith or works.

The big question for Lewis was whether one could maintain the enchanted worldview in the face of modernity that would allow someone to relate to God as a real individual as opposed to a mere theoretical proposition. Part of the appeal of Lewis, unlike Bunyan, is that his writing was designed to not antagonize readers. Anyone, even a Jew like me, could embrace Lewis as an exercise in attempting to maintain, with a straight face, that there is more to the universe than simple materialism. 

Lewis was a fundamentalist, not in the modern sense of holding particularly conservative theological views but in the sense of the early twentieth-century Christian Fundamentals pamphlets. Lewis was not interested in rehashing the early modern debates within Protestantism and ultimately with Catholicism, but in offering a few basic principles for a wide spectrum of Christians to rally around, what Lewis referred to as "mere Christianity." For Lewis, this primarily meant accepting that the God-Man had entered history in the person of Jesus in a completely factual and literal sense.  

 

With this in mind, we can begin to explore a major challenge of using Adams to make Bunyan work for a modern audience. The key to translating Bunyan is that there is no way that you can make him acceptable to most modern readers. Considering the amount of time that he spent in prison, it is not as if his message was all that acceptable to seventeenth-century ears.  

Bunyan was too earnest to do satire. I do not read Pilgrim's Progress as any kind of absurdist comedy. The book needs to be read with full salvation or damnation seriousness. The only thing absurd is why would a sinner like Christian be given so many chances to get back on the road when he did not even deserve to make it out of the City of Destruction? By contrast, Lewis can be seen in a comic light as he wished to mock his own highly roundabout path to Christianity and he offers a romp through modern philosophy. 

Absurdity was something essential to Adams and it connected to his atheism. His point was not the conventional Dawkins-style atheist polemic to render religion as absurd and atheism rational. Rather, he embraced a world that was absurd. The question then becomes, if the world is absurd no matter which way you turn, might it make more sense to accept a world that is absurd in its lacking of meaning than one where there are beings in charge who are ridiculous? 

Mann and Berry struggle with striking the right tone in their writing and ultimately in finding the purpose of their book. The book could have been a self-acknowledging satire of themselves as the kinds of people who read Adams and yet have somehow remained religious Christians. Alternatively, it could have served as a vehicle for the authors to explore something about their worldview that defies straightforward exposition. Much of the strength of the Babylon Bee is that it captures certain truths that could only be expressed by satire. If readers take nothing else from the Bee it should be the simple question of how is it that a satire site consistently offers a more thoughtful analysis of the world than CNN.  

The Postmodern Pilgrim offers some genuinely excellent moments with ideas that are best expressed through the surreal allegory of Pilgrim's Progress. The random people getting killed by falling meteorites in the City of Destruction offer a powerful response to Ryan's struggle with theodicy. We are tempted to turn the unfairness of children dying against God when it should cause us to contemplate the fact that we may randomly die at any time. People living in the time of Bunyan had a certain spiritual advantage over us as they were constantly confronted with dead children. There could be no pretense that life on Earth could be perfected as an end in itself. 

We have one of the best versions of the Devil since Screwtape. There is this delightful ambiguity to him because he tempts Ryan with what Ryan honestly wants, mainly to escape his miserable situation and get back home to his life. Ryan's Arthur Dent personality works well in these scenes. He knows better than to make an agreement with the Devil yet also sees nothing wrong with just talking to the Devil and struggles to say no when the Devil turns out to be so unfathomably reasonable. 

Similarly, there is Ryan and Faith's visit to Urbina. Readers of the original will be familiar with Faithful's martyrdom in the city of Vanity Fair, which is modeled after Jesus' passion. As such, the narrator offers the spoiler that Faith is going to die. Even though I was expecting Faith's death, how it is done still managed to be poignant. 

What I loved is how the authors make use of the issue of abortion with Humanist demanding that the travelers murder a child as the price of staying in the city. The scene captures why abortion is so important for religious conservatives. Living in a secular society that offers ever greater material comfort and seems to also make moral progress all without religion, where does one find the moral grounding to resist? If a person can truly see a fetus as a living being then the moral authority of modern secularism simply collapses. At the center of secular society is the mass murder of children. Without this murder of children, secular society, with women being able to pursue careers and sexual fulfillment as opposed to family and children, would not be practical. If people on the left demand that conservatives deny that abortion is murder and instead celebrate abortion as a constitutional right and as the liberating act of a woman freeing her body from the control of patriarchal society as the price of being accepted into secular society, then conservatives need to accept that they cannot be part of that society.  

This is a good book that makes for a fun read whatever your religious beliefs. I think it could have been a better book if the authors had been willing to spend the time giving it a more consistent narrative. The angel fails as a character because he does not advance the narrative and ends up as a distraction. One should not confuse making references to popular culture with actually being funny. The final meeting with the king certainly suffers as a McGuffin. Perhaps, instead of writing The Postmodern Pilgrim as a book, the authors could have used the travels of Ryan and Faith as a regular feature of the Babylon Bee where the Devil could offer us updates on their travails and progress. 

And Reporting on Rabbis She Knew Was a Sin

 

I recently introduced my eldest to the dark comic songs of Tom Lehrer. He particularly likes the Irish Ballad which is about a girl who brutally murders her family. The song includes the lines: "And when, at last, the police came by, her little pranks she did not deny. To do so she would have had to lie and lying she knew was a sin." At one point, my son came over to me and in a very serious voice explained to me that he understood what was so funny about the song. "She knew that she should not lie but did not know that she should not kill her family." 

Humor is a very difficult art to master even for smart kids because to be funny requires that you have a baseline understanding of social expectations and how they may be illogical or subverted. For example, familicide is something so horrific that it should not be the subject of jokes. Part of what makes Lehrer funny, though, is precisely his transgressiveness in violating such a taboo. We find ourselves laughing because we know that we should not laugh. This is such an incredibly difficult balance to strike that no consistent rules can be given for doing so. Sometimes jokes are funny because they strike at a truth that we may not wish to admit to so we laugh and pretend that it is a joke. The power of the girl caring more about honesty than murder lies in the fact that it strikes at a real hypocrisy where the petty rules we use to instruct children can come to outweigh actual crimes. 

I bring this up because we are seeing this routine play itself out in the case of Chaim Walder (may his name and books be erased). For those unfamiliar with what has transpired, Walder was a popular children's author within the Haredi community until he was revealed to be a serial abuser. Rather than face judgment, Walder committed suicide on his son's grave. In this final act, Walder displayed a diabolical genius. He was a masterful writer and I confess that I liked his books and had been reading them with my son. As such, Walder understood the importance of an ending for giving readers an emotional body blow and affecting how they think of the entire story. By killing himself before the full extent of his crimes could be publicized, he got to end his story as the "victim" driven to kill himself by his accusers. Did his strategy work? One of his victims committed suicide herself and the Walder family was visited by many prominent rabbis during their period of mourning. By and large, the Haredi press chose to report on Walder's death as we might have expected them to before his downfall. 

One gets the sense that for many in the Haredi world, Walder's accusers, by going public, committed an even graver sin than Walder's abuse. There have been jokes circulating about how if only Walder had only touched girls to ordain them as rabbis then we could have had a real scandal. This joke stands on the shoulder of an older joke of how if activists wanted to get people's attention they should have lied and claimed that Haredi abusers were really handing kids candy without a good kosher certification. It needs to be understood that, underneath these jokes, lies the frightening truth that a large part of the Haredi leadership is not simply naive or lacking in empathy but honestly believes that speaking out about abuse really is worse than the abuse itself. 

This sounds absurd until you realize that there is a perfectly logical argument to be made here that speaking out about abuse, unlike actual abuse, undermines the entire community. The practical conclusion from this is, of course, utterly monstrous but if you are willing to accept the argument on its premises then you should be willing to bite the bullet and truly believe that it is worse to speak out about abuse than even to commit it.  

To start, we have to understand that Haredim, like most traditional societies, lack a category for a sexual abuser. Instead, what we have are the categories of rape and adultery. Walder clearly was not a rapist in the sense of jumping his victims in dark alleys. This means, that we are left accusing Walder of committing adultery with his victims, who were his "willing accomplices" and not victims at all. Obviously, what is being left out is a category to describe middle-aged men in positions of power who can intimidate and manipulate emotionally vulnerable teenagers, destroying their lives even to the point of causing them to commit suicide. 

One would still hope that adultery would be treated as a serious offense as it is in the Ten Commandments. The truth is that adultery, particularly when practiced by men, is treated as a minor sin. What needs to be understood is that adultery is a private sin and, as such, it can be left to the individual as they bang their chests on Yom Kippur. As long as the adultery takes place behind closed doors and does not reach the general public, the sin, in no way, threatens community authority and, by extension, the survival of the system. 

Not only do male adultery and even rape not threaten the system, but they can even actually help strengthen it. Rape sends girls the message that it is their responsibility not to be in certain places or behave in certain ways otherwise "bad things" will happen to them and it will be their "fault." Traditional societies have long tolerated prostitution on the logic that turning a blind eye to men sleeping with strangers made it more likely that they would consent to staying in loveless marriages and not divorce or have affairs with their neighbors and cause a scandal. Instead of prostitutes, what we have are vulnerable teenagers, who can be relied upon to stay silent knowing that they really "wanted it" and they will only destroy themselves and embarrass their families if they speak up.  

In contrast to the adulterer who has only committed a "minor" private sin, the abuse victim who speaks out has committed the ultimate "sin." Their action is public and directly threatens the survival of the system. Make no mistake, there are going to be teenagers who will read up on scandals like that of Walder and find the strength to tell their parents that they do not want to be religious and the parents will find themselves silenced because they are too ashamed to speak up for their faith. One thinks of the example of Ireland, where there has been a mass exodus from Catholicism among the youth because of abuse scandals within the Church. 

It should be recognized that the truly deadly scandal with clerical abuse scandals (whether Jewish or Catholic) has not been the fact that religious figures abused children. The real scandal has always been the wider coverups and the fact that the system cared more about its reputation than helping actual victims. The rabbis who gave Walder the funeral he desired, have likely done more damage to Judaism than Walder ever could. Even with this being the case, those rabbis clearly cannot shake the idea that if only Walder's victims had remained silent the "real" problem would have been solved and the Haredi world would be able to show itself to the world and its members in a desirable light

 .     

Tolerating People Who Happen to Have Red Hair: An Explosive Problem

 

The argument that I am about to make can, to some degree or another, be applied to any minority group and not just redheads. This certainly includes people like myself who are Jewish and on the autism spectrum. There should be no mistake; the argument here is sound but it is undoubtedly a hand grenade that can take out anyone, particularly the person foolish enough to try wielding it. Besides the importance of a strong sense of individual rights, the other important lesson that I would hope that readers take from this exercise is that giving people the benefit of the doubt is an essential value for a liberal democracy.   

When discussing tolerance, it is important to distinguish between individual tolerance and group tolerance. While a happy medium is theoretically possible, any attempt to argue for tolerance for individuals is going to be undermined the moment we begin to think of these individuals as members of groups that are distinct from the political community as a whole.  

Take the example of hair color. Readers may recall the Sherlock Holmes story of the Red-Headed League where the villain tricks his redheaded employer into believing in the existence of an organization that gives money to redheads. This fraud is perpetrated in order to get the employer out of his shop for several hours every day, allowing the villain to dig a tunnel across the street into the vault of a bank. The humor of the story lies in the fact that it is patently absurd that some wealthy person would so identify himself with his red hair that he would leave his fortune to benefit total strangers simply because they share his hair color. 

Imagine that our society would suddenly develop a prejudice against redheads and passed laws that segregated people with red hair into separate schools, limited their employment opportunities, and forbade them to marry non-redheads. Fairly quickly, there would develop a community of red-haired people, who gather together because the rest of society rejects them. Other redheads would attempt to cover their red hair in order to operate within general society. For example, someone like me might diligently shave every day to cover the red streaks in his beard and get a signed and notarized document attesting to the fact that all of his grandparents were pure non-redheads. This would likely create further prejudices against redheads as they would be transformed into an unseen menace attempting to infiltrate "respectable" society. Now, non-redheads, in order to not become "tainted" with redheadedness, must be constantly on guard and check their friends and neighbors to make sure that they are not secret redheads. 

The obvious argument against discrimination against redheads is that there really is no such thing as redheads but only individual people who just happen to have hair with a red pigment. Having red hair does not interfere with being a citizen in a liberal democratic society. People with red hair can make use of their reason to faithfully hold public offices from juror to president and serve in the military. 

This is a powerful argument for legal equality but it comes at a price, mainly that we assume that redheads really are just a collection of individuals who happen to have red hair and that there really is no such thing as a redheaded collective. The moment we begin to suspect that red hair stands as a proxy for actual cultural differences and even for different ways of thinking then we have to ask ourselves whether we think there is actually something valuable about these cultural differences and whether we believe that such people are well suited to operating a liberal democracy alongside non-redheads. 

What can people with red hair do to convince us that there really is no such thing as redheadedness and that they should be granted full rights? Clearly, people with red hair should make a point, as soon as the law and society allow them, of not differentiating themselves from people with other hair colors. An obvious manifestation of this would be large-scale intermarriage. People with red hair should have no objection to marrying people who do not have red hair and be at peace with raising children who do not have red hair and in no way identify with redheadedness. Clearly, people with red hair should not form charitable trusts for the benefit of other people with red hair so no "Red-Headed Leagues." The only exception would be for insisting that people with red hair really are like everyone else and eagerly await the day when the very idea of redheaded organizations will be so unnecessary as to be deserving of parody.  

This lack of redheaded identity should also extend itself to the study of history. While redheaded (name of people who live in the country) history should be taught, it should only be in terms of the history of the persecution of people with red hair and how it came to an end. This history should not be taught in terms of a conflict between peoples of different hair colors. People without red hair should not be treated as villains. On the contrary, examples of non-redheads who worked to fight for redhead rights should be emphasized in order to make sure that non-redheads do not feel guilty and to give them historical figures to relate to. 

Since redheads do not really exist as a distinct group, discussions of the sufferings of people with red hair should be universalized as a lesson on the importance of not judging people based on their hair color. Redheads who insist on remembering their history of persecution and remain mistrustful of non-redheads, insisting instead on redhead solidarity, should be castigated for failing to learn from their own history, making them just as bad as the color supremacists who once persecuted them. Outside of the history of redheads in times and places where they have been persecuted, there should be no general history of redheads. The fact that there have been kings with red hair who lived thousands of years ago in faraway lands (like, perhaps, King David) should be of no interest to contemporary people with red hair. We all agree that people with red hair can become presidents as well as enter into unconstitutional treaties with foreign dictators, sabotage the nation's economy with trade restrictions, and father illegitimate children.  

If redheads are really just individuals with red hair, then there should be no need for culturally responsive teaching for children with red hair. Such kids do not think differently than anyone else as hair color has nothing to do with brain structure. Furthermore, there should be no need for children with red hair to see people who "look like them." The moment advocates for children with red hair start saying otherwise, it stops being obvious why such children should be allowed into regular classrooms in the first place. If these children really are different then, perhaps, they really should be placed in separate classrooms to be with their "own kind."  

To be clear, we can expect non-redheaded people of goodwill to extend redheads some degree of charity and tolerate minor acts of tribalism. This might be out of guilt for the hair colorism of their parents, admiration for redheaded music, literature, cuisine, and comedy, or simply a sense that all of this hair color nonsense will eventually blow over on its own. That being said, at some point, if people with red hair push their tribalism far enough, this spirit of charity will end. Non-redheads will decide that redheads are taking advantage of the liberal nature of the general society, demanding rights as individuals while acting as a tribe and engaging in "reverse hair colorism." 

In essence, any attempt by people with red hair to treat their hair color as something relevant to their lives licenses everyone else to take notice of their hair color and use it against them. The moment someone is different in any meaningful way then the Pandora's Box of better or worse for the functioning of a liberal democracy is irrevocably opened. Think of people with red hair arguing for tolerance as a group as Wiley E. Coyote using a jackhammer on the precipice that he is standing on.   

Contrary to popular belief, tolerance is actually quite difficult in a liberal democracy. In contrast, for example, to a monarchy ruling over a diverse collection of people's running their own day-to-day affairs, in a democracy your neighbor who is not like you gets to vote on issues that directly affect your life. Furthermore, classical liberalism implies a commitment to a set of values that have historically been far from ubiquitous within human societies. A liberal democracy in which there are groups that lack a baseline commitment to liberal values will quickly turn into a sucker's game leading to political collapse. If we do not believe that redheads really support individualism and private property for all people, regardless of their hair color, but are simply using liberal democracy and the tolerance of the general society to advance their particular agenda then we will have no choice but to embrace our own non-redhead identity at the expense of building a country for everyone. 

 

Gone With the Master Narrative

In history, one constantly has to pay attention to who writes a source and what their interests are. This is not a value judgment. All sources have their limitations to some degree or another. This is why we engage in counter-reading. We are skeptical about anything that serves the author’s agenda but we readily embrace anything they say that harms their agenda. In my education classes, which are based around Critical Theory as opposed to critical reasoning, we are being taught something slightly different. We should not only look for the voices behind texts but also whose voices are being suppressed as if authors engage in oppression by the very act of writing. This sets up the concept of master and counter-narratives. 

From the perspective of Critical Theory, it is the job of the teacher to promote counter-narratives to rescue students from the grip of the master narrative. Any teacher who tries to simply do what history teachers have traditionally been supposed to do, mainly teaching facts and how to critically analyze them is guilty of silencing minority voices. It should be understood that, from the perspective of Critical Theory, minority voices are not really literal minorities but the purveyors of Critical Theory themselves, who are supposed to serve as the voice for authentic minorities who have been silenced. By silencing what is meant is that others have failed to fully embrace the assumptions of Critical Theory. In essence, Critical Theory is an attempt by those in power to justify their privilege and suppress anyone who disagrees with them by pretending that their opponents are the master oppressors while they are really the victims attempting to advance their counter-narrative. 

The true power of a master narrative can be seen in its willingness to unabashedly claim the moral high ground of a counter-narrative for itself with every expectation that you can intimidate your opponents into acquiescence. The true master claims to be a victim. If you can claim to be a victim then you implicitly earn the moral right to do all the sorts of terrible things to others that only masters are able to get away with. Real victims know that they do not have power and that it is useless to even speak up and claim to be a victim because the real oppressors will simply use it as an excuse to abuse them further. Morally sane individuals recognize that they are a mixture of oppressor and victim along a spectrum as are their opponents. They try to morally improve themselves in a variety of ways including trying to see things from their opponent's perspective.  

If you wish to understand the logic of a real master narrative, consider the example of the novel and film Gone With the Wind. On the surface, Gone With the Wind’s narrative of the Civil War and Reconstruction is an obvious master narrative. The heroes are literal slave owners and the book is a defense of the Confederacy and the Ku Klux Klan. All of this is true but it misses the fact that the true diabolical genius of the book is its ability to sell itself precisely as a counter-narrative. 

According to the Gone With the Wind narrative, which I find abhorrent and should not be the premise for any history class, once upon there lived a class of white Southern planters. They were a noble group with an interest in the finer things of life like manners and art as opposed to money. These planters were of such an elevated nature that they were capable of "ennobling" even the blacks who worked for them as slaves as this made the blacks part of the South's "uplifting" culture. The planters looked after their slaves as if they were "their own children." Then came the Northern Capitalist industrialists who cared nothing about culture but only for money. The Northerners built a mighty war machine and crushed the peaceful South. In order to justify their pillaging of the South, the Northerners claimed that they had come to liberate the slaves from the oppression of their masters. Many of the blacks believed these lies and turned against their "kind" masters who had treated them so well. In truth, these blacks were not being liberated. On the contrary, they were being enslaved to the relentless power of Capitalism.

The need to preserve a sense of aristocracy as something above money is critical for understanding the role of the Terra plantation in the novel. Scarlett O'Hara struggles to hold on to Terra in the face of Northern tax collectors even though it does not make economic sense. The fact that Terra is not that valuable is precisely the point. As long as Scarlett can hold on to Terra, she is still an aristocrat, someone who can love a piece of land as something that will continue to exist after she is dead, regardless of the dollars and cents involved. Similarly, Ashley Wilkes is tempted by an offer to get a job in New York. Ashley is a smart guy and would certainly do well for himself. The problem is that going to New York would mean that he is no longer an aristocrat but instead just another guy trying to earn a buck with no sense of the larger sweep of history. 

The "poor oppressed" Southerners, "robbed" of their "rightful" place of wealth and influence struggle to bring justice back to the land and join the Klan. In the novel, Scarlett is warned that she should not ride around by herself conducting her business because they are likely to be attacked by one of the free blacks that the Northern occupiers have allowed to run wild. If this happens the Klan, which all the "good" white men of the town have joined, would be honor-bound to retaliate. Scarlett gets attacked and the Klan is "forced" to go after the camp of free blacks. They run into an ambush and Scarlett's second husband gets killed. This leads Scarlett to agree to marry Rhett Butler as Ashley still insists on being faithful to his wife Melanie.     

At one point, Scarlett is forced to confront the "master" narrative head-on in the form of Northerners whose ideas of the South come straight from Uncle Tom's Cabin. Scarlett responds that the novel is full of lies and that they never abused their slaves. She should be believed as she has actual "lived experience" with slaves, unlike the Northerners who have only read about the South in books designed to convince them to hate Southerners. The stakes are high. Either Southerners really did treat their slaves well or at least justly or it was right for General Sherman to pillage his way across Georgia, freeing the slaves and repaying their owners for their crimes. 

It is hardly obvious how Critical Theorists can dismiss the Gone With the Wind narrative out of hand as a master narrative. The narrative is not really that different from the standard Critical Theory narrative. All you have to do is change the labels. Southern plantation owners can be revolutionary intellectuals and the black slaves can be workers who need to achieve critical consciousness. This is accomplished by the workers joining the intellectuals in a farming commune to labor for the "common good." In both cases, the enemy is Capitalism, the notion that people should be empowered simply because of their ability to make money as opposed to elevating those who can transcend such petty interests.

To say that Southern planters were rich and therefore must represent the master narrative fails to hold up. Loads of horrible things happen to Scarlett and she spends much of the middle part of the book trying to keep everyone around her, including her former slaves, fed and with a roof over their heads. Much of Scarlett’s power as a character is derived from her ability to do this while not losing sight of the higher things in life as embodied in Terra. This is critical because it allows us to forgive Scarlett for the pretty terrible things she does to succeed like stealing her sister's fiance (the one who gets killed riding for the Klan) and using convict labor provided by the Northern occupation. In truth, Scarlett being rich should not exclude her from being a counter-narrative. If you can watch Oprah Winfrey interview Meghan Merkle, two of the most privileged beings who have ever lived, without it being obvious that they are perpetuating a master narrative then you should have no problem seeing Gone With the Wind as a counter-narrative. 

From the perspective of Critical Theory, the real crime of the Gone With the Wind narrative is not that it oppressed blacks but that it empowered the "wrong" sort of people. How dare Southern planters claim to be victims and use that argument to justify holding on to power. The people who should be in charge are leftist intellectuals who have educated themselves about the nature of oppression through the lens of Critical Theory. They are therefore the sort of morally superior individuals who are well-suited to decide who is a victim and who is an oppressor. This is such an obvious fact that if you disagree it can only be because you are an oppressor.  

A proper history education should liberate students by giving them weapons to intellectually challenge those authority figures who seek to rule over them. It is important to expose students to brilliant and evil books like Gone With the Wind so that they can learn to see a master narrative at work. What makes Gone With the Wind a true master narrative is precisely its ability to pretend to be a counter-narrative. The heroes are "victims" who are not in the positions of power that they are naturally entitled to. This gives them the right to strike back at the "oppressors" who wrongfully hold a position better than what they deserve. If my students wish to recognize who is ruling over them, the first thing they should look for is who claims that their status of victimhood is an unchallengeable fact and that anyone who voices any skepticism is automatically a master oppressor.   

Mohammed ibn Scrooge: A Tale of Economic and Religious Liberty

 

One of the major distinctions between classical liberals and progressives is the question of whether there is a difference between civil and economic rights. Progressives going back to at least John Stuart Mill have argued that economic rights can be separated from the wider stream of civil rights. Because of this, it is possible to override claims about property if it benefits the wider public or even to deny that there is even such a thing as a right to property. On the other extreme, libertarians argue that there are only economic rights. Civil rights are only meaningful to the extent that they can be framed as economic rights. For example, freedom of speech really means that I have the right to own paper and a printing press, print books with them, and distribute them to the general public. To better understand this potential distinction between economic and civil rights, I have a thought experiment.

Mohammed ibn Scrooge is a pious Muslim who studies the Koran and the Hadith in a madrasa. The government comes to Ibn Scrooge and says: "It is not right that a man of your great intellect should waste his talents on something that does not serve the public interest. We wish to draft you into medical school." When Ibn Scrooge refuses the government’s generous offer of free medical school, they threaten him: "If you insist on being so selfish as to not work to solve the national healthcare crisis, we are going to tax you based on what you would have earned as a doctor. This will allow us to fund the healthcare system, which serves the public interest."

Driven to bankruptcy and despair, Ibn Scrooge comes to the realization that he finds no meaning anymore in Islam. Instead, he decides that what he really wants out of life is a giant money bin full of gold coins that he can jump into from a diving board and swim around in. Using his Ayn Rand hero-level genius, Ibn Scrooge invents a new light bulb, a cheap clean energy motor, and a superior form of steel. He also becomes the CEO of both a railroad and a copper mining company. As a hobby, he designs skyscrapers. After many years of great intellectual labor, Ibn Scrooge becomes the richest person in the world. Before Ibn Scrooge can fulfill his dream and dive into his gold, the Beagle Boys show up waving their IRS badges to inform him that having a money bin full of gold to swim in does not serve the public interest. It is much better to "tax" Ibn Scrooge of all his gold to fund the healthcare of millions of poor children. 

Having fended off the Beagle Boys' efforts to "tax" his money bin over many years, Ibn Scrooge finally takes his first dive into his money pool. After taking a few laps, he realizes that, despite his money bin, he feels rather empty. Thinking back to the religion of his youth and how much happier he was studying in a madrasa, Ibn Scrooge vows to Allah that he will use the gold in his money bin that he wasted his life gathering to fund madrasas across the country. Ibn Scrooge is about to open his first madrasa when the government announces that they are requisitioning the madrasa buildings as they would be better used as hospitals.   

I take it as a given that most of my readers believe that it is more important to improve the quality of healthcare in this country than to advance the study of the Koran and the Hadith. That being said, I also assume most of my readers have imbibed enough of the classical liberal spirit to side with Ibn Scrooge at least in the first and third cases. This is despite the fact that the government has a very plausible argument that its actions would lead to an objectively better world.

It should be clear that the concept of rights, whether they are economic or civil, is only meaningful if they are allowed to trump the public interest. One can always make a plausible argument that violating someone's liberty is in the public interest. Does anyone deny that the government could improve the quality of healthcare if they confiscated all religious buildings and drafted religious functionaries to become healthcare workers? Keep in mind that both the French and Russian Revolutionary governments point-blank confiscated church property in order to deal with their financial problems.  

The interesting question is why would more readers not be willing to defend Ibn Scrooge in the second case when he is motivated simply by the desire to swim in a money pool of his own gold? If you are not a Muslim then Ibn Scrooge's desire to get into Muslim heaven should not demand greater public respect than his desire for his money bin. If you do not believe in economic rights, then Ibn Scrooge's right to make economic decisions with his life in all three cases should not trump the public interest in healthcare. The fact that Ibn Scrooge is motivated by the teachings of Islam should be irrelevant as it is perfectly believable that the government really is motivated by a desire to expand healthcare and not any animosity towards Islam. 

It is important to recognize that there is always going to be someone out there, likely already holding a position of power who honestly believes that you are standing in the way of their "humanitarian" attempts to make a better world and that, therefore, the right, decent, and even loving thing to do is put you in prison, a slave labor camp or even execute you. The only thing that can stop that from happening is a belief in economic liberty. People have the right to make economic decisions regarding their personal lives, whether they are motivated by religion or narcissistic greed, even when that decision leads to an objectively worse outcome for society as a whole.  

Transcending Stereotypes: A Lesson From the Artscroll Children's Siddur

 

Here is the opening paragraph for Birkat Hamazon, the Jewish grace after meals blessing, from the illustrated Artscroll Children's Siddur. This blessing deals with the idea that God feeds the entire world. Hence we are treated to an illustration of examples of animals and people from around the globe. What I find interesting about this picture is that it makes for a useful ideological Rorshach test. When looking at the picture, do you see diversity or racism?

I can honestly see how a reasonable person can come down on either side of this question. A charitable view of the illustrator would be that he recognizes that God cares to provide for the entire world and not just Jews. A less charitable view would be that the picture has set up a hierarchy of being. There are animals and highly stereotyped gentiles to be contrasted with the non-rediculous-looking Jewish boy and girl at the bottom. 

Part of the problem is that ridiculous-looking stereotypes are certainly better than the alternative. Imagine that instead of smiling children, the gentiles of the world were portrayed as the Spanish Inquisition, Cossacks, and Nazis. A world in which we patronize the other as ridiculous stereotypes really is a far superior one from where we fear the other as something monstrous. The former leads to microaggressions while the latter leads to mass murder. Furthermore, the former actually protects us from the latter. If the African and the Native-American simply like to ride around on elephants and buffalos and are not engaged in vast anti-Semitic conspiracies then harming them not only ceases to be a regretful necessity but actually becomes morally repugnant and ultimately unthinkable.

Portraying the other as ridiculous and therefore unthreatening can serve as an important step towards higher levels of acceptance. Consider the example of Apu from the Simpsons. Originally he honestly did serve a liberal purpose. In a town full of ridiculous characters, Apu with his accent and idols was one of the more endearing residents. If your daughter was going to marry someone from Springfield, Apu might be the one that you did not object to. (As opposed to either the old Jewish billionaire or the sleazy Jewish comedian.) It very well might be that Apu helped a generation of Americans become comfortable with Indians and Hinduism. None of this changes the fact that Apu is an absurd stereotype and it is understandable that many Indians find him offensive. In this sense, it is unfortunate that the Simpsons show has so greatly outlived its time.

It is easy to underestimate the challenge of transcending stereotypes. We are surrounded by progressives who claim to be such enlightened beings. In truth, progressives have no interest in accepting other cultures but only suitably neutered versions of cultures made in the progressive image. This gets in the way of having honest conversations about actual diversity.   

The problem is how do you imagine someone with a fundamentally different worldview without turning them into monsters? For example, there are people out there who believe that it is ok to murder someone for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. (By definition, all government actions imply the moral authority to kill anyone who refuses to comply.) Such people not only deny their heinous intent but pretend that they are human rights activists trying to fight against "hate." Perhaps LGBTQ activists do not really mean what they say and like simply shouting slogans as a social exercise. To say that would commit the sin of not taking them seriously and ultimately to unfairly reduce them to a crude stereotype. This includes many people close to me who I love and whose moral judgment I respect in all things except for the fact that they are complicit in mass murder. What can I say; like most reasonable people, I find myself unable to live my life in a way that is perfectly consistent with my values at all times.   

There are two plausible solutions to this problem. The first is to pretend that there are no real ideological conflicts as everyone actually agrees about the important things. Consider the moderate Enlightenment’s natural religion. In this model, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews all agree that the world was designed by a benevolent deity, who guides the world through providence and offers rewards and punishments. People are free to serve this deity through Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish rituals depending on their personal taste. The advantage of this model is that no one would ever think to murder their neighbors over religion because everyone really has the same religion. The problem is that you have to pretend that everyone really does believe in this natural religion and has cast off everything that makes their religion distinctive.

The alternative is to deny that other people have beliefs at all. All they consist of are a collection of strange clothes, customs, and myths. Such crude stereotypes can easily be tolerated as they lack an ideology to ever make them dangerous. Sometimes wanting to kill your opponents can be a sign of the utmost respect. You respect them enough to recognize that they really do have beliefs and that these beliefs really are in utter conflict with yours.