Several years ago, Hillary Clinton was giving a talk about her mother, and she told a story about her mother's resilience. Her mother said something like: "I believe in treating people with dignity. Everyone's life matters. All lives matter."
Critics pounced. Clinton's last sentence was (in one narrative) a covert repudiation of the Black Lives Matter movement. A litmus test was devised. Clinton was later asked, in front of cameras: "Do Black lives matter? Or do ALL lives matter?"
The obvious, common-sense answer--"both!"--was not an option. This was like something from a Nabokov novel.
Elsewhere, a Hamline professor of art history made a respectful announcement to students: "In a moment, I will show an image of the prophet Muhammad." Students had an opportunity to leave--first. Despite the announcement, some students decided that they were irreparably harmed by the teacher's choice--and the teacher was not retained. When critics suggested the school's behavior was ridiculous, the head of school quickly emphasized that Hamline was "the first Minnesota university to admit women" (as if this particular data point somehow excused the fact of the professor's humiliation).
Also, an overwhelming majority of Latino people dislike the label "Latinx." And yet nothing changes. Isn't this odd? When I do political work, if I use the label "Latino," I have to add an asterisk: "This is because a large number of polled Latino constituents state that they dislike the label Latinx." The asterisk feels like an apology. Who is the audience for the apology?
I really enjoyed Frank Bruni's discussion of these silly stories--among other stories--although I don't really care about his proposed solution. ("We should all be more humble.") It takes some courage to poke fun at the left--if you yourself are part of the left--and I admire Bruni's intelligence. This book is a step forward from his watery memoir, "The Beauty of Dusk"--and I recommend it.
Comments
Post a Comment