Monday, May 05, 2008
Atticus
When I pick up a new book to read, I usually do my best to remain completely ignorant of it’s content up to the point of actually reading it. I’ve picked up a passing familiarity with the book from somewhere, and some reason to believe that I’m going to find it interesting. However, I do my best to avoid reading book jackets, back covers, and sometimes even introductions if they contain too much detail. I find the resulting process of discovery to be a highly enjoyable.
Later, after I’ve read the book and digested it’s contents in ignorance, I research the author, the context in which the book was written, prior works that influenced this author and future works this author influenced, etc. I want to experience a book and like or dislike it on it’s own merits, and then as a somewhat separate activity, try to understand how each book fits into the historical and cultural context of our civilization. That research usually leads me on to the other things that get added to the reading list.
Sometimes in doing this after-the-fact background research, I discover things about the book that I totally missed while reading it. The homosexual undertones of The Picture of Dorian Grey, for example, went completely over my head. I was somewhat astounded to discover that the book was controversial in it’s day because of this content, none of which was explicit enough or even suggestive enough for me to have caught on. But then, I’m also learning that there are as many interpretations of books as there are readers, and that sometimes these interpretations are colored by what people want to see in a book, and what they know about the author. By approaching each book with my mind as a tabula rosa, I learn something from my own reaction to the book, but I also learn from the reactions of others.
I read To Kill a Mockingbird awhile back, and besides thoroughly enjoying the book, I found the post-reading research to be very interesting. The book was written in 1960, about life in a rural southern town in the 1930s. A white man falsely accuses a black man of raping his daughter, and the only person willing to stand up for the black man in court is Atticus Finch, a local lawyer that is an upright and honorable man. Atticus is vilified by the populace for daring to question the word of a white man against that of a black man, and then for proving the white man to be a liar in court. The black man is still convicted, and ends up being killed while trying to escape from prison.
Given the civil rights movement that was in full swing when this book was published, it is easy to see why this book became immediately popular. The south of the Jim Crow era truly was an oppressive time, with institutions and social sentiments that were relics of the era of slavery. Blacks were no longer slaves, but they most definitely were kept as an underclass, socially and economically. Nearly everyone working against that systematic oppression was on the side of the angels (terrorists and other extremists excepted).
In the years since the book was written, Atticus Finch has proven to be a hugely influential role model for lawyers in general, and southern lawyers in particular. Everyone likes to bash lawyers, and much of the criticism is rightly deserved. However, some people do go into the legal profession to help the poor and oppressed, and many of these people look to Atticus as a role model.
One thing that I find fascinating about Harper Lee is that she spent a few years living in the limelight created by her best-selling book and Pulitzer Prize, and then decided she wasn’t going to do any more interviews. She cited the monotonous questions and the general misunderstanding of her intent in the book as her reasons for choosing to avoid the press. In reading about her, I can almost sense her frustration and impatience with all of these people that just don’t get it.
The other day I had a conversation with a southern liberal lawyer who didn’t explicitly say anything about Atticus or his influence, but who very clearly fits the mold of someone I would consider a modern follower of Atticus Finch. This lawyer was on a mission, giving of his time and energy to end what he saw as the still pervasive racism in this country.
What blew my mind was that one of the biggest problems he could find to tackle was the discrepancy in sentencing between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. I was dumbfounded.
The chivalrous lawyers of yesterday physically stood in the way of a lynch mob to protect an innocent man… while the chivalrous lawyers of today claim racism because a known criminal might go to prison for life instead of for twenty years? And they dare to consider themselves inspired by their predecessors?
Oh, how our standards have fallen.
In the book, the starkest contrast is not between white and black characters, but between those with dignity and those without. Atticus, many of his neighbors, the accused black man and his family - all were kind, generous, upstanding people who do well and live rightly. The black man’s accuser, on the other hand, was an ignorant fool that lived like a slob and treated even his own family poorly. The fool falsely accuses the upstanding black man, and the deeply flawed society, with one exception, lets him get away with it. That one exception, standing up to real oppression, is to be commended.
Fast forward to today. Well-meaning whites and culture-separatist blacks have joined forces to virtually destroy all semblance of dignity in the black community. I am told that racism still persists and that it is pervasive in our society. I am certain that is true in certain subsets of the population, but I don’t at all believe that ‘equal protection under the law’ is fundamentally compromised in this day and age. What is left is a black culture that has created the vast majority of it’s own problems, and do-gooders, supposedly inspired by Atticus, that continue to make excuses for the failures of that culture.
If your courageous stand against oppression involves fighting against unfair cocaine sentencing guidelines, or reparations, or affirmative action, that should be a hint that you aren’t on the side of the angels any longer. I can almost hear Harper Lee’s groans of frustration in dealing with yet another person that just doesn’t get it.
Comments
-
The only disagreement I would have with your take ... and I’ll admit it may be because of my extreme distaste for fascists (self described progressives) who involve themselves in everything ... I don’t think it’s “well-meaning whites” that are a problem ... it is those with a self-interest in keeping minorities “in their place.” The same people who fight to keep the border porous and keep the poor pouring in, are working as well to keep the current minorities - especially blacks - oppressed by keeping them dependant on government/charity/etc. And New Orleans shows how well they are succeeding/have succeeded.
pete in Midland | 5/5/2008 12:18 PM CDT -
I agree that there are some who are more interested in keeping an underclass of voters dependent, but I think they are far outnumbered by those who genuinely think they are doing good. Someone is poor - we give them money. Someone is hungry - we give them food. Nearly everyone is capable of seeing a need and filling it to the first order. What they are incapable of seeing is the second order effect, that of dependence and social decay.
That doesn’t make them malicious, it just makes them clueless. Be careful that you do not ascribe to maliciousness that which is better explained by stupidity.
American Farmer | 5/6/2008 06:30 AM CDT -
Oh, I never ascribed it to maliciousness ... just pure unadulterated self-interest ... with never a care for the ramifications. The Law of Unintended Consequences is something that always zips right over their heads .... as you said - “clueless”
pete in Midland | 5/6/2008 08:18 AM CDT -
I have to cry foul! here.
There is a point at which outcome has to come into play here. Yes, a certain amount of it can be attributed to stupidity (or Useful Idiots), but there is TOO MUCH data here to PROVE that it is harmful to continue to ascribe the actions to simple stupidity.
Mrs. du Toit | 5/6/2008 08:25 AM CDT -
Let me be more clear.
I firmly believe that there is a core of people who want power, and who are very happy to institute plans that will make people dependent for the purpose of gaining and keeping power.
However, I think these people are far outnumbered by people who are historically ignorant, willfully blind, and just plain clueless, those that are quite convinced they are doing good and that their hearts are in the right place. This lawyer that I spoke with very clearly falls in that category - young, optimistic, and idealistic, and dangerously clueless. At some point the cluelessness turns into maliciousness because of the repeated failure of their policies. But still, it’s evil by accident rather than evil by intent. That does not excuse their actions or wipe their transgressions clean, by any means. However, it does mean that they are stupid rather than malicious.
I believe there are far more useful idiots than there are evil people. But there are definitely evil people out there.
American Farmer | 5/6/2008 08:53 AM CDT -
As Mrs. dT states, you have to look at the outcome ... AND look at the progression of the outcomes. I used to think it was a mixture of unintended consequences and human nature ... but never really spent any time thinking about it ... until I picked up “Liberal Fascism.” I’m not sure Goldberg has all the geese lined up goose-stepping properly ... but he’s convinced me that many of the consequences are not “unintended” ... and we have a large group of people who think they are somehow blessed enough to make decisions for all the rest of us. AND have consistently proved that they’re are way better at deluding themselves than every accomplishing anything (useful).
pete in Midland | 5/6/2008 03:00 PM CDT -
precaval propagandist nonabsolute pigmentize bursautee panesthesia slagger teated
<a href= http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/10/22/india.vajpayee.ap/ >Indian prime minister leaves hospital</a>
http://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/index.jsp?team=174Rusty Holcomb | 5/30/2008 11:19 AM CDT -
precaval propagandist nonabsolute pigmentize bursautee panesthesia slagger teated
<a href= http://www.geocities.com/pakembtash/ >Uzbekistan - Tashkent</a>
http://www.airmasteraerator.com/Loyd Sherman | 5/31/2008 09:21 AM CDT
