Complicating factors

Let me first specify that these factors may complicate what we feel, or make it harder to do the right thing, but that does not mean they change what is right or what our responsibilities are.

Not that it makes figuring out individual responsibilities easy either.

While there has been an increase in support for Palestinians, and that is important, most of the Western world (for lack of a better term) has strongly supported Israel and still mostly does. The reasons for that may not be great, but we have to face them.

First of all, there is the horror of the Holocaust. It is not unreasonable that we are horrified by that.

I am not even sure that finding land that could be their own was wrong. Given the time frame colonizing solutions were more likely than not.

Beyond that horror -- and a righteous "Never again!" -- I think there are also issues of guilt that play into it.

There is that guilt for the role the rest of the world played, not just in turning away refugees but in letting it happen. That includes appeasement and letting other countries get run over, and probably even the vindictiveness at the end of World War I, which contributed to what was happening in Germany before World War II. 

All of those steps got many people of many nationalities killed. Some of those steps involved trying to avoid war which makes sense, but if you are trying to avoid war because it causes death, and then that causes different death... 

Remember, none of this is going to be easy.

Beyond that, the United States played their own role in our treatment of Native Americans, which was part of Hitler's inspiration for how he did things. Yes, he had some ghastly innovations, but we need to own that role because it leads very much to today's situation.

So many Native Americans have visited Palestine and come away saying it reminds them of reservations.

That may lead us to a different guilt, but still one that we have a hard time facing.

We need to deal with that, for Palestine and for ourselves.

I believe an additional factor is that tendency to just want one side or the other to be right; forget nuance. I will get back to that next time, but there is one other thing I want to get into this week.

We may feel more conflicted because the Jews are Christ's chosen people. 

Besides, there are fundamentalists "Christians" cheering it on because they think it will bring on Christ's return.

There are two points with this. I would like to think that they are both fairly obvious, but so much that should be obvious isn't that I'm just going to go for it.

First of all, the purpose of the Revelation of St. John is to let believers know that even though they will see a great deal of evil and trouble they can be comforted that salvation will come and all wrongs will be righted. Feeling that comfort would be very different from celebrating evil. 

We should not root for evil. We should not accelerate it.

(Besides which, since the revelations describe a siege against Israel, that indicates that their offenses will fail at some point, though how many they will have slaughtered by then, and how many have already died... again, this is all horror.)

But also, remember that the Jews were the chosen people when they crucified Him too.

Now I realize that's bordering anti-Semitic, because that's a tack that they use, but my point is that being a covenant people does not exempt you as a group from criticism and it does not make each individual culpable of the group actions.

I believe God loves the Jewish people and I believe He loves the Palestinian people. I believe He has a plan for all of them.

The overall plan involves people having agency and the ability to make decisions, including destructive, terrible ones, but there is a limit to how much any one person can do without some cooperation. 

I believe Hitler was uniquely evil, but he would not have been able to succeed without others going along with it.

Governments often feel bound by treaties and financial concerns and what the opposition party has going on, and there is a limit to any one individual's control. 

I believe the protestors are having an influence now. There are people being arrested calling for a ceasefire, and they may not get the ceasefire, but it still makes a difference.

President Biden spoke words that Israelis found very comforting. Given the generational trauma they have had, I don't begrudge them that.

They also should not persecute others because of the persecution their ancestors faced, and that is a fair criticism.

It is also fair to note that they are doing some things not so different from our ancestors. There's a statue of one of my ninth-great-grandfathers because he was such a good Indian-fighter. I am sure that his children and grandchildren were proud, and for some generations after that. I wish things had been different, but all we have is now.

And I am not sure what else to do, so I blog.

Palestine

I sometimes refer to a tendency to choose sides and then put all one's loyalty on that side, refusing to even listen to criticism of your team.

The genocide in Palestine might be helpful for discussing that.

First off, notice that I called it a genocide. That would seem to indicate that I am on team Palestine, though that is not really accurate.

Since there is frequently a tendency to side with power, and since Israel has the definite advantage in power, I worry about Palestinians more. 

I would say that I do not worry about Hamas, wanting to make an important distinction between the terrorist organization and innocent people around them, but there are two problems with that.

"Innocent" is such a loaded word anyway. Certainly there are people who do not support Hamas and should not be judged by them. 

There may also be people who got into Hamas because they did not have many options. There may be people who would not support the slaughter of innocents, but after so much suffering at the hands of Israel, they feel some vindication when there is a strike. Prolonged suffering can be very demoralizing.

The other problem is that no one deserves that level of suffering. It wouldn't matter if they were all evil, and if over time they all became evil, there would be culpability on the part of their jailers.

If the targeting of civilians is evil when Hamas does it, then it is evil when Israel does it. 

And they have both done it; we need to be able to face that.

The first part may be remembering that not every Palestinian is a terrorist. It would be understandable if you were confused; Instagram was automatically adding "terrorist" to bios that mentioned Palestine, but that's wrong, and we should know better:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67169228

I think there might also be something to say for remembering that Netanyahu made accusations of election fraud when people were voting against him and that he was facing indictment for corruption charges.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-netanyahu-alleges-election-fraud-accuses-rival-duplicity-2021-06-06/ 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/netanyahu-may-form-government-while-under-indictment-israeli-supreme-court-rules 

It is reasonable to question his actions, and also to know that not every Israeli stands with him.

I mean, he sounds a lot like their Trump, when you put it that way, and Hamas kind of like our militant Christian nationalists.

Yes, there are Jewish people -- in Israel and in the United States -- calling for the utter destruction of the Palestinian people, for their genocide. But there are others pleading for Palestine -- in Israel and in Chicago and Washington D.C., and even being arrested for that.

Let's not be led so much by the worst people. 

That could be a good starting place.

All coming back

The direction we have been going with these last few posts is getting at a balance between loving and thinking.

It should be obvious to anyone reading a religious blog that we should love each other and want to help each other. 

It may not be as obvious that we can have good intentions and miss pressing needs, and even unintentionally cause harm.

I'm going to tell two more stories centered around celebrities in the hopes that they will be illustrative, even if there are more pressing matters.

Actor Danny Masterson was recently convicted of drugging and raping two women. 

I believe I had heard of a third woman, but it is a pretty safe bet in cases of rape and sexual assault and similar things that whether we are talking about convictions or accusations, that number is low.

Several fellow actors wrote letters of support to the judge in Masterson's case, trying to argue for a more lenient sentence. Among them were Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis:

https://theconversation.com/hollywood-letters-of-support-for-danny-masterson-demonstrate-the-pervasiveness-of-myths-about-rape-culture-213508

The photo that accompanies the article is from their apology letter as they gave into the backlash. 

There were several gross things about their support. For example, they called Masterson an anti-drug role model, ignoring the irony of Masterson drugging his victims. 

In this case, the bigger issues were probably their vocal support of #MeToo and Kutcher's chairman role in Thorn, a purportedly anti-child sex abuse company. He has since stepped down.

Their mistake is really one that's as old as the hills: this person is nice to me, and my friend, and so I will defend them.Obviously their treatment of me makes them a good person!

Except that's not how it works.

I had thought this would be about the tendency to side with those more powerful, but this particular story does seem to be more about personal relationships. Famous people get to know other famous people, but their world may not be especially relevant for our world.

There was a different aspect that struck me, partly because of the other story.

Despite their past association, there had not been much buzz about the Kutchers through the original allegations against Masterson all the way through the conviction. Then, once it came out that they had supported lenience, that started a lot of conversation.

Things that were pointed out:

• Masterson exerted a powerful influence on the set of That 70s Show, largely focused on excluding Topher Grace (who left the cast early, despite being the star, and whose wife posted a statement apparently in favor of the victims).
• Thorn has apparently done more to endanger sex workers than make children safer.
• Kutcher first kissed Kunis when she was 14 and he was 19, on that set. He has also made inappropriate statements about other younger actresses, like a 15 year old at the time Hilary Duff.

It may not have been a set where you would even expect to find safety and respect.

Sometimes we talk about all watching everyone's lives on a big screen at Judgement Day, which sounds remarkably boring. However, I do believe that in addition to our own inescapable awareness of our own lives, good and bad choices both, I also believe we will certainly understand what affected us, in good and bad ways.

The things that were brought up about Ashton Kutcher reminded me of that. I don't know that he intended harm, but he did not try hard enough or care enough to do good. That is a pretty important failure.

That reminds me of the other story:

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a45080988/martin-short-comedians-reactions-social-media/ 

A writer wrote a scathing piece about Martin Short, calling is desperately unfunny and annoying. Fans, comedians and Canadians rushed to Short's defense, lauding not only how funny he was (and posting clips to prove it) but also how kind and wonderful he was. Apparently, only one person had anything bad to say about Martin Short, which made it foolish of them to publish it.

Of course, if they were writing about something correct -- even if the rest of the world were wrong -- it would be important to tell that truth, but just being petty can cost you.

Justice is not instant. It's not even particularly fast most of the time. 

However, the deeds that we do and the words that we say have effects. If that seems like I am leaving out thoughts, well, those thoughts are going to create the words and deeds.

So let us work to be informed. Let us work to be kind. 

Let us be valiant.

Then when all deception is gone -- including self-deception -- we will be able to feel good.

Calling 9-1-1

Reading about Kitty Genovese and the creation of 9-1-1 has also had me thinking about the times I have used the service, or not used it, and whether I should have or not.

First of all, I have one good story. It was around 6 AM on a Saturday morning. We were all in bed and then we heard screaming, "Help I've been hit by a car."

I pulled on clothes and headed out while Mom called 9-1-1. 

Just across the street from our cul-de-sac there was a young woman on the ground. She had been out running and struck by a hit and run driver. 

The good part of the story is that many of us responded. 

I don't remember the year, but it was long ago enough that no one had cell phones. I was not the only one who had another household member calling. Someone went to tell the people at her house, and someone was helping her support her head, and I think someone else went to get a coat or a blanket. Really, there was a surplus of responders, but that's better than the other option. 

In No One Helped, an article was cited regarding the various bystander effect studies that showed when the danger level went up, people were more likely to intervene. That was taken as a sign that there was hope for humanity, that we had altruism in addition to apathy. 

I suspect that the real issue is that when the threat is clear, people know that they need to act. 

When you take emergency response training, they always tell you that you don't say "Somebody call 9-1-1!' You point and say "You! Call 9-1-1!" Doubt can really hamper action.

Doubt was also a factor in the other two situations I want to mention.

The first one was also long ago, when I did call because there was smoke next door. Only it wasn't really smoke; it was steam rising from a compost pile. I didn't know, but I should have checked with the neighbors before calling. I didn't know them well so felt awkward, but then I felt really stupid when I found out it was compost steam. Just a little awkward would have been better.

The other time I didn't call. I was downtown and there was a man sleeping on the sidewalk. Yes, we have a large homeless population that has to sleep rough, but normally they hide themselves a bit better. I was worried that it was something medical, and that he needed help. I tried asking him if he needed help, but there was no response. I asked louder; still nothing.

I ultimately left without calling anyone. I did that because he seemed to be exhausted, but not in danger. While emergency response might have helped him, there is also a good chance that they would have hassled him. 

There's no guarantee somebody else wasn't going to hassle him, but it wasn't going to be me.

I am not sure that was the right decision.

There is another situation I have never been in, but if there were someone having a mental health crisis, or not even that but just a person of color, calling 9-1-1 might very well be signing their death warrant.

We sometimes see people use that to their advantage as a scary way of harassing, but there could be times when maybe there could be reason to call, but it is still better not to.

These cases all come down to knowledge. Sometimes it is a matter of asking. "Are you okay?" "Is there something burning in your backyard?"

Sometimes it is a matter of being alert to how things work; racist abuse of power and extrajudicial killing is a thing.

We have all been there, where we heard something that we couldn't tell if it was a kid shrieking in play, or something more serious. Was that a gun or a firecracker? If there is just the one sound and then nothing, it probably doesn't need any action, but what if?

There might be times when it is our duty to find out. 

That girl who was hit, she yelled loud and she kept yelling until several people had come. We knew someone was hit. We may not have known the details, but we went to find out.

Aid or apathy

Back in May I wrote about being affected by one documentary about Kitty Genovese and one article about Prince Harry:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2023/05/getting-to-two-things-about-grief.html

While those were seemingly disparate topics, they both seemed to be very much about grief. I mentioned at the end that I would read two more books. I wondered if they would also go together, and how much it was in me to just see grief in everything right now.

After reading Spare in August (I also watched their documentary) and No One Helped in September, there is a lot more than grief and they do not particularly go together. 

In the case of No One Helped: Kitty Genovese, New York, and the Myth of Urban Apathy, author Marcia M. Gallo takes more of a sociological approach, and it is for everyone else. There is a mention of the family, but grief requires a more personal relationship. For those outside of her circle of friends, Kitty only became known as a symbol.

Gallo does address the myth, but spends more time on the effects of the myth. 

For the record, the original New York Times story made it sound like 37 people watched the murder happening over a period of time and no one called the police or attempted to intervene. That was never true.

There were some people who heard one thing, but then could not see anything. One person saw something, yelled, and that seemed to interrupt it. There were at least two calls to the police, possibly more. One woman called but was not able to speak when they answered. Records are not always great years later, and it was not a particularly organized system even then.

Perhaps the way the police mentioned it to the editor related to the murderer having two previous victims, one very recent. If they had worked those cases harder, the murderer might never have had a chance to hurt Kitty. There were certainly things they mishandled, including not responding to the calls they did get.

Is it relevant that the other recent victim was a Black woman? Even editor A.M. Rosenthal acknowledged that crimes among Black New York residents did not get much attention. Would the police have tried harder to solve the case if Annie Mae Johnson had been white, or at least wealthy?

Rosenthal turned Kitty's murder into symbol of apathy and decried the lack of personal responsibility. Gallo points out that he was ignoring a high degree of community participation, but probably ignoring that because people were participating in ways he didn't approve of, like protesting war and fighting for school integration.

The other point made is that the best result of the murder was the development of what became the 9-1-1 system, which required government action and not just individual efforts.

There is a lot in the story about conservatism, racism, and classism. There is even homophobia; the police were terrible to Kitty's partner, even though there was no reason to suspect her. One person who did not call the police did not do so because he was scared of them. However, he called someone else, which did bring aid. 

Not being able to trust the police in various circumstances remains a problem.

We will spend more time on patriarchy and power dynamics, but before that I want to spend a little space on my experiences with 9-1-1.