To the editor:
This is a response to Professor John Frary’s op ed in the April 1 Houlton Pioneer Times. He certainly used his teacher training and experience to write a piece that should trigger further discussion of the issues he raised, and we should thank him for that.
Prof. Frary offered a spirited defense of Michael Willette, who has been castigated by Democrats and others of a liberal or progressive ilk for conduct unbecoming a member of the Maine Senate. I saw Michael Willette’s apology, one of them at least, broadcast on WAGM; and I thought it was sincere and heartfelt. After all, Mr. Willette came into politics as a Democrat, so we know that somewhere deep within the cloak of vitriol that Republicans seem required to don in order to be considered for the exclusive club of “Conservative Republicans,” beats the heart of a caring, tolerant human being.
As I read Frary’s reference to Mr. Willette’s apology, I thought he was going to finish his remark by saying something like, “… and the liberals should accept his apology and be done with it.” I was surprised and dismayed to see him castigate Mr. Willette for apologizing at all, because the apology was a mistaken caving-in to politically correct speech.
I agree with Prof. Frary that politically correct speech is difficult and even annoying. I cannot keep up with the latest acceptable terminology with which to refer to people of different races and ethnic groups. In fact, I was going to list some of those groups as examples; but, for fear of offending members of the groups with an erroneous, out-of-date label, I decided not to. However, Frary and I part ways regarding the importance of speech. He seems to be a fearless master of attack-speech.
It is my concern that Attack-Speech and Politically Incorrect Speech both have far-reaching negative effects on the recipients, and, by extension, on the country as a whole. The labels people apply to us, and the tone with which they are used, have a strong effect on self-image and upon behavior. Sometimes that is manifested in angry rebellion, sometimes in a depressed immobilization, maybe terrorism, and certainly in may other ways not beneficial to the country.
Prof. Frary is apparently old enough to remember the dictum, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” In fact, in the 1950s, when most of us were ignorant about the effects of words on people and their behavior, the saying may have had some truth in it for us white guys.
Prof. Frary said he still proudly wears the “racist” mantle. He belittles those who encourage politically correct speech or tolerance of others. Racism includes “discrimination” and “prejudice.” Before humans became civilized, discrimination was an important survival mechanism. If you did not discriminate (ie. notice differences) you might be attacked by a saber-toothed tiger or the member of a tribe at war with yours. That means that the ability to discriminate probably became built into our genes: those who survived and evolved were those who could discriminate dangerous situations, dangerous people, dangerous animals. However, in today’s society, it is less necessary because we are more civil and civilized, especially here in The County. The ability to discriminate is more necessary when there is a lot to be afraid of. I wonder, “Of what is Prof. Frary afraid?”
“Prejudice” (pre-judging) probably has a similar etiology. Quickly judging a person or group may once have contributed to one’s being able to continue to stay alive; hence, it, too may be part of the human gene pool. However, it is my experience that if we get to know people as individuals, whether they are of a different race, ethnic group, religion, or political persuasion, we might be able to appreciate something positive about them, find some things in common with them, and no longer totally pre-judge them because of their group membership alone.
Frary expresses concern about liberals “playing the race card.” I would remind him that the deck was and continues to be stacked against those whom the majority “discriminates” are different from them. That was true when my Italian grandfather arrived in 1900. It was also true for Germans, Irish, Chinese, Hispanics and other immigrants. It was not until we Caucasian-type aliens got blended into the great United States Melting Pot that the discrimination stopped for us. Nowadays, nobody can really “discriminate” that I am half-Italian, and part Scotch, Irish, English, Welsh and German. I am just American, or I was until I just outed myself. Black people and others of color, who decide not to intermarry (doesn’t history tell us it was against the law for decades?), have not blended into this mongrel mix over the years and are still easy visual subjects and targets for discrimination.
Many of us seem to need somebody or some group to dislike or to fear, and people of color are handy to fulfill that apparent need. Jean-Paul Sartre addressed that in “Anti-Semite and Jew.” Frary can profess his disgust at the “gentry liberals” who think that “racial tolerance is a mark of humanity and sophistication.” He has that freedom of speech, but that does not make him right.
Unfortunately, his attitude and remarks, and those of many other conservatives, contribute to polarization of our citizens. I have certainly become polarized since Obama became president and the Republicans made their primary focus in Congress the embarrassment and defeat of him and his plans: you should hear the roar of venom that spews from my mouth whenever Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnell shows up on “Face the Nation.” I sometimes wonder who I have become when I listen to myself.
This polarization is not good for a country calling itself the UNITED States. I wonder, if I knew those men, or even Prof. Frary, personally, if that would reduce my hostility. I wonder if Graham and McConnell had more personal contact with members of the Democratic Party, as Republicans and Democrats reportedly did years ago in Washington, if they would be able to work together, negotiate, and actually govern. I wonder if Prof. Frary could tolerate such a collegial, effective Congress.
I noticed that Prof. Frary’s article was published in the Pioneer on April Fool’s Day. I have considered the possibility that it was simply a provocative joke perpetrated by an ignorant guy. But Prof. Frary cannot be dismissed as ignorant. He has too much education for that. The only alternative that leaves me, in this polarized world, is to dismiss him as an articulate but misguided April Fool.
Michael Fasulo
Linneus
