Skip to main content

Old Habits

A Syrian refugee, photo from the U.N. Refugee Agency

I was finishing reading a new book on the Armenian genocide just as the anti-refugee sentiment began its upswing. The actions were different, but the basic instinct behind it--a fear and hatred of those different from ourselves--was the same. Often, our default instinct is to be suspicious, and hostile, towards those who are outside of our group. It's a habit that seems common, but it remains disturbing to see it in action just the same. 

Send them back, lock them out, take care of our own first. And those were just the mildest sentiments anyone could hear. There was certainly anti-refugee sentiment before (right-wing groups warned of the President admitting "10,000 Muslims" into the country), but the tenor ratcheted up after the attacks in Paris. The very same people who make a habit of never helping anyone suddenly were overcome with concern for the homeless in our country, for veterans, when before they decried any such help as "entitlements" or something we can't afford due to the need for a balanced budget. Similar sentiments were voiced before the Second World War, when Americans were opposed to letting in Jewish refugees attempting to escape the horror that life in Germany had become for them, saying that the United States needed to help its own first. Anti-Semitism played a role then, just as anti-Arab and anti-Islamic sentiment is playing a role in the current debate. 

Mark Twain is once said to have remarked that "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes." The attitude towards Syrian refugees seems similar to the attitude held towards Jewish refugees. The same arguments against immigration from Mexico today were deployed against immigrants from Ireland barely a century ago. The Assyrians believed that those who didn't bow to their god had to die, which seems to apply equally as well to the beliefs of ISIS. Because of differences in language and culture and religion, humanity has slaughtered and enslaved each other from Westphalia to Anatolia, Baghdad to Wounded Knee with relish. This common thread makes studying history an often depressing enterprise.

This old habit, this division of "us" and "them," is something that we can no longer afford. The problems that confronted us in the 20th Century, and continue to confront us in the 21st Century--nuclear proliferation, food insecurity, climate change and a host of others--do not confront individual nations, they confront the whole of humanity. We cannot overcome them on our own. All of us must work to solve these problems. And we cannot do it if we refuse to recognize that people who dress differently, speak a different language, or worship differently than ourselves are not so different after all, worthy of the same concern, the same dignity, that we expect will be accorded to us. We are all one species, on this shared planet.

Humans have shown a tendency to exhibit the same distressing failings again and again, but in spite of that we have made progress. Where once the practice of slavery was considered normal, one by one nations of the world finally decided that this was unacceptable. We can be better than we were in the past. The increasing complexity of our world demands it. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...