Month: June 2006

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Honestly, Jimmy, I agree w/you about the immigration stuff, but I think it would help your cause if you would make better efforts to say nice things about Latin Americans once in a while. For example, no one would ever accuse me of racism, despite my views on immigration. I rather openly express my admiration for Latin American culture and all things Spanish. I live in Southern California, often shop at a Spanish-speaking grocery store, attend Mass with Latinos, eat various Mexican foods (not just tacos and burritos), have a devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe, and forcefully condemn the land grab of the Mexican-American War.

I appreciate what you’re saying, and I have often considered doing this. I may in the future.

Actually, I do say nice things about Latin Americans. I do that all the time.

But this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don’t" situations. If I were to go out of my way to praise the Mexican people while criticizing illegal immigration then people would accuse me of being a phony and of only including the praise as a hypocritical attempt to neutralize criticism of myself. On the other hand, if I don’t go out of my way to praise the Mexican people then this gets taken in and of itself as racism, so either way you go you are damned (i.e., condemned, look up the word damnatus in Latin).

Knowing this, my instinctive solution is to try to keep people and personalities largely out of it and stick as much as possible to talking about issues and principles. This is an extension of my general apologetic practice, which is to talk about issues and not people. If you listen to the radio show, you may notice that I try to avoid commenting on individuals (i.e., "So-and-so is a good guy" or "So-and-so is a bad guy") and instead focus on the issues that the caller has on his mind in connection with so-and-so. I find it is generally more productive this way.

Thus, while I can’t stop anyone who wants to commit rash judgment and accuse me of racism from doing so, I can try to keep my own hands clean by treating the subject on as abstract a level as possible that focuses on principles instead of ethnicities.

The issue is whether America should secure its borders and do its best to stop illegal immigration (it can never be stopped completely any more than other crimes can be stopped completely, but that’s not an excuse for not trying).

And the fact is that many illegal aliens are not Mexicans or even Latin Americans. They are people from all over the world who either crossed the border illegally or who overstayed their visas illegally.

I may document just how porous our border is, but a porous border doesn’t care whether you’re Mexican or Chinese or Arabic or Afghani. In fact, it would be the latter two groups of people who I would be more concerned about coming over the Mexican or Canadian borders illegally since they are groups which are more likely to harbor individuals wanting to blow up planes or buildings than the first two groups.

I may even comment on the particular problems concerning illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America, but when I do I wish to treat matters as neutrally and matter of factly as I can, without seeking to offer character assessments of groups one way or the other, because character assessments tend to distract from the issue.

If I were to just call attention to positive things about a particular group then I would (a) open myself up to charges of pandering in order to deflect criticism and (b) paper over problems that may exist with the group (e.g., the fact that some of the people coming over the border are drug dealers and not hard working people seeking a better life).

If I were to just call attention to negative things about a particular group (e.g., the drug dealers among illegal aliens) then I would (a) get slammed for criticizing the group and (b) fail to call attention to its good points (e.g., the fact that many are hard working people seeking a better life).

One solution to this would be to offer an assessment that calls attention to both positive and negative things about the group but this would have its own problems–e.g., who am I to judge? and it would start arguments about whether the assessment is accurate or whether it is really balanced or not; and it would have to be re-issued every time I touch the subject and thus become a kind of obligatory "Let’s get the balanced character assessment out of the way so that we can prove we’re not racists and get on with the issue-discussing part of the post," and I just really don’t want those headaches.

To date I have found it better to stay out of assessing people’s characters altogether and just stick to the issues when possible (not that it is always possible).

I also have a good bit of trust in my readers that they have a sense of my own racial and ethnic openness as displayed on the blog and the radio show, where I have defended interracial marriages, referred to skin differences as simply cosmetic differences with no more intrinsic status than hair or eye color, defended  Masses that mix English and Spanish, talked a lot about cultural variability and that we need to seek to understand what other cultures are trying to accomplish with the way they write or speak or bury their dead and not automatically assume that our own way of doing these things is the right one and that we should not just evaluate them in terms of our cultural practices–and then there’s all the discussion of language that I get into, language being the central aspect of any culture.

Without going to the extreme of saying that you can never criticize anything another culture does (e.g., female circumcision in the Middle East leaps to mind as a cultural practice I would criticize), I tend to be on the more multicultural end of the spectrum, but I don’t feel the need to step forward and try to prove this each time I talk about illegal immigration.

I’m not the one who has something to prove.

I could, of course, go on the blog and point things out like the fact that I work with and socialize with folks of Latino origin, that I study Spanish, that I speak Spanish when around Spanish-speakers precisely in order to honor their culture, that I go to Spanish-language Masses, that I like Mexican music, that I like Mexican food, that I like travelling in Mexico, etc., etc., etc. But these things would get me absolutely nothing.

They would be twisted against me as an overanxious attempt to prove that I’m not a racist.

As an illustration of this point, consider the post I wrote yesterday about how the race card is being overplayed in the debate on illegal immigration.

Now, I’ve been doing a series of posts on illegal immigration (a series that will end once I’ve said what I have to say on the subject; this ain’t gonna be a perennial on the blog), and as part of that series I’ve been doing posts that point out bad arguments that are being used in the debate.

Allegations of racism are a bad argument. In fact, they aren’t arguments at all. They’re simply as ad hominem attacks on people one disagrees with. And I’ve been reading about these attacks in various newspaper stories and editorials online, and I’m thinking, "Man, that’s a really stupid argument. I’m going to do a blog post about it."

So I do a blog post about it, in which I never once mention the fact that I’m rather multicultural or the fact that I’m not a racist or anything like that, and I stick to talking about the issue, and one reader who was behaving like an asinus (look up that word in Latin if you need to), pops off with:

Oddly enough the racism charge is the only thing that has given pangs to your conscience.

which is a direct statement that I have pangs of conscience over the racism charge, which implies that I have a guilty conscience on this, which implies that I’m guilty of racism and am overcompensating, which is a rash judgment on the part of the commenter.

Excuse me, but I was talking about a dumb argument. I’m not overcompensating every time I comment on a dumb argument. The reader really should try out the Catechism’s giving a favorable construction to others’ words and actions idea.

Then there are some people who are just over the top, like this fine commenter:

For those who didn’t to bother reading the entire post, let me summarize:

1) I’m not racist.
2) If you accuse me of being racist, the Catholic church says you are a sinner.
3) Let me quote some church law.

Honestly Jimmy, if you want to debate whether or not you are racist, you can do better than threaten Catholics with church laws. You might try actually discussing the issue.

Respectfully,

NAME DELETED

who is simliarly behaving like an asina, and in a more heavy-handed way than the first commenter.

So you see what happens: I do a post pointing out the vileness of making unfounded allegations of racism because they’re vile and because they’re being made in the current debate, and two readers behaving like asini decide to make vile allegations against me to the effect that I must have a guilty conscience over racism and am therefore overcompensating by doing a post that is really all about me, though the post wasn’t about me at all. It was about a dumb argument–which is really an interpersonal attack rather than an argument–that is out there in the debate right now.

What these people were doing was making a personal attack on me by publicly suggesting that I’m a closet racist with a guilty conscience. It was an attempt to embarrass me in public and thus an attempt to hurt me emotionally. It wasn’t an attempt to engage in rational discussion. It was an attempt to shut down rational discussion by making an interpersonal attack.

That’s vile.

Can you imagine what these people would do if I started saying things they could translate into, "Hey, many of my best friends are Hispanics!"

My conclusion is thus that there are simply asini in the world who will behave in a vile manner no matter what you do, and as a general matter it is better to ignore the tea-leaf reading that the donkeys will try to do and just stick to the issue.

That way we don’t get distracted from the issue and if the donkeys try to distract us then they’re the ones who have been acting like asses.

Here in the San Diego area there is a special election today for the 50th Congressional District (which I don’t live in) where the two major candidates are Democrat Francine Busby and Republican Brian Bilbray.

At a recent meeting with a largely Hispanic audience, Mrs. Busby said something that could lose–or win–her the election.

When a man said in Spanish that

"I’d like to help, but I don’t have papers."

Mrs. Busby waited for the translation and then said:

“Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can
all help. You don’t need papers for voting, you don’t need to be a
registered voter to help.”

On its face, that was an appeal for illegal aliens to vote for her in the election.

Mrs. Busby was disappointed when it turned out that someone was recording what she said, and the result ended up on the Internet, on local talk shows, and in the local paper.

She is now saying that she misspoke. She didn’t mean to encourage illegal aliens to vote for her.

Okay, so what did she mean?

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, her opponent seems to have got it pretty well summed up:

Bilbray said at worst, Busby was encouraging someone to vote illegally. At best, she was encouraging someone who is illegally in the country to work on her campaign.

Barring further clarification from Mrs. Busby, that’s the way it looks to me.

GET THE STORY.

I’ve written before about the over-use of allegations of racism. These are disturbing because racism is itself such a vile thing. To falsely accuse someone of racism is thus reciprocally vile. Falsely calling someone a racist is in this respect like falsely calling someone an adulterer or a child molester or a person given to any other form of moral turpitude.

Unfortunately, false allegations of racism are all too common in our society, and they appear in different contexts.

In the current debate over illegal immigration, for example, some have charged that those who want America to secure its borders and stop the influx of illegal immigrants are racists.

Such sentiments have even been expressed by some posters in the combox of late.

While there no doubt are individuals who harbor racial prejudice against Latin Americans, and while they no doubt disapprove of millions of Latin Americans entering this country illegally, it cannot be inferred that because someone disapproves of illegal immigration that one is racially prejudiced against Latinos.

Indeed, many Latinos who abided by the rules and entered this country legally–or whose parents or grandparents did–are opposed to illegal immigration, and it is hardly likely that they harbor such prejudice.

"Okay," one might say, "those who are Latino themselves should not be accused of racism if they oppose illegal immigration, but what about non-Latinos?"

It doesn’t make any difference. The formula "non-Latino + opposes illegal immigration" does not equal "racist."

The fact that one is white or black or Asian or what have you does not cause one’s brain to be unable to disapprove of millions of people entering one’s country illegally unless one is also a racist.

I’m quite sure that the vast majority of people who oppose the current influx of illegal aliens would be just as concerned if there were twelve million Canadians or Swedes or Germans or Russians or what have you who had entered America illegally.

In other words: Race has nothing to do with it.

At least in the mind of the great majority of people.

In view of how vile racism is, it is vile for anyone to carelessly lob charges of racism around, but it is particularly so for Catholics, who in the Catechism of the Catholic Church have a clear articulation of the following points:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

To simply assume that someone who says he opposes illegal immigration is a racist is–in the absence of further evidence for racism (e.g., the use of racial epithets for illegal aliens)–is to commit the sin of rash judgment, which is a sin whether one expresses this judgment publicly or not.

If the charge of racism is publicly made against someone who is not, in fact, a racist then the sin of calumny is committed.

As the Catechism explains, we must be on guard against the rash judgment and calumny that are often involved in playing the race card.

Much good would be done if people–inside and outside the Catholic community–would take the Catechism’s advice and attempt to give a favorable construction of others.

Justice and charity require that those who say they are opposed to illegal immigration are to have their statements taken at face value unless sufficient evidence of a sinister motive is present. The mere opposition to illegal immigration is not enough to infer racism. To do so is rash judgment and to say so will be calumny more often than not.