The Atlantic Monthly published a
long and complicated article that focused on the perception of “truth”. If
asked, I think that I would be categorized as one who considered “truth” to be
theoretically absolute, i.e., just as 2+2=4, so could “racism” be defined in
very concrete terms. As such, my definition of “racism” references behaviors
that relate to different races. In my definition of racism, I would include any
behavior that drifts from the acceptance to rejection of someone based on one’s
race. From my point of view, I
want everyone to be treated the same, independent of one’s race. Given my view,
I consider “racism” to be negative. The article was not discussing racism, but rather
the question of the absoluteness of the meaning of words. We can agree that
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the differences of the perception do
not usually result in violence.
Clearly, racism was a source of violence in Charlottesville last
weekend. The Alt-right saw multiple races in one’s society as negative; the
Alt-left perceive different races as a positive contribution to society.
Given this introduction, the
Atlantic Monthly article details how reality is perceived differently by
segments of society. If I were discussing the topic of “truth” prior to reading
the article, I think that I would state that “truth” is objective, i.e.,
black=black. If someone would
disagree, I could argue over their perception or, maybe, discount the person’s
ability to identify reality and smile.
The author recalls a period of
history very relevant to me, i.e., the 60’s. Recalling that I was ordained a
priest in 1963, I had become used to the fact that those ordained but a few
years before me thought differently than me. I had painfully been sucked into a
very conservative and isolationist view of (religious) reality during the first
four years of my seminary life. Once I started on the road of reading more
liberal European authors, I became zealous in the pursuit of another perception
of God, e.g., one that did not identify Catholicism as unique, the only true
way to God. Many other changes occurred. My perception of power resulted in my
viewing the Vietnam War as an unjust incursion with devastating
consequences. How could I not
protest? Similarly, becoming sensitive to the “realities” of black leaders and
their compatriots resulted in my joining others in Civil Rights causes.
The point of all this is that my
perception of “truth” became different from many others. While I do not think
that I would become violent, I surely was prepared to die or be imprisoned for
actions comparable to my heroes, the Berrigan brothers who were also priests.
The Atlantic Monthly article
proceeds to identify instances since the 60’s when the perception of X is
identified or categorized differently.
In recent times, I have given up sharing my views relative to political
realities. What I see differs, sometimes, radically, from what others see.
Without denigrating the value of the persons identifying with a different “reality”
from mine, I am left speechless.
Surely, hearing those supporting
the views of those in their lawful demonstration in Charlottesville was
repugnant to me. At the same time, I am sure that my views are repugnant to
them.
And so, back to the article where
it is clear that “truth” is far more complicated than 2+2=4!
