Other people's anger

"I do what I do for the sake of my country." Avner Gvaryahu explains what he would have shown the U.S. congresswomen.

In 1996, at an early conference of the Call to Renewal movement (now part of Sojourners), someone asked prominent Baptist educator Tony Campolo why he sounded so angry. His response went something like this: "When someone tries to hurt the people I care about, I get angry."

Although I know that there's a sentimental myth out there that Christian leaders aren't supposed to get angry, I don't think anyone at the conference was particularly surprised at Campolo's answer. The Call to Renewal was a call to American Christians to overcome partisan politics in favor of a united struggle to confront economic injustice. Nobody would have told Campolo that he was mistaken -- that political forces against justice simply didn't exist, that we actually had no reason to meet.

Twelve years later, in February 2008, Michelle Obama faced criticism for saying, mildly, that, because of her husband's campaign for the U.S. presidency, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." She wasn't even expressing outright anger, although her words implied both anger and sadness in the past. Her critics made no such distinctions. How could she have had the nerve not to have spent her whole life being wholeheartedly, uncomplicatedly proud of the country that had built much of its identity and economy on white supremacy?

Now we have a whole new wave of willful incomprehension of actual, genuine grievance going on right before our eyes. Two of the only three Muslim members of Congress, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, have expressed sentiments that could fairly be interpreted as anger at the way Muslims (among others) are treated. In response, they have been characterized as anti-Semitic. They have been charged with hating both their own country (the USA, just for the record) and Israel. By extension, we have all been warned that voting for these politicians' party, the Democrats, equals disloyalty to Israel. (Or does this warning only apply to American citizens who are Jewish, and the rest of us can do what we want?!)

We human beings generally feel entitled to our own anger. It's other people's anger that bothers us. Of course, when people are upset about things that upset me, it's easy for me to sympathize. But I'm white and male, I'm not Muslim, my relatives and I have no history of being mistreated by the powers that be. I'm half-Norwegian and half-German; the Norwegian half glows in worldwide praise for our peaceful and generous ways. As for the German half, at the risk of stereotyping, we're maybe more accustomed to giving orders than taking them. In the American context, we Northern Europeans don't have much experience being on the receiving end of persistent and systemic cruelty. Maybe we ought to exercise some humility and very careful listening when we encounter anger and disillusionment from people whose histories are very different.

When actual victims and survivors of cruel and coercive objectification speak up, or their family members and descendants speak up, we see at least two popular reactions:

1) Immediate and enthusiastic false witness and emotional manipulation. "They hate all Israelis." "They (unlike us) have never been proud of being American." "SEND THEM BACK!"

2) Creation of false analogies and bad-faith claims of victimhood, such as Paul Lacey describes in his Pendle Hill Pamphlet, Quakers and the Use of Power. On this path, we find myths of "reverse racism" and "persecution of Christians." If there were any truth at all in these defensive counter-claims, they should in fact strengthen the capacity to understand the grievances of people whose histories are shot through with the struggle to keep their heads up, and to raise healthy children, in the face of unrelenting negativity.

None of this is to say that we (and here, by "we" I mean those of us who feel entitled to judge other people's anger) must automatically romanticize every critic of the USA, or of Israel, for example, and suspend our critical faculties in the face of their anger. They deserve our full adult engagement, which means finding common ground when possible, and subjecting all claims to thoughtful examination, even as we understand that we don't necessarily get the last word.

Let's practice with the case study of Omar, Tlaib, and the non-visit to Israel and Palestine: here is some recent coverage in the New Yorker. Does this article qualify as a fair and nuanced description of their goals and political vulnerabilities? How would you rebalance it? Do the congresswomen come off as total haters of Israel?...  or as progressive superheroes? ... Or are they (as I see it) competent and imperfect politicians on the right side of normalcy, with histories that entitle them to some skepticism about American exceptionalism?

---

A third way of responding: Race Imboden, Gwen Berry.

Also see secondhand patriotism.

Do you want to be offended?

Angry men gain influence and angry women lose influence.

---

Is this normal? White supremacist Web site link included in U.S. Justice Department briefing memo distributed to immigration judges.

Another is this normal item: VK subscribers report unusual discoloration of vegetation following explosion near Severodvinsk earlier this month.

Thirty years ago, activists organized a human chain linking the Baltic capitals. I remember how impressive this was at the time -- and it still is.

The year 1619 and Fleming Rutledge's home state of Virginia.

Via QuakerSpeak video, meet Sarah Ruden, whose amazing book about Paul I reviewed here.

---

Kim Wilson!



(Listen here to Junior Wells laying down the classic version of this song.)