On Fighting AND Feeding Our Enemies
Nov. 17th, 2020 09:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gaudiorI've seen this pattern lately in my (Unitarian Universalist) church, but I'm sure it's elsewhere, too:
2016
Straight White Liberals: Oh my God, we have to fight!
Marginalized Groups: Yes.
Straight White Liberals: (do some reading.)
SWL: Oh my God, this is not an isolated incident-- there's a whole history of systemic oppression that led us to here!
MG: ...yes.
SWL: We have to fight it!
MG: ...YES!
2020 Election: (happens)
SWL: YAY! WE WON!
MG: ... yes.*
SWL: Hurrah! Now is the time for healing!
MG: ...but... the systemic oppression?
SWL: HEALING.
MG: ...
MG: (sigh)
I keep being bothered by these conversations we have in church, where all the straight white people are like, "we can reach out to the T(ax f)r(a)u(d)mp voters! We're not so different after all, we can make peace! We can heal the divides in our country, and end this era of such negative and hateful conflict!" and all the queer people/disabled people/people of color are like, "Um. You can reach out to them. They're not trying to kill you."
As a Unitarian Universalist, and a person who used to have roughly the same philosophy before running into UUs, I have long had this dilemma: how do you respect the worth and dignity of every human being, including the human beings who are oppressing you? I do believe that everyone, even that asshole currently skulking in the White House, is a person, and deserves to be understood and taken care of, and that I will feel better when I have that attitude than when I'm stuck in anger and fear. But... he and the people enabling him have gotten thousands of people killed.
How do you respect the worth and dignity of people at the same time as you fight them?
I think the answer does end up coming down to two things:
1) Stopping someone from hurting you does not mean you don't respect their worth and dignity, or even their point of view. It might mean you disagree with their point of view, if their point of view involves you being hurt being a good thing, but that doesn't invalidate their experiences or beliefs that brought them to that conclusion. It just asserts: this is your experience, and it is different from mine, and we have different priorities. I can understand you without agreeing with you.
2) Respecting everyone's worth and dignity (hereinafter REWAD)(no, that's terrible. Let's see if I can get through without using that phrase again) can mean wanting them to be well and taken care of on my terms, not on their terms. That one is really tricky, because our definition of "wellbeing" is very different, and this has been used to justify a lot of evil in the past. But: I want everyone to be fed, housed, given medical care, educated as they wish to be, safe from physical harm, loved in meaningful relationships with people they care about, doing work they find meaningful and play they enjoy. I think it is 100% reasonable that this be brought about by everyone sharing the costs of it as they can afford. The people who disagree with me would say that them having to give up some of the wealth they've hoarded is hurting them terribly, and would be traumatic and awful. And... they might be right, that it's something that would upset them very very much. They might find it horribly damaging to their self-esteem to have to have the same amount of food and housing and medical care and education as everyone else, even if those things are all abundant. That is real pain, even if I don't feel like it's justified.
I guess... I need to accept that. That my definition of "loving my enemies," (which is not so much about how I feel as it is about taking care of them) does not mean doing everything they want. That I can try to find that inner peace you get by letting go of hatred, but without agreeing that things are okay now, and should go "back to normal," and continue to maximize the comfort of those in power at the expense of everyone else.
I don't know. This is the best answer I've got, but it's not entirely satisfying. But it is simply: I want everyone to be okay, and everyone includes me, and if someone's definition of "okay" means me being hurt, then I can be partial enough to myself to choose my definition of okay instead.
...rrrrgh?
--R
2016
Straight White Liberals: Oh my God, we have to fight!
Marginalized Groups: Yes.
Straight White Liberals: (do some reading.)
SWL: Oh my God, this is not an isolated incident-- there's a whole history of systemic oppression that led us to here!
MG: ...yes.
SWL: We have to fight it!
MG: ...YES!
2020 Election: (happens)
SWL: YAY! WE WON!
MG: ... yes.*
SWL: Hurrah! Now is the time for healing!
MG: ...but... the systemic oppression?
SWL: HEALING.
MG: ...
MG: (sigh)
I keep being bothered by these conversations we have in church, where all the straight white people are like, "we can reach out to the T(ax f)r(a)u(d)mp voters! We're not so different after all, we can make peace! We can heal the divides in our country, and end this era of such negative and hateful conflict!" and all the queer people/disabled people/people of color are like, "Um. You can reach out to them. They're not trying to kill you."
As a Unitarian Universalist, and a person who used to have roughly the same philosophy before running into UUs, I have long had this dilemma: how do you respect the worth and dignity of every human being, including the human beings who are oppressing you? I do believe that everyone, even that asshole currently skulking in the White House, is a person, and deserves to be understood and taken care of, and that I will feel better when I have that attitude than when I'm stuck in anger and fear. But... he and the people enabling him have gotten thousands of people killed.
How do you respect the worth and dignity of people at the same time as you fight them?
I think the answer does end up coming down to two things:
1) Stopping someone from hurting you does not mean you don't respect their worth and dignity, or even their point of view. It might mean you disagree with their point of view, if their point of view involves you being hurt being a good thing, but that doesn't invalidate their experiences or beliefs that brought them to that conclusion. It just asserts: this is your experience, and it is different from mine, and we have different priorities. I can understand you without agreeing with you.
2) Respecting everyone's worth and dignity (hereinafter REWAD)(no, that's terrible. Let's see if I can get through without using that phrase again) can mean wanting them to be well and taken care of on my terms, not on their terms. That one is really tricky, because our definition of "wellbeing" is very different, and this has been used to justify a lot of evil in the past. But: I want everyone to be fed, housed, given medical care, educated as they wish to be, safe from physical harm, loved in meaningful relationships with people they care about, doing work they find meaningful and play they enjoy. I think it is 100% reasonable that this be brought about by everyone sharing the costs of it as they can afford. The people who disagree with me would say that them having to give up some of the wealth they've hoarded is hurting them terribly, and would be traumatic and awful. And... they might be right, that it's something that would upset them very very much. They might find it horribly damaging to their self-esteem to have to have the same amount of food and housing and medical care and education as everyone else, even if those things are all abundant. That is real pain, even if I don't feel like it's justified.
I guess... I need to accept that. That my definition of "loving my enemies," (which is not so much about how I feel as it is about taking care of them) does not mean doing everything they want. That I can try to find that inner peace you get by letting go of hatred, but without agreeing that things are okay now, and should go "back to normal," and continue to maximize the comfort of those in power at the expense of everyone else.
I don't know. This is the best answer I've got, but it's not entirely satisfying. But it is simply: I want everyone to be okay, and everyone includes me, and if someone's definition of "okay" means me being hurt, then I can be partial enough to myself to choose my definition of okay instead.
...rrrrgh?
--R
