by Daryl Dominic Tan
We all know what it's like to be a victim. We have all been a victim at some point of time in our lives, though for majority of us - only on a minor scale; perhaps someone stole something from you, or some people whom you thought were your close friends banded together and made fun of you or humiliated you in front of others.
This cannot be compared to what victims of sheer violence go through. What drives this violence - whether it's bullying or discrimination by virtue of racism, homophobia or sexual assault - is extremely horrifying. Victims of such violence undergo traumatic experiences that essentially shatter their entire lives, and I believe, just as any sane person would, that perpetrators of such acts should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Because our hearts cry out in sympathy to victims of such horrendous misfortune, we try to offer as much as we can as compassionate human beings to support these people. Often times, we read that victims of terrorism in the Middle East, for example, receive the funding they need via Social Media or GoFundMe pages, to rebuild their lives after videos of their plight go viral online. Many of these victims receive the necessary attention they need in order to garner moral support to overcome their trauma.
The adverse effect of this is that there are also many out there who seek to exploit this fact in order to build their careers, or to further a personal or political agenda. These same people do a great disservice to real victims out there by negating, diminishing, and even cheapening the significance of the horrific tragedies that real victims undergo.
The past week saw the media abuzz with reports about Jussie Smollett, an actor best known for being in 'Empire', staging a 'hate crime' on himself. Smollett hired two Nigerian brothers, instructed them to buy red hats (identical to the MAGA hats worn by Trump and his supporters) and a noose, and paid them (with Cheques *snicker*) to 'attack' him and to make it look like he was a victim of racism and homophobia.
Everyone was outraged when the news reports first came swarming in that Jussie Smollett was brutalized by alleged Trump supporters. However there were holes in the story to begin with. As almost everyone has already pointed out - why would 'Trump supporters' be prowling the streets in the middle of the night hunting down a Black and Gay man, largely unknown as an actor, simply to perpetrate a hate crime? I'm pretty sure your typical Trump supporter doesn't even watch 'Empire' in the first place to even know who Jussie Smollett is. Furthermore, the Chicago police investigators handling the case were suspicious that Smollett somehow knew there was a surveillance camera at the location of his attack (although it was pointed in the wrong direction).
Smollett even had the audacity to look Robin Roberts square in the eyes following this 'incident' on a televised ABC interview, and lie to her right in her face, lamenting with glassy eyes that he hoped justice would be served, particularly about "wanting to still believe that with everything - there's still justice, if not, what is it all for?." If you want to believe that there's still justice, maybe you should try starting with yourself and learn how to be honest, Jussie.
Upon further investigation, the cops found evidence that Jussie Smollett staged the entire fiasco. I'm not going to go into a whole report on this. There's Google for that. The bigger point here is - why would Jussie Smollett do such a thing? Most News sources have come out to say that he was unhappy with his salary and wanted a pay raise.
Bullshit.
Jussie Smollett wanted the attention that comes along with being a victim. As a Gay and Black American man, he wanted to use this to his advantage, and he wanted people to know him (he sure as hell succeeded), to listen to him, and to love him (meh, not so much here), and what other way than to throw Trump supporters under the bus?!
This is indeed a frightening thought - that being a victim is something to be exalted or to be glorified these days. Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast said it best when he stated that "The desire for sympathy and the moral authority that comes from being victimized has replaced the desire for admiration or respect for some act of heroism."
What's alarming is that this isn't some one-off incident in recent times. Several weeks ago, we saw on the news that a bunch of Covington Catholic High School students, most notably Nicholas Sandmann, were demonized for 'harassing' one Nathan Phillips, a Native American activist, based on a short video clip posted on social media of Sandmann smiling to Phillips while a drum was being banged (by Phillips) in his face near the Lincoln Memorial.
Thanks to Twitter, a longer video of what had actually transpired eventually surfaced. Again, I'm not going into detail here as there's Google for that, but in a nutshell, Nicholas Sandmann and his Schoolmates weren't harassing Nathan Phillips. In fact, Nicholas Sandmann and his cohorts were being harassed by a different group of people present at the scene who call themselves the Black Hebrew Israelites. The Black Hebrew Israelites were insulting the Students and yelling all sorts of expletives at them. Nathan Phillips, part of a Native American demonstration decided to join the fray and as the video shows - he walks right up to the students and bangs a drum right in Nicholas Sandmann's face.
CNN was extremely quick to pick up on this story as it did with the Jussie Smollett story because these were stories about people they believed to be victims - victims of "the Trump phenomenon" as CNN would like to have you believe. In short, Victimization sells. CNN realized this, and so did Jussie Smollett. Heck, even Nathan Phillips did.
Despite the longer video surfacing, Nathan Phillips too was interviewed regarding his 'ordeal', and he spoke dramatically about how he was harassed and how "Build a wall" chants were directed towards him, although such chants aren't audible in any of the available videos of the confrontation.
The Mainstream Media's stark narrative to smear Trump in every and any way possible drives this insidious behaviour. Be portrayed as a victim, and better yet - a victim of "the Trump phenomenon", and you will be heard. You will be given a voice. This standard operating procedure of the Mainstream Media is the reason why people want to be victims - even if they are not. The most ironic thing about this is that the Mainstream Media talks a whole lot about fighting Fake News, but aids in its creation by furthering a political agenda so blatant it's laughable.
This exaltation of victimhood culture isn't just confined to the United States of America just because Trump is the incumbent. I see it all over the world. It goes deeper than Trump. It's the new Cultural Progressive ethos that has seeped into societies across the globe. I see it thriving where I live.
Minorities where I come from claim to be victims of racism when in fact they conflate racism with racial stereotyping, slap a label on it called "Casual Racism" or "Microaggression", and thus cheapen and negate the experiences of real victims of racism, such as the Apartheid era Black South Africans.
What's worse, I can't call them out on this. I can't criticize their viewpoint. Why? Because I'm part of the majority. I have no say. I am privileged. I do not experience what they do, therefore what I have to say doesn't matter at all. What I think is worth squat unless I tow the line. Isn't this a form of censorship on their part? It's easy for people to use this as a defensive tool in argumentative situations so they can avoid having to use reason or logic to engage in a debate. They just throw the "victim card" and by virtue of that you have to shut up.
But if they get all the "airtime" while sitting comfortably in their cushy echo chambers, and no one can say anything about them, or offer a different opinion (anyone who offers a thought against this orthodoxy is a racist bigot), or questions the veracity and authenticity of their claims - then they are in a position to get away with exactly what Jussie Smollett did. Thankfully, Smollett was caught due to his utter lack of foresight in executing his plan. How many 'victims' out there have fabricated pity-inducing stories to propel themselves to attention and fame? We will never truly know.
It has reached a point where people are competing to be more disadvantaged to see who commands more moral authority and sympathy. For many today, to be a victim means to be in a position of power, while a true victim simply wants to heal from his or her suffering and not make a circus show out of it.
Monday, February 25, 2019
Friday, February 08, 2019
Deepening my Understanding of Conservatism through Chinese New Year
by Daryl Dominic Tan
Conservatism has a bad reputation, often because too many people don't even know what it means to be "conservative". Your typical modern day folk conflates Conservatism with rigidity, bigotry, line-dancing, boring old folks, cowboy hats, absolute resistance to change in any way, shape or form, or any variation or combination of the aforementioned.
Conservatism is not all of the above. If one bothers to actually read Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, or Roger Scruton, one comes to realize that Conservatism is not about resisting change, but rather about respecting experience, customary traditions & ancestral wisdom.
Conservatism is, as Michael Oakeshott famously proclaimed:
Conservatism is not an ideology per se. It scoffs at the notion of an "ideology" as history has shown time & time again that ideologies of different stripes often beget unrestrained revolutions which necessitate outright erosion of cultural values (i.e. the practical implementation of Marxism in the 20th Century which we will visit again later). Sadly, the concept of "ideology" is often pigeonholed with "intellectualism" and "intelligence" today. Thomas Sowell, however, brilliantly deconstructs this false dichotomy in his seminal work 'Intellectuals and Society' by explaining that "intellectualism" and "intelligence" are distinct from each other. He describes an intellectual's work as "beginning with ideas and ending with ideas." Conservatism, on the other hand, recognizes that while ideas certainly have some value such as the ability to rouse and inspire, ideas are also often limited in terms of practical application. A typical 'intellectual', especially in modern academia, is unconcerned with such practicality as long as his or her ideas gain traction among college students, irrespective of how fancifully utopian they may be.
More importantly, the point that I want to make is that conservatives welcome change (contrary to popular belief) - but only when change is absolutely necessary, realistically capable of being implemented, and in small doses. This is to prevent an outright upheaval of customary traditions and practical wisdom bestowed to us by our ancestors. Such upheaval occurred with the violent French Revolution (which Edmund Burke was so vehemently opposed to), the implementation of Communism in Russia in the 20th Century, as well as the abolition of Confucian teachings that promoted traditional family values such as filial piety in China after embracing the same Communism that tore Russia asunder. Many on the Radical Left today, when desperately decrying Conservatism, fail to remember these historical events that caused humanity much bloodshed, and instead wish to overhaul entire structures and foundations that have been laid by our ancestors before us for centuries.
This aspect of change vis a vis Conservatism was something I learnt about a few days ago during Chinese New Year which fell on the 5th and 6th of February of this year. As part of an ongoing quest to find out more about my heritage & roots, I decided to devote an extra amount of time this year to helping my Mother prepare food for the Chinese New Year season and to observe the customs that she followed (Matriarchs form an important part of Chinese families, and mothers are often walking repositories of customary traditions). Armed with a pen and notebook, I intently scribbled down recipes that my Mother learnt from her parents, as well as a list of "To do's" for this festive occasion. One such recipe, famous among my family & friends, is what's known as her signature "Lucky Balls" dish - which is basically steamed Chinese meatballs construed to be fortuitous because of its vibrant array of colours.
This recipe was passed down to my Mom by my paternal Grandfather who used to be a chef, and he would only cook these "Lucky Balls" once a year for Chinese New Year. Mom, a brilliant chef herself (though only for private hire) took the extra effort to learn the recipe and has been preparing this meal every year since. This Chinese New Year, I took notice that Mom had added two extra ingredients to her "Lucky Balls" dish that my Grandfather had not initially added. Was this a break in tradition? I doubt it. It was my Mom adding her own "touch" to the "Lucky Balls" recipe - which, of course, made it tastier. Perhaps, I might add a special touch of my own to the recipe as well in the future. And this is precisely what the value of custom & tradition is about - not sticking rigidly to old practices, but adding something new or adapting it every time it passes down to the next generation. Mom didn't rigidly or stubbornly stick to custom & tradition for the sake of it. She adapted it, changed it, but more significantly - in minute amounts.
Upheaval, for me, would be something like making "Lucky Sausages" out of the ingredients traditionally used for my Mom's "Lucky Balls" dish, for there is nothing I cherish more than the memories of my Mom moulding the mixture of meat and other ingredients (I'm obviously not telling) into the particular spherical shape I've been accustomed to seeing & eating since I was a young boy.
As one final example, Mom ordinarily uses rock sugar for her special Chinese New Year drink consisting of Red Dates and Longans, but this year, she used fine sugar for the sake of convenience. Is this an upheaval of tradition? No it isn't. The very essence and substance of the practice remains.
Likewise, this is reflective of Conservatism properly understood, and particularly how conservatives view change - that change, should it occur, be fomented through a delicate process. We change what is necessary, or adapt certain practices to our times, but we ultimately respect and keep the substance of our customary traditions and ancestral wisdom alive. As Roger Scruton succinctly establishes in his recent book 'Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition' - "As [Edmund] Burke said, 'we must reform in order to conserve', or, in more modern idiom: we must adapt. But we adapt to change in the name of continuity, in order to conserve what we are and what we have."
With that, I wish everyone reading a very Happy Chinese New Year.
Conservatism has a bad reputation, often because too many people don't even know what it means to be "conservative". Your typical modern day folk conflates Conservatism with rigidity, bigotry, line-dancing, boring old folks, cowboy hats, absolute resistance to change in any way, shape or form, or any variation or combination of the aforementioned.
Conservatism is not all of the above. If one bothers to actually read Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, or Roger Scruton, one comes to realize that Conservatism is not about resisting change, but rather about respecting experience, customary traditions & ancestral wisdom.
Conservatism is, as Michael Oakeshott famously proclaimed:
"to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss."
Conservatism is not an ideology per se. It scoffs at the notion of an "ideology" as history has shown time & time again that ideologies of different stripes often beget unrestrained revolutions which necessitate outright erosion of cultural values (i.e. the practical implementation of Marxism in the 20th Century which we will visit again later). Sadly, the concept of "ideology" is often pigeonholed with "intellectualism" and "intelligence" today. Thomas Sowell, however, brilliantly deconstructs this false dichotomy in his seminal work 'Intellectuals and Society' by explaining that "intellectualism" and "intelligence" are distinct from each other. He describes an intellectual's work as "beginning with ideas and ending with ideas." Conservatism, on the other hand, recognizes that while ideas certainly have some value such as the ability to rouse and inspire, ideas are also often limited in terms of practical application. A typical 'intellectual', especially in modern academia, is unconcerned with such practicality as long as his or her ideas gain traction among college students, irrespective of how fancifully utopian they may be.
More importantly, the point that I want to make is that conservatives welcome change (contrary to popular belief) - but only when change is absolutely necessary, realistically capable of being implemented, and in small doses. This is to prevent an outright upheaval of customary traditions and practical wisdom bestowed to us by our ancestors. Such upheaval occurred with the violent French Revolution (which Edmund Burke was so vehemently opposed to), the implementation of Communism in Russia in the 20th Century, as well as the abolition of Confucian teachings that promoted traditional family values such as filial piety in China after embracing the same Communism that tore Russia asunder. Many on the Radical Left today, when desperately decrying Conservatism, fail to remember these historical events that caused humanity much bloodshed, and instead wish to overhaul entire structures and foundations that have been laid by our ancestors before us for centuries.
This aspect of change vis a vis Conservatism was something I learnt about a few days ago during Chinese New Year which fell on the 5th and 6th of February of this year. As part of an ongoing quest to find out more about my heritage & roots, I decided to devote an extra amount of time this year to helping my Mother prepare food for the Chinese New Year season and to observe the customs that she followed (Matriarchs form an important part of Chinese families, and mothers are often walking repositories of customary traditions). Armed with a pen and notebook, I intently scribbled down recipes that my Mother learnt from her parents, as well as a list of "To do's" for this festive occasion. One such recipe, famous among my family & friends, is what's known as her signature "Lucky Balls" dish - which is basically steamed Chinese meatballs construed to be fortuitous because of its vibrant array of colours.
This recipe was passed down to my Mom by my paternal Grandfather who used to be a chef, and he would only cook these "Lucky Balls" once a year for Chinese New Year. Mom, a brilliant chef herself (though only for private hire) took the extra effort to learn the recipe and has been preparing this meal every year since. This Chinese New Year, I took notice that Mom had added two extra ingredients to her "Lucky Balls" dish that my Grandfather had not initially added. Was this a break in tradition? I doubt it. It was my Mom adding her own "touch" to the "Lucky Balls" recipe - which, of course, made it tastier. Perhaps, I might add a special touch of my own to the recipe as well in the future. And this is precisely what the value of custom & tradition is about - not sticking rigidly to old practices, but adding something new or adapting it every time it passes down to the next generation. Mom didn't rigidly or stubbornly stick to custom & tradition for the sake of it. She adapted it, changed it, but more significantly - in minute amounts.
Upheaval, for me, would be something like making "Lucky Sausages" out of the ingredients traditionally used for my Mom's "Lucky Balls" dish, for there is nothing I cherish more than the memories of my Mom moulding the mixture of meat and other ingredients (I'm obviously not telling) into the particular spherical shape I've been accustomed to seeing & eating since I was a young boy.
As one final example, Mom ordinarily uses rock sugar for her special Chinese New Year drink consisting of Red Dates and Longans, but this year, she used fine sugar for the sake of convenience. Is this an upheaval of tradition? No it isn't. The very essence and substance of the practice remains.
Likewise, this is reflective of Conservatism properly understood, and particularly how conservatives view change - that change, should it occur, be fomented through a delicate process. We change what is necessary, or adapt certain practices to our times, but we ultimately respect and keep the substance of our customary traditions and ancestral wisdom alive. As Roger Scruton succinctly establishes in his recent book 'Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition' - "As [Edmund] Burke said, 'we must reform in order to conserve', or, in more modern idiom: we must adapt. But we adapt to change in the name of continuity, in order to conserve what we are and what we have."
With that, I wish everyone reading a very Happy Chinese New Year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)