From Popes to Puppies at Play

What is it about possession of a bone that makes human beings different, but not necessarily better, than man’s best friend?

It is intriguing and sometimes fun to consider the possibilities of tomorrow. For example, will the Arab Spring, so called, achieve the potential objective of many hopeful observers? Commenting on the path to peace, Shimon Peres, the 89-year-old president of Israel, was recently quoted:

The great and intriguing debate in Egypt today is about ... whether to give women freedom or not. It is here that the Arab Spring will be judged. President Obama asked me who I think is preventing democracy in the Middle East. I told him, 'The husbands.' The husband does not want his wife to have equal rights. Without equal rights, it will be impossible to save Egypt, because if women are not educated, the children are not educated. People who cannot read and write can’t make a living. They are finished.

Can we detect a comparable theme unfolding in Christianity's Roman Catholic Church? Will the church experience a Vatican Spring? Or slip further into an ice age of irrelevance? After all, its mistreatment of women over the centuries has been the stuff of legend, its problems stemming largely from this unnatural phenomenon. The first papal resignation in nearly 600 years is concentrating new light on a fundamental crisis which many feel may be nearing a head.

As the cardinals gather at the Vatican enclave to select the new pope, the ordinary citizen is not misled by what one church scholar refers to as “the media hype of grandly staged papal mass events or by the wild applause of conservative Catholic youth groups.” As was the case with the Wizard of Oz character villain, the infamous man behind the curtain, “behind the facade the whole house is crumbling. In this dramatic situation the church needs a pope who’s ... open to the concerns of the Reformation, to modernity.”

Relevant to the possibilities of tomorrow, the ordinary citizen would be well served to consider an interlude. Watching the simple behavior of puppies at play can be an interesting form of entertainment. Acknowledging the object of their behavior in a larger context can be enlightening. Are we able to learn anything from these creatures, who have never read a book? Give them a bone to play with, and they’ll squabble over it. But, it is usually more playful than serious. In a short while, the two former combatants can be found sound asleep, snuggling close with one another. They seem secure in the knowledge that their treasure will keep, that warmth and closeness mean so much more to them.

By contrast, when two humans decide they want the same thing, whatever the object, they will both cling, rigidly determined that each is right, and has a greater entitlement. But has either of the puppies asleep at our feet lost the treasure he tried so hard to keep? No, it lays but a few feet away, not a treasure, but an object of play. What is their contentment? Perhaps, it is the friend who plays this game with them, yet is still willing to snuggle, over and over again. And why cannot humans be the same way? Why can we not learn the great lesson here: that things are not precious, it is the friendships that are dear. For what good will this thing do, this precious bone, if in the end we find ourselves left completely alone?

Human beings have intellectual capacity, the ability to reason; communicate verbally, some on a high level. Scientists say this distinguishes and elevates humans from domesticated animals, like dogs and cats. That being the case, what is it about possession of a bone that makes human beings different, but not necessarily better, than man’s best friend?

-Michael D’Angelo

Tearing Down the Immigration Wall

(The general theme of physical and psychological barriers to US immigration in a historical context continues.)

Listen up!  Is that low rumble in the distance the first indication of a structural crack in that formidable immigration wall?

In the history textbooks, the ordinary citizen will typically find the term “immigration” linked to the term “nativism” and not in a positive way.  In truth, the terms are at opposite ends of the spectrum.  The phrase “nativism backlash” refers to citizens who are ardent opponents of immigration.  To these citizens, it’s about those already here, and preserving their way of life, rather than continuing America’s rich tradition of affording the same opportunities to new immigrants.  Perhaps, these citizens have forgotten where they came from and that they were once immigrants, too.

There’s another strange big word floating around out there in this realm: xenophobia.  Quite simply, xenophobia is the fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.   When it comes to the laws of human nature and US immigration policy in particular, the terms nativism, nativism backlash and xenophobia are unfortunately all in the mix.

The Industrial Revolution portended the next great wave of immigration, from southern and eastern Europe, as contrasted with the earlier wave from Western Europe.  Ethnic groups like the Polish, Italians, Greeks and, increasingly, the Jews, were different than prior immigrants.  Not only were they unskilled, but they also looked different, spoke different languages and had vastly different cultures than the new “native” Americans, who had earlier pushed aside the true native American culture.  T.R. had marveled in his time at both the numbers and energy of the American immigrant factory worker, without whom there would have been no industrialization and upon whom the base of the new industrial economy rested.

But nativism backlash once again reared its ugly head, slamming the golden door shut.  First, in 1882 Congress suspended Chinese immigration for a period of 10 years.  The law also drastically restricted the rights of the Chinese already in the US, many of whom were employed in the construction of the newly completed trans-continental railroad.  By the 1920s, Congress passed a series of additional laws, limiting immigration to 3% and then 2% of each nationality residing in America.

“Closing the door” on immigration became a substantial contributing cause of the Great Depression.  Politicians at the time failed to see that the overall lack of demand was partly the result of shutting off the lucrative immigrant market for such things as housing and durable goods.  Unfortunately, as with many of the other contributing factors to the Great Depression, this was not identified and understood until later.

In the late 18^th century, the #1 occupation in the US had been farming.  In the late 19^th century, manufacturing grew to become first.  But by the late 20^th century, the service industry had become the primary US occupation.  At the same time, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1965.  This law ended the immigration-limiting European quota system of the 1920s, opening the floodgates of immigration to other countries, many from the so called “third world” which embodied people of color.

Some say the new law was designed to bring in more whites to the country.  In reality, it had the opposite, unintended effect.  Today, 1 in 5 immigrants is Mexican, fulfilling a critical need to perform a whole host of new occupations in the proliferating service industries, while 1 in 4 immigrants is Asian.  The law is consequently understood to be one of the high water marks of late 20th-century American liberalism, although not perhaps what the liberals had intended.

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2009 the total fertility rate in the US was estimated to be 2.01 children per woman, which is statistically below the sub-replacement fertility threshold of 2.1.  However, the US population growth rate is among the highest in the industrialized countries, since the US has higher levels of immigration.

On the other hand, European countries such as France and Germany have population rates which are relatively stagnant, since both have below-replacement fertility rates in combination with highly restrictive immigration policies.  As a result, they are struggling to retain their cultures, developed over the centuries, as a matter of survival in the face of changing demographics.

Latin Americans, or Latinos as they are sometimes called, are the fastest growing ethnic group in the US today.  Some look to be white, others black.  And they are also all shades of color in between.  Defying simple generalization, they are mainly identified as, first, Spanish-speaking and, second, Roman Catholic.  Latinos make up about 13% of the US population.  It is estimated to be fully 50% by the year 2050.  Most recently, US immigration numbers have finally surpassed those from the Industrial Revolution era.  This places today’s era at the apex in terms of immigrants as a percentage of the total US population.

As a result, the US is becoming the first advanced, industrial nation, in which every resident will be a member of a minority group.  Although the number one ethnicity in the US remains white (German American) according to the most recent census, each demographic statistic today portends the changing face of America.  Immigration, and specifically Latino immigration, is transforming American society for the better, since we are shifting from a bi-racial (i.e.: black and white) to a multi-racial society.

-Michael D’Angelo

The Shadow of the Immigration Wall

What's casting that long shadow on the horizon of the promised land?  A large tent with a "Welcome" mat? ...

A promised land, yes, that’s what America is.  The hardy first immigrants from centuries past had come for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was to flee religious persecution and poor economic conditions in their prior homelands.  It seems that the predominant Roman Catholic sect of Christianity was having a field day over in Europe persecuting with little mercy their recalcitrant Protestant brethren.  This precipitated many of the latter to flee to the New World, seeking only religious tolerance.  Over here, the ordinary citizen is reminded to this day that the US was founded on Protestant Christian principles.

The Mayflower had set sail from England destined for America in 1620, carrying 102 passengers, 20 to 30 crew members and 2 dogs.  A group of Puritans, together with an equal number of a wing of the new Puritan movement, called Pilgrims (or Separatists), comprised the “passenger” list.  Its destination was the mouth of the Hudson River, in what is now New York City, where the passengers had received generous land grants from the king.  But, the ship was blown off course and with the combination of poor weather landed in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

The famous story highlights two interesting points.  First, since the arrival of the passengers at an unfamiliar location was beyond their charter, it appears that they were not only some of the earliest immigrants but also the first illegal immigrants.  Did they have to be sent back to do the whole trip over again in legal fashion?  Of course not.  Second, once free from religious persecution here, they would use that new freedom in a somewhat curious manner.  Turning the tables, they would interject their own brand of intolerance and exclusion on successive generations of immigrants, especially their former Roman Catholic oppressors.  Sometimes memories can be extremely long.  Revenge is not exactly a Christian principle, but it is uniquely human.  So instead of tolerance and inclusion, there would be intolerance and exclusion.

Today, roughly 35 million people, more than 10% of the total US population, claim to be Mayflower descendants.  How did it get this way?  The US population stood at a total of just under 4 million in 1790, the very first enumeration that the new constitution provided for.  Of that number, 3/5 of the white population were English, 1/5 of the white population were Scottish or Irish and 1/5 of the entire population were African American slaves.  The census asked just 5 questions: the number of free white males over 16 years old, free white males under 16, free white females, other, and number of slaves.  The new US government contained only 75 post offices nationwide.  At first glance the population seemed quite small, but it was growing very rapidly.  By 1800 the number of states had grown to 16 and the total population by more than 35% to 5.3 million.

In 1845 the US actually fought a war with Mexico, over immigration.  The immediate cause of the Mexican-American War was the US annexation of the state of Texas into the Union.  The underlying reason was related.  At the time there was what was described as an unstoppable flow of American pioneer citizens, surging west and south across the Mississippi River into Spanish Texas.  Before the divisive war had ended, the US army had marched right through the gates of Mexico City, where it received a friendly, welcome cheer from the local inhabitants.

But the 1848 treaty that ended the conflict saw a US withdrawal northward to the natural border of the Rio Grande River, setting the present southern and western border of Texas with Mexico.  The stated rationale was that the US did not want to extend the offer of US citizenship to all Mexicans.  In the aftermath of the war, the size of the US was increased by a full 1/3.  The Mexican territory, together with Texas, would net all or part of 10 additional new states, including the crown jewel of California.  At the same time, Mexican-Americans north of the border were reduced to second class US citizens in a world where intolerance and exclusion for them would continue to be the de facto law of the land.

The ordinary citizen is made to understand that Texas must be one heck of an attractive place to settle.  In the mid-19^th century it was literally overrun by US immigrants from the north and east.  But at the turn of the 21^st century Texas and the old Mexican territory which includes the US southwest are being overrun by Mexican immigrants from the south.  Along the stretch of desert border to the Pacific, many US citizens are hesitant to attempt to accommodate the influx, as they had once been accommodated.  There are some, in fact, who would go so far to say that America is justified to build a wall to seal them out.  This vision is hardly portrayed as a large tent with a welcome mat.

-Michael D'Angelo

Lenses, Filters and Walls

“Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offence. …”

As 2013 opens, guns are in the news again, with the tragic mass murders by a lone gunman inside a Newtown, CT elementary school.  Ordinary Americans are numbed by the senselessness.  At the same time, immigration and attempts to reform it are also in the news.  Are the two issues seen as fairly related?

Owing his 2012 re-election victory in large degree to overwhelming Latino and Asian support, President Obama has indicated that he will seek federal legislation on a citizenship path in what is described as a “fast push.”  Together with Senate Democrats, the president will try to carve a legislative path to citizenship for illegal immigrants with one comprehensive bill.  Republicans propose to tackle the issue piecemeal.  It seems to be a marked improvement over their pre-election policy of obstruction.

Without getting sidetracked in the partisanship generated by thorny national issues, we ordinary citizens should permit ourselves to entertain a diversion into how we see things, what we are seeing, and who, in particular, has the keys to the video room.

At one time or another, we have all heard the expression of a person who “looks at the world through rose colored glasses.”  It’s meant to describe someone who is filled with optimism, sees the positive in everything, to a fault.  That someone cannot be deterred from the mission of turning an abstract idea into a reality, sometimes against all odds.

Have we ever taken the time to consider how we see things?  Our eyes are nothing more than lenses, so the eye doctor says.  Thanks to the retina and the optic nerve, they allow us to see things.  We call this vision.  Filters help us see certain things and exclude certain other things.  Walls provide the mechanism to permit some to see all things, on their side of the wall, and to deny those on the other side from seeing anything at all.  Fences are a sort of wall.

Lenses, filters and walls each influence the way we see things. Why do we have them? The ordinary citizen’s understanding of reality flows through a prism that reflects all sorts of things other than reality, self-interest being among them. Muckraking author Upton Sinclair once said that “It is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it.”

Perhaps, a good place to begin a discussion, and end this week’s reflection, is with an excerpt from a poem.  In 1914 at about the time of the outbreak of World War I, the Great War as it was then known, Robert Frost authored a poem titled Mending Wall.  The poem is most notable perhaps for the popular line “Good fences make good neighbors.”  But it is rather the following lines which inspire the intensity of reflection which passionate issues sometimes demand:

“Before I built a wall I'd ask to know

What I was walling in or walling out,

And to whom I was like to give offence.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,

That wants it down.”

While some walls would appear to be absolutely necessary, can we identify any in our own ordinary lives behind whose protective shadow we could benefit from some shared company?  Can we identify other walls which may have outgrown their usefulness, which by all rights should come down?

-Michael D'Angelo