People ask how might we “meet in the middle,” as though this represents a safe, neutral and civilized space.
✁
The middle is a point equidistant from two poles.
That’s it.
There is nothing inherently virtuous about being neither here nor there.
Buried in this is a false equivalency of ideas, what you might call the “good people on both sides” phenomenon. When we revisit our shameful past, ask yourself, Where was the middle?
Rather than chattel slavery, perhaps we could agree on a nice program of indentured servitude?
Instead of subjecting Japanese-American citizens to indefinite detention during WW II, what if we had agreed to give them actual sentences and perhaps provided a receipt for them to reclaim their things when they were released?
What is halfway between moral and immoral?
The search for the middle is rooted in conflict avoidance and denial. For many Americans it is painful to understand that there are citizens of our community who are deeply racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic.
Certainly, they reason, this current moment is somehow a complicated misunderstanding. Perhaps there is some way to look at this–a view from the middle–that would allow us to communicate and realize that our national identity is the tie that will bind us comfortably, and with a bow.
The headlines that lament a “divided” America suggest that the fact that we can’t all get along is more significant than the issues over which we are sparring.
✁
Is it more essential that we comprehend the motives of white nationalists, or is it more urgent that we prevent them from terrorizing communities of color and those who oppose racism?
Should we agree to disagree about the murder and dismemberment of a journalist? Should we celebrate our tolerance and civility as we stanch the wounds of the world and the climate with a poultice of national unity?
✁
Compromise is not valuable in its own right, and justice seldom dwells in the middle.
Repost from a few days ago.
~
People ask how might we “meet in the middle,” as though this represents a safe, neutral and civilized space.
✁
The middle is a point equidistant from two poles.
That’s it.
There is nothing inherently virtuous about being neither here nor there.
Buried in this is a false equivalency of ideas, what you might call the “good people on both sides” phenomenon. When we revisit our shameful past, ask yourself, Where was the middle?
Rather than chattel slavery, perhaps we could agree on a nice program of indentured servitude?
Instead of subjecting Japanese-American citizens to indefinite detention during WW II, what if we had agreed to give them actual sentences and perhaps provided a receipt for them to reclaim their things when they were released?
What is halfway between moral and immoral?
The search for the middle is rooted in conflict avoidance and denial. For many Americans it is painful to understand that there are citizens of our community who are deeply racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic.
Certainly, they reason, this current moment is somehow a complicated misunderstanding. Perhaps there is some way to look at this–a view from the middle–that would allow us to communicate and realize that our national identity is the tie that will bind us comfortably, and with a bow.
The headlines that lament a “divided” America suggest that the fact that we can’t all get along is more significant than the issues over which we are sparring.
✁
Is it more essential that we comprehend the motives of white nationalists, or is it more urgent that we prevent them from terrorizing communities of color and those who oppose racism?
Should we agree to disagree about the murder and dismemberment of a journalist? Should we celebrate our tolerance and civility as we stanch the wounds of the world and the climate with a poultice of national unity?
✁
Compromise is not valuable in its own right, and justice seldom dwells in the middle.