DIARY OF A PART TIME FUTURIST - OF PRINCIPLES AND PARTISANSHIP

I have recently seen the opinion expressed, within a number of discussions about the well publicised confrontation between students from Covington Catholic High School (CCHS) and a group of native Americans, that “the boys were just innocently standing there and were being abused for an hour before they were approached, they did nothing wrong and in fact it reflects well on them that they didn't do anything more or sooner.” This is the kind of opinion that gets propagated because its carefully constructed to be, and that is dangerous. The way it works, something I've seen this deployed on the internet any number of times, is that you create a simple statement that superficially seems highly reasonable regarding the primary message, but that is actually loaded with bias that you don't pick up on because its secondary to the main narrative. The fact that I tend to see this particular opinion written in essentially the same way may be down it being a simple statement or may be an indicator that it is being positively driven by those representing the CCHS boys (if you think this fanciful then I'd point out that a PR team was hired by the CCHS group immediately after the event and they must be doing something for the money). So, let's take it apart.

            First and foremost the boys weren't just “innocently standing there.” The native Americans were specifically protesting about the building of the wall along the Mexican border, believing it to be morally wrong and fundamentally against their principles. The wall has been a key point of Trump's campaign and presidency, with the funding for it being the trigger of the recent lengthy government shutdown. The vast majority of the CCHS boys were wearing “MAGA” caps which allies them closely to Trump and politicises their presence. By adopting this specific partisan symbol “simply standing there” as a group was not a politically passive, or “innocent” action. It was clearly a case of political activism.

            Secondly, it would appear that the boys were in fact abused by a third group, the “Black Hebrew Israelites” – something I remain disgusted by. To suggest that the abuse by one racial group gives sanction to react in a certain way to another group though is a dangerous lesson to be teaching the boys. It reinforces that there is “white” and there is “other” with no discernment, or even a basic need to recognise that society and race is multi-layered and complex. Moving away from the race issue you could then reduce it to “us” and “them”, with anyone who does not agree with your view being put together in one group and treated the same no matter what they have - or have not - done. These are the values of totalitarianism.

            Thirdly, they were being abused for an hour before reacting. This is given as a measure of their self-control but conveniently glosses over a major issue which is “Why did they stand there for an hour?” They are pubescent boys who were attending a socio-political rally (an anti-abortion demonstration); i.e. they are at a point in life where they are dealing with raging hormones and establishing their place in the world, engaging in something that is likely to be surrounded by tensions and conflict. As such you would expect them to be supervised to ensure they didn't get themselves into trouble. The obvious question then is “Where is the adult supervision?” Where is the authority figure guiding them away from this abuse and keeping them safe? What kind of adult would stand by and let a group of children be abused for an hour without getting the police involved and having it stopped? Look wider and you open your eyes to further possible courses of action. Moving away from the situation would have been a good choice. Removing their political insignia would have been a good choice. The point is there were any number of options available and defiantly standing there with their MAGA caps on does not automatically make them admirable, it makes them arrogant or stubborn.

            Then we get to them finally reacting after this hour of abuse. I'm relieved to see in the video that the boys don't look intimidated or frightened. This is no doubt partly down to the sheer number of them but whatever the reason, it does rather remove the abuse as an excuse for the way they behaved. Instead they look calm or excited with the situation they are in. How then can heightened emotions caused by abuse by cited as validation for their actions?

            Finally, the idea that the native Americans moved towards them. There is a key perspective issue in this where the two options are that the native Americans moved towards them and the boys didn't back down or the native Americans were moving and the boys blocked them. Again, no matter where the truth lies in this, simply standing aside would have made this a nothing. Instead there is a confrontation with the boys acting in a mocking manner.

            Why is all this important? In this specific case, its a demonstration about how its easy to latch onto seemingly simple statements that have an air of unimpeachable validity but which can be picked apart. We live in a world of crude yet effective propaganda and if nothing else its a warning that now, more than ever, critical thinking is required. As regards the incident itself then there are multiple issues. Apart from those covered above there is the historical context of the confrontation. The native Americans, through a continuous campaign since the first European settlers arrived, have had their traditional life ripped from them, been oppressed en masse, disenfranchised, vilified and negatively stereotyped through all levels of social culture. They have been subjected to ghetto-isation, cultural subjugation and genocide - all by the invading Europeans. The boys were not responsible for this but they should be aware enough not to mock the cultural touchstones that have been retained or revived. The action of one parent, who apparently Tweeted “I only wish the pioneers had brought more blankets with smallpox” is directly comparable to a German citizen Tweeting “Hitler should have built more gas chambers.” Perhaps here we see the roots of the underlying causes for this skirmish?

             I have no reason to believe these boys, as a group, are any more wicked or virtuous than any other similar group of boys. However their behaviour was unacceptable and indefensible. If there are not reasonable consequences for their actions then how can we expect them to learn not only that what they did was wrong, but why it was wrong? What chance have they of growing up with an accurate view of their place in the world and how to interact with others – of behaving in what we consider as a fundamentally decent manner? How much more dangerous then if their behaviour is followed by an aggressive defence, manufactured validation or public support from a President who needs to keep his core supporters on side? What these boys, and all of America, are being taught through the pantomime that is currently being played out is that if you are of the political right, rich and white then you are supreme above all men and can behave how you please. The CCHS is an expensive private school, these boys come from a background of money, power and influence. As they go through life the probability is that they too will gain power and influence, and that is when the folly of partisan protection over a principled response will become fully apparent. These boys are not monsters but after this you wonder if they will believe – unquestioningly and uncritically - that tomorrow belongs to them?