THE MEANING IN GOLF

Posted on December 30, 2014 by

“I don’t know why anyone plays such a silly game! All you do is knock a little ball around in a field until you get it in a hole. What’s the big thrill about that?”

Sound familiar, golfers? If your spouse has never sung that tune, then likely some of your non-golfing friends have—even if they have not said it to you personally. Most non-golfers have trouble seeing the passion we golfers have about the game. Pars, birdies, tees, bogies, drivers—these terms are as obscure as Sanskrit to them. That first Scottish shepherd who obsessively whacked rocks around the pasture with his shepherd’s crook, trying to knock them into rabbit holes, probably caught hell from his wife for ignoring her and the children and being late for his suppertime haggis.

Even today, many golfers suffer that shepherd’s plight, having difficulty explaining to outsiders the true significance of the game. Non-golfers often view golfers as a strange breed of masochists—trudging around hilly fields, carrying heavy golf bags on their backs, riding in funny looking vehicles, whacking balls, and cursing when their shots go astray. At least the professional golfers they occasionally see on television have a bit more credibility, because they are paid for their efforts.

What many do not know is that most pros play the game for the same reasons that amateurs do—they love the game! Touring pro, Hubert Green, has said he would rather practice than play—and they do not offer prize money for practice. Ben Hogan said in his book that he could not wait for the sun to come up each day so he could get to the practice tee. And Arnold Palmer has exalted how thrilling it was to get on the course to break in a new pair of golf shoes! After five decades of competition, long after he was regularly winning tournaments and the cash window was closed, old age had to drag Sam Snead out of competition. Like our Scottish shepherd, these men obviously played for reasons than ran deeper than money alone. Moreover, the “fresh air-sunshine-beautiful scenery-companionship” theory of why people play golf is an incomplete explanation. There is a principle of psychology that recognizes that people engage in activities they are good at, but, paradoxically, golf attracts people of all degrees of skill.

Thus, psychology might offer some answers for golfers’ persistence for the game, but we are seeking reasons that are more satisfying—rising into the rarified airs of the philosophical and somewhat spiritual realms of this great game. Since most serious golfers are homespun philosophers anyway—especially at the 19^th hole—the following discourse should not prove alien.

This leads to the central point: People play golf because it helps them find meaning in their lives. Golf continually affirms them as suffering, struggling, striving humans, who are pulled back to the golf course time after time in efforts to complete themselves as human beings. Through the playing of golf one can feel—like viewing a dramatic movie or play—what it is to be an active, participating person in the game of life in general. A round of golf is like life in miniature, condensed into eighteen holes, during which one will run the gamut of difficult, life-like experiences, with many opportunities for each golfer to “test one’s self by fire.” Though all sports offer these dimensions, it is reasoned that golf does it best.

In this essay, we will look at five areas covering our discussion: Simplicity, Rules, Etiquette, Difficulty, and Suffering. When one plays a round of golf these concepts combine into a complete physical/mental/social/spiritual experience, which each player subconsciously interprets as meaningful, even when the results are not pleasant. Non-golfers are unaware of this experience, and most golfers are not conscious of it, so there is always the mystery of the game hovering over both sides. However, the 19^th hole usually alleviates the resultant ambiguity.

SIMPLICITY

Golf is a simple game—USGA rules notwithstanding! You take a club—ill designed for the task, according to Winston Churchill—and hit the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible. You need no other players, officials, or observers: just a club, a ball, and a piece of ground. This simplicity minimizes outside distractions and excuses, forcing the player to focus inwardly on one’s thoughts, feelings, and expectations. If our golfer misses a one-foot putt, it’s hard to blame any outside forces—though some try, which is a special form of denial.

In games such as baseball and football, the player’s attention is constantly directed outward onto other people and objects: there are opponents to beat, officials to argue with, fans to please, managers to impress, and moving balls to handle. Players can easily excuse their poor performance as being caused by things beyond their control. Such excuses as “He’s throwing spitters!”, “That umpire is blind!”, “Ref, that guy was holding!”, “He missed the tag!” are all soothing excuses to players trying to escape individual responsibility by trying to blame others for their poor performances. Bad backs, not feeling well, rotten luck, bad weather, and out-dated clubs are standard excuses also. Nevertheless, the game makes such excuses difficult to justify, because the game’s simplicity offers little rationale for self-deception. A baseball player, who watches a called third strike with the bases loaded, can blame the umpire for missing a close call, but who is Tiger Woods going to blame for a missed two-foot putt to blow the U.S. Open? Simplicity forces the realization that players cause their own failures, leading to struggling and suffering. Thus, golf “offers” a unique opportunity for wrestling with one’s own psyche.

Critics might say that we have no justification for calling golf a simple game when it has the most extensive body of literature of any game. Just look at today’s golf magazines and instructional books, with their countless, differing theories and opinions on the complexities of swing mechanics. Indeed, when physicists analyze the golf swing scientifically, it is shown that the combination of golf shaft flexibility, club head design, ball cover and dimple design, impact dynamics, tempo and timing, among a myriad of other factors, does make the game appear complicated. For example, recent discoveries about sub-atomic particles make for more complexity that we used to know, but even with ignorance of these realities, scientists still invented the atom bomb years ago! So, even if golf does have its complexities, it can be managed by emphasizing those simple factors that matter the most.

There are golfers whose heads are so full of these distracting complexities that they suffer from “paralysis by analysis,” and the pro instructor will usually try to get the student to focus on just a few things that are manageable. From this we can see that the perceived complexity of the game is a reflection of the complicated perceptions and thought processes of the individual’s mind.

RULES

In the beginning, the rules were simpler: put the ball on a pinch of sand, hit it, and do not touch or pick it up until it is in the hole. Such strict rules once made golf a more difficult game than it is today, because it made more demands on the player. This is what some golf purists would have us return to today, but this would not be popular and would hurt participation in the game. In recent years, many exceptions and new rules have been added, with specific drops, relief from casual water, and other compensations, which allow some limited touching of the ball between the tee and the hole.

However, despite this trend of liberalization, golf’s rules still present a firm challenge. First, they are difficult to read and understand. Even many pros do not understand them as thoroughly as they should, so they occasionally have to get help from rules officials during their rounds. But most of the time the golfers are their own referees, with no one checking up on them, the honor system being in full force. If the golfer hits it in the woods, out of the sight of other players, and moves the ball to a better spot, no one will ever know. So each player must decide in such situations whether to be a person of honor or not. The behavior that players follow regarding the rules will reflect what kind of persons they are. Whatever reputation one develops will quickly be known to all concerned.

ETIQUETTE

Golfing etiquette extends the player into the social world of other golfing companions, usually in a foursome, with all players struggling and equally stressed by this difficult game—all doomed to fall short of their golfing hopes and dreams. Despite this, they are expected to maintain a high level of courtesy and decorum at all times—often when they would rather let the beast in them rage when their game goes astray. Woe be it to the golfer who loses control or cheats on his companions. All will know that there’s a long way to go for that golfer to become a better person, and we will not be far off the mark if we conclude that similar behavior will likely follow in other areas of life when the “heat is on.” Conversely, the golfer who feels like berating an inept caddy or boorish partner, but restrains himself and does not do so publicly because of the code of etiquette, is resolving an internal struggle within, which strengths character. In effect, golfers will then have suffered, endured, and transcended the inner pain of their psychic worlds, making golf a game of personal self-improvement, giving it tremendous meaning to the player.

DIFFICULTY

The intrinsic difficulty of executing a good shot—where the clubface being open or closed just a few degrees at impact can cause a huge error down the fairway—making perfection impossible. That supreme technician, Ben Hogan, said that only one or two shots per round came off exactly as planned, making most golf shots near misses at best. Thus, it’s easy to see that we have a forceful dilemma: golf asks for a perfection which is not possible—but most golfers expect it of themselves anyway, guaranteeing ongoing frustration and anguish. This extreme difficulty of making excellent shots is a constant test of one’s inner strength, and golfers show this inner mettle to themselves and others by the way they handle the struggle. Players must deal with varying degrees of failure on every shot, struggling continuously. I recall a friend who complained vigorously after his first hole-in-one, “But I hit it on the toe of the club!” he yelled. Though the result of his swing was perfect, his swing was not, so he could not fully enjoy what he had accomplished. Then, years later, when we were playing together, he made his fourth hole-in-one, and was quite satisfied when he said, “I hit that one perfect!”

Though this is an unusual example, it shows that one can choose any attitude toward the game, and this is part of the challenge.

SUFFERING

As we have seen, golfers are going to suffer. They are playing a simple but exacting game, showing all how they function under stress. Golfers have to constantly test themselves against strict rules and behave in formal, prescribed manners. Under these conditions, a certain degree of mental anguish is inevitable.

In his book, Man’s Search For Meaning, psychiatrist, Viktor Frankl, asserts that we all have one ultimate freedom that cannot be taken away: to choose our attitude in any situation, no matter how desperate. The attitudes we choose while in our individual states of anguish with our golf games, will determine the degree of meaning the game has for us. Like few other sports, golf offers the player many situations in which to suffer—with total freedom to choose one’s attitude in response. It is this opportunity to succeed or fail in choosing the proper attitude in each challenging situation that makes the game so compelling. If golfers choose growth-promoting attitudes, and struggle with their shots as best as possible, and are able to “forgive” themselves for not being perfect, they will then judge themselves as responsible sports participants. This constant struggle to seek the proper attitude, while still enjoying the game, is what repeatedly pulls the golfers back to the course. Selecting a good, clear positive attitude helps one rise above the suffering and become a better golfer-person.

As a added bonus, this examination of suffering helps us to understand that particular form of stress seen in serious competitions with the pros and amateurs: the “yips.” For those familiar with certain psychological principles, the yips are seen as mild phobias, which are learned fear- responses to those situations it golf where failure was traumatic. Usually the yips occur because of missing too many shiort putts in serious competitions, when the golfer believes there’s no way one should miss such putts. This pressure usually arises in individuals driven to perfection in their golf games, which, paradoxically, is the reason they tend to be golfers in the first place! These yips are nervous afflictions, which cause muscular twitches and spasms, rendering it difficult to deliver a smooth, accurate stroke on a short putt. Imagine the anguish and turmoil in those pro golfers who have allowed the yips to drive them from the tour. Tommy Armour has spoken of the terrors of short putts placing greater pressure on his nervous system than did the rigors of wartime combat. Moreover, what is not generally known, the immortal Bobby Jones quit serious tournament competition at age 28 because he became afflicted with the yips and other nervous afflictions related to golf. During the later years of his golfing life, Ben Hogan was a pitiful sight to his golfing competitors as he jabbed at short putts in competitive situations.

In his later golfing life, Sam Snead became afflicted with the yips, or at least his putting prowess tumbled into such despair that he began putting the ball from beneath his legs, croquet style. Later, that method was outlawed by the USGA, so he changed again and began putting “sidesaddle,” with the ball off to his right side while he faced the hole directly. This method worked for him, and he was able to play very good golf through his sixties. I have attended golf tournaments and looked Sam Snead in the eye, and was impressed with his determined look, yips or no yips! Snead was not going to let his nerves stop him. He accepted the challenge of the yips, changed his style of putting to one that made him more comfortable, thus rising above his old, dysfunctional style of putting. I have known many people like that, so never bet against them. If they can’t beat you they’ll probably outlast you!

As an aside, there is a therapeutic technique that can cure the yips and other phobias; it is called systematic desensitization, and is almost 100% effective. Counselors and psychologists are well versed in this process, and just a few sessions will do the job.

Therefore, the human growth that golf promotes by the individual handling suffering explains one of the challenges of golf. We now see why Ben Hogan climbed out of his near-deathbed just months after his terrible auto accident, and climbed his way back to the top of the tour in the Los Angeles Open of 1950. He went on to even greater success the next few years, despite significant physical challenges.

Beginning golfers soon learn they will experience both joy and suffering in their golfing lives, but they also learn howkpoorly equipped that are able to handle this difficult game. So, they either cope with it or quit. Those who persist develop internal strengths that flow into all aspects of their lives.

SUMMARY

All non-golfers reading this are either yawning or are puzzled. Many may think I’m making a lot over very little, but my experience over 60 years of golfing has convinced me that those who enjoy the game the most are those who have dealt with these issues, placing their golfing lives into better perspective.

Happy golfing!

THE MEANING OF SUFFERING FOR MODERN PEOPLE

Posted on December 28, 2014 by

Joe Wilkins

Why do good people suffer? This is a universal question over which great philosophers and religious leaders have pondered since humankind developed consciousness. Past societies have attempted to explain suffering primarily through their religious beliefs by searching for explanations as to why their God (or Gods) has imposed this earthly burden on them. A primary reason they have developed is that if you do bad things then God will punish you. This explanation appeals to most people’s sense of justice.

The problem arises when we try to explain the suffering endured by good people—especially when there seems to be no good reason why they should be so punished. Everyone knows of some poor soul who has lived an exemplary life, doing the best possible, when unexpectedly some terrible calamity hits. Conversely, history is full of some nasty people who seem to coast through life with few problems and minimal suffering—and we wonder where the justice in all this is.

Over my career I have worked with some of the most unfortunate, suffering people in our society: the mentally ill, addicts, alcoholics, paralyzed people, the blind, the deaf, birth defective adults, disease infected folks, etc. Moreover, most of these people did nothing to deserve these fates. The suffering they endured seemed to have fallen on them in an arbitrary fashion, leading others to ponder that there, but for the grace of God, goes me!

People who believe in God, or a higher power, typically have difficulty understanding why their God would allow such things to happen. Those who have a deep, intimate relationship with God seem best able to compensate, but even some of them struggle at times. The arbitrariness of the suffering is most difficult to endure, and it implies that God is withdrawn from the human condition on Earth, and allows the suffering to occur randomly, according to his will. Most people handle it by simply not thinking about it, or accepting such bromides as “It’s God’s will and we cannot possibly hope to understand; we must accept his will.”

This satisfies many people at a conscious level, but deep in their inner feelings, they think it is an incomplete answer. One woman, who lost her beloved husband at a young age to a heart attack, leaving her alone to raise three young children, became severely depressed and overcome with her burdens. She began drinking to relieve her misery, became an alcoholic, and dropped deeper into her suffering. After many treatment experiences, she finally achieved lasting sobriety, and went to a preacher and asked why she was being punished so. The minister told her to have faith in God, that God had a plan for her, and things would get better. Then, years later, when things had not gotten better, she decided in her naive way, that her minister had not known his Bible sufficiently. Thinking the answer to suffering had to be in the Bible somewhere, she began studying it thoroughly, looking for the answer that would relieve her pain. She loved God, so she needed to get an answer to keep her faith. And since the Old Testament’s Book of Job specifically deals with the issue of suffering, she concentrated most of her efforts there. Later, she came back to me for more counseling.

“But it was an awful journey,” she said. “When I finished with my study, I felt worse than when I started.”

“Why was that?” I asked. Not being a Bible scholar, I very interested to find out where her studies had led her.

“Well, Job was a very good man—a perfect man in the eyes of God. He was the best man on Earth. God was especially pleased with Job because he did all that God expected of him. So, for his reward, God blessed him with a wonderful life– kind of heaven on Earth. That’s what I had before my husband died.

“So Job had it made!” I added.

Her eyes narrowed at me, critically. I didn’t know whether she was angry at me or God.

“Not for long. Soon God caused Job to endure the most horrible suffering you could imagine. Compared to him my life’s been a stroll in the park. Want to know why?”

“He was punishing Job for his sins?” I answered blindly.

“No… God had a bet with the Devil. Now fancy that! God and the devil were engaged in a power struggle as to who would reign supreme over us poor souls down here on Earth. God was claiming how wonderful a man Job was, as evidenced by the fact that he went to great lengths to please God. And in return, God blessed Job with a rich, worldly life.” She paused a while, then continued, “Then the devil pipes up, saying all this didn’t prove anything, because Job, of course, would keep on pleasing God as long as he was being rewarded. But just go ahead and throw some pain and suffering on him, and see how quick he would swing over to the Devil’s point of view.”

None of this was totally new to me, because I had studied the Book of Job in a literature course, when it was presented as a great work of art, but the suffering aspects of it were not emphasized. “So God agrees to make Job suffer to prove his point to the Devil, but Job remained true to God through all his suffering. If you’ll pardon the expression, that’s a hell of a note!”

“Absolutely!” she countered. “That God would do something like that—make Job suffer so, just to prove a point to an evil being. It made me wonder about God.”

“Well…” I started.

She butted in quickly, “Now don’t you go defending him. The way I see it, if you take the Bible literally, like some folks do—and I used to—then God’s playing games with us. But I don’t like the idea of a God who’s so arbitrary and possessive, so I decided to start taking the Bible with a large grain of salt. It’s a good book, but it’s not the only book! So I quit looking for the answer to my suffering in the Bible or from preachers. I’ll find my answer somewhere, somehow, some day…”

This session was very disturbing to me, being a dedicated Christian. Never having had to endure the kind of suffering she had, I had always endured my suffering stoically—which suited my personality—and eventually things would get better.

I never saw this client again, but she was the one who started me thinking about suffering in depth.

Certainly, suffering is a central theme in the Jewish and Christian religions, as well as all the other major religions. However, I have not experienced many clients who got complete psychological relief through their religious beliefs. It always seemed that they needed some rational foundation that could support their beliefs. Trying to merge these two factors into some cohesive system that was easily understandable became a major interest to me as I pursued my counseling career.

An exception to this client were those who embraced their religion so thoroughly that reasonable alternatives were unavailable to them. Many times they were psychologically so obsessed with their religious beliefs and practices that it consumed their thinking and feeling processes so completely that they did not seem to have time to think about their suffering. I used to classify this process as the psychological defense mechanism of denial, but I have since concluded it is more complicated than that. In effect, they “buried” the suffering so deeply within themselves, and lived on the “highs” they got from their religious zeal. However, often this religious “insulation” would wear thin, and some would drop back into depression, addictive behavior, or other mental difficulties.

Soon I began to think that I needed to offer something more to my clients—at least to give them a sense of hope. Some of my colleagues criticized me for taking too much responsibility for my clients’ feelings. In a sense they were right, but being young and determined, I continued searching for the answer.

Then, one day, while discussing this problem of suffering with a colleague, she suggested that I read Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search For Meaning. She said that Frankl was a survivor of a holocaust concentration camp, and if anyone knew anything about suffering it was him.

Encouraged, I obtained his book and read it. I quickly realized this was one of the most important books of the twentieth century. In my view, Frankl has updated all that was previously known about suffering, and his philosophy most nearly reflects modern man’s struggle with it. And what I liked best about it was that it was a view from the bottom up, in that he had endured and been immersed in unimaginable suffering, the likes of which the rest of mankind were completely unaware, that is the hell-on-earth suffering that occurred in the Nazi concentration camps. To reinforce this, an older counseling colleague of mine, was a World War II army veteran, and he was in one of the units that first opened and entered one of the concentration camps. He said it was a defining moment of his life—worse than the combat in which he had been engaged. It was something that would haunt him forever. He was a strong advocate of Frankl’s views and encouraged me in my efforts.

Further reinforcing my efforts was the fact that Frankl was a well educated physician and psychiatrist, so it was obvious he had the ability to put the suffering question into terms that were relevant to other professionals seeking answers.

Frankl says that suffering is inevitable, that people are going to suffer in varying degrees throughout their lives. The suffering comes from God (for those who believe in God), in that He has “programmed” it into the natural laws that govern the Universe which He created. This is much like the philosophies of John Locke and Isaac Newton, in that they imagined that the Universe was like a clock, which God “wound up,” is letting it run according to certain natural laws, and He is not interfering with its operation. If one does not believe in God, that the Universe came into existence without supernatural help, then just believing in the order of the natural laws themselves is all one can do.

In any event, these natural laws govern our lives, but they sometimes “catch” innocent, good people into suffering that does not make sense. For example, if little Johnny slips and falls from the top of a tall tree, the natural law of gravity dictates that he will fall to earth, and flesh and bone will be damaged. Johnny, being a good little boy, doesn’t “deserve” this, but he will suffer nonetheless. In this sense, the law of gravity is very democratic, and applies to good and bad people alike.

All this does not explain why God has created a Universe where such suffering can exist, when an all-powerful God could have just as easily created a Universe without pain and suffering. A complete answer to this paradox is unknowable to us at this time, thus we are forced to accept God’s creation as we find it—warts and all. As one client remarked to me, “When I die and go to Heaven, I’m going to button-hole God on a lot of loose threads He left hanging all over the place. I want some straight answers, and I ain’t letting Him off easy, either!”

Thus, if suffering is inevitable, two questions arise: What’s the meaning of suffering? And, What can we do about it?

Frankl say we must endure our suffering—we have no other choice, anyway. However, he points out that the attitude we hold as we face our suffering, and struggle with it, is the critical issue for all of us. If we face the downfalls of our lives with a whiney, “why me” attitude, then the suffering will weaken us, perhaps eventually consuming us. This will further promote negative thought patterns, leading to depression and despair, making one less able to cope with later, unfortunate incidents, deepening our depressive tendencies in an ever-increasing downward spiral.

But if we stand up to our suffering with as much pride and dignity as we can muster, accepting and struggling with it as best we can, we will have the potential to transcend it and become stronger. We can then maintain a survivor’s mode in our inner minds. In this sense suffering then becomes a teacher, and to a lesser degree, a friend, by making us stronger and more capable of coping. People who have been through suffering, and survived by using their inner psychological resources, will know that it will be easier to endure such suffering in the future.

Frankl tells about his fellow Jews in the concentration camps, being herded into the gas chambers to die. They knew what lay ahead, and there was nothing they could do about it. This was the end, the cruelest coup de grace of life! Their lives would soon be over in the most demeaning manner possible: killed by evil people who had lost all concept of what it meant to be human.

Then, Frankl noticed a strange phenomenon. Here were these poor souls facing premature, cruel deaths, with all dignity stripped from them. All their choices were gone and there was nothing they could do about it. Then, miracously, he noticed he was wrong: there was one bit of dignity left, something that no one could take from them.

God had left one choice open to all humans, one that even God would not interfere with: the freedon to choose one’s own attitude toward one’s own death. As each person marched into the gas chambers, they held their heads high, indicating they were in control of their attitude–and they were going to die with dignity and with the attitude of their choosing. This happened almost without exception as he watched thousands die.

In my counseling career I have watched clients face certain death in nursing homes and other situations, and they too, without exception, chose to maintain a positive attitude toward their own deaths. Some were religious and some not. Even the most undesirable of people, murderers in their final hours before their executions, most often choose to die with calmness and dignity, according to reports.

Where does this leave us? Sure, most people die with dignity, we might say, but what other choice do they have? They are going to die anyway, so they might as well go out dignified. They could make their exits kicking, cursing, and screaming, but what is the point of that sort of behavior at a time like that?

My contention is that Frankl has established that we have only one absolute freedom regarding suffering: to choose our attitude about it. Further we possess this freedom our entire lives, and the scorecard of our existence hinges on the summation of which attitudes we most consistently choose.

This translates down to the following scenario: Use our intelligence to avoid all the suffering we can, but when it eventually hits us, do not whine about our misfortune. Endure and overcome it as best we can, and try to learn something from it. If we are able to learn lessons from the suffering, when we emerge from the darkness, we will be stronger than before, because we will be better able to endure and avoid it when it faces us again. This will then produce feelings of strength within, elevating self-esteem. In effect, we are then more responsible to ourselves in a challenging world, building a suit of psychic armor around us.

So strongly do I believe in this process that I often did not overly protect my children from many daily sufferings that confronted them. While my wife and I did not let circumstances overwhelm them with severe suffering, if it was something we thought they could face and struggle through without much parental intervention, we would supervise their efforts, praise their efforts, and help them learn something in the process.

Make no mistake, children want to avoid all the suffering they can, often trying to get Mom and Dad to do it for them, or to bail them out of their misery. Good parents guide them through it, encouraging the children do those things that they can reasonably do for themselves, while poor parents either ignore their children’s’ needs, or rush in and rescue them all the time. This usually results in children who enter adulthood not knowing how to cope with the suffering that will eventually confront them. And these ill-prepared adults are very prone to seek quick fixes through alcohol, drugs, and other forms of escapism that have developed to escape pain and suffering in our quick-fix societies.

Let us look at a practical example of how all this prevails in our everyday lives. First, I will give you a visual image as to how this works, and then show a specific example how a client used it to work himself out of his anguish and suffering. And every client of mine, who re-oriented themselves in the following manner, reported that it was helpful. Consider the following graphic:

POSITION A , WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS IN PAIN AND SUFFERING AND DESPERATELY WANTS RELIEF

(Let’s use an example where the person is very overweight, to the extent it is affecting health, self image, socialization, and job options. The individual must face the following:)

FACTORS THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AND ACTED UPON TO LOSE THE WEIGHT AND TO GET IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION

(This can be viewed as a “swamp” that must be crossed to get to the “other side” where the desired goals lie. In this case the factors that must be addressed are: 1) engage in a proven weight-loss program 2) give up old habits of eating 3) increase exercise levels 4) give up the psychological reinforcers that support obesity

POSITION B, THE PLACE WHERE THE PERSON WANTS TO BE: THE GOAL

(To get here the person has to “cross” or wade through the “swamp.” The goal demands that the factors above be addressed and accomplished. To achieve them will be difficult and painful, meaning lifestyle changes, new thinking, physical effort, etc. They will require much work.

As we can see, the “swamp” is an obstacle course between the desire and the goal. The moment a person sets a goal to accomplish a wish or desire, there are certain obstacles to be handled to accomplish the goal. Obstacles in the “swamp” can be emotional, educational, physical, social—anything. But they all require taking risks, and work to overcome them to accomplish the goals. The person has to wade into the swamp, deal with the obstacles, eventually coming out on the other side where the goal is located. Obstacles always require work, and humans are quite clever in devising ways to avoid work. In the above example, many people will try to use the fad-diet of the moment to circumvent the obstacle course to lose weight without much effort. I call this making an “end run” rather than “bursting through” the center of the line.

Suffering people often make non-productive, feeble attempts to stop their suffering. Their attempts may be constructive or not, but eventually lead them to a crossroads where they will be faced with a choice between 1) avoidance, 2) doing nothing, or 3) struggling. If they choose to struggle, then the suffering becomes the fuel for their engine, impelling them to do something constructive. If they choose to do nothing they remain in a chronic state of suffering—sometimes for their entire lives. Many try to avoid what the suffering demands of them by trying to achieve the goal without going through the obstacle course. Examples of this are the alcoholic who tries to stay sober through will power alone and not attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, or getting a college degree by paying money to a diploma-mill college, or getting through a course of study by cheating rather than studying and burning the midnight oil.

But if the person accepts the challenge of the suffering, they automatically do what they must to get through the obstacle course. And if they get through the obstacle course a psychological “miracle” usually occurs, which is an increase in psychological and spiritual strength. Persons who have faced difficulty, and dealt with it in the manner I am proposing, will find that the struggle has strengthened them, because they now know they are able to handle such adversity. Confidence in this and similar matters increases physical and mental attributes tremendously. And it is easy to see that those people who make an everyday practice of this type of behavior are usually confident and accomplished persons. Conversely, those who constantly avoid the demands of the obstacles, become weak, unhappy people, and rarely accomplish their goals.

Next, it is clear that the particular kind of suffering dictates the type of obstacle course that must be crossed. I once had a middle-aged client who had never learned to read, and he had spent his entire life doing nothing about it. He had developed several methods to compensate, usually relying on other people to help him when needed. He had avoided learning earlier because he was fearful people would then know he could not read, and would think less of him. I set him up in an evening reading class, which to him was the fearful obstacle course, but he ultimately decided not to attend, and remained in his state of suffering. I saw him occasionally at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, where he nervously tried to avoid me. The look in his eyes told all: he knew he should confront the suffering (fear of going to school) and learn to read, but he did not do it because the anticipated fear of school was a greater state of suffering than was his chronic state of despair of not being able to read. So he stayed mired in his misery. Most people who remain in a chronic state of suffering are emotional cowards, as was this client.

In summary, it is clear that we humans are condemned to suffer as we go through life. Some of the suffering is the consequence of our own behavior, and some is not. However our lives are judged by how we handle the suffering and our attitudes toward it. Going a bit further, Frankl said that one’s mission in life is to do good deeds; experience the positive values of art, beauty, and love; and to be responsible to our suffering. Suffering descends upon us when we do not do good deeds and cannot experience the positive values of life.

We must be responsible to our suffering and get the meaning back into our lives.

POSTSCRIPT: Years ago Viktor Frankl came to Atlanta, Georgia and gave a lecture to the public on his concepts about suffering and other therapeutic matters. I attended that lecture and recorded his words on tape. My secretary transcribed them, and I shall put them on this web site in the future for interested readers.

A SOOTHING CHRISTMAS PUN

Posted on December 22, 2014 by

Once there were two international chess masters who challenged each other to an all or nothing chess match, with $100,000 going to the winner. Like most chess masters they were big classical music fans, so they agreed to have music playing while they competed.

After much discussion, they agreed to hire a lyre musician to strum some soothing chords while they competed. However, after an extensive search they could find no lyre musicians. They soon realized that the lyre was an ancient instrument, not much in use in these modern days. But they noted that the lyre was similar to the modern harp, though somewhat smaller. After much discussion, they agreed to hire a harp musician, since the two instruments were somewhat similar. Thus, the harpist was hired in substitution.

On the appointed day, they began their match before a small, elite group of chess aficionados, with all listen to the soothing strains of the beautiful, harp music. Midway through the match, the two competitors were so impressed with the harpist’s playing, that they stopped their match and asked the audience to give the harpist a modest round of appreciative applause.

An observer in the audience noticed how much the chess competitors were enamored with the harpist. He quietly whispered to his companion, “How wonderful, chess nuts boasting over a token lyre!”

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL MY READERS

TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS?

Posted on December 3, 2014 by

THE TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS?

Author: I. M. Anonymous

12 /14/2014 My Dearest Love: How can I ever express my undying love in reciprocation for your exquisite gift on this our first Christmas apart. You have surpassed the gift of Life itself with the unique selection of the most unusual expression of our mutual love: a partridge in a pear tree!

12/15/2014 My Dearest: You are simply too much! I can hardly believe my good fortune in having such a thoughtful spouse. Imagine—two turtle doves! They compliment the partridge so well.

12/16/2014 Dearest: Ah, how beautiful. Three French hens. What can I say? They are exquisite and beautiful. The neighborhood children love them, but they have to be aware of the cats.

12/17/2014 Lover: Thanks for the four calling birds. Imagine my surprise when I arrived home and saw them on the doorstep. You’re too sweet—really! I spent the whole night building cages for all these birds in the backyard… Gotta get some sleep.

12/18/2015 Honey: Wow! Five gold rings! Now you’re getting with it; a great change of pace. To be perfectly honest, I was afraid the postman would be bringing another package with air holes in it. Ha! Ha! Anyhow, the gold rings are very nice and will come in quite handy should gold continue to rise in value and I have to visit the pawnshop after our usual Christmas spending splurge.

12/19/2014 Dear Mabel: Honey, I know you mean well—and don’t think I don’t appreciate you thinking of me through this gift-giving—but what’s with these six geese a-laying! Babe, we don’t need anymore eggs! And the geese won’t fit in the cages I built for the other birds, so they’re strutting all around the house, messing and laying more eggs everywhere. By the way, one took a swim in the toilet, got stuck, and the kids tried to get him out by flushing the toilet, which clogged it up, so I had to call a plumber in the middle of the night. He said he’d give me a Christmas discount, so his services only cost $999.99. Also, the neighbors are starting to complain about all the bird noise. The animal control people have been by twice and gave me a warning ticket.

12/20/2014 Mabel: Enough already! Seven swans a-swimming? I haven’t gotten the other birds’ situation resolved and in come these huge, nasty birds. Do you expect me to build a pond for them out back? Meanwhile they’re in the house, fighting with the geese, and there’s feathers and bird poop all over the place. Any more birds and you and I have had it!

12/21/2014 Ah Love: Thanks until the end of time for stopping the birds! I couldn’t have taken it any more. Now, the eight maids a-milking are very nice—and very pretty too. And one keeps making passes at me, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to remember my marriage vows. I keep thinking about harems. But pray tell, dear love of mine, where do I keep all those milk cows? I’ve got two in the front yard and six in the back. I tried to sell them first, but couldn’t find a buyer. Then I tried to give them away, but who wants a cow? Finally, I had to have our property fenced in at a cost of $12,398.99. The health department called and said they’d be here tomorrow.

12/22/2014 Woman: Nine ladies dancing? Nice idea—if you own a dance studio. Where, pray tell, can they dance around here without stepping in something. Of, course, they all needed dance partners, a dance hall, and a band for music, at $1500.00 per night. Babe, I’m beginning to doubt if you really love me after all.

12/23/2014 Dear Hopeless Stranger: I can’t believe it! Ten lords a-leaping! What’s wrong with you? Why didn’t you send them with the nine ladies a-dancing yesterday, before I shelled out all that dough for escorts and the band? They all refused to stay in this messy house, so I had to put them up in the Ritz Carlton. And believe me, I’m not sure about those lords a-leaping. What kind of guys are they, anyway? What’s going on in that brain of yours? Have you become a man-hater? Do you hate me? If so, the feeling is mutual. Things got so out of control around here I had to call the vice squad, and they finally hauled them all off to the funny farm. I had to do some powerful talking to keep them from taking me too.

12/24/2014 Alien Woman: It’s Christman Eve, a time for serenity and reflection, and what do I get today: eleven, loud pipers piping. Not one Christmas Carol did they play—only Amazing Grace, over and over and over again! I finally got so exhausted with them that I filled all their fifes up with soapy water when they were on break, and you should have seen all the bubbles. It looked like Lawrence Welk’s bubble machine was out of control!

12/25/2014 Dear Ex-Wife: Finally, it’s over! With the twelve drummers drumming, in concert with the pipers piping, I could take it no more. You’ll receive the divorce papers soon. My lawyer says I have a foolproof case: I’ll keep the kids, and you’ll get the house and all this menagerie you’ve sent me. The only thing further I have to say is, “Sorry, Jesus…”

RACISM AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Posted on December 1, 2014 by

RACISM and CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Joe Wilkins

It is with some trepidation that I post this essay, because it deals with racism and cultural issues rampant in America, about which many of our citizens have strong feelings. In addition, there are many people who take various, strong positions on these issues, simply because they were raised to adulthood under different influences, and have had neither the time nor inclination to investigate and seek the facts. I hope this discourse will prod people to think in ways that can lead to enlightened pathways into the future.

The central thesis of this essay is that many cultural issues are being labeled as racial ones, and it is becoming difficult to differentiate.

In the 9/8/14 edition of the Atlanta Journal Constitution there is a front-page article about how the Atlantic Hawks basketball team owner sent out an e-mail two years ago, that is now being considered racist in tone, implying that the owner, Bruce Levenson, is a racist.

When one reads his e-mail it is clear that it does not meet the criteria for a racist missive. However, he has been dramatically traumatized by the public and media reaction, calling for his dismissal, prompting him to sell his interest in the team. It is apparent he would prefer not to do this, but the pressure to do so is enormous.

Before getting into the specifics of the e-mail it is useful to evaluate and define both race and racism.

For our purposes, we will use the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. The reader may use other definition resources, but in this matter, it is useful to use this one, because it is perhaps the best representation of what the greatest minds in language analysis have to say. The racism issue demands clear, logical, rational thinking. Anything else will most likely compound the problem, with which humankind has continually struggled.

First, the word “race” has a complex definition. Race denotes 1) “a group of people related by common descent or heredity; 2) a population so related; 3) Anthropology: a) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. It is b)“an arbitrary classification of modern humans sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on genetic markers as blood groups. c) a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, who members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans…” 4) a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5) any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

Thus, we can see that race identification is a complex issue. Moreover, before one can cry “racism” we must understand what goes into race. In the early twentieth century in America, African Americans were called “ Negroes” or “colored people,” with “black” or “African American” now being the preferred terms. Many people believed that all people from Africa were the same, sharing the same physical characteristics, mentality, social behavior, cultural values, etc. However, that was not true, because the first African Americans slaves came from a large continent, from many tribes, with many different physical, social, and individual differences. They were conveniently lumped together in the minds of the African and European slave traders, who saw them only as commodities to be bought and sold in the Americas for profit. Their differing skin colors, height, facial features and other physical, mental and social characteristic were often ignored, probably to ease the consciences of the slave traders, and convince themselves that the slaves were all the same, and what they were doing was legal and moral. This was supported by the fact that slavery had been practiced by almost all cultures since humankind’s earliest times. If the early slave traders could “lump” all Africans into one category, then they could treat them all the same, as benefited their purposes.

Complicating this racial classification system even further is the work of molecular evolutionary biologist, Masatoshi Nei, whereby he has developed what he calls “The Neighbor-Joining Method,” which demonstrates that all humankind arose from the Negroid race initially, followed first by the Caucasoids, leading to the Australoids, the Mongoloids, and Amerindoids, in that order. His classification system is currently the latest that science has to offer, but further research will likely prove that even this will likely prove to be too simplistic.

Within Dr. Nei’s findings we find many subtle nuances of race. Representing Caucasoids are the fairer people of Scandinavian and the rest of Northern Europe; the “olive-skinned” people around the Mediterranean; Northern Africans who do not identify themselves as Negroid; people of India, who are Caucasoids, with often very dark skin, but with Caucasoid features. Then there are the Australoids, composed of the Aborigines of Australia and the New Guineans. The Mongoloid people of Asia, Polynesia, and Micronesia have varying degrees of Mongoloid features. Then there are the “racially mixed” people of Asia and Europe, some of whom are descendents of the Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan invaders, as they took liberties with the women they conquered. In addition, there are the Amerindoids–Native Americans, or Indians, as we are used to calling them, who look different from their Asian ancestors. And what about the racial mixing that went on with the Vikings, as they invaded areas all the way down to Turkey, then to Greenland and Iceland? Some Vikings even made it to Middle America and intermixed with Indian tribes from Wisconsin before moving out to the Dakotas.

Can anyone say that there is a “pure race” anywhere? It does not appear so. In fact, all humankind can be genetically traced back to tribes now living in lower Africa.

A professional counselor friend, who had 34 years experience working with disabled clients of all races, recently offered me a new conception of race that helps us take a more accurate view of the race issue. Using skin color only, he offers the following concept:

1 2 3 4 5

Darkest Skin Moderately Dark Lightest Dark White Lightest White

If we view the various peoples on Earth as having these skin colors—with varying degrees of color in between—then we have a continuum of skin color running from 1 to 5. The darkest will be some Africans and Native Australians. At number 2 we have some lighter-skinned people from northern Africa and India. Number 3’s will be Asians, Mediterraneans, Middle Easterners, and Native Americans. Number 4 will be most Europeans and white Americans. Number 5’s are Scandinavians. Of course, we all know it is not as simple as this, because all countries will have variations of skin colors. Additionally, over the centuries there has been extensive racial/skin color inter-breeding–to the point that these prehistoric differences are gradually disappearing. For example, anthropologists estimate that about 70% to 80% of so-called African Americans have some white ancestors–and sometimes Native American forebears. Many Caucasoids have all sorts of “mixes” themselves.

Thus, it is easy to see that this whole racial thing is almost complicated beyond understanding. Yet our modern social mores are inclined to reduce this complexity down to black-white-yellow-red. (One has to wonder where we got that box of crayons!) But, most seriously of all, upon what rationale are some people justified in placing some Negroids at one end of the above continuum and Caucasoids at the other end? In this world, there are many Caucasoids who have darker skin than some Negroids, with all sorts of skin color variations occurring within each category. Where does anyone get the authority to separate one group from another by “drawing a line,” saying that all on the left of the line are “black,” and all on the right are “white.” And where does one draw the line in the first place? Where is the line placed when you pass a law that says Affirmative Action applies to African Americans because they have dark skin. The question then becomes, “How dark do they have to be? Where on the continuum does black stop and white (or other color) begin? Or that Native Americans are entitled to certain benefits because of their race. What about those Wisconsin Indians who inter-bred with Viking explorers and moved to the Dakotas? What color are they?

Thus, we can see that “race” is a scientifically difficult term to use when viewing the diversity of humankind. And it is a fact that about 80% of African Americans now living in America have white genes—if they didn’t have some already before the were enslaved in Africa and brought to America. Confusingly, President Obama is half white, yet he claims to be African American. Does he defer his mother’s Caucasoid genes to that of his Negroid father? Why not the reverse? And Tiger Woods is half southeast Asian on his mother’s side, and Negro, Caucasian and American Indian on his father’s side, and has been known to call himself “Casblanasian!”

An interesting question about all this is why people tend to lump themselves and others into the concrete categories of Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, and Amerindoid, when we are all various mixtures of many races. This author is of Welsh, Irish and German descent, but heaven only knows what admixtures went to make up those ancestors. The reason we select these concrete categories for ourselves is because in the simpler times of the past people did not know—nor could they comprehend—these divisions of people, and it still suits our needs to cast people into simple categories.

Now that we have slain the “race dragon” and shown how spurious a word it is, let us examine the term “racism” and apply it to today’s situation in America. Our dictionary defines “racism” as: “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or human achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.” It is “a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. It often involves hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”

So let us see what it takes to be a racist. First, we must have evidence that there are different races on which to direct our prejudices. But we have demonstrated that this is shaky ground in these days and times, because the race issue is so muddled. However, many political leaders and others continue to approach this issue as if it were cut and dried. People, like the Klu Klux Klan, affirmative action advocates, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, some congresspersons, and the general public continue to view humans in this fashion. Since they are obviously not scientific thinkers, they live out deceived lives and lump humans into these rigid categories. Also, the people in each category do it to themselves—often for individual psychological benefit—or detriment– to themselves!

Racism needs more than just skin color on which to activate itself. Historically, intelligence differences have been imagined. European whites thought that most Negroid Africans were deficient intellectually, because they were still living a relatively primitive existence, thus they were justified in making them slaves or using them for their own, more “noble,” purposes. Also, they were viewed as culturally deficient, as they had written no great operas, made little scientific progress, or developed “proper” religious systems. However, psychology has now demonstrated that intelligence levels in all races are equally distributed, and any differences are attributed to cultural and educational factors. A Bantu tribe in Africa has the same percentages of high IQ’s as do American citizens.

Also, racism requires hatred or unease with other races. Yet, discomfort or lack of understanding of the cultural differences of other is not hatred; it is usually dislike of different behaviors—therefore, it is a stretch to call it racism. We need another term to describe such behavior; perhaps discomfort with other peoples’ behavior and traditions is the real culprit. Could we all have varying degrees of cultural phobias?

What we are dealing with in America now are the cultural wars going on between the black and white cultures. To be sure, there are other conflicts: married with children vs. unmarried with children; poor vs. the rich; upper class vs. the lower class; the educated vs. the less educated; conservative vs. liberal; the sophisticated vs. the good old boys; eastern establishment vs. the heart of America; congress vs. the president. The list goes on and on.

But this essay was prompted by the Atlanta Hawks situation, which is a microcosm of the larger issue that is inciting Americans today, specifically the black vs. white culture war. And if you don’t believe such a thing is going on, you must have just arrived from the planet Mongo! The reality of this “war” is secondary to the perception of the conflict. However, to explore this further we need to try to separate the facts from opinions.

In his e-mail, Levenson makes the following points about the Atlanta Hawks franchise:

1) Attendance at games is 70% black.

2) The cheerleaders are black.

3 The music is hip-hop.

4) Patronage in the bars it is 90% black.

5) There are few fathers and sons at the games.

6) The after-game concerts are either hip-hop or gospel.

Knowledgeable basketball people that I know and respect, say that Mr. Levenson’s points are true to a large degree. There are other factors also, but these are the most pertinent There are certainly no after- game concerts featuring Bach concertos or country music, catering to people of white northern European extraction. How many black people would attend such concerts? How many white people will frequent a bar where black culture is foremost. (Why do most whites move to the suburbs?) Blacks and whites tend to avoid those social gatherings where they are in the minority, especially bars. Churches in America are among the most segregated institutions, and this is on a voluntary basis.

The after-game concerts are designed to attract attendees, but, culturally speaking, few whites will attend such concerts, simply because that is not their kind of music. However both races would attend outdoor fireworks.

Probably the most important point is the father-son issue. In America today, about seventy percent of young African American boys have no father in the household. While many of the African American males who attend Hawk games do have sons, they do not seem to be bringing them to the games. Historically speaking, a father taking a son to a sporting event is one of the most powerful motivators in engaging a son’s interest in that sport. How many African American fathers do we see taking their sons to golf tournaments, soccer matches, tennis tournaments, swimming meets, etc. For some cultural reasons these fathers are not taking their sons to see the Hawks; and whites, being in the minority, are staying away. Interest in sports among boys and girls usually starts at a young age, influenced by parents and peers, but black children do not seem to be a part of this at Hawks games. Perhaps economics is contributing to this; are Hawks game tickets so expensive that black fathers cannot afford to take their children?

All sports fans know that the NBA is now dominated by American American players, and apparently their affiliated culture has become dominant. Now, there is nothing immoral or wrong about that; it’s just that all concerned need to be open about this and recognize it for what it is. This is also happening in the National Football league. It is for complex social, economic, and cultural reasons why this division has developed, and I do not think that the African American community wants to see it continue to the extreme, for if it did it might increase racial tensions in our country, when our efforts in the past half century have been to successfully integrate our society. One basketball coach calls the NBA the new “plantation,” though a voluntary one—owned by rich white owners. As a counter argument to this trend, suppose the NBA, the NFL, or MLB were dominated by any “race.” What would that accomplish as we struggle to heal the racial issues that have been bequeathed to us by the blindness and avoidance of all those Europeans and Africans who started the slave business and brought it to Americas, and those who nurtured and used it to their own benefit?

Consider the following: Hispanics prefer soccer over other sports in America; African Americans have a strong affinity for basketball and fishing; America’s deer hunters are predominately white; golfers are mostly white, with Asian women becoming more prevalent on the LPGA Tour; Japanese like baseball and golf; most tennis players are white; shuffleboard players are mostly white and live in retirement communities in Florida; the pro bass tour is almost all white; how many black lacrosse players have you seen; ice skaters are white, as are bobsledders, skiers, and other winter sports enthusiasts; college girl volleyball teams are predominantly white. The list goes on and on, but the main point is that different racial groups select sports and other activities to engage in, based on complex cultural, individual, and economic reasons. If you are a black kid in the ghetto, seven feet tall, with excellent athletic ability, guess what sport you will most likely excel in. If you are a strong-armed white kid who can throw a baseball through a fence, I do not think you will pick golf as your main sport. All people select their sports in which to participate or watch based on their talent, opportunities, economics, interests, peer and parental influence, among other subtle factors. Moreover, as we have just seen, different races and groups gravitate to different sports. In America today, African Americans predominate in basketball.

So, what should we make of this, or more specifically what should the Hawks and other NBA teams do if the teams and their fans become predominantly black. Obviously, they must give their fans what they want. That is just good old capitalism. If black fans want black players, hip hop sound, black cheerleaders and other black cultural benefits, that’s what they should get, which would guarantee that most of the fans are going to be black. If Mr. Levenson wants a racially mixed crowd, reflecting the general population in America, then he should compose his team and cheerleaders with 13% blacks, and the rest with whites and others. However, I do not think such a team would be competitive in the NBA, and then no one would come to the games.

Basically, this dispersion of the different races in the different sports is a large social phenomenon, which is beyond anyone’s control. In our land of opportunity, individual choice is still the way we choose. And it looks like black Americans like basketball, so the rest of us need to accept this and factor that into our individual lifestyle equations.

It appears that Mr. Levenson is not a racist, but is simply a man who likes basketball, and was trying to figure out how to get more white people into the games—especially if the black folks are not selling out the games. I will bet that if each game was sold out with all black folks, he would be delighted.

Now, let me digress a little. When I joined the US Air Force in 1955, which was integrated in 1947 by President Truman, the percentage of African Americans on the bases at which I was stationed was about the national average: 10-12% black, and the rest white, Hispanic and Asian. While we worked together, the black airmen chose to socialize together. There was no overt animosity about this, as all considered this their freedom to choose. Some whites and blacks were assigned to room together, without any problems. I had a black roommate for about a year and we got along fine—except we did not socialize together during our free time, with both of us spending our time with those with whom we shared similar culture and interests.

Moreover, culture is the key here—and is the main point of this essay. For example, when I first came into the US Air Force in 1955 I noticed something that was very disconcerting to my white colleagues and me. Many of the African Americans would use the expression “mother fucker” when expressing anger about various things. This was very shocking to a southern boy from Florida, who was raised in a middle class household, where the worse curse word ever heard was an occasional “damn,” and that not very often. The “N” word was never used in my home. African Americans were referred to by their names, or as “negroes,” or “colored people.” So imagine my shock at his new obscenity. It made me seriously evaluate my relationships with my African American colleagues. Alternately, none of the white airmen—from all parts of the country–ever used this expression, and we secretly ridiculed them for using it. It was taboo to whites, and drove a small wedge between the two races. This was a part of their culture in which we could not participate. However, over the years, sadly, certain elements of the white culture have begun the use of this obscenity, which does not speak well for either group.

In his book, Coming Apart, The State of White America, Charles Murray proposes the thesis that America is subdividing into different classes and cultures, primarily based upon the former middle and upper classes incorporating the values and behaviors of the lower classes. Specifically, much of the white American culture is adopting these standards, and now both groups are becoming more alike in thought, word, and deed. Single parent, female- dominated families, with boys having little male influence in the family as they mature, is a prime generator of this division. In response, the whites that cling to their old values flee to the all-white suburbs, while African Americans tend to cling to the inner cities, with many young African American males over-identifying with sports, as opposed to academic achievements. This phenomenon is also occurring in other sports in varying degrees, with the exception of golf, where African Americans are very under represented.

In the past thirty years, Atlanta, Ga. has become a Mecca, for African Americans, giving anecdotal evidence of their desire to live together, showing how much they want to maintain their identity and control, similar to what whites, Asians and Hispanics strive for. All this suggests that the desire of different races wanting to live together is some fantasy concocted by certain progressive thinkers. Most large cities have always had their Chinatowns, Vietnamese communities, Hispanic sections, little Italys, as well as African American sections, and others. It is apparent that each racial group’s first inclinations are to maintain its identity and culture—until many generations have passed and natural integration takes place. However, history has demonstrated that the tendency is for like groups to ban together for as long as they can.

For example, in the 1970’s I met an African American couple who were living in a home in a southeast Atlanta, all white neighborhood. They confessed to me that they were hired by the NAACP to move into a white neighborhood, to “bust it,” so to speak, opening the door for the NAACP to begin the process of converting Atlanta into a primarily black city, with black political control of all aspects of the city. This couple said that, after their stay in Atlanta, they were being sent to Miami to repeat the process. I had no reason to doubt this couple, and what they were initiating has happened. Of course, this was perfectly legal, and only demonstrates how groups want to preserve their uniqueness. But the question is—if the black couple was telling me the truth—why would the NAACP have such a goal if racial inclusiveness was what they wanted. Of course, I accept that they may have overstated the mission of the NAACP for Atlanta, interjecting their own personal desires, but it still illustrates the tendency for most folks to want to live with their own kind. And that is cultural, not racism.

Once I attended a statewide rehabilitation training conference, where the participants were about 70 percent white and 30 percent black. We were all employees of a government agency charged with helping handicapped people go to work. We were thoroughly integrated, in both classroom attendance and sharing rooms at night. On the second day at lunchtime, everyone was eating in the large college cafeteria, sitting at large round tables that seated about ten people. As I left the serving line, I looked for a place to sit, and soon spied an empty seat at a table where all the diners were African American. They were very animated, talking and laughing together. Since I knew these folks, I decided to eat with them and enjoy our togetherness. Asking to join them, and getting polite but reserved permission, I sat down and began to eat. Suddenly it got very quiet and all the animated conversation ceased. Soon the silence got very awkward and I felt like an unwelcomed outsider. I attempted to engage in conversation, but it was clear I did not belong in the social context they had established for themselves. I finished eating and left as soon as possible. It was obvious to me that much of racial separateness was voluntary.

There’s another thing that most of us have noticed, but few talk about. When we look at married couples and those who are intimate among the different races, it appears that people bond with those of similar shades of color and features. An examination of educated, black couples shows they often marry those of similar skin color, certain facial and body features, and other aspects that are sexually attractive to them. And what’s wrong with that? White and Asian folks do the same. It is evident that most people are attracted to those of their own race, but within each race there can be wide variation. A white client of mine, when discussing his attraction to women, said that brunette’s “turned him on” the most, with blondes coming in second, light-skinned African Americans next—but he had no interest whatsoever with light-skinned, red-headed, white women! When I questioned him where those desires came from, he had no explanation, just that he had always had been that way.

Thus it is clear that while race and racism are still realities, the bigger issue we must deal with is the ramifications of the ramped up culture wars.

In recent years, diversity has been promoted as the means to handle America’s increasing cultural problems. With the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants and legal immigrants from all parts of the world, problems in handling the different languages and customs have prompted political correctness attitudes upon the established American public by forcing them to adjust to the new immigrants, as opposed to the immigrants doing the adjusting, as was done in the past. Spanish, French, German and other languages are often on new househol appliance manuals, whereas in the past English was the established language. For example, when one has problems with various consumer products, call-center assistance is usually located in India, where the assistants are often difficult to understand because of their thick accents. The increase in new immigrants is causing adjustment problems for everyone. However, the onus seems to be on Americans to make the needed changes, which many resent, leading to animosity—and sometimes racism—by the ones forced to adjust to the new people.

Good or bad, diversity is upon us. So how are we going to deal with it?

Getting back to the establishment of our government under the US Constitution, America had diversity and cultural problems even then. We had Torys and Whigs, city dwellers, frontiersmen, farmers, tradesmen, speaking the different languages of Europe. The difference was that eventually they had to adapt to English, which had become the established language.

Thus, there evolved a common American way of doing things: speaking and writing English, laws based on English common law, European architecture and business procedures, etc. Before the Constitution was developed, the founding fathers studied Greek, Roman, Viking, Jewish, Christian, and other philosophies and history, in an attempt to form a government that would benefit from all knowledge that mankind had gained up until that time. The Bible presented common ground that glued much of the country together. All of these factors were instrumental in forming a country that became unified around common values.

The exception to this was slavery, which had been introduced into the two American continents two hundred years before, mainly by our aforementioned European and African traders and developers. Thus, slavery was firmly entrenched, and was part of the fabric of the society, despite the fact that most people knew it was wrong. But many people were dependent on the economics of slavery, so it endured until our Civil War. Because of the sociology of slavery, the African American culture was slower to assimilate into the “common ground” than was the rest of the country, which was predominately of white, European descent.

Despite this impetus toward a cohesive country, the genius of the founding fathers was to develop a constitution that allowed all these diverse groups to be able to maintain their individuality and old ways, while also emerging to become a part of the new American system. Thus, a Chinatown was permissible as long as it adhered roughly to the general consensus. And all individual groups were like this. Each state could go its own way as long as it complied with the Constitution.

Therefore, America is a country made up of many different cultures of complex diversity, which are nonetheless recognized and accepted as long as the citizens follow the Constitution and obey the laws. This gives us a nation of wide diversity, continually struggling to become unified, and this diversity is to be tolerated as long as it complements the Constitution. We are a nation of laws and must remain so. But lately we have become too tolerant of lawbreakers, who break down the communion with our nation’s purpose.

How should we deal with all this? A good beginning would be for all sides to be open to discussion about the issues without crying racism. Just because I want to discuss the problems in the black community does not make me a racist. Moreover, if people want to discuss the sins of white America, that is fine. However, all sides need to do their psychological, sociological, and economic research, get the needed facts, then get to the core issues and determine viable positions and solutions. Right now “political correctness” seems to be the catchword that obscures solutions and promotes maintaining dysfunctional diversity. Human nature, being what it is, will continue to flounder along with hits and misses, as we strive for understanding and solutions.

Nevertheless, the racism wars need to end, and we must to get on to finding new solutions and building a country with which we can be even more proud.

Joe's Blog Post

Monthly Archives: December 2014

THE MEANING IN GOLF

THE MEANING OF SUFFERING FOR MODERN PEOPLE

A SOOTHING CHRISTMAS PUN

TWELVE DAYS OF CHRISTMAS?

RACISM AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY