THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XII

      Sometimes I wonder if we just have it backwards in certain aspects of our lives and I wonder if what is impeding the acceptance of outlier groups in our society is that backwardness. I think of a speech given by Daniel Webster in 1830, an excerpt here (click on the quoted text to read the full speech if you so desire):

"I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all it sample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart, - Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"

     This idea that we must first unite under a banner and then attend to freedom is an interesting one nor can I say that I disagree with it. It had me thinking about "hyphenated Americans" - y'know, sub-groups of this country variously identifying themselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Asian-Americans and so forth. Usually it's an ethnic or racial identifier but occasionally examples of religion or other minority-type groups will appear. There's nothing preventing the idea of Gay-Americans (or Lesbian-Americans), Disabled-Americans, etc. from existing. Is part of the problem with acceptance one of language?

     The thing about identifying yourself as a hyphenated American is that you're putting your sub-identity ahead of the group identity. Just as we are more willing to aid a friend rather than a stranger, might we not be more willing to aid our countrymen over that of "just anybody"? Personally, I don't accept the appeal to humanity argument. I really don't give a fuck that you're a human being. When all our accoutrements are stripped away, we are animals in competition with one and other over limited resources...just like all other life. Appealing to humanity is idiotic at best and a huge invitation to accusations of hypocrisy at worst. There are no human rights, there are only sovereign rights. Anyone advancing the idea that there's some sort of supernational set of rights and privileges afforded us by virtue of having been born homo sapiens is at best counterproductive and more likely a fucking idiot. Are you not a man? Yes, yes you are but when you are "but a man", you are my competition; my competition for food, territory, miscellaneous resources, and mates. When you are "but a man", your analogue is that of a paramecium, a single-celled organism unto itself...for itself.

      But what if we are banded together, having formed a tribe or community? Now, we work together for food, territory, resources, and mates...sharing amongst ourselves as a kind of multicellular superorganism. Together we stand a greater chance for success than we ever did separately. And we work together as a tribe in order to benefit the tribe because we are all relying on each other for our success. But tribalism has its limits and I think we've found that limit at the national level. At best, I could see humanity allying at the continental level, but no further. The planetary scale? Never (not without an existential threat at least and even then, I'm not so sure but regardless, it would be a temporary coming-together).

      But here at our national level and in our national discourse there are many minority groups fighting for recognition and privileges belonging to them as citizens of the United States of America. I have no problem with this, not in the slightest so long as their ambitions do not endanger the integrity of this nation, who are we not to grant them/enforce them? However, I think the arguments as currently presented, do not lend themselves to acceptance.

      A big, still fairly oppressed group in this country are the homosexuals and what I'm saying in this poorly constructed argument is why would, or even should, Americans care about the plight of homosexuals as a general subject? America, despite occasional boasts to the contrary, in no way, shape, or form controls the world (nor should it aspire to). There are many homosexuals beyond the borders of the United States. Why are they of our concern? They're not, nor should they be. I think that asking that they be of our concern is a problem with their cause.

     But what if the cause were limited to not to Homosexual-Americans, but to American homosexuals (or to put it another way still, Americans who are homosexual)? What if the argument were phrased Constitutionally rather than humanitarianly? It's an Us vs. Them argument and if you're phrasing your argument so as to be one of "Them", why would I be interested in what you have to say? Why would I be interested in helping a group which identifies themselves separately from the main one? Why would I be interested in helping a group presenting itself as competition? Why would I want to help a group seemingly placing its needs above that of the nation's? Why would I wish to help a group desiring its Liberty first before coming together as fellow countrymen? Do not come to me as a man but as a citizen of the United States of America. Presenting a problem as a humanitarian issue is the same as not having presented it at all. The United States looks after its citizens, not humanity as a whole. Make it out to be a citizens' issue, not a personal one.

       Convince me that I am your brother, and I shall stand beside you; convince me that you are an other, and I must stand against you.