Using American Meritocracy to Criticize Donald Trump

 

I am conflicted about a recent op-ed that I saw in the Tampa Bay Times: "Don't erode what makes America great" by James Unnever.

 

On the plus side, I think he is speaking the language of right wingers, so they might be inclined to hear his criticism of Donald Trump. He says the United States is a meritocracy (I know, right?) and Trump's choices for his cabinet have not demonstrated any merit that warrants their nominations.

 

On the other hand, his speaking the language of the right wingers makes my head spin.

 

It starts when he suggests that "anyone can go from rags to riches" is a fundamental, common value among Americans. He might even believe it is foundational, that it was something the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

 

I think more Americans are challenging the concept of a meritocracy, because they realize the game is slanted toward the already-wealthy. Most Americans, I think, want enough to be healthy and happy, and not magnificent wealth.

 

The American Dream I grew up with was being able to buy a house and raise a family with comfort and security - not owning multiple yachts. When did that change?

 

Then he says, "Indeed, the Republican party's successful dismantling of affirmative action and its 'war on woke' are meant to reaffirm the United States is a meritocracy." 

 

Some people (such as myself) would counter that the attacks on social justice were waged to keep safe the Myth of American Meritocracy. Republicans have targeted social justice efforts in government and education because those things threatened to reveal how the playing field is not even, and so the rewards are not distributed fairly. Many people of merit have been denied rewards because of their gender, their sexual orientation, the color of their skin, etc. What he sees as meritocracy is white privilege, patriarchy, and colonization for other people. 

 

I was even more upset when I finished reading his column and saw in his biographical blurb that he is a "former professor of criminology." If anyone -- anyone -- knows about systemic inequities it should be a professor of criminology. Tell me you did not learn anything about your academic discipline without telling me you did not learn anything about your academic discipline.

 

Attacks on "woke" frequently include attacks on Critical Race Theory (those attacks also include misleading definitions of it). One of the truths revealed by CRT is how systems that are not explicitly racist can be racist in their results -- such as the criminal justice system in the United States. For instance, criminal laws may not target ethnic minorities in their language, but they do in their enforcement. The professor should know this.

 

People on the right would likely tune me out as soon as they saw the words "white privilege, patriarchy, and colonization," so perhaps someone like this guy is needed to make the criticism of Trump. He can appeal to their American illusions while disillusioning them about Trump's ability to govern.

 

 

OK, Boomer: Peggy Noonan needs to hear the rest of the story

I am 62 years old, but even I am tempted to tell Peggy Noonan, “OK, Boomer.”

That is because she recently published a column titled “Teach Children to Love America,” and although she did not use the word “woke” in her complaint about the current state of grade-school education, I suspect her words were shaped by the political sentiment that justice, fairness, and compassion are somehow bad.

Noonan believes that the nation is not teaching its children to love their country. She says they are “instructed in 100 different ways through 100 different portals that America is and always was a dark and scheming place.” She offers no details about these different ways or portals, she says, because “we all know it” to be true.

She did not win many debate team contests with that strategy: assuming that everyone agrees with you. If they did, there would be no reason to make your claims.

When Noonan and other people voice similar complaints about how and what young people are taught about U.S. history, I believe they are listening to only half of the lesson. When the state of Florida, for instance, makes books about Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson difficult for young people to access, it seems to be hearing only the parts about oppression or racial prejudice; but those stories are told because Rosa Parks and Jackie Robinson prevailed. They encountered an unjust situation, they fought against it, and they won – and America is a better place because of them.

However, Noonan and others do not hear the whole story. She complains in her editorial that children are taught America’s story is “the history of pushing people around, often in an amoral quest for wealth but also because we aren’t very nice.” The stories children learn do not end there; the stories end with American society being changed, moved, if only a little, toward a wider scope of justice. America’s story is a history people fighting against being pushed around, fighting against being economically exploited by others, and trying to change the behavior of mean or selfish people.

Not long after her column appeared, the iconic baseball player Reggie Jackson attended a game that recognized the Negro Leagues. Speaking on Fox, he remarked on the racism he faced as a Black player in a predominantly White sport in the late 1960s and 1970s. He said, "The racism when I played here, the difficulty of going through different places where we traveled — fortunately I had a manager and I had players on the team that helped me get through it. But I wouldn't wish it on anybody.”

Someone like Noonan may only hear the negative, the description of the nation's recent history of racism. If she did, she is missing the inspiring part of the story: Jackson persevered, and he did so with the help of his manager (white) and fellow players (mostly white). Jackson’s story, like so many stories, is about the hard work of making a nation a better place.

She ends her brief review of the bad stuff by stating another supposed lesson for today’s young people: “And we never meant it about the Declaration.”

Noonan does not state what “we” never meant; she makes her reader assume this. I would venture the guess she is referring to the passage about “all men are created equal.” I assume this because so many people who complain about “wokeness” are really complaining about other Americans fighting for equal rights; those Americans are fighting to have their “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” recognized. The people doing the oppressing – or at least objecting to the extension of rights to others  – treat this request as somehow a denial of their own liberties.

Her mention of the Declaration of Independence reminded me of its famous reference to American Indians; they are described as “merciless Indian savages.” Noonan’s column appeared around the same time as the anniversary of the American Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. One hundred years ago, the United States finally recognized the citizenship of Native people born within its borders. Until then, being born within the U.S. borders to families that had lived here before those borders existed did not automatically bestow citizenship – despite that being the case for everyone else.

Again, a story of progress. Although some American Indians have differing opinions about the Citizenship Act, from the perspective of the expanding civil rights, this is a story of change that Noonan might overlook. The United States still makes life difficult for American Indian communities, but the transition from “merciless Indian savages” to U.S. citizenship illustrates positive change.

Noonan says her Memorial Day sermon was inspired by her recent reading of an old book: A Manual of Patriotism, for use in the public schools of New York, written by Charles Rufus Skinner and published in 1900.

More pressing than the lessons of social justice, according to Noonan, are anodyne lessons about patriotism, including the legends of Betsy Ross and Paul Revere. I write “legends,” because the stories she wants students to learn are generally accepted as fabrications or embellishments. Regardless of whether Betsy Ross sewed the flag used in the American Revolution or whether Paul Revere’s ride happened as described in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, I doubt anyone will be offended by their stories. Also, I would not be surprised to learn these stories are repeated in today’s classrooms, or at least these stories are available to students in their school libraries. That is, the stories favored by Noonan are not being censored.

I looked at the book Noonan likes. It includes some aspirational words from George Washington (surely Noonan would approve!). In describing elements that are required for the success of the new country he led, he wrote the nation needed:

“The prevalence of that pacific and friendly disposition among the people of the United States which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and politics; to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity; and, in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the community” (359).

Those opposed to “wokeness” seem to believe recognizing civil rights of people different from themselves somehow diminishes their own rights. Many of them resent being told they enjoy “white privilege” (a phrase the Heritage Foundation wants banished from all school texts), despite its obvious existence and influence – like Noonan says, “We all know it is true.” Washington’s words, if applied today, would be asking some people to “sacrifice their individual advantages,” such as white privilege, to benefit other people.

Washington has another interesting statement in Skinner’s book, another aspect he believed was essential to the nation’s existence and prosperity:

“A sacred regard to public justice” (359).

A scholar of Washington’s writings can correct me if I am wrong, but I interpret “public justice” to be something like “civil rights.” I assume a public justice is a right available to all members of the nation. That is definitely a worthy cause and something that young students should be taught to honor.

If it is sacred, we should treat it that way. Many sacred lessons, including those in the Bible, the importance of which Noonan professes early in her column, tell stories about an important value being violated and the consequences of that transgression; those lessons often are paired with examples of the value being honored and the benefits that follow. If we tell only the feel-good version of the story, we do not get the full lesson.

For instance, we should not ignore the fact that Washington wrote these compelling words while at the same time owning slaves. In his mind, some people did not deserve the public justice he claimed was sacred.

That does not mean we “cancel” Washington, but it gives us the opportunity to recognize our nation’s growth. We can separate the man from his words; we can see that the ideals he espoused were bigger than his own understanding of them.

A deep irony may be lost on those who oppose “wokeness” in the way Noonan and others do while espousing Christian values and traditions. Many times, they do not want any negative stories about American history to be taught, especially stories about injustices or suffering caused by white people. What would happen if they treated their sacred text in the same way? What if we eliminated from the Bible those stories that made humans look bad? What if we eliminated stories of misbehavior and transgression? What if people in church said those stories about human sinfulness made them feel bad about being human? There might not be much left of the Bible.

I grew up attending a Southern Baptist church, and we understood the Old Testament as being the story of God’s chosen people moving in and out of His favor, based on their behavior. I see this as analogous to the United States. Its history is one of forward and backward movement in the nation’s understanding of freedom and responsibility, of extending rights and recognition to an ever-widening circle of humanity. This expansion has been achieved with great difficulty and often with violent backlash. Yet we keep trying.

The Vanishing Indian in "True Detective: Night Country"

The conclusion of the fourth season of True Detective on HBO was a mixed bag, at least from the perspective of whether it enacts decolonial or settler colonial agendas.

Indigenous Justice is Decolonial

On the one hand, the show depicts an Inupiaq population solving its problems rather than relying upon the colonial authorities. It also depicts representatives of that colonial authority (however rogue they may be) acquiescing to those Indigenous solutions.

In this sense, the resolution of True Detective: Night Country can be understood as decolonial, in as much as it deviates from the typical structure of narratives about Indian Country when they are created by the dominant culture in the United States. Despite the disapproval the show has received from some TV viewers and critics, we can at least say it depicts Indigenous Sovereignty in a way that is rarely seen in mainstream productions. In this way, we can think of the series as being decolonial.

A colonial narrative would have suggested Indigenous people are incapable of solving their own problems and they need the colonial (white) authorities for that. This suggests the Indigenous characters are inferior to the colonizers, and it suggests that colonization is good, since the colonizers can solve problems that plague the Indigenous community (even when those problems are created by colonization). A decolonial narrative breaks those rules.

The murder that sets everything in motion -- that of an Inupiaq woman who threatened to reveal the secrets of the mining company that is polluting the local water supply -- is solved by women who knew her. The same women are involved in the deaths of the men who killed her, and their deaths are the inciting event for the series. The Inupiaq community solves its own problems in its way.  

The women let the land decide the fate of the guilty men. They do not kill the men; they send the men naked into the night to see if "she" will take them. No one explains who "she" is. Is it the spirit of the woman they killed? Is the spirit something in the ice that the scientists have uncovered? Is the woman they killed an embodiment of that spirit, a continuation of it? Whoever "she" is, she killed the men. They did not freeze to death, we are told; they died of fear or panic, which explains the "corpsicle" they form -- their bodies frozen in mid-scream, knotted together. Freezing to death, we are told, is like going to sleep, not like being tortured.

When Evangeline Navarro (Kail Reis), an Inupiaq state trooper, and Liz Danvers (Jodie Foster), the white police chief, accept this explanation and help cover it up, they are accepting Inupiaq justice for a crime against an Inupiaq woman and against the land. That is decolonial. 

The Vanishing Indian is Settler Colonialism

On the other hand, the show's finale enacted a trope that is popular in settler colonial narratives: the Vanishing Indian. Despite finding answers to her motivating questions and conflicts, and despite offering some emotional solace to her fellow detective, Navarro walks toward the white horizon in what I assume is a suicidal death similar to her sister's earlier in the season, a surrender to the freezing environment of the Alaskan landscape. A common trope of settler colonial narratives is the Native character who dies or leaves at the end, some times after bestowing their blessing upon the white protagonist.

For my university classes, I provide a brief description of settler colonialism, which is foundational to much U.S. economic, political, and cultural practice: "Settler colonialism is the figurative and literal erasure of Native people and the erasure of the guilt for having done this."

The Vanishing Indian trope serves the purposes of settler colonialism: the Native person is removed from the land, leaving it available for the colonizer to possess. When the Vanishing Indian leaves voluntarily and, even better, gives their blessing to the white colonizers, settler guilt is alleviated. These stories mythologize and romanticize what were actually violent and contested removals.

Imagining actual co-existence between Indian and white communities, imagining settler society truly acknowledging Native rights to the land, requires upsetting the colonial world too much. Even when the stories were written by white authors sympathetic to American Indians, even in stories intended to persuade white Americans to stop abusing Native people, the authors could not imagine a true co-existence between the two groups. Their narrative logic required the departure of the Indian character. (For example, check out Catherine Maria Sedgwick's Hope Leslie, published in 1827. No, really. Check it out. Despite its Vanishing Indian trope, it is a fun novel.)

Navarro vanishes. The final scenes of the episode depict investigators questioning Danvers  about the case we have watched unfold, in much the same way as the first season of True Detective involved the investigation of an investigation. They also are asking her about Navarro -- where did she go?

Navarro's death does not clear the land for possession by the colonizers -- in fact, she helps close the polluting mine before she leaves town by recording the confession of a scientist involved with manipulating pollution evidence. This is decolonial in that it imagines frustrating a primary goal of settler colonialism: extraction of resources from Native land.

However, her disappearance at the end left me unsettled. Among the three police officers we have followed throughout -- Navarro, Danvers, and Danvers's protege, Peter Prior (Finn Bennett)-- two have happy endings; only the Native protagonist is not given that.

The story ends happily for Danvers. In the final episode, she is told by Navarro that her dead stepson is watching over her, which gives her some closure. (The "Night Country" of the series title describes the ice caves where the mine's secrets are found and, the story suggests, the land of the dead. This is a land that Navarro has access to, because, you know, Indians are, like, spiritual.) The concluding montage includes Danvers happily sharing a sandwich with her young adult stepdaughter (also Inupiaq), with whom she has been at war for five episodes. The racial/cultural tensions between them seem to have disappeared. This is suggested by the presence of the stepdaughter’s chin tattoo (a “111”); earlier, Danvers had forced Leah (Isabella Star LaBlanc) to wash off the temporary tattoo she had applied.

We have watched Prior's marriage fall apart for five episodes because of his devotion to the case and his obedience to Danvers's requests. He even kills his own father, whom he learns is a bad cop working for the mining company and who is threatening to shoot Danvers. Despite all of this, in the final episode, his Inupiaq wife takes him back and he is last seen with his toddler son in bed.

Navarro, however, says goodbye to her close relationships and walks away. In her vacated home, she leaves a toy that had belonged to Danvers's stepson; she apparently had retrieved it after Danvers threw it away. At the home of her Inupiaq boyfriend, Navarro returns his SpongeBob toothbrush, a symbol of their connection and domestic possibilities. The potential for an Indigenous family -- Navarro and Qaavik and perhaps their children -- is not imagined. Why not?

One answer may be Issa Perez, the show’s creator, is operating with some settler colonial logic despite trying to imagine stories outside of that. Indian characters can be doomed to vanish because they bear the burden of symbolizing tragedy or spirituality. Perhaps as Perez gestured toward some grander significance in her story, a transcendence of some sort, she chose Navarro to signify that. Even writers attempting to critique settler colonialism (such as Sedgwick, whom I mentioned earlier) use their Native characters to signify that tragedy. Rarely do white characters sacrifice themselves; the Noble Savage does that. Rarely do the white characters depart the scene, vacating the land so its original occupants can continue their lives.

Some people suggest Navarro is not dead, that she did not kill herself in much the same way her younger sister did. However, if she leaves Ennis to be free of the bad memories there, she would probably do that in a car, not in a light jacket and walking across the snow toward the horizon.

The last image of Navarro is of her standing on the porch of what seems to be a vacation home Danvers is visiting in the spring. However, I think the arrangement of the shot suggests she is present but not actually there. Danvers and Navarro are divided in the shot: we see Danvers through the window and Navarro through the doorway. They do not interact significantly. This is consistent with other scenes wherein characters see the ghost or memory of people. Navarro is in the frame with another person, but she is still isolated, alone.

I don’t know.

I am still trying to understand the conclusion of Navarro’s story. That is why this blog entry is called a “hot take”: I might change my mind.

And my speculation here is not about whether I liked the series. I felt it was unsatisfying but for other reasons – not for the story it told but for the way it told the story. It was six episodes long, whereas the otherTrue Detective seasons had eight. Perhaps it needed two more; I think the characters could have been imagined more richly. The interiority and conflicted motivations of characters could have been made more visible. But those thoughts could be saved for a different post.

(This entry was originally published with the title "A Hot Take on True Detective: Night Country.")