'Lynched': This was a popular postcard in the 1920s, as were other photographs of lynched African Americans, and were frequently kept as memorabilia.
Some of you may recall that today, April 1, is more than just April Fools Day -- it's also the first day of Confederate Heritage Month, as recently declared by Mississippi's governor.
Now, I know a lot of Southerners like Gov. Bryant would just as soon we mostly devoted our excursions in Confederate history and its lingering heritage to sipping mint juleps and treating ourselves to multiple viewings of Gone With the Wind and other similar renditions of history -- you know, the kind that promote the old "Lost Cause" mythology and which has been widely adopted in the decades since the war by Confederate apologists who successfully revised the history of the Civil War. It's also worth noting that Mississippi rather pointedly does not celebrate Black History Month.
So it seems to me that we should indeed begin celebrating Confederate Heritage Month, broadly, as a national project, so that we can finally begin teaching all of our children, inside the South and out, its REAL heritage: the heritage of slavery and why it was maintained, the heritage of a treasonous Civil War fought not for abstractions such as "states rights" but truly for the maintenance of slavery, the heritage of night-riding Ku Klux Klansmen, of thousands of lynchings of black people, of Jim Crow rule, and public-institution segregration, and of the vicious, desperate and cruel campaign to maintain all of that during the Civil Rights struggle.
For starters, let's review the history of lynching in the old Confederacy, that consummate "pastoral scene from the gallant South," as Billie Holliday sang.
Lynching (the word was even in Southern in its origins, having derived from a Virginia judge who endorsed extralegal violence against Loyalists during the Revolutionary War) was the central linchpin, as it were, in the post-Civil War suppression of African Americans. The extreme terrorization of the black community was essential to preventing them from ever working to overturn Jim Crow voter-disenfranchisement law, or the legal segregation of all public institutions (including washrooms, drinking fountains, and swimming pools, as well as schools).
The lynching of six African Americans
in Lee County, Georgia, in 1916
Sexual paranoia was central to the lynching phenomenon. In the years
following black emancipation -- during which time a previously tiny
class of black criminals became swelled by the ranks of impoverished
former slaves -- a vast mythology arose surrounding black men’s supposed
voracious lust for white women, a legend for which in truth there was
scant evidence, and one that stands in stark contrast to (and perhaps
has its psychological roots in) the reality of white men’s longtime
sexual domination of black women, particularly during the slavery era.
In any event, the omnipresence of the threat of rape of white women by
black men came to be almost universally believed by American whites.
Likewise, conventional wisdom held that lynchings were a natural
response to this threat: "The mob stands today as the most potential
bulwark between the women of the South and such a carnival of crime as
would infuriate the world and precipitate the annihilation of the Negro
race," warned John Temple Graves, editor of the Atlanta Constitution. Such views were common not merely in the South, but among Northerners as well. The New York Herald,
for instance, lectured its readers: "[T]he difference between bad
citizens who believe in lynch law, and good citizens who abhor lynch
law, is largely in the fact that the good citizens live where their
wives and daughters are perfectly safe."
The cries of rape, for many whites in both South and North, raised
fears not merely of sexual violence but of racial mixing, known commonly
as "miscegenation," which was specifically outlawed in some 30 states.
White supremacy was not only commonplace, it was in fact the dominant
worldview of Americans in the 19th and early 20th centuries; most
Caucasians believed they represented Nature’s premier creation (having
been informed this by a broad range of social scientists of the period,
whose views eventually coalesced into the pseudo-science known as
eugenics), and that any "dilution" of those strains represented a gross
violation of the natural order. Thus it was not surprising that a number
of lynching incidents actually resulted from the discovery of
consensual relations between a black man and a white woman.
Underlying the stated fear of black rape, moreover, was a broad fear
of economic and cultural domination of white Americans by blacks and
various other "outsiders," including Jews. These fears were acute in the
South, where blacks became a convenient scapegoat for the mesh of
poverty that lingered in the decades following the Civil War. Lynching
in fact was frequently inspired not by criminality, but by any signs of
economic and social advancement by blacks who, in the view of whites,
had become too "uppity."
A classic instance of this occurred in the little East Texas town of
Center, about sixty miles due north of Jasper, in 1920. The victim was a
black teenager named Lige Daniels, who was accused of killing an
elderly white woman who lived in Center. When word reached the governor
that mob violence was imminent, he wired the captain of the Seventh
Cavalry stationed nearby to protect the prisoner. The cavalry, however,
never showed. The captain later explained that he had been unable to
"find any members of his company in time for mobilization."
So at
about noon on August 3, 1920, a mob of about one thousand men stormed
the Center jail, knocked down the steel doors, and dragged Daniels
outside, where they proceeded to beat him severely. A rope was thrown
over a nearby oak tree, and Daniels was then hanged.
The lynching of Lige Daniels,
Center, Texas, 1920
A photo postcard that was available for many years afterward, mostly in
the backwaters of trinket shops, recorded the event. It is a remarkable
photo, and not only for the warm glow of the sun peering through the oak
tree and bathing Lige Daniels' corpse, hanging from the bough, in an
almost angelic light. What makes the portrait unforgettable instead is
the crowd gathered below—stern-faced fathers and laborers, all looking
quite proud of themselves; and a handful of children. One young boy (he
appears to be about ten), dressed in his Sunday shirt and tie, is
beaming beatifically. He probably remembered that day till he died.
The lynching of Jessie Washington, Waco, Texas, 1916
There
were many such postcards. Perhaps the most notorious were those from
the lynching of another black teenager, Jessie Washington, by a mob of
several thousand residents of Waco, Texas, on May 16, 1916. Washington,
who was retarded, had confessed to the murder of an elderly Waco
resident. At the moment his conviction (with four minutes' deliberation
by a white jury) was announced, the mob surged forward into the
courtroom and dragged Washington outside, where he was stripped, beaten,
stabbed, and wrapped with a chain, which was draped over a tree limb,
just above a pyre of wooden crates. Washington was then jerked twice
into the air, and his body lowered onto the pyre, where he was sprinkled
with coal oil and set alight.
Afterward, mob members proudly
strung the charred corpse back up for a brief public display, after
which Washington's body was lassoed by a horseman and dragged around the
town until the skull bounced loose. Some motorists then tossed his
remains into a black bag, tied it to the back bumper of their car, and
tooled around the countryside with it in tow. A constable finally
retrieved the bag from a nearby town, where it was left hanging.
The
lynchings of Daniels and Washington were mere drops in an ocean of
bloodshed. Between 1882 and 1942, according to statistics compiled by
the Tuskegee Institute, there were 4,713 lynchings in the United States,
of which 3,420 involved black victims. Mississippi topped the list,
with 520 blacks lynched during that time period, while Georgia was a
close second with 480; Texas' 339 ranked third. And most scholars
acknowledge that these numbers probably are well short of the actual
total, since many lynchings (particularly in the early years of the
phenomenon) were often backwoods affairs that went utterly unrecorded.
In that era, it was not at all uncommon for a black man to simply
disappear; sometimes his body might wash up in one of the local rivers,
and sometimes not.
The violence reached a fever pitch in the
years 1890-1902, when 1,322 lynchings of blacks (out of 1,785 total
lynchings) were recorded at Tuskegee, which translates into an average
of over 110 lynchings a year. The trend began to decline afterward, but
continued well into the 1930s, leading some historians to refer to the
years 1880-1930 as the "lynching period" of American culture.
The lynching of Rubin Stacy, Florida, 1935
There are many postcards that recorded these lynchings, because the
participants were rather proud of their involvement. This is clear from
the postcards themselves -- many of which can be seen at the Without Sanctuary
site -- as they frequently showed not merely the corpse of the victim
but many of the mob members, whose visages ranged from grim to grinning.
Sometimes, as in the Lige Daniels case, children were intentionally
given front-row views. A lynching postcard from Florida in 1935, of a
migrant worker named Rubin Stacy who had allegedly "threatened and
frightened a white woman," shows a cluster of young girls gathered round
the tree trunk, the oldest of them about 12, with a beatific expression
as she gazes on his distorted features and limp body, a few feet away.
Indeed,
lynchings seemed to be cause for outright celebration in the community.
Residents would dress up to come watch the proceedings, and the crowds
of spectators frequently grew into the thousands. Afterwards,
memento-seekers would take home parts of the corpse or the rope with
which the victim was hanged. Sometimes body parts -- knuckles, or
genitals, or the like -- would be preserved and put on public display as
a warning to would-be black criminals.
That was the purported
moral purpose of these demonstrations, at least in the South: Not only
to utterly wipe out any black person merely accused of a crimes against
whites, but to do it in a fashion intended to warn off future
perpetrators. This was reflected in contemporary press accounts, which
described the lynchings in almost uniformly laudatory terms, with the
victim's guilt unquestioned, and the mob identified only as "determined
men." Not surprisingly, local officials (especially local police forces)
not only were complicit in many cases, but they acted in concert to
keep the mob leaders anonymous; thousands of coroners’ reports from
lynchings merely described the victims’ deaths occurring "at the hands
of persons unknown." Lynchings were broadly viewed as simply a crude,
but understandable and even necessary, expression of community will.
This was particularly true in the South, where blacks were viewed as
symbolic of the region's continuing economic and cultural oppression by
the North. As an 1899 editorial in the Newnan, Georgia, Herald and Advertiser
explained it: "It would be as easy to check the rise and fall of the
ocean's tide as to stem the wrath of Southern men when the sacredness of
our firesides and the virtue of our women are ruthlessly trodden under
foot."
Thus the numbers of deaths produced by the lynching
phenomenon only hint at their impact, which broadly affected literally
millions of more Americans, effectively keeping them in the thrall of
terror that their white neighbors might, with the least provocation,
murder them horribly.
Of course, the threat of the rape of white
women and other pretenses for lynching presented handy pretexts for
these horrors. As always, the violence was predicated on a fear of
future violence; lynching was excused as a preemptive act.
Yet in
reality a black person could be lynched for literally no reason at all
-- in some cases, simply for defending himself from physical assault, or
for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lynching laughed
at the notion of blacks advancing through hard work; moderately
prosperous blacks who managed to do so were often the first targets of
angry lynch mobs intent on dealing with "uppity" blacks.
Lynchings
unquestionably had the short-term desired effect of suppressing blacks'
civil rights; the majority of African Americans in the South during
that era led lives of quiet submission in the hope of escaping that
horrific fate, and relatively few aspired beyond their established
station in life. Those who did often migrated northward, where lynchings
were hardly unknown (some of the most notorious occurred in places like
Indiana and Minnesota, and they in fact were recorded in nearly every
state in the Union), but were not as endemic. However, the awfulness of
the mobs' brutality, often reported and photographed in gruesome detail,
ultimately also inspired a reaction that gave birth to the Civil Rights
movement and eventually the demise of the racial caste system lynching
was intended to enforce.
There is a scene in the documentary Blackfish in which, via archival footage, we see a young Jeffrey
Ventre during his SeaWorld trainer days giving a spiel to his audience during a
show when suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, a large killer whale comes flying
across the haulout on which he’s standing and goes skidding past him within
inches, then plunges back into its pool.
Ventre seems genuinely surprised, and the footage shows him
talking to one of his fellow trainers (Mark Simmons, it turns out), saying:
“You dork!”
By all appearances, the moment captured in the footage
seemed to underscore the extent to which those trainers are actually at the
mercy of the whales they’re supposed to be controlling and their whims. After
all, even a minor deviation in their routines could result in disaster for the
humans in their pools: If the orca had been a few inches closer and come out a
few seconds earlier, Ventre would have been pancaked.
But in reality, as Ventre, explained to me recently, the
whole stunt was planned. “The orca was Taima, and yes it was a staged
behavior,” he said. “It came off well because Taima (later banned from
waterwork with humans) came up early.”
So in many regards the moment seemingly demonstrates the
extent to which the trainers actually could control the killer whales. But even
that, Ventre says, is a deeply deceptive illusion: “The spectacle of the
production,” he said, “does center around SeaWorld's ability to manipulate and
control the world's top predator.”
That all seemingly came to an end this week, with SeaWorld’s
announcement that it would immediately cease its orca breeding program, as
well as its circus-style orca performances. Future orca
shows, the company says, will emphasize “natural behaviors”, though the
company insists it will not consider seapens or other options for the remaining
orcas in its collection, saying “the orcas at SeaWorld will stay in our parks.”
Outside of the relatively cloistered world of animal-rights
activism (as well as the business-investment world), the announcement seemed interesting
and even momentous, but not necessarily world-shaking. But make no mistake: the
paradigm shifted in an important way this week, announcing, potentially, a
deeper social change. Something profound and, if sustained, deeply good: a deep
shift in humankind’s relationship to the natural world, and ultimately to each
other.
***
Seeing any killer whale in the flesh inspires awe, captive
or wild. Even behind the glass and concrete of a captivity pool, it’s hard not
be struck by the majesty of the animal: It is so big, so powerful, so
beautiful, its intense intelligence unmistakable.
In the wild, seeing orcas is a joyous, inspirational thing,
because it feels so innately right. The animals themselves are spontaneous and
joyful in their behavior, even when they are at their most businesslike and
distant. You are seeing this astonishing creature doing what it has done for
six million years, the rulers of the ocean at home in their realm. It’s
genuinely an unforgettable experience.
However, seeing orcas in captivity brings an added twist.
The guides at the marine parks such as Sea World and Miami Seaquarium will
often tout supposed side benefits they claim that captivity of the animals
bring, such as educating young people about the oceans, “inspiring” them to
care for the animals they see, and providing important scientific research
information that helps the animals survive in the wild. The reality, however,
is that SeaWorld’s “education” programs are really low-information affairs
geared primarily to
propagandize children into visiting the park, while its
“science” record is so
laughably thin that very few real scientists engaged in conservation work
with wild whales take
them seriously.
No, what SeaWorld has been selling (at about $100 a head,
plus parking, food, and plush dolls) is not an understanding of the animals,
but a spectacle -- the jaw-dropping sight of seeing a relatively tiny human
mastering these gigantic creatures and seemingly controlling them, as trainers
like Ventre and others performed a series of precision stunts before your eyes.
The “education” that children receive at these parks is an overpowering message
that it is not only right, but admirable, that we humans keep wild animals
under our power through a system of dominance and control.
“The story of man's dominion has been told numerous times,
most notably in the movie King Kong,” Ventre wrote to me in a thoughtful
missive last May, noting that this narrative works well with an astonishingly
large and powerful creature like a killer whale: “There are larger carnivores,
including sperm whales, but no equal to Orcinus orca in terms of the
sophisticated brain, cooperative hunting methods, and killing equipment.
Trainers’ relationships with the orcas, in terms of
dominance and control, is complicated, he explained:
I agree that in any given waterwork show or session, the
orca is in charge, however, SeaWorld does have the ultimate leverage.
Food.
This is why the topic of food deprivation is crucial to the
debate and also why it is shameful that SeaWorld is trying to deny its use,
lately. It is part of the daily existence of some whales at all parks during
different time periods. How else do you get animals to separate from their
mothers or stay motionless for teeth drilling procedures?
Predictable whales such as Katina (and formerly her daughter
Kalina) have been referred to as "Cadillacs." She has been the
matriarch or co-matriarch of the Florida facility for 30+ years. She is known
to the trainers as a "business woman," compliant, reliable, and
expecting payment. She is well paid in fish.She expects to be paid and SeaWorld keeps her happy. Katina is probably
the corporation's single most valuable asset as she has produced many
offspring, and runs a tight ship, preferring order over disorder in her
artificial pod.She controls things to
her liking, and the training management loves that. Kasatka, whom I have never
worked with, is also a dominant female, but unlike Katina, and as seen in Blackfish, has a long track record of attacks on trainers.
A predictable matriarch allows for consistent live public
shows with killer whales. Without that the show production suffers. Katina has
trained dozens of killer whale trainers including
myself.
Katina is aware of her situation and as matriarch carves out
a life for herself and her offspring to the best of her ability. Analogous to a
prison guard being cooperative with the warden to make life better.
Then there are the other animals that are less predictable.
Animals that I worked directly with in this category include Taima, her mother
Gudurn, Tilikum, and Kanduke. These animals were also aware of their
surroundings and were not as interested in working with the training staff.
This caused them to have their food amounts cut, regularly, so they would
comply with commands or not disrupt shows.
No one knows what he was thinking, but Tilikum has killed
three humans, including two of his trainers. For reference, Kanduke was
actually more feared than Tilikum, although he lived a shorter life, pre-Internet,
so his antics are less known. These orcas (plus Kasatka, Orkid, Ky, Keto) all
developed track records that made them unsafe to get into the water with. So,
in that sense, they are definitely in charge.
Sociologist Susan Gray Davis discussed the illusory aspect
of SeaWorld’s shows last spring during Voice
of San Diego’s sponsored debate, between SeaWorld’s defenders and its
critics, over orca captivity. While studying the question of what people
actually learn at marine parks like SeaWorld, she came to the conclusion that
it all came down to entertainment, particularly the big orca circus shows put
on at the its various Shamu Stadiums:
I think they are the key to the brand. It’s the model for
the human-animal interaction that occurs at SeaWorld. It really expresses a lot
of tension, because it combines the fascination with these animals with an
enthusiasm for subtly, but maybe not subtly, humans being in charge of the
animals. So there’s this big, beautiful powerful wild animal that is also being
controlled by a human being. It’s done in a very skillful, very artful way, but
that’s essentially what people are seeing in the shows.
So the kind of “environmental” education that occurs at
these parks is not in any sense a forward-looking effort that helps young
people take a more enlightened approach to their own futures. It is instead a
reflection of what the cetacean-captivity industry is really about – namely,
just another iteration of the systems of dominance and control that embody
traditional Western Civilization, values that we know are killing the planet.
This is something deeply embedded in our culture – so deeply
that it may take generations to root out. It comes out of the same components
of our wiring that have brought us such depredations as slavery, war, genocide,
psychopathy, and environmental degradation.
The enlightened parts of our society have worked hard over
the centuries to root out these phenomena, because they understand that they
are ultimately self-destructive and ultimately evil – with varying degrees of
success. Slavery has diminished dramatically, though it remains a fact in many
corners of the underdeveloped Third World and even in the slimier corners of
developed society. Genocide is not as common a phenomena as it was a century
ago, but the threat of it hangs over us like a dark cloud. War and psychopathy
and environmental degradation are very much still with us.
Orca captivity, as it happens, gives us a unique window on
the reality that these systems of dominance and control are, in the end,
utterly illusory. And perhaps even more interestingly, it is the orcas
themselves – and particularly their wild societies, whose foundations emerge
from a profound empathy – who may be able to show us a way out.
***
Animal-rights activist Michael Mountain has
written eloquently about how the fear of death has drastically distorted
human behavior, particularly in Western Civilization, leading humans to create
a domain for themselves separate from the natural world, a system of dominance
and control that extends to every facet of human endeavor.
Our central problem, as humans, is that as much as we reach
for the stars and create profoundly beautiful works of art, we cannot escape
the knowledge that, just like all the other animals, we are destined to die, go
into the ground, and become food for worms.
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Denial of Death, social anthropologist Ernest Becker wrote that
the awareness we humans have of our personal mortality creates a level of
anxiety that drives much of our behavior. Certainly other animals experience
bursts of terror in the face of death, but for us humans it’s a lifelong
awareness, and one that brings about a chronic level of anxiety that we spend
our whole lives – and build whole civilizations and cultures – trying to cope
with.
And so it is that, to alleviate the anxiety we feel over our
animal nature, we try to separate ourselves from our fellow animals and to
exert control over the natural world. We tell ourselves we’re superior to them
and that they exist for our benefit.
We treat them as commodities and resources, use them as
biomedical “models” or “systems” in research, and force them to perform for our
entertainment in circuses and theme parks.
To the extent that companion animals fare better, this is
largely because we’ve come to treat them less as animals and more as family –
part of our human “in-group” to whom we can relate a bit like children.
We even enshrine the abuse of animals in our most sacred
belief systems. The Catholic Catechism, for example, states that “Animals, like
plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of
past, present, and future humanity.”
These belief systems also offer us hope in some form of
immortality that’s not accorded the other animals. They’re just one of the ways
we have of distancing ourselves from the rest of nature, and they’ve become so
embedded in our cultures that they’re typically not even questioned, much less
stopped.
But, as in all forms of denial, we cannot escape what we
are. And the more we try to bend nature to our will, the more we end up harming
the planet and all its living creatures, quite possibly now beyond repair.
This fear, as Mountain demonstrates, has twisted Western
culture in profound ways, particularly as people have engaged in the machinery
of death itself – namely, war. Throughout history, war and conquest have not
only shaped our societies but have in turn become products of them, like a dog
chasing its tail: Violence begetting violence. Even as we attempt to assert our
systems of dominance and control over our world, we sow the seeds of our own
destruction.
Moreover, warmaking has shaped us as individuals, since it
has always been inextricably bound up with cultural conceptions of heroism and
virtue, and these conceptions have in turn driven the shape of how we wage war
and otherwise build our dominance systems – fueled, most often, by the urge to
eliminate.
The adulation of heroes arises out of a basic human need, as
Becker put it in other work, to feel good about ourselves, to know ourselves as
heroes. In the West, the heroic task historically has entailed energetically
taking up arms to redeem the world. It also entails creating an enemy and
naming him; the heroic warrior, after all, needs an enemy against which to
fight, something to give his life meaning. The drama that results is a holy war
to drive out an alien darkness or disease, and it is a drama that has played
out innumerable times throughout the long history of the West.
Yet, as James Aho observes in This Thing of Darkness: A Sociology of the Enemy, the heroic
dynamic has played out differently in different cultures. In the East, he
notes, the martial-arts hero is perfected by becoming "absorbed in a cycle
that is larger than himself," subsumed by eternal spiritual principles
with which he has become aligned. But this is not the case in the Occident:
In civilizations that have come under Judeo-Christian and
Muslim influence -- which is to say, among others, modern Europe and America --
chaos is experienced as the product of disobedience regarding ethical duties,
not mere ritual infractions, as these have been revealed through prophecy.
Here, then, the heroic task becomes one not of passively yielding to the Way
but of energetically taking up weapons to reform the world after the personal
commandments of the Holy One. The
Occidental holy war functions to sterilize the world of an alien darkness or
disease, not to reconcile man to its inevitability, particularly its
inevitability in himself.
This expiative impulse, in the West at least, became closely
associated with Christianity during the early Middle Ages, especially in the
later phases of the Holy Roman empire, when Church doctrine regarding the
nature of sin developed into a deep psychological fixation regarding the
impurity of the flesh. It gave birth to a deep streak of eliminationism: the
extreme objectification of other people grouped into a target, manifested as
the dehumanization, demonization, and otherwise degradation of that target
group into an object fit only for elimination.
This streak manifested itself on the European continent in
the form of pogroms and inquisitions, of which the Spanish
Inquisition is only the most infamous, with its autos-da-fe and
multiple pogroms, in which some 3,000 to 5,000 people were executed and
thousands more tortured.
Historian David E. Stannard's text American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World explores these
historical roots of genocide in European culture in some depth. As he observes
(pp.154-155), the Augustinian doctrine of worldly sin equated all the natural
world with evil and brutality, including such natural impulses as sex. Indeed,
any wild place was conceived of as innately evil; only the purifying power of
civilization could safeguard us from death and darkness. Africa was named “the
dark continent” for a reason.
Death and sex thus became inextricably bound up in the
Western mind: the former was inevitably a product of the latter, and any
dabbling in it led inevitably to darkness and destruction. Women, in
particular, became conceived of as the font of such impulses.
As Stannard explains, such "learned and saintly
medieval urgings" were part of a medieval worldview that created a culture
that "became something truly to behold," one in which the effort to
purge oneself of base sinfulness gave birth to a panoply of bizarre and painful
self-inflictions. He cites a passage from a "not untypical" devout
friar, described by Norman Cohn, who
shut himself up in his cell and stripped himself naked ...
and took up his scourge with the sharp spikes, and beat himself on the body and
on the arms and legs, till blood poured off him as from a man who has been
cupped. One of the spikes on the scourge was bent crooked, like a hook, and
whatever flesh it caught it tore off. He beat himself so hard that the scourge
broke into three bits and the points flew against the wall. ...
Eventually, this hatred of sex was expressed in an
abiding misogyny that identified women with the putrefication of the
natural world and the source of worldly evil. It also identified the outside
world with untamed nature and thus with wanton sinfulness. As Stannard writes,
"there also lurked in distant realms demi-brutes who lived carnal and
savage lives in wilderness controlled by Satan."
This view of the "uncivilized" world as populated
by creatures who were perhaps only passably human also preceded Christianity by
several centuries. Greek poets like Homer and Hesiod often described an outside
world populated by demigods and other half-human races. Pliny the Elder, in the
first century A.D., described in his Natural
History peoples of far-off lands with fantastic traits, including people
whose faces are embedded in their chests, or have the heads of dogs, or hooves
instead of feet, or ears so long or lips so large they use them as coverings.
Notably, he also famously provided the first recorded description of Orcinus orca, which Pliny insisted
“could be described as nothing other than a gigantic mass of flesh armed with
rows of teeth.” Later on, the “orc” was described by various Renaissance poets
as a voracious monster who prowled the seas and dined on sailors and maidens.
As this myth-making was incorporated into Christian culture,
it was assumed that the strangeness of these "monstrous" races of men
described by Pliny, linked to the outcast lineage of Cain, was product of their
innate sinfulness and downcast nature. "So great was their alienation from
the world of God's -- or the gods' -- most favored people, in fact,"
writes Stannard, "that well into late antiquity they commonly were denied the
label of 'men.'"
Eventually, by the later Middle Ages, this fascination with
"monstrous" races evolved into an interest in the "wild
man" who it was believed inhabited the unexplored wildernesses of the
world. This was the standard view of the peoples who explorers eventually
encountered populations of humans living on the American continents when the
age of exploration began after 1492 -- if these were men at all, they were at
best only half so.
Thus the eliminationist impulse was transmitted almost
seamlessly from Europe to the Americas, where it actually grew in a more
virulent form that went hand in hand with an expansionist impulse. Indeed,
Americans generally displayed a wanton disregard for the humanity of the native
peoples that only intensified as they marched farther westward.
All of this social conditioning came home with a vengeance
in the centuries that followed, for the native peoples of the Americas, who had
no natural immunity to diseases that had run their course through the European
society that brought them to their shores. Whereas smallpox for Europeans
produced unpleasant pockmarks and scars, among Native Americans the disease
caused huge, gaping wounds and flesh that fell off their bodies, and of course
an eventual and horrible death. Other European diseases -- cholera, measles,
scarlet fever, typhoid, typhus, influenza, pertussis (whooping cough),
tuberculosis, diphtheria, and sexually transmitted diseases -- had similarly
disproportionate and devastating effects. And perhaps just as ruthless were the
Europeans who encountered these societies in retreat.
This pattern -- weakening the populace with disease, then
overpowering them with superior arms and an inhuman ruthlessness and brutality
-- was repeated endlessly throughout Americas in the ensuing decades, first
throughout Hispaniola and the Caribbean, then in Mexico itself, then in Central
and South America. The Spanish
conquest of the Yucatan and of Mexico
were only the first steps in Spain's larger
colonization program in the Americas. The result was the near-utter
obliteration of the existing civilizations.
The combination of disease and undiluted eliminationism had
a predictable effect throughout the New World. By the midpoint of the 17th
century, it's estimated that more than 50 million of the indigenous people in
the Americas had perished, some 80 percent of the population. In some instances
the devastation was nearly complete; between 1770 and 1850, nearly 95 percent
of the Pueblo population in the Southwest was eradicated. By the time Old World
diseases had spread to the farthest reaches of the continent, striking the
Haida and Inuit peoples of northwest Canada in the early 1850s, the population
of indigenous peoples in North America had had shrunk by some two-thirds or
more. (There is an ongoing debate over the actual numbers, more of which you
can read here.)
The only recorded example of a government effort to reduce
the effects of disease on the native population came early in the 19th century,
when the United States, according to Abraham Bergman's "A Political
History of the Indian Health Service," began providing federal health
services for Indians in the early 1800's -- but their primary purpose was to
protect U.S. soldiers from contamination from nearby tribes. All the first
vaccination programs were in the vicinity of military posts.
Complicating their reluctance to aid people whose humanity
was evidently uncertain was the context of their worldview: for much of their
early history on the American continent, white Europeans saw the Enemy as being
Wilderness, the implacable, alien, deadly swamp whose subjugation it was their
mission to impose.
The European
conception of wilderness which white immigrants brought to the Americas was
complex and shaded, but it was ultimately rooted in a worldview that placed
Europe and Christian civilization at the center of the world, the source of
civilization and light. The wilderness was the embodiment of sinfulness and
evil -- and so were its inhabitants. And their elimination was an essential
component of the conquest.
This was true not merely of the human inhabitants, but its
animals as well. Threatening creatures -- cougars, bears and wolves especially
-- were hunted to near-extinction. Even wild food sources such as salmon were
wantonly harvested and their habitat destroyed, especially as dams were erected
on every river on the Eastern Seaboard they inhabited. Stocks were not only
depleted but intentionally wasted.
Lt. Campbell Hardy, an officer of the Royal Artillery in New
Brunswick, observed the mentality in action in Nova Scotia in 1837, where
once-plentiful salmon stocks were already plummeting:
"The spirit of wanton extermination is rife; and it has
been well remarked, it really seems as though the man would be loudly applauded
who was discovered to have killed the last salmon."
Perhaps even more symbolic was the fate of the grizzly bear, which
at one time ruled both the Plains and the mountain ranges of the open West. But
between 1850 and 1920, grizzlies were systematically
and ruthlessly exterminated everywhere humans came into contact with them,
effectively eliminated from 95 percent of their traditional range.
The same was true of the native peoples who dwelt in this
wilderness. It was common for colonists to view the wilderness as capable of
overwhelming civilized men, even from within, turning them into
"savages" and "wild men," while the people who had lived
there for centuries were commonly viewed as no less than vile beasts
themselves.
Yet, even as Western man made contact with these “human
beasts” and proceeded to eliminate their presence, the seeds were sown for the
destruction of the very systems of dominance and control they tried to impose
on their world.
***
Native Americans were only the first such ostensible
quasi-humans who were victimized by the streak of eliminationism that coursed
through European culture, but the genocide of the American Indians established
a pattern that was repeated in succeeding episodes.
First there was an abiding and cold-blooded ruthlessness:
“The only good Indians I ever saw were dead,” infamously muttered U.S. Cavalry
Gen. Philip Sheridan,
and soon “The only good is a dead Indian” was the byword of Western settlers.
More pointedly, Col. Chivington’s infamous exhortation to his troops before
they murdered women and children at Sand Creek -- “Nits
make lice!” -- made irrevocably clear that the elimination intended was
utter and total and devoid of any vestige of humanity. That trait was
manifested with vicious finality in the last of the great Indian massacres at
Wounded Knee, when the bodies of the unarmed women and children were thrown
into a pit like cordwood -- a scene that would be repeated across the sea more
than fifty years later.
Even as the ostensible threat posed by the “wild men” of the
Americas was being obliterated, though, white Americans found another target
for their eliminationist impulse: African Americans, former slaves now
liberated (formally, at least) by the outcome of the Civil War. Initially,
blacks in the South were targeted for terrorist violence by night-riding
Klansmen and Redshirts during the Reconstruction Era, to such devastating
effect that the verdict of the war was functionally overturned, Reconstruction
itself nullified, and Jim Crow segregation imposed.
In the years that followed, a mythology (often invoked to
defend the memory of the Confederacy) developed about black people, and black
men in particular, steeped in the twisted sexual fantasies (and guilt) of
European white culture: namely, that black men were sexually ravenous, inclined
to rape and assorted sex crimes, and in need of social control. This mythology
became the fodder for a
thousand lynching bonfires across America.
"The Negro race," after all, was still closely
associated with the jungles of Africa, the "heart of darkness" in the
European mind; and sexual voraciousness was assumed in such folk, for though
tame they might be, they still were scarcely a step removed from wild men of
the jungle themselves; still scarcely human. Yet this was a legend for which in
truth there was scant evidence, and one that stands in stark contrast to (and
perhaps has its psychological roots in) the reality of white men's longtime
sexual domination of black women, particularly during the slavery era.
In any event, the omnipresence of the threat of rape of
white women by black men came to be almost universally believed by American
whites. Likewise, conventional wisdom held that lynchings were a natural
response to this threat: "The mob stands today as the most potent bulwark
between the women of the South and such a carnival of crime as would infuriate
the world and precipitate the annihilation of the Negro race," warned John
Temple Graves, editor of the Atlanta
Constitution. Such views were common not merely in the South, but among
Northerners as well. The New York Herald,
for instance, lectured its readers: "[T]he difference between bad citizens
who believe in lynch law, and good citizens who abhor lynch law, is largely in
the fact that the good citizens live where their wives and daughters are
perfectly safe."
Lynching violence (which claimed the lives of several
thousand black people over the years) soon gave way to race riots -- in which
entire black populations were driven out of communities in which they had often
spent generations -- and their logical end products, “sundown
towns” from which black people were forbidden from setting foot after dark,
upon pain of a horrific and brutal death. There were literally thousands of
such towns spread all over the United States, in every state and region.
All of these phenomena were essential tools with which
whites imposed their system of dominance and control on the rest of the
American populace, as well as on one another. Miscegenation -- also known as
“racial mixing” -- was outlawed in 30 of the then-48 states.
All this came at the height of the eugenics
phenomena, from 1910-1935 -- eugenics being the pseudo-scientific theory
that argued for genetics and racial “purity” as the ultimate distillation of
man’s evolutionary climb, producing eventually “superior” races capable of
lifting humanity out of the mire of the dark world and into the light of
civilization. It ultimately produced some of the darkest atrocities in the
annals of American science, including euthanasia and sterilization programs,
the legacy of which still haunts the scientific community.
Among the chief objects of eliminationist paranoia promoted
by the eugenicists were Asians -- particularly the Japanese immigrants who
began coming to American shores in larger numbers at the turn of the 20th
century. The eugenicists warned of the dire threat of the “Yellow Peril” -- a
conspiracy theory claiming that Japan intended to colonize the United States by
sending farmers who would “outbreed” the white populace eventually, and pave
the way for the ultimate goal of a Japanese imperial invasion of the West
Coast.
The ferment created by this hysteria led to the passage of the 1924
Immigration Act -- also known as the “Asian Exclusion Act” -- which first
codified the American concept of an “illegal alien” and outlawed all further
immigration from Japan and other Asian nations. Yet because a large number of
immigrants remained on American shores, the paranoia never fully subsided, and
in fact flared back into full roar after Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and in
turn produced one of the great atrocities of American history, the mass
incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II.
That war, however, proved a critical turning point. The
white supremacist worldview had reached its apotheosis in Europe, in the German
Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler, once again fueled by conspiracy theories,
focused this time on Jews and other “inferior races,” and eventually produced
perhaps the most devastating genocidal enterprise in history, the Holocaust, in which
some eight million people -- six million of them Jews -- perished. And at the
end of the war, when the lid was peeled back and the corpses of the death camps
were revealed for all to see, the world turned away, permanently repelled by
what white supremacism and its eliminationism had produced.
Fittingly, much of the academic world had already begun to
turn away from the Darwinistic evolutionary worldview that undergirded the
belief in white supremacy, and after the war embraced with both arms the views
that had been gradually emerging from the field of anthropology regarding the
folly of branding races and cultures “superior” and “inferior,” a worldview
that came be known as “multiculturalism” or “cultural relativism.”
And for that, ironically, they largely had a little Jewish
man to thank: Franz Boas.
***
Franz Boas is today considered the father of modern
anthropology, but when he arrived in Alert Bay, British Columbia, in 1886, he
was just another student of what was then considered a promising new field,
though he had already made something of a name for himself by challenging the
current orthodoxy regarding the reigning evolutionary approach to cultural
studies, which proposed a model in which societies progressed through a set of
hierarchic technological and cultural stages, culminating in a white patriarchy
as the summit of evolution. Certainly he had some natural skepticism, as these
theories had already been applied in the service of anti-Semites who claimed
through the findings of phrenology (the pseudo-science of skull size) that Jews
were an “inferior” race.
A Kwakwaka'wakw man demonstrates a ceremonial
killer-whale mask in a photo from Boas' collection.
Boas traveled among the Northwest coastal tribes a great
deal and collected information and tribal legends from around the region, but
he wound up spending much of his time in Alert Bay, home of the Kwakwa̱ka̱’wakw people,
better known as the Kwakiutl. The Kwakwaka'wakw are a fascinating tribe, with a
rich and deeply artistic culture. Their totem poles are among the most renowned
of all the coastal tribes for their size and beauty, and the tribe’s fierce
insistence on retaining its culture even today is embodied by the jaw-dropping
collection of ceremonial transformation masks that can be viewed at its cultural center.
The Kwakwaka'wakw also coexisted with killer whales, whom
they revered as beings of great spiritual power. Their origin myth, indeed,
tells of orcas who came to shore and took on the shape of humans, and when they
encountered the whales in their canoes, they believed they were communing with
their ancestors, who were being good to them by driving the salmon into their
waters. Their legends describe the blackfish as the people under the sea,
people who live in villages like their own in a watery kingdom, and sometimes a
tribal princess would marry a blackfish prince, and good fortune would befall
that family for generations; however, even throwing a stone or launching an
arrow in the direction of an orca would bring about generations of misfortune.
It is now recognized that the killer whale societies of the Northwest are
functionally matriarchal -- not only are their pods arranged matrilineally,
their cultures appear to be arranged as matriarchies, with postmenopausal
females actually leading most of the pods in their daily decision-making.
Now, there is no indication in Kwakwaka'wakw mythology that the people of the
tribe recognized this -- most of their legends describe the people under the
sea as being led by male chiefs (perhaps understandable, given the imposing
physical presence of most male resident orcas, who can reach 32 feet in length
and 14,000 pounds, with six-foot dorsal fins). But it is likely not merely a
coincidence that a number of Kwakwaka'wakw villages were led by female chiefs
and were decidedly matriarchal societies.
Boas observed this, and noted particularly that these matriarchal tribes had in
fact evolved from patriarchal societies that had failed or foundered for one
reason or another. It gave him real traction for attacking the notion that all
societies naturally evolved into patriarchies. Some of these matriarchal
traditions had been transmitted from some of their northern neighbors.
A phrenologist at work
Having made this paradigm shift, Boas turned his attention
to a component of white-supremacist orthodoxy, namely scientific racism, or the
eugenics-derived notion that race is a biological concept and that human
behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics,
and he similarly deconstructed it as demonstrably unscientific. Boas
demonstrated that skull size and cranial shape, based on skeletal studies he
pioneered, was in fact highly malleable, depending on environmental factors
such as health and nutrition, and not a stable trait dependent on race, as the phrenologists claimed.
These findings and many others laid the groundwork for a worldview that
ultimately destroyed and replaced white supremacism as the dominant model for
modern global society -- replaced it with a model in which all cultures have
innate value and, as an ethical matter, deserve our respect; in which entire
peoples are not branded “inferior” or “superior” but are afforded the rights
and opportunities all people deserve; in which warmaking is condemned as
destructive and communitarianism is celebrated as a source of well-being for
all people; in which power comes not from what we can personally accrue, but
from what we can do to empower the people who share the world with us; in which dominance and control are replaced, as stabilizing mechanisms, with cooperation and sustained mutual well-being.
Fundamentally, that is an empathetic society. Scientists
are now discovering that we most advance, evolutionarily speaking, when we
are a cooperative society. And ironically, that is the one important lesson
that killer whales have to teach us -- namely, that empathy is an evolutionary
advantage. It is only a vulnerability in a pathological society, like the Old
World from which we are trying to emerge.
So, perhaps it is fitting that today we can turn to the same wellspring of
transformative thought as a touchstone for examining not just our relationship
with each other as humans, but our species’ relationship to the world in which
we live and to the animals who inhabit it. We would do well to learn from the
people who themselves have gleaned real wisdom from being in the world of
whales.
The cornerstone of Kwakwaka’waka religious thought is the
codependency of all of nature; no part of the natural order can exist without
the rest. There is no such thing as self-sufficiency, whether for humans or
their tribes, for animals or the supernatural beings whose powers they represent.
Humans are somewhat naturally at the center of their universe, but they accept
that all other members of their common world possess not just an indestructible
and unique quality, but a spiritual and material parity in that world.
“Kwakiutl religion represents the concern of the people to occupy their own
proper place within the total system of life, and to act responsibly within it,
so as to acquire and control the powers that sustain life,” explained Boas’
student, Irving Goldman, in his study of the tribe's theology, The Mouth of Heaven.
These concerns find their clearest expression in the
mythology of animals and the supernatural beings who take their forms. In the
Kwakwaka’waka world, humans and animals have real kinship, reflected in the
view of killer whales as their ancestors; they have social and spiritual ties
that can never be severed. Indeed, they believe that when the tribesmen who
hunt marine mammals die, they return to the undersea village of their orca
ancestors. In this universe, humans are the recipients of powers, and the
givers of those powers are the animals and the supernatural forces they
represent. Of all the animals in their universe, the orca is the most powerful,
one of the few (along with the raven, the otter, and the wolf) capable of
giving a man enough power to become a shaman.
Acquiring a worldview like this does not require us to
submit to a belief in supernatural beings, but it does require us to abjure our
arrogance, which, as we have seen, is already at the core of our relationship
not just with killer whales, but our world generally. Killer whales inherently
challenge our assumptions of species superiority, as well as supremacy. Beyond
being merely physically more powerful (at least, without tools or technology),
orcas can challenge us in the realm of intellectual prowess as well,
particularly given the added dimension with which they can gather information
about our world and their proven ability to manipulate acoustics to do that. It
is also hard to argue with six million years of actual supremacy as the
undisputed lords of the oceans when it comes to evolutionary success,
species-wise.
Before about 1990, we could reasonably plead ignorance about
the unflattering realities that orcas present in relation to humans, especially
the way in which what we have learned about them shines a spotlight on our own
cognitive limitations. The dirty truth of dolphin and orca studies is that they
have established fairly clearly that human beings may well lack the cognitive
capacity to understand how all cetaceans communicate; we’re just not that
acoustically sophisticated.
When we are forced to concede, as with orcas, that we are
not unique in our intelligence, that we may not be the only creatures worthy of
being considered persons, then we likewise have to reconsider our previous,
Western-grown position as special beings somehow separated from nature, with
such separation being something desirable instead of the abomination that it
would be to someone from the Kwakwaka’waka tribe. It is this latter worldview,
one that places humans on an equal, and utterly codependent, footing with
nature, as well as the spiritual components that accompany that worldview, that
in the cold light of day makes logical sense, especially when we are confronted
by the majestic truth that is an orca in full breach or a tall black fin
approaching our kayak in the fog.
This realization affects our relationship not just with killer whales, but with
all the natural world and with all the animals with whom we share it. It
demands that we discard the invented notion of animals as property and
recognize that granting them rights does not force us to lose control of the
animals we already control; it just requires us to treat them decently.
It also forces us to recognize that we cannot continue
degrading and gradually destroying the natural environment that created this
bounty of wondrous life, because we are connected to it as deeply as are the
wildlife who inhabit it. Our survival as a species, as human beings, of
everything that defines us as human, depends on its survival, and so far, it is
not looking good for any of us.
This week, however, brought us a ray of hope. The paradigm
shifted, perhaps subtly, but irrevocably.
***
The animal-rights movement, at its core (and despite the
occasional fulminations of some of its more thoughtless and self-destructive
adherents) is about empathy: Not only does it recognize the existence and
rights of the animals who come under the grasp of our systems of dominance and
control (whether wild or domesticated animals, or, in the case of SeaWorld’s
orcas, an unholy hybridization of both), but it also inherently recognizes that
abuse of any animal in our control lessens us: it shrinks our souls. There is a
reason that animal abuse is considered an early warning sign of violent
psychopathy.
Yet in the end, it is also about confronting the very forces
that threaten our extinction: a modern society whose activities threaten to
permanently alter the planet’s climate and the biological systems that depend
upon it, and whose greed and arrogance and cruelty is threatening to drive not
only a mass extinction of other species (including killer whales) on the
planet, but ultimately in the end our own demise as well.
But while nature may be “a nightmare spectacular,” violence
among our fellow animals is limited to very specific survival needs. It is we
humans who are really “soaking the planet in blood.” We like to tell ourselves
that people who commit murder and mayhem are “behaving like animals,” but
that’s not how the other animals behave. (While, for example, we humans kill
approximately 100 million sharks a year, sharks kill maybe five humans, and
mostly by accident.)
The truth is that the more we try to distance ourselves from
the other animals and place ourselves above the natural world, the more
unnatural, irrational and destructive our behavior becomes. We are not outside
of nature, and never can be.
Zoos and animal displays and amusements have a long and
fairly sordid history in Western Civilization as exemplars of the systems of
dominance and control, putting wild things in cages and making them amuse us
with tricks, evidence of our ability to dominate. The tradition dates back at
least to the
infamous animal cages maintained by Henry III and later royalty at the
Tower of London, which were opened for public viewing, and continuing through
the various menageries and animal collections maintained by the aristocracy
throughout much of Europe up through the 20th century.
But the tide has been turning against them for some time,
and not merely on the captive-orca front. Elephants -- another large and highly
intelligent mammal that in its normal habitat requires extensive room to roam
-- have in recent years become a major
point of contention among animal-rights activists and the zoo and
animal-entertainment industries, enough that recently Ringling
Brothers Circus announced it would be ending the use of elephants in their
shows. It was one of the first quakes signaling the current paradigm shift.
SeaWorld’s announcement this week, however, meant the giant
in the room had moved. SeaWorld is a multibillion-dollar enterprise, and though
it has lost much of its value in recent years, it is the force majeure of the
marine-park industry. Indeed, Manby’s announcement has already provoked a
shocked counter-response from the Association of Marine Mammal Parks, the
industry organization, which mostly decried the “assault” that SeaWorld has
endured in recent years from the animal-rights sector.
Leading the way, of course, has been virtually everyone
associated with Blackfish --
beginning with the director, Gabriela Cowperthwaite, whose skill and marvelous
aesthetic eye made the documentary so deeply compelling; as well as the film’s
cast of former SeaWorld trainers, including Jeff Ventre, Samantha Berg, John
Hargrove, Carol Ray, John Jett, and Dean Gomersall, who have been tireless in
their efforts to promote the film’s message in the three years since its
release. The “Blackfish
Effect” has gone beyond simply damaging SeaWorld’s
stock value -- it has now brought to an eventual end the period of orca
captivity, and even more, has fueled a change in the national conversation
about all kinds of animal captivity. There’s no doubt that this is a
documentary that changed the world.
Many others deserve real credit too, especially Naomi Rose
of the Animal Welfare Institute, who has been working for a generation or
longer for this outcome; Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research; Ingrid
Visser of the Orca Research Trust; and Howard Garrett of the Orca Network. All
of them are scientists (and, secondarily, animal activists) who work with wild
orcas and who have advocated tirelessly from the perspective of a deep
understanding of the wrongness of orca captivity.
Manby’s announcement makes mention of the inescapable fact
that marine parks like SeaWorld irrevocably changed the public’s understanding,
and perception, of the nature of killer whales, and no doubt for the better: We
no longer believe, like Pliny, that they are vicious, mindless killing machines
who pose a threat to any human in the water. Indeed, we have learned an
incredible amount about killer whales in the more than 50 years that they have
been held in captivity (though it must be noted that the vast majority of that
knowledge has come from studying the animals in the wild, not in captivity).
And perhaps the most important thing that we have learned is this: Orcas
do not belong in captivity.
It’s not entirely clear that Joel Manby understands that on
a deep level. What is self-evident is that, unlike previous SeaWorld CEOs, he
is a clear-eyed businessman who can read account sheets and the numbers therein
without allowing that to be affected by the pleadings of a corporate culture
that had
descended into cult-like behavior, sending
out spies and fake
demonstrators to infiltrate orca-rights activists’ events. In the end, he
understood the bottom line: SeaWorld has to transform its business model if it
hopes to survive. It can no longer depend on the awesome and illusory spectacle
of humans seemingly controlling orcas to make the turnstiles go around and keep
their stock prices afloat. It has to change with society -- and society, it is
clear, has indeed changed. So Manby pulled the plug on the longtime
stonewalling and decided to Do the Right Thing.
However, this whole momentous paradigm shift hinges on what
is, in reality, a tiny, almost imperceptible step on the part of the SeaWorld.
In terms of visitors to SeaWorld, relatively little will actually change --
they won’t be visibly affected by the end of the breeding program until there
are no more orca babies to be seen, and eventually when the captive-born
population begins to die out. The new shows will be less circus-like and, one
hopes, filled with more factual information about wild orcas than is currently
the case. But they will still be taking place in the same concrete tanks.
Manby underscored his lack of understanding of this point in
his insistence that seapens or some other retirement/sanctuary scheme is out of
the picture -- by dishonestly portraying what orca advocates hope to achieve:
Some critics want us to go even further; they want us to
“set free” the orcas currently in our care. But that's not a wise option.
Most of our orcas were born at SeaWorld, and those that were
born in the wild have been in our parks for the majority of their lives. If we
release them into the ocean, they will likely die. In fact, no orca or dolphin
born under human care has ever survived release into the wild. Even the attempt
to return the whale from “Free Willy,” Keiko, who was born in the wild, was a
failure.
Manby, of course, neglects to mention that had it been up to
SeaWorld and the rest of the marine-park industry, Keiko would have rotted in
the tiny Reino Aventura pool where he had been filmed and was slowly dying;
instead, thanks to the campaign to rescue him from that deathtrap and
eventually return him to the wild, he wound up having
seven good years of a truly quality life, far superior to what any other
captive orca experiences. It only “failed” insofar as he was never successfully
reunited with his natal pod, and so eventually resumed the human contact to
which he was accustomed, before eventually dying of a respiratory ailment that
almost certainly was a legacy of his many years in captivity.
I urge Mr. Manby to reconsider his statement about Keiko and
I ask him to understand that the quality of Keiko’s remaining years were
significantly enhanced by having an opportunity to live in an ocean sea pen
with many weeks of forays in the open ocean. The orcas in SeaWorld are living
in bare and boring enclosures. These highly intelligent animals deserve to live
their remaining years in natural environment under human care. The overwhelming
evidence of orca distress in captivity is far too great to ignore. It is a fair
request for Mr. Manby to continue to listen to the public. Not only has the
public been asking for years to end the capture and breeding of captive orcas
but the public is now asking to finally close the chapter of captive orca
history by retiring the remaining captive orcas and, at a minimum, allowing
them the opportunity to swim wild under close supervision of human care in
ocean enclosures.
The time has come for us to see orcas in captivity as a part
of our past – not a tragic part of our future. Let’s end the show now and
retire these intelligent, social, complex animals to seaside sanctuaries.
The thing is, it’s too late for SeaWorld to turn back now,
despite the pleadings of their former friends at the AMMP. The ball is rolling
now, and the momentum is unlikely to stop until orca captivity has joined
slavery and racism as relics of an ugly past.
In the bigger picture, that may seem like ultimately a small
thing. But it is the kind of small, good thing that has deeper resonances that
ripple through the foundations of our society and the shared reality that makes
it possible to cohere, to empathize, and to cooperate. To beat back the
darkness.
It is an incremental and yet momentous victory, a ray of
light that cuts deep in dark times. In a time when the forces of white
supremacism and warlike nationalism, aimed at dominance and control of “those”
people, are straining and threatening to roar back to life both in America and
elsewhere, we can use all the small good things we can get.
[Script reads: "We Are Creating the New Germany! Remember the victims -- Vote the National Socialist List 1".]
Watching the scenes unfold last night from Chicago and elsewhere, it became obvious that, largely as many of us have feared, Donald Trump is indeed leading the United States merrily down the path to an outbreak of actual, genuine fascism, all without himself being a hardened fascist ideologue, but rather a right-wing populist demagogue. But then again, the two phenomena are only degrees apart, and that is what we are now seeing on the streets of the American political landscape.
Of course, while it was fairly clear that the protesters were peaceful until attacked by the Trump rally-goers, the reality also was that fighting eventually broke out on all sides and there was violence all around. Naturally, that meant that the media were already out there flogging their favorite "both sides do it" narrative.
There is a long history of this with the fascist and proto-fascist right. Indeed, martyrdom at the hands of the "violent left" was a cornerstone of early Nazi propaganda, of which the above poster is only a small sample.
In
the final years of the Weimar Republic, Germany was mired in a grave
political and economic crisis that left the society verging on civil
war. Street violence by paramilitary organizations on the Left and the
Right increased sharply. In the final ten days of the July 1932
parliamentary elections, Prussian authorities reported three hundred
acts of politically motivated violence that left twenty-four people dead
and almost three hundred injured. In the Nazi campaigns, propaganda and
terror were closely linked. In Berlin, Nazi Party leader Joseph
Goebbels intentionally provoked Communist and Social Democratic actions
by marching SA [Brownshirt] storm troopers into working-class
neighborhoods where those parties had strongholds. Then he invoked the
heroism of the Nazi "martyrs" who were injured or killed in these
battles to garner greater public attention. Nazi newspapers,
photographs, films, and later paintings dramatized the exploits of these
fighters. The "Horst Wessel Song," bearing the name of the
twenty-three-year-old storm trooper and protege of Goebbels who was
killed in 1930, became the Nazi hymn. The well-publicized image of the
SA-man with a bandaged head, a stirring reminder of his combat against
the "Marxists" (along with other portrayals of muscular, oversized storm
troopers), became standard in party propaganda. In the first eight
months of 1932, the Nazis claimed that seventy "martyrs" had fallen in
battle against the enemy. Such heroic depictions -- set against the grim
realities of chronic unemployment and underemployment for young people
during the Weimar period -- no doubt helped increase membership in the
SA units, which expanded in Berlin from 450 men in 1926 to some 32,000
by January 1933.
Millions are looking upon the swastika full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!
Millions are looking upon the swastika full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!
For the last time, the call to arms is sounded!
For the fight, we all stand prepared!
Already Hitler's banners fly over all streets.
The time of bondage will last but a little while now!
Already Hitler's banners fly over all streets.
The time of bondage will last but a little while now.
The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed!
The SA march with quiet, steady step.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries,
March in spirit within our ranks.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries,
March in spirit within our ranks.
Wessel was a young brownshirt with a noted propensity for violence who was shot in the face one night, and the murder was blamed on Communists. Wessel's funeral was a kind of coming-out party for the propaganda apparatus of Josef Goebbels:
Goebbels continue to use the "martyrdom" of Wessel as a propaganda
device for years, including in January 1933, when "an enormous
procession ... led by Hitler, Goebbels, Röhm, and other top officials of
the NSDAP,... marched to the St. Nicholas Cemetery ..[where] Hitler
spoke of Wessel's death as a symbolic sacrifice, and dedicated a
memorial to him[31]
Wessel's name was frequently invoked by the Nazis to bolster core
tenets of National Socialist ideology during the remaining existence of
the Third Reich:
Comrades who found their way to the Führer through him and who fought
the Red subhumans at his side. Comrades who were with him daily and
knew him best ... "the hero of the Brown Revolution." His sacrificial
death inspired and passionately inflamed millions who followed. The
spirit of Horst Wessel is today the driving force behind the struggle
for freedom of the armed services and the homeland of the Greater German
Reich.
— An article from the Nazi-owned Völkischer Beobachter newspaper encouraging German soldiers during the war.[32]
This was essentially a variation on a rhetorical tactic known as "the bloody shirt" whose entire purpose, historically speaking, has been to make victims out of the perpetrators of violence, and to make its victims out to be its perpetrators -- in other words, to invert reality on its head, and in doing so, justify further violence against its victims.
Most of us are familiar with the idea of "waving the bloody shirt" -- "the demagogic practice of politicians referencing the blood of martyrs or heroes to inspire support or avoid criticism."
... In American history, it gained popularity with an
incident in which Benjamin Franklin Butler of Massachusetts, when making
a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, allegedly
held up the shirt of a carpetbagger whipped by the Ku Klux Klan.
The
sequel was this—or at least this was the story everyone in Monroe
County believed, and in time everyone in Mississippi and the whole South
had heard it, too. That a U.S. Army lieutenant who was stationed nearby
recovered the bloody night-shirt that Huggins had worn that night, and
he carried it to Washington, D.C., and there he presented it to
congressman Benjamin F. Butler, and in a fiery speech on the floor of
the United States Congress a few weeks later in which he denounced
Southern outrages and called for passage of a bill to give the federal
government the power to break the Ku Klux terror, Butler had literally
waved this blood-stained token of a Northern man’s suffering at the hand
of the Ku Klux. And so was born the memorable phrase, “waving the
bloody shirt.”
Waving the bloody shirt: it would become the
standard retort, the standard expression of dismissive Southern contempt
whenever a Northern politician mentioned any of the thousands upon
thousands of murders, whippings, mutilations, and rapes that were
perpetrated against freedmen and women and white Republicans in the
South in those years. The phrase was used over and over during the
Reconstruction era. It was a staple of the furious and sarcastic
editorials that filled Southern newspapers in those days, of the
indignant orations by Southern white political leaders who protested
that no people had suffered more, been humiliated more, been punished
more than they had. The phrase has since entered the standard American
political lexicon, a synonym for any rabble-rousing demagoguery, any
below-the-belt appeal aimed at stirring old enmities.
That the
Southerners who uttered this phrase were so unconcerned about the
obvious implications it carried for their own criminality, however,
seems remarkable; for whoever was waving the shirt, there was
unavoidably, or so one would think, the matter of just whose blood it
was, and how it had got there. That white Southerners would unabashedly
trace the origin of this metaphor to a real incident involving an
unprovoked attack of savage barbarity carried out by their own most
respectable members of Southern white society makes it all the more
astonishing.
Most astonishing of all was the fact that the whole
business about Allen Huggins’s bloody shirt being carried to Washington
and waved on the House floor by Benjamin Butler was a fiction.
The
story about Huggins being whipped by the Ku Klux was true enough.
Huggins was whipped on that bright moonlit night so ferociously that he
could barely walk for a week or two afterward, so ferociously that in a
burning anger that overcame any fear of his own death he traveled to
Washington to testify before Congress and then returned to Monroe County
with a deputy U.S. marshal’s badge and a determination to arrest every
man he could lay his hands on who had been a part of the reign of Ku
Klux murder and terror in those parts. And Benjamin Butler—“Beast
Butler,” as he was invariably called in the Southern press, the man who
had committed the unpardonable insult against Southern womanhood as the
Union occupation commander in New Orleans during the war with his order
that the next Southern woman who insulted his troops on the street would
be “regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town
plying her avocation”— this nemesis of the South, now a congressman from
Massachusetts, did indeed make a long, impassioned speech about the Ku
Klux outrages on the House floor that April, and did tell the story of
Huggins’s brutal beating in the course of it.
But nowhere in the
Congressional Globe’s transcripts of every word that was uttered on the
House floor is there any allusion to a bloody shirt; nowhere in the
press accounts of the leading papers of the time is there any mention of
a crazed congressman waving a blood-stained garment, on the floor or
off; nowhere in any reports of Huggins’s appearances before Congress
does such a story appear. That part never happened.
What was
more, this was not the first time that Southerners had invented the
fiction that Northerners were given to making fetishes of blood-stained
tokens of their victimhood at Southern hands. The same story had cropped
up fifteen years earlier in connection with another Massachusetts
politician equally reviled in the South, Senator Charles Sumner.
Once
again the beating was a fact, the alleged Northern reaction to it a
fantasy. Furious at the insult to Southern honor Sumner had committed in
a speech attacking slavery and the morality of the slave owner, South
Carolina congressman Preston Brooks had approached Sumner in the Senate
chamber, stood over his desk, and beat him on the head thirty times with
his gold-headed cane until Sumner crumpled to the floor in a pool of
his own blood.
And sure enough, Southerners were soon saying that
Sumner’s bloody coat had become a revered “holy relic” in Yankee and
abolitionist circles. Sumner, they said, had carried his own
blood-encrusted garment to England to show the Duchess of Argyle, when
she invited him to dinner; had placed it in the hands of an awe-struck
John Brown, before his fateful raid on Harper’s Ferry; had put it on
public display in Exeter Hall. “All the abject whines of Mr. Sumner, for
being well whipped,” wrote one Southerner in 1856, a few months after
the event, “all the exhibitions of his bloody shirt to stale Boston
virgins who, in vexation of having failed to secure a man, would now wed
a Sumner, have proved futile.” Years later, years after the Civil War,
scornful stories about Northerners exhibiting Sumner’s bloody shirt were
still being circulated in the South. Not a scrap of it was true.
A footnote, but a telling one: To
white conservative Southerners, the outrage was never the acts they
committed, only the effrontery of having those acts held against them.
The outrage was never the “manly” inflicting of “well-deserved”
punishment on poltroons, only the craven and sniveling whines of the
recipients of their wrath. And the outrage was never the violent defense
of “honor” by the aristocrat, only the vulgar rabble-rousing by his
social inferior. “The only article the North can retain for herself is
that white feather which she has won in every skirmish,” declared one
Southerner, speaking of the Sumner–Brooks affair. Only a coward would
revel in a token of his own defeat.
The bloody shirt captured the
inversion of truth that would characterize the distorted memories of
Reconstruction that the nation would hold for generations after. The
way it made a victim of the bully and a bully of the victim, turned the
very blood of their African American victims into an affront against
Southern white decency, turned the very act of Southern white violence
into wounded Southern innocence; the way it suggested that the real
story was never the atrocities white Southerners committed but only the
attempt by their political enemies to make political hay out of it.
The mere suggestion that a partisan motive was behind the telling of
these tales was enough to satisfy most white Southerners that the events
never happened, or were exaggerated, or even that they had been
conspiratorially engineered by the victims themselves to gain sympathy
or political advantage.
And now Trump is tapping into this projection-fueled trait on behalf of his far-right populist and nationalist agenda. So it's very clear how this is going to play out -- especially with a compliant media always eager to provide "balance" to their reportage: Any kind of violence, even defensive or responsive, from Trump's opponents is going to be used as an excuse to escalate, ad infinitum.
This is a very dangerous time, and progressives are going to have to be smart about how they confront this tactic, which is going to happen increasingly as the election year drags along. They are going to have to be incredibly disciplined, and incredibly committed to nonviolence when confronted with the viciousness of the budding Brownshirts on the other side.
And I'm not among the optimistic that this will be the case. Please prove me wrong.
Lynchings
unquestionably had the short-term desired effect of suppressing blacks'
civil rights; the majority of African Americans in the South during
that era led lives of quiet submission in the hope of escaping that
horrific fate, and relatively few aspired beyond their established
station in life. Those who did often migrated northward, where lynchings
were hardly unknown (some of the most notorious occurred in places like
Indiana and Minnesota, and they in fact were recorded in nearly every
state in the Union), but were not as endemic. However, the awfulness of
the mobs' brutality, often reported and photographed in gruesome detail,
ultimately also inspired a reaction that gave birth to the Civil Rights
movement and eventually the demise of the racial caste system lynching
was intended to enforce. 
Lynchings
unquestionably had the short-term desired effect of suppressing blacks'
civil rights; the majority of African Americans in the South during
that era led lives of quiet submission in the hope of escaping that
horrific fate, and relatively few aspired beyond their established
station in life. Those who did often migrated northward, where lynchings
were hardly unknown (some of the most notorious occurred in places like
Indiana and Minnesota, and they in fact were recorded in nearly every
state in the Union), but were not as endemic. However, the awfulness of
the mobs' brutality, often reported and photographed in gruesome detail,
ultimately also inspired a reaction that gave birth to the Civil Rights
movement and eventually the demise of the racial caste system lynching
was intended to enforce. 
