On Being “White” in America

“Race is the child of racism, not the father.”Ta-Nehisi Coates

To be born with white skin in this country is to be admitted to a club you never asked to join, and from which it is nearly impossible to resign.  (And if there happens to be a penis attached to that skin, you are elevated to its board of directors.)

There are great material advantages to being a member of this club.  You are likely to make a lot more money, live in a better house, get a better education, and even live longer than other Americans who are not members.  Membership is certainly no guarantee of success, but it’s as if you are competing in a race to the top of Mount American Dream, and your club card allows you to establish your base camp halfway to the summit, while non-members have to start from the bottom.

Also, you are far less likely to be shot and killed by a police officer while, say, reaching for your wallet, or, like Laquan McDonald, just walking down the street.  If it does happen, you are more likely to have the injustice taken seriously by the authorities.

One of the fascinating things about this club is that many of its members don’t believe that it even exists, or at least so they tell themselves.  Oh sure, it may have existed a long time ago.  But – so their story goes – it was abolished after the Civil War.  Or sometime in the 1960’s.  Laws were passed.   These people ascribe their own success in life entirely to their own hard work and proper upbringing.  Any attempt to contradict this version of reality or to remedy it are met with irritated looks and mutterings about “reverse racism” and “social engineering”.

But I know firsthand that the club still exists.  I see it every day in the headlines and statistics, and sometimes still experience it personally, in the impromptu club meetings where someone will make a smirking racist remark.  For example, some years ago my next-door neighbor in a Fort Worth suburb (a schoolteacher from Wisconsin) remarked, apropos of the upcoming Martin Luther King Holiday, “it’s just another excuse for them to get off work, right?” 

An important function of a remark like this is to affirm that the speaker belongs to the club.  More importantly, it tests the person to whom it’s addressed, forcing them to declare themselves “in” or “out”.  And when I recall this incident, I am ashamed to say that I didn’t respond (out of surprise and cowardice), which is tantamount to “in”. We might just as well have exchanged a secret handshake.

I’m not particularly ashamed of belonging to this club.  It wasn’t my idea, and no one asked my permission.  But I’m not proud of it either.  I don’t feel any kinship, moral, emotional, spiritual, cultural or intellectual, with other people, based on the fact we share a skin tone.  I don’t deserve any advantages because of it.  And other people don’t deserve the terrible disadvantages of belonging to clubs they never asked to join, either.  This system is evil.

That is the difference between me and someone like Steve King, who represents a district in Iowa (a popular club hangout) in Congress.  King is proud of belonging to the white man’s club.  He believes that the club gets full credit for “Western Civilization” (presumably he means just the good parts, like the scientific method and impressionism, and not the unpleasant bits like slavery and the holocaust.  Though who knows).

No, the only club I want to belong to, of which I would be proud to be a member, is a much more exclusive one: The Good Persons Club.  Its members do things like say what they mean, do what they say, and are blind towards superficial accidents of birth such as skin color when dealing with other people.  In other words they are required to do the right thing.

 The cool thing about the Good Persons Club is that membership is open to anyone who can meet the entrance requirements.  My application form still has some missing fields and some items that need…further explanation.  But I’m working on it. 

On Being a Tourist, and Dacia Maraini’s Bagheria

To be a tourist, for me at least, is often a surreal and uncomfortable experience.   When I travel, I’m the same person that I am at home in Texas.  And we’re really not so adventurous; the places we travel to are “safe”, by any reasonable standard.  So why the discomfiture abroad?  A lot of reasons….

At the most obvious level, one feels vulnerable without the familiarity and certainties of home.  You don’t know where the toilet is, where or how to get the train tickets, the proper way to order lunch.  You’re dependent on other people whom you don’t know and whose livelihood depends on extracting cash from you. This vulnerability makes you feel conspicuous, like a walking target with a dollar sign painted on your back.  To be honest, you feel like a fool.

If you don’t know the local language, this anxiety is multiplied.  Even if you are able to approximate the local costume (jeans, say, and a leather jacket, instead of shorts and a college T-shirt), you know that you will be exposed as a witless intruder the moment you open your mouth.  The sordid truth is that this fear originally motivated my effort to learn Italian. It was not in order to read Dante in the original or enjoy La Dolce Vita without the subtitles.  It was in order not to seem like (or more accurately, not to feel like) that idiot, The American Tourist, in front of the café waiter.  (Of course it’s a futile effort.  The waiter spots the tourist a kilometer away, and doesn’t care anyway.)

Tourists of all nations have these anxieties and deal with them in different ways.  Some are pushy and obnoxious towards anyone they need assistance from.  Some hide in expensive “all-inclusive” type resorts that are basically American hotels in a different latitude.  (At least you can say you “went” to “Mexico” or “Jamaica”.)  Some bury their noses in guidebooks.  Some put effort into learning the local language and culture (the latter a slippery and Hydra-headed thing at best).  Some join tour groups.  I have done all of these things (except, I hope, for being obnoxious). 

And there are some, particularly Europeans, who are truly multicultural and often multi-lingual, who breeze across borders and through nations without evident anxiety.  I am quite jealous of these types.  

But there is a deeper problem with being a tourist than the feelings of conspicuousness and vulnerability.  It’s the feeling that what you’re getting is not at all the real experience of the place, but rather a sugar-coated, Disneyfied version of it.  You came to Rome for the Colosseum, the Vatican, gelato, and pizza, and that is what you are going to get.  And most of the Romans you meet will collaborate with you to ensure your pleasant, sanitized experience.  There is a real Rome somewhere but that is likely to be dirty, uncomfortable, and a little dangerous, and is to be avoided except perhaps for tiny, safe glimpses that make good stories back home.  And why would you want to experience reality, anyway?  For that, you could have stayed home. 

And you, in your turn, are playing your part in erasing the “real” Rome, or Venice, or Florence, by spending your Yankee dollars on diesel-fume-spouting tour buses, and those hotels that have been elbowing out affordable housing from the historic city centers ever since the war.   Maybe you try to buy your way deeper into authenticity by staying at a renovated farmhouse in Tuscany instead of a hotel in the city.  But whose authenticity are you experiencing now?  Not that of the peasant (god forbid), nor the prosperous farmer, nor the aristocrat at his summer villa.   You’re getting the experience of a well-to-do tourist staying at a renovated farmhouse. 

These thoughts recurred to me recently as I made my way through Dacia Maraini’s delightful little book Bagheria, a memoir and meditation on her childhood in Sicily, among other things.   And I’m convinced that the best way to really get to know a place, to get psychologically prepared to visit it, is to read a good book about it.  It’s like having an intelligent adult sit down with you for a few hours and explain to you what’s really going on, the good, the bad, the beautiful and the ugly.

 And Maraini has all the equipment, in experience, expressiveness and courage, to tell you the story, and a fascinating story to tell.  On her mother’s side she comes from a long line of once powerful and wealthy Sicilian nobility (the Alliata family); her father was a Florentine ethnologist, photographer and mountain climber.   During the war she and the rest of her family were interned in a Japanese concentration camp when her father refused to declare allegiance to the Nazi puppet government in northern Italy; after the war her family was taken back to Sicily on an American transport ship, to live in cramped rooms fashioned out of former stalls of a once-grand family villa in her home town of Bagheria – a promotion from the near-starvation of Japan to mere poverty. 

Bagheria is anything but a travel guide. You certainly won’t find out where to eat or when the ferries run.  And many of the things you find out about will be shocking, enraging, and disappointing.  But if you really want to know “what it’s like” to live there, to have grown up there, to leave your home there, even, and then come back to it in later life and to view it and the remains of your extended family through a wiser, sadder, more knowing lens, I don’t think you could do better. 

Maraini’s scope in this slender book of less than 170 pages is wide.  She exposes the destruction of the beautiful baroque villas and gardens of Bagheria due to illegal, greed-driven construction projects, abetted by her own ancestors’ careless descent into debt; and to those same ancestors’ collaboration with the hated Bourbon oppressors in the violent suppression of the Italian independence movement, and in the critical role of the Sicilian aristocracy in general in nurturing the rise of the Mafia (by using them as middlemen in the management of their estates, turning a blind eye to their brutal treatment of tenant farmers).  On a more personal level, she writes about her own experience as a child in suffering sex abuse, first at the hands of a U.S. Marine on the troop ship taking her family back to Sicily, and then by a male relative, and goes on to describe a culture that treats sexual assault, even of children, as the victim’s fault. 

Her portraits of her extended family members both present and past are the most enjoyable passages of the work for me.  One of these relatives is her maternal grandmother, in her youth a talented Chilean beauty whose dreams of becoming an opera singer were stifled first by her father and then by her husband, as being improper for a lady.  By the time her granddaughter came to know her, she was a histrionic, paranoid old woman, suspicious of everyone.  Maraini’s mother describes her on her deathbed:

“At the end she gave out a horrible odor because of the bedsores.  But she didn’t realize it…she would sleep with the key to the safe attached to her wrist by a cord.  She trusted no one, not even me.  I would have liked to tell her, mama, I don’t care anything about your money, I am here to make peace with you, who are dying… My mother never understood anything, she was wild, faithful only to herself, like a jungle animal.  Her trouble was that of having to live the life of a lady, when she was born to show off in a theater.  But they had prohibited her from doing that.  From that prohibition was born her stupid little domestic theatricality that we, her children, never forgave her for.  But I didn’t want her to die like a dog.  When I finally saw her reduced by illness, her face devastated, the eyes lost, I felt such a strong pity for her that I would have liked to take her in my arms like a little girl, because such had been her life, and to softly sing to her one of those Chilean songs she liked so much.” [Translation my own; but the book is available in English as well as Italian.]

I may be representing Maraini’s portrayal of Bagheria as more grim than it is.  She conveys a sense of love for her family and for her community, but it is a love that is unsentimental and determined to call a spade a spade. 

I have been to Sicily, and I will be returning.  But reading a book like Bagheria makes me feel as though a friend has taken me by the hand and given me a sharper understanding of the place than any guidebook or even package tour could ever provide.  It’s like learning about the whaling industry by reading Moby Dick, as opposed to the Wikipedia article.  It’s deeper and more personal.

And it’s led me to ask myself:  if someone were to visit Texas (where the Garden of Eaton is located), what would I advise them to read, to get a sense of the “real” Texas?  Well, that’s a good question, and one I will address here in the near future.  In the meantime, if you plan on being a tourist in Texas anytime soon, we advise you to begin by renting Peter Bogdanovich’s 1971 film adaptation of the Larry McMurtry novel, The Last Picture Show.

In Praise of Bad Guys

I’m a fan of action/thriller movies, like every warm-blooded human being.  But only the few good ones.  And the good ones have an essential ingredient in common.  A really good bad guy.  A bad guy who is a credible threat to the otherwise invincible good guy or gal.  A bad guy you come to dread whenever he or she enters the camera’s view.  A bad guy whose demise leaves you feeling relieved and elated, or, if he or she survives, a little uncomfortable on the way home. 

And so many action pictures have been spoiled by a bland, unthreatening bad guy.  Usually with about 20 minutes of screen time to go, there comes a point at which the bad guy’s plans are falling apart and he reacts by screaming at his minions.  Then some peremptory instructions, along the imaginative lines of “I want him dead!”, invariably followed by, “Now!” or “Go!” or “Do it”, or “Now! Go! Do it!”.  At that point I know there’s nothing left but a lot of running around, shooting, explosions, and other kinds of noisy, irritating activity, as we wait for the predictable finish.

But a good bad guy doesn’t panic or scream at his minions.  He’s a psychopath.  And a good psychopath needs a great actor to sell his or her dread-inducing psychosis. 

 So what do I consider to be the best bad guys of cinema?  Here are my top all-time contenders:

1. Movie: For a Few Dollars More (Sergio Leone, 1965)

Actor: Gian Maria Volontè

Bad guy: El Indio

Hollywood had never surpassed this representation of a psychopath who gets a sexual charge out of committing murder.  Just take a look at the expression on his face after he’s killed someone.

2. Once Upon a Time in the West (Sergio Leone, 1968)

Actor: Henry Fonda

Bad guy: Frank

The man who played young Abraham Lincoln turns in a brilliant performance here, playing against type as a sadistic killer.  When he kicks the crutch out from under his crippled boss, he’s just getting started.

3. No Country for Old Men (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2007)

Actor: Javier Bardem

Bad guy: Anton Chigurh

When Woody Harrelson’s character begs Chigurh not to kill him, saying, “You don’t have to do this,” Chigurh muses, “Everyone says that!”

4. Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1964)

Actor: Sterling Hayden

Bad guy: Gen. Jack D. Ripper

Now this is a comedy (albeit one ending in the destruction of our planet).  But there is something truly frightening in Hayden’s portrayal of a paranoid-schizophrenic right-wing Air Force general who decides that the only way to save the United States is by starting a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.  Susan Sontag unfairly dismissed this film as slapstick, yet she called Hayden’s performance “excruciatingly brilliant.”

5. Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

Actor:  Christoph Waltz

Bad guy: Hans Landa

When this guy offers you strudel mit schlag…run!

6.  Throne of Blood (Akira Kurosawa, 1957)

Actor: Isuzu Yamada

Bad guy: Washizu Asaji (Lady Macbeth)

Every time she opens her mouth to make a polite suggestion, something evil is going to happen.

7.  The Death of Stalin (Armando Iannucci, 2017)

Actor: Simon Russell Beale

Bad guy: Lavrentiy Beria

How can you make a comedy about an actual monster from recent history, that does the monster and his victims justice?  The Death of Stalin is a lesson in how.  I know it worked because when I saw Beria’s sordid, trumped-up trial and execution, I was cheering. 

8. Fargo (Joel and Ethan Coen, 1996)

Actor: Peter Stormare

Bad guy: Gaear Grimsrud

The other brilliantly-played villains in this story are just sleazy and greedy. Stormare is scary.

9. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

Actor: Douglas Rain (voice)

Bad guy: HAL 9000

Cars that turn into laser-spitting robots aren’t scary.  They’re just noisy and complicated-looking.  What’s scary is a friendly talking computer that quietly severs the air supply in your space suit.  While you’re in it.  In space.  

By the way, I have an existential tie with HAL.  We were both created on the campus of the University of Illinois, Urbana.  Hurray for state universities!

10. The Getaway (Sam Peckinpah, 1972)

Actor: Al Lettieri

Bad guy: Rudy Butler

Not even a mother could love someone this bad. 

That’s my list…what’s yours?

Why I’m Against The Wall

Our representatives in Washington, the ones to the left of Just Plain Nutty, are fond of saying that they are against The Wall because it would be expensive and ineffective.

I don’t think they’re being honest.  Expensive is relative, and I believe a wall would be quite effective in doing its job of keeping people from getting from one side to the other.  At the very least it would make it significantly more difficult, dangerous, and expensive to enter the U.S. illegally from Mexico.

I’m not against The Wall just because of what it would cost, or because it wouldn’t work.  I’m not against The Wall just because it would deprive this aging country of the youthful energy it needs and the willingness to do the dirty jobs that need to get done.  I’m not against The Wall just because it will be ugly and hinder the movement of wildlife.

I’m against The Wall because I’m against the idea of The Wall. 

I’m against The Wall because it would separate us from a friendly neighbor with whom we haven’t been at war since we stole a large part its territory some 170 years ago.

I’m against The Wall because it says we like nice white middle-class English-speaking Canadians but are afraid of poor, desperate, brown, Spanish-speaking families.

I’m against The Wall because it will be the ugly artifact of an insecure empire trying to protect itself from imaginary monsters with a concrete security blanket. 

There is something fundamentally, morally un-American, in constructing a physical barrier between ourselves and our fellow human beings to the south.  I wish that our more thoughtful politicians would drop the fig leaf of practicality and publicly oppose The Wall for what it is: just plain wrong.