Do what I say, but not how I benefited
I saw a story about a guy in Nevada who won a court case about his license plate. His plate essentially gave the message for people from California to go back there.
I’ve seen yard signs that essentially give the message that if you come to this location, don’t try to change it, the people here like it the way it is.
I have heard people make statements to others to go back to where they came from.
People are interesting. In all of these examples, there is a large amount of irony. It’s probably a pretty good guess that the guy in Nevada doesn’t have a long family history in the state – go back a generation or two, maybe even three or four generations, and I’m willing to bet that someone in his family moved to Nevada from somewhere else.
The people who post yard signs inviting others to not change things when they come seem to forget that when their families came to that location, things changed from the way it was. I’m willing to bet the people who were there before didn’t like the changes.
And the people who tell others to go back from where they came completely ignore their own family history.
Oh the irony of do as I say and not as I have benefited.
But hey, why should we assume that the rules we cast down on others should also apply to ourselves. Right? That would mean we’d be equals. And lord knows too many people have a deep need to feel superior over others.
Political candidates and elected politicians score cheap quick political points with their base when they offer similar statements and policy proposals. How ironic is it when we have politicians saying that higher education is bad, while they themselves went to some of the best educational institutions in the nation?
How ironic is it that so many politicians speak out against immigrants when their own family history is a story of immigration?
How ironic is it to proclaim that people should lift themselves up by their own bootstraps even though their own wealth more often than not came as a result of others?
Education, immigration, monetary policies, social welfare, and other topics are legitimate topics to debate and discuss. They are complex topics with no easy solutions. Debate and discussion are important because they move us to better policies. But scapegoating and simplistic thinking that ignores the realities of how we benefit from something while making statements against those very things does not help.
Do these statements and scapegoating happen out of guilt? Shame? Do people need to have someone who is considered “below” them? Why? Is it about manipulation?
I don’t know.
What I do know if that there is a better way that is helpful. A way that is honest about how certain things have benefited some people. A way that allows us to examine the costs and benefits. A way that encourages us to look at others with respect. We could do that if we wanted to. But in order to do that, we have to set aside the scapegoating. We have to set aside the win at all costs mentality. We have to look beyond our own self-interest.
Human history shows this to be uncommon. But not impossible. If there is anything I have learned over the years it is this – expect the worst, but look for the best in people. And when you see it, point it out, proclaim it, highlight it, and encourage it. That’s the only way we can possibly tap into it. The habit of the worst is a long habit in humanity. But from time to time, that habit can be broken. Progress for the betterment of society and community is hard work and slow. But it can happen. We have to be vigilant and find people who also want a better life for themselves and others. They are out there. Be on the look out for them. Listen for them. And work with them to make society and our communities a better place. But don’t expect everyone to get on board. Don’t expect others to acknowledge the betterment. It’s not about getting everyone to understand or agree. It’s about doing the work anyway.
About The Author
Pastor Matt,
This is one of those posts I want to “discuss” more. (Not sure what that word means these days. But that’s another story for another time.)
Let me ask you if it’s okay that we CHANGE your post.
Can we CHANGE it? Change your meaning? Change your point? Change your approach? What in it is solid and unchangeable?
Well, I am not in outright disagreement here with you. Not at all. But I find myself challenged to say the least. I find myself sympathizing with the guy with the tags and the yard sign. No where near lockstep, but sympathetic, all the same.
Let me say first off, I don’t like change. I am suspicious of change. And I am alarmed by change.
Not everywhere all the time, but as a general baseline rule of thumb, yeah.
I was born on the West Coast during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. It was a time and place of a lot of change – unrelenting, unsettling, and in a lot of ways unhelpful change.
The car tags and yard signs you speak of strike me as insensitive and reactionary. They are making blanket statements and being borderline hostile. And when you pick apart another person’s pithy statements with deep thoughts and analysis, to be fair, they should have a chance to respond too. The tags and yard sign are, at best, thought provoking. And they do that! They provoked a lot of thought on this post! All of it against the point they seem to champion, but they provoked thought alright.
What if we give thought going in the other direction. We’d have to deal in possibilities, of course, instead of certainties, but you did that already. You assume these people descend from newcomers. I bet that is a fairly safe assumption, but if we found that both the guy with the tags and they guy with the yard sign happened to be Native Folx, it would be a torpedo of a zinger to your post. It wouldn’t disprove your post, but it would blow it up on that pith-o-mometer.
Not all change is good. Not all change is wise. You said nothing to that point. Also, change comes at us so fast and so pervasively these days. You might be looking a good change right in the face, but there’s too much to process too fast to trust it.
What if the tags and yard sign said something like, Welcome! We are glad you came for a visit. Take only pictures and leave only footprints! (That is a sign I’ve seen posted in the national park near my home which hosts thousands upon thousands of tourists seeing ancient Indian ruins.)
Or, what if the sign said this: Welcome. Please be neighborly and respectful of those who came before. We put a system in place here that is working very well for many of us, and we don’t want to destroy it. We will work at accommodating you; please be a gracious guest or newcomer on your part. ???
I got to the last couple paragraphs of your post and found some relief for my tension, and I have blogged with you enough to respect you and your views. So, I doubt very much you mean to steamroller me or people like me. Likewise, I try to be more careful with my views than it appears my friend with the tags or the yard sign do. I recognize greater complexity in being neighborly.
But I still think your post winds up writing a blank check for change, and I quibble with that. Change is often good. Change is in fact inevitable. But willy nilly change is dangerous and offensive. It’s at least as dangerous and offensive as blanket resistance.
At the beginning you asked if you could change my post – have at it. It’s a free flow thought experiment. Thanks for engaging in it.
What’s so amazing to me is the different directions can take from a post like this. Change wasn’t even on my mind, which is why I didn’t comment on it. Some change is good and some not so good. I’m not a fan of change for the sake of change. If something is working, then great, keep at it. But if it’s not, then resisting change seems to cause more problems due to some irrational loyalty to the current known.
At any rate, The point in my statements is that the irony in all of the examples does something that I think you point out – they are mean in nature. These are folks I really don’t want to spend any time with. They are making it known that they don’t want “outsiders” and they see the world through us and them lenses. I just don’t have the energy for that. I think the alternative signs that you wrote are so much better. They don’t start with an assumption that a visitor is somehow automatically immoral or inferior. The signs you suggest offer hospitality, which is biblical. They see the humanity of others and offer a message of respect of place. I think those are wonderful signs. They convey a message that isn’t based on fear, but come from a place of confidence and, dare I say it, shalom.