It sickens me that more people like the shooters in the recent Ohio and Texas murders are on the loose. All the talk about "thoughts and prayers" coming from the GOP is as worthless as used toilet paper. Nothing of value comes from the GOP or the gun lobby, save additional business for the undertaker.
Yet, the leftist argument that banning guns can not solve the problems that America has. We are a violent society which does a poor job of assimilating the "alienated" into the larger whole. These socially isolated people become ever more angry, as they are caught in a vicious cycle: People look for answers, find answers in extreme positions, extreme positions cause people to become isolated, isolated people look for even more extreme positions. Eventualy, they give up hope on the larger society, and either as an individual or part of an extremist group, lash out in a violent, destructive rage.
All too many people look for simplistic solutions. And the current president spouted simplistic sound bites which sounded like solutions to these people. Like religious zealots, these extremists felt they had the right to take the law into their own hands, restoring the purity of a white America.
America was never pure, and it was never an "Aryan" nation. Our first settlements, as well as our westward expansion, depended on the intermixing of peoples. Whether it was Dutch settlers developing relationships with the native Iroquois, southern whites raping their black slaves, Anglos mixing with Mexicans along our southern border, or everyone mixing with native Hawaiians, none of us are pure. And it is about time that we break the back of violent white supremacist culture.
Not having a homogenous culture has been both a great asset and a great liability for America. As an asset, we mix the best of ideas from all cultures to produce something greater than any of the originals. As a liability, the lack of consistant cultural shorthands leads us to conflicts which can escalate into violence. If our founding fathers knew then what we know now, I'm not sure if the 2nd amendment would have been ratified. But I'm sure that they would have considered it, as then, like today, many people depend on their guns for food and protection.
Is there a single definite answer to stopping gun violence - NO! We can institute programs which cause people of different backgrounds, Rural and Urban, Black and White, Anglo and Latino, etc. to mix and develop connections with each other. Our military does that in the field. But what about civilian life? Might it be possible to look at our past and use FDR's employment programs (CCC, WPA, etc.) as models for ways to mix people of different backgrounds AND to give them employment when they need it most?
But first, we can start by teaching people that the last resort of the incompetent is the initial use of violence. Teach people how to communicate and assimilate into the larger society, and to gain value from that society. That might be a good start to reduce the number of these unwanted killing sprees....
Has anyone noticed that the cultural divide in America in the 21st century isn't that much different from a map of the United States drawn at the time of the Civil War? Most of the states drawn in blue are "liberal" states, while most of the states drawn in gray and territories drawn in brown are "conservative" states. In a previous entry, I noted that the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. What I didn't note was how geography plays a big part in a region's cultural values.
Areas of high population density are often hotbeds of cultural diversity. One can not but have his or her values tested by being in contact with people who think differently. A typical New Yorker will have coffee at a pushcart staffed by an Iranian, eat lunch at a Kosher deli staffed with Mexican labor, and have dinner at an Italian restaurant staffed by Albanians. On another day, that same person may eat breakfast at a Greek diner staffed by Columbians, have lunch in a cafeteria staffed by native born Americans, then have dinner at a Soul Food joint before rushing off to an Irish bar....
Contrast the above to life in smaller towns in the old Confederacy. In many of these small hamlets, one might not even find one decent restaurant - and have to grab a burger at the local pub. (Charlie Daniels' "Uneasy Rider" comes to mind here.) Due to the remoteness of many of these places (think of small towns in the Rockies and in Appalachia), many people socialize with people who often are related to each other by inter-generational intermarriage. Their views often aren't challenged, as they only meet people like themselves on a regular basis. When one lives in these smaller communities, the locus of social activity is often the local church. This doesn't sound like much, but think of it as the one institution in the South that wasn't crushed after the civil war, and you'll see how dysfunctional values of 150 years ago could be preserved to the present day.
Religion, as an institution, changes much slower than society in general. This is good, when people need a connection to the eternal. It is bad when dysfunctional values are passed on from one generation to another. Years ago, my mother made a big deal about our church changing the hymnal being used every Sunday. Imagine what it was like dealing with the issue of slavery - something which the bible permits and has rules for. If a person comes from a society that accepted slavery, and was forced to end it - it is likely that the religious institutions would be slow to follow the political mandate. It is also likely that these same institutions would help people find ways around the political mandates (legal and illegal) - which we saw in the era from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights battles of the mid 1900's.
People in conservative areas are slow to change with the times, and there are still traces of institutional racism found across the USA - including the "Northern" states. In Nixon's "Southern Strategy", he knew what language the GOP could use to flip it from Democratic Blue to Republican Blue. And he was successful. Unfortunately, he also eliminated the mixing of conservative and liberal values in BOTH parties which helped stabilize American government. Now, we have a very conservative GOP which uses both a religious and plutocratic litmus test for its candidates - and its influence is growing in the short term, while demographics condemn it to likely failure in the long term.
Would we have been better off if the South had left the Union? I'm not sure - it'd have been one hell of a hard border for both sides to police. Socially, I think the North would have been better off, and would have looked more like today's Canada with its higher priority on social welfare and fairness. The South, however, would have had a history similar to today's South Africa - with a period of Apartheid and ostracism from world politics, followed by a more democratic, but polarized country.
Instead of what could have been, we have what we have now - a country fragmented along a rural/urban divide, where the more conservative elements are holding off on the needed investments in our common future. Sadly, I don't see anything changing soon....
