Arrow Could Hold the Key to Our Gun Control Debate

politics, Pop Culture

We’ve talked a lot about how to solve gun violence recently, especially after the Las Vegas shooting. But it’s been a long-simmering controversy that temporarily erupts periodically after shootings like Columbine or Newtown. That’s why I was so stunned when Arrow chose to devote an episode to the issue in season five (which I just watched).

In episode 13, a man who lost his family to a shooting surprises the city by shooting and killing some of Oliver Queen’s mayoral staff. It later emerges that he’s planning to attack a hospital. His motive? To punish Starling for not adopting more gun control measures. In what was an interesting twist, the show writers had Oliver deal with the issue as Mayor Queen instead of the Green Arrow, which I appreciated.

While the Green Arrow’s team attempts to find the shooter, they engage in a debate about the wisdom of gun control. Rene opposes gun control measures, as he feels citizens have a right to defend themselves. The show cut to a heartbreaking flashback where a criminal broke into his house and Rene used a gun to defend himself. Curtis, by contrast, believes in gun control measures, and Oliver wants a middle course as mayor.

What I appreciated was how Arrow allowed this disagreement to play out among friends who hold each other in high regard. That element seems to be what’s missing in a lot of debates over contemporary issues. It might be easy for Rene to dismiss a gun control proponent as someone who looks down on people who own guns and doesn’t care that people are worried about being able to defend themselves. But he couldn’t do that with Curtis, who obviously cares about the pain he carries from losing his wife. And Curtis could have assumed that gun control opponents were nuts bent on stockpiling guns regardless of the consequences for everyone else. But he couldn’t do that when presented with Rene’s story.

It’s easier to compromise with someone you respect and someone whom you know respects you. Without grasping this basic truth, I fear we will have trouble finding consensus on difficult issues. Perhaps a good start would be to have everyone watch Arrow.

Should We Remove Confederate Monuments?

History, Race

This summer showed how much the Civil War still echoes into our time. After Charlottesville, there were renewed calls to remove monuments to prominent confederate generals. That never appeared to command majority support. The question I don’t think ever got resolved was what the monuments’ purpose was. The answer should heavily inform whether removal is the best course.

One reason to keep the statues is as an acknowledgement of how important the Civil War was in our history. It was our bloodiest war, and one that led to profound shifts in our constitutional system—the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, to name only a few. Seeing the statues reminds us that a terrible war was needed to produce this progress. But if this is truly the reason to support keeping the monuments, we’re left with crucial questions. First, is the story these statues are telling a complete acknowledgment of our history? In many public places, we see only confederate generals with statues. That ignores that even in the South, many fought for the Union. As you might suspect, that includes many black men who ran from their masters to fight for freedom for themselves and their loved ones. As you might not suspect, it also includes many white men from the South who fought for the Union. If we’re serious about acknowledging our history in public places, wouldn’t we also need to include these stories?

Moreover, was acknowledging our history really the reason the statues were built in the first place? For example, many of the statues were built in the early 1900s and 1960s. Was there a renewed interest in General Lee’s tactics at Cold Harbor or General Jackson’s campaign in the Shenandoah at these times? Or is the best explanation the implementation of Jim Crow laws and massive resistance to desegregation taking place during these times?

A second and related reason not to remove the statues is to acknowledge the very racism that led to their construction in at least some cases. A person could say, yes, many of the statues were built to celebrate white supremacy and as a signal of defiance to the burgeoning civil rights movement in the 1960s. And perhaps that is precisely their value. They remind us that the movement’s gains faced fierce opposition and that our society once openly celebrated men who owned slaves and fought a federal government which they then saw as uprooting the racial hierarchy they knew.

Third, you could support keeping the statues because you think the men should be celebrated. Maybe you think the generals memorialized were wrong to support slavery or secede from the Union, but that they were skillful soldiers and honorable men on the whole. Or maybe you think the statues stand in for many of the confederate foot soldiers who did not own slaves and thought they were fighting to defend their homes. Whatever their flaws, they are people we should look up to and the statues are reminders of that. That line of thinking raises another question. Suppose a group of black men had taken up arms against the federal government and attempted to overthrow it because they found it oppressive. Suppose too that they had killed thousands of people and held racist attitudes toward whites. Would such men be given statues? Would we care that they demonstrated bravery while fighting, or would we unequivocally condemn them?

Fourth, you could support the statues as an effort at national reconciliation. As Shelby Foote noted in the Civil War diaries, losing the Civil War gave (white) Southerners a sense of defeat that Americans from other parts of the country had never experienced. For the sake of unity, we needed to welcome them back with open arms. One way to do that was to honor the soldiers and Generals who fought for the South and celebrate their tenacity and bravery. One question is whether the absence of such monuments in 2017 would cause white southerners to feel the same sense of alienation from the rest of their countrymen that they did after Appomattox.

It Review

Uncategorized

It was fantastic! [Spoilers included].

I think what I most enjoyed was the way it chronicled adolescence in a realistic, but endearing way. We see that kids are cruel. Henry seems to take sadistic pleasure in bullying Ben and the other losers. Although some of his antics are exaggerated, I suspect there is a kid like him in every middle school. Somehow, too, the movie manages to portray him in a sympathetic light as well when it shows his father mistreating him. Like a lot of bullies, his actions are driven in part by his own feelings of inadequacy.

Even the losers can be mean to each other and they devolve into fighting at one point. Kids can be fickle and impulsive (not that any parent needed to be reminded I’m sure).

Perhaps the most heartwarming part is the way the losers are comfortable in their own skin. They know they will never be the popular kids. They know they will never be the coolest. But there is an obvious comfort they feel in their own skin which most adolescents could learn from. Ben likes being in the library and doesn’t see a need to hide it.

The movie seemed relatively lighthearted for a horror movie even though it explored some heavy themes. That’s probably because the verbal jousting among the losers frequently left me laughing.

It gets two thumbs up from me. If you haven’t already, you should see it.

Venus Was the Best Story of This Year’s U.S. Open

Sports

I couldn’t stop following Venus this U.S. Open. Not because of her monster serve or incredible backhand, though those things are wonderful things to behold. Watching her inspired me. Seven years ago, when she was first diagnosed with Sjorgen’s syndrome, I wondered if her career was over. She even fell outside the top 100 if I recall correctly.

Those days are a distant memory now. She slowly built up her ranking and played in her first grand slam finals in years in 2017. She didn’t win, of course, but I have the distinct feeling she’ll get one more before she retires. Many of us might have been discouraged by years of lackluster results and setbacks, especially when we had once been champions. She wasn’t.

I’ll bet taking that loss to Sloane Stephens was tough last week. And yet even that match is a reminder of her impact on the sport. When she first hit the scene in the 90s, Venus was a barrier breaker—potentially the first black female grand slam champion in decades. Thanks to her efforts, it is no longer an odd sight to see a black woman hoisting a grand slam trophy. A generation looked up to her as a hero. One of them was Stephens.

So I wasn’t disappointed by her run. I was inspired by it. Venus set an example of perseverance and grit for all of us to follow, athletes or not.

Is Oliver Queen a Hero, a Murderer, or Both?

Pop Culture

I’m continuing season five of Arrow. Oliver is assembling a new team to protect Starling city. While they are working to track down a new vigilante, the team finds a list of people he killed in season one. I thought one of them posed an interesting question: how do you tell the difference between a murderer and a hero, and who gets to decide?

The answer may seem obvious at first. Heroes fight for a just cause, even at personal risk. Murderers kill people for no good reason. The whole series has challenged this dichotomy. Oliver undoubtedly fights for a good cause—saving Starling City—but a question hanging over the show is whether he has done so honorably. He has killed in cold blood before and I have the distinct impression he will again. So we then have to ask whether you can be a hero if you pursue honorable objectives dishonorably.

Everybody will probably answer that question differently. I really appreciate how Arrow has allowed us to grapple with the question throughout the series. We see Felicity leaving Oliver because she couldn’t deal with his continued dishonesty even though she understood why he lied to her about having a son. And it was portrayed as a reasonable decision. Most effectively, we have the new team Oliver has gathered feeling palpably blindsided by the revelation that he had a kill list.

On the other hand, it’s clear that Oliver has repeatedly saved the city from destruction. It’s also strongly suggested at different points that a person who refused to bend his moral principles would not have been able to save the city. In other words, the only way to do the truly heroic thing—save Starling—is to act in ways unbecoming of a hero as we usually understand it.

I can’t wait to see how the series resolves the question of whether Oliver is really a hero.

Could Confederate Be A Worthwhile Show?

Pop Culture, Race

The most controversial show on TV—if the last week or so is any indication—has not yet aired. I’m talking about HBO’s new show Confederate. The question a lot of us are wondering is whether anything good can come from this show.

For example, it might be worthwhile if the show made commentary about race in 21st century America. As in, the show might tell us that race relations aren’t much different in a country that seceded to protect slavery than they are in 2016 America. But if the goal is to bring attention to racial disparities today, it’s unclear why the confederacy is the best vehicle. Surely there are dramas that could be set in the present day that would explore issues the black community faces in the 21st century. These would provide more relevant commentary. And if the goal is to better appreciate the outsized role slavery has played in our history, a show centered on the confederacy is an odd choice. An honest look at life on a plantation, or the struggles of a black family to build a good life in a free state amid threats from bounty hunters and pernicious racism could do the trick.

Perhaps the best argument for Confederate is that it explores fascinating historical questions. What would it be like if the confederacy had won? Would it have allied with the United States in future wars? Would it have eventually abolished slavery? What effect would losing the South have had on Northern politics? I can see these questions greatly interesting a certain type of person. And by that, I mean someone who enjoys exploring counter-factual historical questions, not necessarily lost cause types.

Problem is, I doubt a tv show is the best way to answer these questions. The best way in my view to really take a stab at answering these questions is in a rigorously researched book. Drawing upon mounds of primary sources, a historian could predict how the confederacy would unfold. Could a tv show do this? Sure. But I doubt it would given time constraints and the temptation to privilege dramatic effect over analytic rigor.

At present, it’s hard to see Confederate giving us meaningful insights. But perhaps it’ll prove us wrong

Should We Treat All Criminals Like John Diggle?

Pop Culture

I’m trying to get through season five of Arrow as quickly as possible before the new season starts up. One thing that got me thinking early on was when John Diggle was set up and put into military prison. At first, he tells his wife to stop fighting for him and resists when Oliver comes to break him out. The reason is fascinating to me: he thinks he deserves to be punished for killing his brother Andy last season. That is, he’ll accept punishment for a crime he didn’t commit to atone for one he did.

Part of me had a lot of trouble with this decision. Diggle has a daughter and a wife he’ll leave behind if he stays in prison. And he’s a crucial part of the team that keeps Starling City from being completely overrun by various villains. What a selfish way to live, I thought. Putting his need for moral balance ahead of the needs of everyone else in his life. Before I could judge too harshly, though, I began to realize that so many of us act the same way every day in less extreme cases. Like Diggle, we refuse to accept love from others because we’ve done something in the past that makes us unworthy of it. So as much as I disliked Diggle’s decision, I understood it.

In fact, it was so obvious that Diggle deserved punishment that Oliver told him that, yes, you need to make up for what you did, but the way to do it is to come back to Starling and protect the city. And I think there’s some good food for thought. All of us make mistakes, sometimes even horrible ones. The way to make up for them is not to stop living, but to live our lives for a high calling.

That got me thinking about how we punish as a society. Many of us think about criminal punishment as ensuring that the criminal repays their debt to society. And sure enough, every person we put in prison who has committed a crime might deserve to be there on some level. But by separating them from their loved ones and communities, we may inflict the same consequences on bystanders that Diggle was ready to inflict on his family. What about their families, and their friends, and their jobs? By keeping them locked up because they owe society a debt, we may end up stopping them from living lives to pay it.

Of course, some people are too dangerous to be left free. Is that true of Diggle? He’s a murderer after all. And yet I think the screenwriters mean for us to see him as a hero. A fallen hero, yes, but a hero all the same at the end of the day. The question this poses is never stated directly on the show, but I think it’s there all the same. If a man who killed his own brother is capable of redemption, what about the many other criminals locked up for lesser crimes?

Gotham’s Problem: Too Much Too Soon

Pop Culture

I thought season one of Gotham was great. It was an interesting premise, seeing Bruce Wayne before he becomes Batman, and Penguin, the Riddler, and Mr. Freeze before they became his nemeses. But lately, I’ve thought the storylines have become rushed to the point they’re unbelievable.

Case in point:  Jim Gordon’s killing Galavan and going to prison. Don’t get me wrong, I like that the writers allowed Gordon to go to dark places and made him a complicated character. He’s a man of high ideals who can’t always bring himself to act in line with them, and who has as much to atone for as he does to be proud of.

But some of his storyline happened too quickly. Gordon was caught, put on trial, and sent to Blackgate, all in one episode. To make things harder to believe, he also got out in only an episode or two. That’s why it was tough to believe his relationship with Lee would really be over so quick. If gets out so soon after going in, he would have made more of an effort than placing a phone call to reach her. They were engaged and she had lost his child, after all.

Now, it would have been more believable to me if Gordon had spent most of a season in Blackgate. By that point it would be realistic that he’d believe he’s never getting out, and that Lee’s life would be better without her engaged to him. It would also make his vigilante routine more believable. If he’d spent a big chunk of time in prison, I’d have an easier time seeing him give up on working for law enforcement.

I still think Gotham’s a fun show to watch. But where I used to be really invested in Gordon’s development as a character, I now find him a distraction from the storyline that does have me engaged: Bruce Wayne’s development into the man who will ultimately become Batman.

Wonder Woman Loves You

Pop Culture

I promised a post about Wonder Woman and the way it portrayed love, so here it is! The idea of unconditional love has a hold on our imaginations, and most of us would say it’s a wonderful ideal to strive for. Practically, most of us love conditionally most of the time. There are lines people in our lives can cross that might make us stop loving them.

This is an issue Wonder Woman confronts when Ares tries to convince her to destroy humankind. She’s worked so hard to stop Ludendorff from killing millions of people. But to her surprise, that doesn’t stop the war. The real reason for war and violence, at least according to Ares, is that people are inherently corrupted. They kill because that’s their nature. Wonder Woman wants to save humanity because she loves all of them in theory, but finds many aren’t lovable in practice. This is truest of Maru, who’s been helping Ludendorff develop the gas Wonder Woman has worked so hard to stop. Maru arguably doesn’t deserve to live, and she certainly doesn’t seem to deserve love.

But at the end, Wonder Woman spares her. Maru and many people might not deserve love, but Wonder Woman chooses to love anyway. One of the reasons most of us want so badly to be loved, I think, is what it says about us. It means someone has looked into our soul and liked what they saw. What makes Wonder Woman’s act so meaningful to me is that she looked into Maru’s soul, saw everything there was to dislike, and chose love anyway. That may be the highest form of love there is—choosing to act sacrificially for someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Perhaps Wonder Woman’s greatest superpower is her ability to love.

Wonder Woman and the Problem of Evil

Pop Culture

Wonder Woman is one of my favorite movies this year. The action was great, and there were some hilarious lines. But probably the biggest reason I enjoyed it was that it was deceptively deep. It explored interesting ideas about love (which I’ll talk about in my next post), and why there’s evil, which I’ll talk about here.

One idea developed is that Ares (the god of war) uses his spiritual influence to corrupt people’s hearts, leading to evil. We see this when he talks about giving ideas to prolong wars over the years, including to Doctor Poison. Though Wonder Woman took its characters from Greco-Roman mythology, it reminded me of the story of man’s fall in the Bible. Satan, using a snake, sneaks into the Garden of Eden and helps convince Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge, leading God to exile man from Eden. The beginning of evil has spiritual beginnings that predate man’s existence. Same thing in Wonder Woman. The gods are involved in a struggle of their own that leads Ares, the one who fell out of favor with Zeus, to be sent away from Mount Olympus. His spiritual evil later infects mankind.

But the movie develops another idea. Ares says, yes I’ve given people ideas, but in the end it’s their choice to fight and kill each other. He hints that people don’t really need his influence to become embroiled in wars. There’s something inherently corrupt in their nature. That suggests they were created with the instinct to commit evil, and that all Ares did was tap into it.

We never get an answer as to what the true cause of evil is. That’s probably because there is no obvious answer. Neither the first nor second idea about why evil exists is comforting. If there are supernatural forces at work doing their utmost to get us to wrong each other, that suggests that we are powerless to resist. If instead there’s something evil at humanity’s core, the outcome might be the same: we are powerless to resist our impulse to do evil. I liked that Wonder Woman presented this tension without feeling a need to resolve it.

And it gave us reason to take heart. Steve chose to willingly sacrifice himself to destroy the gas that would have taken millions of lives. There are some people who will fight against their worst instincts to do good, even at great cost to themselves. Can humanity really be corrupt if there are people like that?