Chris Herrington, Contributing Writer
Social justice? What a bunch of hog wash! If people act right, get a good education, and learn to take care of business, they will get real justice. No matter what background a person has or comes from, he or she can always climb out and do better. If a person does not get an education, it is his own fault if he cannot find a better job. Everything that happens to someone is completely his or her fault. Being a victim, having a disability, coming from poverty, or having suffered abuse is no excuse. Those who have are only making use of what they have to make more for themselves. Life is not fair, so it is best to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and get on with our lives.
Okay then. Social justice, what does it mean to have “social justice?” An historical review puts us on the edge of a Universal Bill of Rights. The question remains, “Why should I afford these rights to others simply because I want them for myself?” If others are >given< the opportunities I have, and yet they do not make use of them, is this my fault? If others do not see the assets that lie at their feet, do I have the right to take those resources away for my own use?
Part of this entire discussion is held in trust with the concept of private versus public property. If we are all given the same start, then what I do with my share is up to me and if I squander mine or do not use it to its potential, then my loss is a consequence of my own poor thinking. It is a matter of course that some will eventually do better than others by virtue of their excellent thinking. It stands to reason then that some will fair less well by virtue of their less than excellent thinking. What then can we say for those who do less well? What are the liabilities on those who fail? What are the responsibilities of those who do not fail? Do we help those who help themselves in order to fan the flames of collective social success? Do we let fall those who have been less than successful simply because they have not met our standard of cooperation or involvement?
Social Darwinism would say that those who fail to grab the brass ring deserve to die. Genocide is the fate of the weak and stupid, and those who are foolish for too long are in fact stupid. What we are left with then is the operational definition of success: If we don’t get eaten by the larger fish, we are at least moderately successful. The ultimate question then is, “Are those big fish, who eat all of the littler fish, the ones that are successful?” It may be that it is just too straightforward to put this in terms that are as blunt as Swift did, “Eat the children of the poor,” essentially. I have often heard the argument that this is not a zero sum game. I love that argument. It really masks the concept that, “I got mine, and if you don’t get yours, that is too bad for you.” I love it when people will say that this is a dog-eat-dog world, and we need to fend for ourselves. I love it because those who do not believe in evolution are usually the first ones to support the idea that this is a game of survival of the fittest.
I often wonder why we have anyone starve to death in the world; we have enough food. We have incredible medical technology, and yet millions die each year from preventable illnesses. I am amazed and appalled that we cannot get beyond our own blindness to the fact that the entire planet is here and that the abstractions of politics and a rule of law do not hamper the powerful elites. I can’t imagine Jesus hanging out in the backroom of some cigar smoke-filled room cutting a political deal with tyrants and multinational corporations. I can’t imagine the amount of philosophical hopscotch it takes for those in power to make the choices they make and throw so many people worldwide under the bus just so they can have a multi-billion dollar deal that makes them more powerful than 100,000,000 people and yet they can still think that the profits from such an adventure need to go directly to themselves. Surely Caesar was ambitious; he wanted the people of Rome to live in the most fabulous city in the world, according to Shakespeare.
According to those in power, what is the use of social justice really?
Glenn Beck: Here’s my definition of social justice: Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589832,00.html#ixzz1LD7jA1DN
Tomato/toe-mahtoe…..we could say that a gathering of wealth is the centralization of the value of the common treasure of natural resources of a group of people.
I loved the down play of the movie, “Avatar.” http://theweek.com/article/index/104725/top-4-avatar-pocahontas-mash-up-videos It’s just a movie remake. I think we should look at all the movies and books ever made and see how many of them have Exploiters coming to steal the resources of the locals they attack under the guise of being friendly and wanting to share the view. As far as I can tell, this is almost every movie ever made in some way. Now, as far as it’s being close to the way that a Disney flick was made, so what? The point is that millions of movie goers got to see the government trained mercenaries whack a bunch of stone age, spiritually advanced but naïve natives in order to get their most sacred land so they can extract the spoils from below that land. Hardly anyone wants to acknowledge that this is a story that has to be told over and over because it is exactly what has happened here in America and around the globe. The powerful take whatever they want, and the natives get killed off in the process, and this is what we mean by “progress?” “Avatar” is a metaphor for slavery, the deaths of native Americans, and the destruction of thousands of other societies where people have taken advantage of each other. To reduce the story line to its being a copy of a script and not worthy of conversation is criminal. How are we to communicate what we mean when America does not even have a national slavery museum? We do not have a museum dedicated to making sure that the holocaust of the Native American is never forgotten. http://www.tecumsehherald.com/node/1099 We have made so sure that we have swept under the rug every atrocity of American policy that our children are mainly ignorant that these same things have occurred around the planet, the same as they have occurred here. This has become such a point of notoriety that even those who have long supported ideologues who propagate such ignorance have finally gotten the message. We are sick and tired of being put in the dark, hated for our leaders’ actions, the slovenly abuses of our multinationals, and the loss of integrity that has been bought for us as a nation by our allowing these fear and hate mongers to pass over the truths of our sometimes uneven handed past.
http://www.jewishjustice.org/story/2011-04-07/fox-news-cancels-glenn-beck-program
Ask any American to answer the following question, “Has our nation, the United States of America, ever committed any mistakes in following its historic path to today?” Without one in reservation, everyone I have talked to about this has said, “Yes.” When I ask them to name a few of these mistakes, they will more often than not say that not one comes to mind. We are more than willing to concede that we have committed errors, we simply cannot think of any. No one is perfect, they will admit. We are bound to have done something. We do not recognize that we have done anything wrong. We know that we have, but can’t for the life of us figure out what it was. I love it when people will say, “Well, if you want to give the Indians back your land, go ahead, but I am not going to give up mine.” Well, silly, I know that I did not do that to those people, but I can acknowledge it and I can keep it from happening again and again, like with the Shah of Iran. We have no excuse for allowing these things to happen during our own times.
When I offer up a few choice examples, they will say something like, “If you are going to make omelets, a few eggs have to be broken.” It is easier to sleep at night if we use plausible deniability on everything. We might ask then, “What does this have to do with social justice?” Just what are we talking about when we all talk about social justice? “Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice Even Wikipedia, the great public equalizer of knowledge, the collective musings over meaning and all data for the world, says that we need to conceive of social justice as being a corner stone of every institution, and I would include of all corporations and governments. What are we to do then about the debate between democracy and the Republic of the United States?
Let’s read between the lines:
BECK: And so, really, it was — the idea was a smaller government because the government — if the government is — then just a handful of people, they take it and then they control everybody.
BARTON: That’s right.
And that is the real hyper-conservative ideal. “Forget social justice; what we need is an extremely small government that only a few people can easily manipulate, and then we can all be controlled.” Well, I am so glad we finally worked that out. If we have less people in government and the same number of people paying into the system, the few can control the money and resources of the many, and that will make everything go perfectly right, and that is called social engineering, I mean ……social justice.
I think it is really funny that people who make less than $250,000 are thinking that they won’t be the next ones to be targeted! They think that the ones under $50,000 are lazy and to be thrown under the bus, but when inflation hits, what is 50 grand now will be 250 grand then! The bar just keeps moving: the homeless, the poor, the middle class, the nearly wealthy….”Monopoly” is a shark eating frenzy waiting to happen. It enslaves everyone all the way up the ladder up unto the king. Even the Queen follows suit. Eventually someone has to be trusted to own it all, right? Do you think for one minute that this is all going to stop until we have “Exxon-Disney-Fox-GE-Goldman-Sachs?”
What I find so absolutely amazing is the contradiction of our claiming to be a Christian nation and our actual actions in relationship to that claim. We are for sure a nation which thrives on the concept of capitalism. I do not remember that Jesus sold one thing beyond his having been a carpenter; in the last three years of his life he never made dime as far as we know. He befriended those who might traffic in merchandise but he compelled them to be fishers of men, to meet interpersonal needs, to listen with their hearts, and to be loving and forgiving without taking advantage in any way for personal gain. I doubt seriously whether our corporations would be considered followers of Jesus, and it fact I am quite sure that corporations do not have souls. They in fact have all of the rights of humans, but they have none of the liabilities of reflective lives that are centered on a Christ-filled insight. They do not do any of the Christian things that Christ did. They do, though, have a tremendous amount of power of persuasion in the lives of the average American. They may lend money, pedal influence, buy favors, isolate individuals, take advantage of groups, seize power, and operate from behind closed doors, but Christian they are not.
What it gets down to is that for the most part the citizens of the United States have forgotten to read both the Bible and the digitally blind statements they sign in order to get past the computer security for down loading stuff and gaining access, and they have sold Christ down the river. We know it when we see the multi-million dollar homes of the super rich mega-churches. We know it when the on-air ministers have to have air planes to make it to their various meetings held in super locations to draw millions. We know it when we think that if the Christians of the world wanted to create a billion dollar movie to promote Christ they certainly could afford to do so, but they don’t because they can’t agree on how to formulate a storyline that does not isolate the ultra-rich and profiteers of Wall Street who help to make them powerful. What in the world are they doing with their money? They are putting it in to the stock market! What is it that this Christian nation is doing with its powerful minds, its incredible army, its wonderful system of capitalism? We are all about making more sporting events, more entertainment, a broader reach with our military, more frilly lifestyles of the rich and famous, having children who have 200,000 sweet 16 parities, and romanticizing glitter, humiliation, and self-aggrandizement. Jesus, is that Pamela Anderson?
All the while, we have lost sight of the social justice called for by Christ. The Good Samaritan asked that the whole bill be presented to him, regardless. He took care of someone else without limit. We could argue about the merits of social support and the welfare system, but there is no arguing about the facts of America’s poor, distressed, and disenfranchised. Remember the poor? But let’s go beyond this small group. If 80% of everything is owned by less than 20% of us here in America, then we can ask what kind of justice can be afforded by those who have less resources to be able to defend themselves. We can ask whether the corporations have an unfair advantage in targeting consumers by their being able to afford tactics that can more easily reach them as an audience. Do corporations ever take advantage of tax loopholes not afforded to the less fortunate? Rather than merely painting corporations as being bad apples, we could point here to the mixed feelings and inappropriate relationships that belong to the American public at large since they have a stake in the outcome of the increase or decrease of a corporation’s bottom line. In fact, we want for corporations to make more money, even if it does make some people uncomfortable or if it destroys the lives of individuals because we have a vested interest through our investing in these corporations. We are more likely to look the other way, along with our politicians, since we have a potential windfall if they make the deal and we win in the markets. Now, this has long been hailed as a bad thing for people to do. It’s called a conflict of interest. The American people have been hoodwinked into risking their retirements on the basis of taking advantage of the world, including their fellow Americans, and the outcome is based on this conflict of interest. If we screw each other into the ground, we may be able to retire early and make a killing. Praise the Lord! And that is social justice.
When we have allowed the elite minority to monopolize the many so that the rich can have a fleet of cars, boats, and houses in gated communities, all gained by the sweat of those they paid little to and then booted out the door because the benefits they had negotiated were too expensive to keep up with if they were to afford their fabulous lifestyles, then we may have a reasonable understanding of the need for social justice. Why not let the foolish get what they deserve for not negotiating a contract that allowed them a slice of the American pie? Isn’t that what social justice is all about? In the beginning, if we wanted to be fairly represented and not get ripped off, we should have said so! Oh, we did! It was called the Declaration of Independence. And I thought we had already won that war.
runningturtle87
Having completed 32 years of public school service, Chris Herrington lives, with his wife, in Appleby, Texas, and his writing consists of blogging and essay writing concerning an array of topics including education, mediation, self-development, and human interests. He teaches at the Martin School of Choice, plays racquetball, and enjoys his job.
Chris Herrington can be reached at herrington@everythingnac.com
