I was not impressed with people throwing soup on a painting.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c243v5m0r0lo
I admit that the future of the planet is more important than any individual work of art, but what is the purpose of this particular attack? Because they are oil paintings?
If you hate what the oil industry destroys, is destruction -- especially not specifically targeted at the oil industry -- the best way to object?
To be fair, the paintings weren't really damaged. Great, but did anyone look at that action and think, yes, we need to stop oil!
As much as I acknowledge that well-thought out and executed actions might be dismissed as tantrums by people who are against the cause, this still comes off more like a tantrum than anything else.
I also read about stink bombs and throwing pies... yes, I see the temptation to hurt the pride of destructive people, but it still seems not likely to be productive.
I admit to feeling some sympathy for Muntadhar Al-Zaidi, who threw shoes at George W. Bush. You know how King said "A riot is the language of the unheard"? The shoe throwing feels like that to me, that there was so much pent-up frustration with no outlet.
I still don't think it was productive. Bush was on his way out of office. You could make a reasonable case that he should have been brought up on war crimes, but this didn't do it. Saddam Hussein being horrible was probably helpful, though also the US has a tendency to not be held accountable, which has not been good for us.
There were people who were cheered by Al-Zaidi's action, and unity can be valuable. Still, the main result of it was him getting a beating and some imprisonment, then donations which he said he would use to do good, but I can't see any evidence that he did good.
(He was someone who believed both parties were the same, so there's a kind of fatalism in that which can make it hard to get things done.)
Maybe when all you know how to do is attack, desire to improve isn't enough.
That leads to one more thing I have been thinking for a few months now:
Luigi Mangione isn't a hero; Brian Thompson isn't a martyr.
It is not surprising that when health care becomes so expensive that it requires insurance, and those insurance companies are for profit, that they become evil. These days that seems almost inevitable.
It does sound like United Health Care was worse. That affected many people, including people of means who don't think problems like that are supposed to affect them.
Killing one person did not cause any reform. It caused some CEOs to feel fear, but that just led to more persecution of poor people mouthing off and increased security. He caused pain, but not productively. He allowed some really bad glee from people who are supposed to care about others.
That was destructive too.
And while it probably would have happened sooner or later anyway, Trump went from a moratorium on the death penalty under Biden to orders to pursue the death penalty whenever possible:
("Whenever possible" is not exactly how it is worded, but it seems to be the intent and it is not hard to imagine new legislation coming that takes advantage of it.)
Mangione wasn't trying to improve the system or help anyone; he just wanted to punish someone for his own pain. That's not proletarian heroics; that's a tantrum.
It's also about right from a white man who comes from money and went to an Ivy League school.
Yesterday I gave a formula for considering action:
- What is my goal?
- What is my power?
- How can I use that power toward my goal?
Those are practical considerations, but there are others that may seem more sentimental, but are actually just as practical:
- Who is the target? Do they have the power to make decisions?
- Is this likely to have a good impact?
- Is there a potential bad impact?
- Can I do this with a good heart?
You have to fight hate with love.
If you can't quite feel love for the haters, then focus on loving the people you want to help.
It's far too easy to become them.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment