This Isn't and Is Us
I was recently at a local vigil held in memory and honor of those killed at Tree of Life Congregation in Pittsburgh. During that vigil, one of the speakers said, "This is not who we are." Speaking of the hate mongering, violent killers, the point was that the rhetoric, the anger, the racism does not reflect the populace.
Unfortunately, it does.
I am not suggesting that it represents the majority. But the fact that it exists points to the fact that somewhere, lurking, are these ideologies and feelings. If this wasn't truly us, this would not have happened, nor would it have been conceivable.
What we run into is a fallacy sometimes called the "True Scotsman" fallacy or a fallacy of circular reasoning. It is a way of reinterpreting evidence or claims in order to prevent the refutation of a stated position. It works like this:
A Scotsman reads in the paper and sees that a terrible murder took place in England. The Scotsman says, "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he reads of a terrible murder that was committed by a Scotsman. The Scotsman says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
The problem here is that by saying that no "true" Scotsman would do such a thing, the person speaking is simply moving the line of the argument. What defines a "true" Scotsman in this argument is the moral or ethical definition of the individual. It is a way of concluding that a statement hasn't been demonstrated as untrue when, in fact, it has.
Likewise, this argument can be used in the following way:
A statement is proposed: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Angus the Scotsman does put sugar on his porridge. Therefore, given the first premise, Angus is not a "true" Scotsman.
The difficulty is that by moving the line where something is declared a "true" this or that is much the same as saying that "true" Americans do not act like the shooter in Pittsburgh.
But, especially in this case, we see that this individual did just that. He was an American who felt that to be "true" he had to go on a shooting rampage. Was he a true American?
The statement that "this is not who we are" would say no. The problem is by drawing the line on who is or is not true, we de-Americanize him or de-humanize him.
I'm not defending the man. I am simply pointing out that if we draw the line and exclude him from what it means to be an American, we find that we are playing a dangerous game that can end with the declaration that birth certificates hold no truth and we begin to define America with legislation, power, and those in the minority are quickly legislated out of recognition. Or worse, they are rounded up and herded off to camps.
What this man did was barbaric. But to say that this isn't who we are is to dismiss the really hard questions that have to be asked: why is this viewed as acceptable to a portion of our society - no matter what the size? Why are fringe ideologies gaining ground in mainstream politics and media? Why has hatred gained such a foothold? Has it always been there, is it a resurgence, or is it something new?
When foul, hate-filled rhetoric spewing people are elected as our representatives, it is hard to say "this isn't us." It clearly is someone. It was clearly someone enough to elect them.
So if we say this isn't us, then what we are saying is that we aren't that. When the speaker said this line at the vigil, it was a true statement. No one in that room was one of the shooters. No one in the room held the racist, hate filled ideologies. The shooter wasn't one of us. True enough.
But he was part of the larger "us" that is America. And it seems that we are in a time in which the national definition of American is clearly up for debate.
Unfortunately, it does.
I am not suggesting that it represents the majority. But the fact that it exists points to the fact that somewhere, lurking, are these ideologies and feelings. If this wasn't truly us, this would not have happened, nor would it have been conceivable.
What we run into is a fallacy sometimes called the "True Scotsman" fallacy or a fallacy of circular reasoning. It is a way of reinterpreting evidence or claims in order to prevent the refutation of a stated position. It works like this:
A Scotsman reads in the paper and sees that a terrible murder took place in England. The Scotsman says, "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he reads of a terrible murder that was committed by a Scotsman. The Scotsman says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
The problem here is that by saying that no "true" Scotsman would do such a thing, the person speaking is simply moving the line of the argument. What defines a "true" Scotsman in this argument is the moral or ethical definition of the individual. It is a way of concluding that a statement hasn't been demonstrated as untrue when, in fact, it has.
Likewise, this argument can be used in the following way:
A statement is proposed: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Angus the Scotsman does put sugar on his porridge. Therefore, given the first premise, Angus is not a "true" Scotsman.
The difficulty is that by moving the line where something is declared a "true" this or that is much the same as saying that "true" Americans do not act like the shooter in Pittsburgh.
But, especially in this case, we see that this individual did just that. He was an American who felt that to be "true" he had to go on a shooting rampage. Was he a true American?
The statement that "this is not who we are" would say no. The problem is by drawing the line on who is or is not true, we de-Americanize him or de-humanize him.
I'm not defending the man. I am simply pointing out that if we draw the line and exclude him from what it means to be an American, we find that we are playing a dangerous game that can end with the declaration that birth certificates hold no truth and we begin to define America with legislation, power, and those in the minority are quickly legislated out of recognition. Or worse, they are rounded up and herded off to camps.
What this man did was barbaric. But to say that this isn't who we are is to dismiss the really hard questions that have to be asked: why is this viewed as acceptable to a portion of our society - no matter what the size? Why are fringe ideologies gaining ground in mainstream politics and media? Why has hatred gained such a foothold? Has it always been there, is it a resurgence, or is it something new?
When foul, hate-filled rhetoric spewing people are elected as our representatives, it is hard to say "this isn't us." It clearly is someone. It was clearly someone enough to elect them.
So if we say this isn't us, then what we are saying is that we aren't that. When the speaker said this line at the vigil, it was a true statement. No one in that room was one of the shooters. No one in the room held the racist, hate filled ideologies. The shooter wasn't one of us. True enough.
But he was part of the larger "us" that is America. And it seems that we are in a time in which the national definition of American is clearly up for debate.
Comments
Post a Comment