Red States, Blue States, Thoughts One and Two
This is an essay on the results and impact of the
November 2nd elections. I don't normally posit my political beliefs in this
journal, believing, as I do, that political beliefs, like religious beliefs and
sexual preference, are best left for one-on-one discussions. However, since I
am a student of sociology, of anthropology, of history, and of demographics and
psychology, I have some thoughts relevant to those fields with respect to this
election and the division of the country into a Red State and Blue State nation.
We are divided, yes. We always have been. There were the English-born and the
Scots-born and the Irish-born and the German-born and so on. Those divisions
have somewhat gone away with time. We have new divisions. When one adds new
components to a stew, those new components don't always mix well at first. Time
is required to make a really good stew. The same is true of our nation. Right
now we're in a period where time is a component of evolution. Read my thoughts
on these matters and comment - or, not. As usual, I've put a lot of thought
into these words and believe this discourse will stand on its own merit.
There's also some new shots around Seattle, now that I'm back in town and out
exploring again. Gives me a great excuse to get away from any outside
influences and focus on what's immediately in front of me.
Red
States,
Blue
States
This is an unusual post for me, I usually shy away from comments on politics because of the cleaving element conversations of that sort create.
But, given my love of the country, my interest in demography, sociology, psychology, anthropology and evolution, I thought I'd make a short comment on the obvious legitimate presidency of George Bush Jr. So here are some observations:
1. The country was founded on the basis of an independence from two prevailing elements of the latter stages of the Enlightenment - first a state-sanctioned religion and second a prevailing class system. Our fabric has these issues woven deeply into it - now more than two hundred years, or nearly ten generations, old. It's going to be tough to deprive people of their attachment to these values. What this means is that we shy away from "classes" because it's in our social genes to distrust royalty and an "upper" class. We also cling to whatever religious affiliation we have because it came about in defiance of a religion sanctioned by the country our forebears originally left. That means it's going to be hard to separate the religious elements inherent in a large proportion of the populace. If they're Baptists, they will remain so and with fervor; if they're Catholic - or Methodist - or Jewish - or Muslim - they will feel bound. Not just because of their belief in their religion, but also because religious freedom is one of the tenets of this nation. We will never be able to separate that element because it is one of the founding "rebellions" which made America a place to escape to. We're not going to separate the issues of class either. However, the class struggle has evolved and it is no longer just associated with castles and doweries and vaults filled with gold. Today, and for probably two generations now, the class struggle has evolved to include those with an education, those with nice cars, those who live in palatial domiciles. The new class includes not just the wealthy CEO's of big business, but also the moneyed and aloof professors of the universities, the well-off, toy-wielding denizens of the urban jungles living in their tony townhouses or their airy lofts. What this means is that for many liberals, they ARE the ruling class in the eyes of a large faction of Red-state residents. The Blue-state and Red-state citizens see "class" differently. To the disadvantage of the the liberals in the Blue states, they do not see themselves as part of a "class." That is both a serious weakness and a severe blindness. To the disadvantage of the residents of the Red states, they do not see themselves as self-victimizing when they shop at Wal-mart or continue to work for a Nissan or BMW in a non-union capacity.
2. The country has evolved into several well-definined regions and the residents of these regions are well-aware of the opportunities or safeties of their specific region. Along the border states of the Great Lakes, there is an internationalism present in the daily life. Along the Northeast, there is a continuous influx of individuals and goods from nearly half the world. The same is true for the West Coast. These regions are geared in their daily lives to accept a "foreign" element and to be in a nation which is a crossroads for the world. The outlook of individuals in these areas includes the acceptance of different languages, of street signs being in multiple languages - many of which are completely unknown to the resident. These Blue states are accepting of a view of their world in which the United States is one of multiple players on the world stage. In the interior of America, and along the southern East Coast and the Gulf Coast, there is far less of the influx of foreigners. There is an acceptance, perhaps, of a second language because of the proximity and common border with Mexico and the other nations of South America and the Caribbean where Spanish is more the native tongue. Spanish is seen as a non-native language but not necessarily as a "foreign" language. Most Americans understand at least a few words of Spanish. The residents of these Red states are also used to a far lower element of change in their immediate area. The land continues pretty much unchanging. Occasionally there might be a new building in the town or a new plant in the field or even a new highway. But, there is none of the foreign-flag airplanes or ships which the Blue states see often. The Red states have residents who are descendants of the original founding pioneers in that area. That is true, also, of Blue states, but there is a far higher proportion of residents in Blue states who are either transient residents or first-generation residents. It's rare to hear about a family living in an urban area of a Blue state which has had roots there for more than one or two generations. Red states abound in residents whose progenitors for generations are buried in a local cemetery. As a result, the Red state residents are much more concerned with what they rightly and historically see as their "own" land. It is, literally, their country. Blue state residents see a "sharing" of their land. Historically their homes have been adjacent to the homes of individuals who may come from some distant land or who will leave and be replaced soon by yet another "non" native citizen. There is a stasis to the landscape of the Red states. There is a dynamic change associated with the landscape of the Blue states. These elements help define how one "sees" one's homeland. Blue state residents see their homeland as a "nation" of immigrants, of visitors, of influences from afar. Red state residents see their homeland as a nation of self-raised evolution. It was an American who cleared the land in Kentucky, who first plowed the field in Oklahoma, who first mined the hills of Colorado. It was a foreigner who opened the new store in New York, who brought Old World skills to the docks of Boston, who founded a publishing house in Philadelphia or San Francisco. Although both of these views are "correct," neither of these views allows for the expression of the other view. The fundamental difference in how residents of the two "color" states "see" their homeland is one of the fundamental reasons why these two groups of Americans see the role of their country so differently. Neither is wrong, they are just different views evolved through different lifestyles over different numbers of generations.
3. There is a fundamental snobbery factor associated with each group which precludes their understanding of the other's philosophy. When a farmer or rancher sees a New Yorker with an international attitude and a proposition to out-source American jobs, that farmer or rancher sees an American who is abandoning their country. When a New Yorker working in the commodities market sees a group of farmers or ranchers who are unwilling to alter their price structure or pursue specific crops or let lie fallow a field because of a glut, the New Yorker sees an American who is unwilling to evolve with change. Neither is correct. The farmer or rancher is as American as the commodities broker. The commodities broker never sees the constant change and evolution which the farmer and rancher undergo in simply responding to the changing weather and landscape. They are both "snobbing" the other because they do not see the underlying philosophy which is at work. The commodities broker is just as red-blooded an American as the farmer or rancher and all of them feel the same depth of allegiance to this nation. The constant bickering between these - and the farmer, rancher and commodities broker are simply representative examples - contributes to a deepening divide.
4. None of us want our nation to be weak. None of us want the poor to die in the streets. None of us is willing to accept the notion that we don't have an equal chance at success. All of us want a good life. We want shelter, we want food, we want our children to have good childhoods and bright futures. All of us are willing to put forth a tremendous effort to achieve these ends. We are, all, willing to contribute to the commonwealth of our communities and to pitch in with gusto when tragedy strikes or calamity is at hand. None of us wants our Constitutionally-given Civil Liberties, our Rights to Freedom, our Independence to be gone. We're all Americans because we both love this country and because we express our personal freedoms on a daily basis. We have the right to go where we want, to be what we want, to help whom we choose, and to argue our points publicly. And, I've never met an American who didn't have these qualities. America makes "americans." Simply being in this country exposes one to the breadth of possibilities which lie before an American.
The reality of the next four years is that we're going to have to figure out how to renew our friendships with each other, how to renew our mutual commitment to the ideals of what America is, how to cross these divides which have sprung up between us. It's often taken as a liberal creed that tolerance is the norm. It isn't the norm. Intolerance has become the norm and that is not good. But, since it's the liberal position to be tolerant, then it's incumbent upon those who call themselves liberal to become tolerant again. Tolerance is an American hallmark - tolerance of religion, tolerance of ideas, tolerance of different methods. It is incumbent on those who might be intolerant to renew their commitment to being an American by reviewing some of the reasons this country is so great and tolerance is one of those standards which has provided America with its strength and enriched its opportunities.
So, we need to renew our vows as Americans. We need to remind ourselves and each other of the enumerable opportunities, enumerable positions, enumerable points-of-view which America allows. We need to resolve our differences in that special manner which this country allows - through our votes, through our voices, and through our commitment to evolve and improve. And, we need to be ever vigilant against intolerance and even more vigilant against those who would formalize intolerance. But, we need to do this openly and communally and as a people, not as groups divided arbitrarily based upon some misunderstood idea of each other. We don't need to shout and we don't need to vehemently oppose those who disagree. We need to come together to discuss these differences and to express our positions in a way which solicits understanding from those who would initially disagree or who may even subsequently disagree. We're a big enough country, a broadly-evolved enough people, such that we can and do have a huge set of opinions and heart-felt beliefs. That's what makes us strong and that's what makes us interesting.
It's going to be tough. A lot of us have really powerful feelings about a large number of ideas and methods. But, let's consider a family. Just because one family member is the odd person out at a reunion or holds the most viscerally-repugnant opinion possible on some issue does not mean the other family members dismiss the person, it means they allow as how one family member can have that opinion and still be a family member. So be it with our fellow Americans. They are, after all, still my fellow citizens. We are, all of us, Americans. We have so much to learn and so much to share and so much to discuss. Let's move forward in this new century with a dedication to improve this country, a dedication to creating a larger and more intricate quilt from the multiple and diverse fabric which we have become as a nation. We are evolving as a people and we have the rest of the world to express and explain ourselves to along with the three hundred million of us. Take a deep breath, think long and hard about relationships, and work even harder to create an aura and an era of mutual trust and respect. It's our country and we're the ones evolving and changing it. It's a tug-of-war at times and a seemingly-futile struggle at others, but it's the country we've got and it's the country we want and it's ours to shape.
You may disagree with me, but I will grant you the right to that disagreement and expect you to grant me the same right. That's the American way.
And after a long walk, I had this to add...
I've thought a bit more about the incongruencies of the present United Red and Blue States of America.
The Blue states exist where there have been generation after generation of immigrant arrival and settlement. Each generation of immigrant has brought into this land a new religion. If one travels widely through the Blue states and the Red states one is struck with the following observation. Blue states have a lot of "mixed" Christian denominations, including fundamental flavors - in fact lots of fundamental flavors. Blue states also have lots of synagogues and a burgeoning collection of mosques and Hindu and Buddhist worship palaces or retreats. That's not to say that every Blue state is a variegated collection of faiths, but it is at least a set of more than one flavor.
If one travels widely through the Red states one is struck with the following observation. Red states, some in their entirety (Utah, e.g.) and others for the large part, are monopolistic faith locales. That is, they are largely Baptist, or largely Methodist, or largely Protestant or other Calvinist, or largely evangelical (Pentecostal and others). There is, if there is any flavoring at all, usually a small collection of other non-Catholic Christian faiths such as a smaller Lutheran population in the midst of a large Baptist population. Occasionally there is a town which is largely Roman Catholic with a small collection of Orthodox Catholic churches. But, by and large, the Red states are either collections, state-wide, or by large groups of counties, a single faith set.
Of course, what all of these faiths have in common is either the King Jame's Bible or some other version of the Bible. Roman Catholics and Eastern and Russian Orthodox Catholic have at least an international oversight body or personage providing world-wide encyclicals. There are various synods of the Methodist faith which provide the same function. There is a somewhat narrower oversight review provided for the more fundamental of the Christian faiths. This means that as a set of faith-based states, the Red states and those faith-based areas of the Blue states are largely independent of any review outside their faith or even locality. In some very real terms, these areas exist in a theological vacuum.
This translates into a subscription to a morality and ethicality based on a single written guideline. What the Blue states have more of is a population which has been used to having moral and ethical values based on a variety of religious teachings from a variety of faiths, many of which are non-native to these shores. Consequently, the residents of Blue states are more used to hearing teachings which may be in conflict with each other and being able to discern the ethical and moral message from that set of diverse teachings and writings. The Red state residents have not had as broad an exposure to the moral and ethical teachings of the rest of the world's religions. Red state residents, therefore, have a narrower set of morals and ethics for which they can ascribe allegiance and from which they may seek guidance. It's simply not in their experience base to look outside the Bible.
Seventy-nine percent of the residents of this country do NOT have college degrees or have never attended a college. That's been changing slightly. Forty years ago it was eighty-two percent of the country which did not have a college degree or hadn't attended a college. That's phenomenal considering we count our citizenry among the world's most educated. More importantly, it means that for nearly eight out of ten Americans, their source of moral and ethic is from their community, from their high school, and, more importantly, from their church. It's also true that a higher proportion of residents of the Blue states are among the twenty-one percent of Americans who HAVE gone to college or received a degree. These Blue state residents have had the opportunity to learn about ethical and moral issues from college classrooms where philosophy, religion, history, anthropology, and other studies are taught and discussed. Even if the Blue state residents are devoutly religious there is a higher probability that they will have been exposed to other philosophies and religious beliefs than their counterparts in Red states. The exception, of course, is Red states with significant metropolitan areas where one would expect to find a higher proportion of college-schooled or college graduates. Not un-coincidentally, these same metropolitan areas also show a higher percentage of votes for Kerry than for Bush. Many metropolitan areas are split with the inner city going Blue (Atlanta, Houston, Denver, Phoenix, et al.) and the outer suburbs going for Bush. Many suburbs in large metropolitan areas resemble the Red states in their monopolistic faiths.
One method of explaining the differences between those who voted for Bush and those who voted for Kerry would be to look at the source and path of those individuals to their individual and group ethic and moral code. If they were brought up with a single faith view of morality and ethicality, it is more likely they would vote for Bush because his positions were closer to what they believed were the correct moral and ethical standards. If one grew up where there was exposure to multiple faiths or even to a set of moral and ethical codes learned from sources outside ones faith, then it was more likely that individual would vote for Kerry.
Certainly the issues of abortion and gay marriage are central to a morality and ethicality issue. If the moral and ethical standard one subscribes to and was raised on prohibits these acts as being either "sinful" or abhorrent to the standards of the moral and ethical code, then these issues are "line in the sand" issues because the believer has not had any exposure to an ethic or moral where such acts are acceptable as proper morality or acceptable as a proper ethic.
The same holds true for other issues dealing with elements of security. Is my home safe? Is my land safe? Are my children safe? For those raised and living in the Red states, the worst experience they might have gone through in their lifetime is the accidental death of a friend or relative. Someone got killed in a car accident either because alcohol was involved or weather was involved. Too bad, but an accident nonetheless. Or, someone lost a friend or relative in a gun-related accident. Someone was shot and killed during hunting season or cleaning a gun or playing with a gun. Again, too bad, but still an accident. Not an act of terrorism and certainly not a "random" bullet or bomb. To most residents of the Columbine High School area near Littleton, Colorado, that act of terrorism by their sons is still an inexplicable act. Most residents still do not grasp the significance of parental guidance and supervision, prevalence of guns and easy access to bomb-making equipment, and the horrible consequences which occurred at Columbine. To them it is not an act of terrorism but the singular act of a few miscreants. They don't understand the combined forces of non-supervision, school-sanctioned bullying, and easy access to weaponry made such an act an easy act to accomplish and they have yet to connect the dots with respect to terrorism, their locality, and their sons and daughters. As a result, the actions against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, perpetrated as they were by "outsiders," are seen as something against which they must guard and for which they will give up certain freedoms.
The act of terror perpetrated at Waco by their government and the subsequent act of terror perpetrated at Oklahoma City by those offended by their government are not understood. It's not even clear that Blue state residents understand this link. But Red state residents do not experience the kinds of random, gang-related, violence which is, alas, somewhat the norm in the cities of the Blue states and in the metropolitan areas of some of the Red states. Violence, as mentioned, is usually an accident resulting from a combination of factors any one of which is insufficient to cause the death of a friend or relative. A perpetrated act of violence against their country by foreigners hijacking an airplane and using it as a human-guided missile is outside their experience. Even New Yorkers were somewhat appalled and taken aback by the Twin Towers going down, despite the prelude several years earlier with the same group setting off a car bomb in the parking garage beneath one of the towers.
We have a combination of forces at play here. We have Red state residents who have a single source of ethic and moral standard who are exceptionally unused to being the random target of someone else's death threat. We have Blue state residents who have multiple sources of ethic and moral standard who are somewhat more accustomed to hearing about random deaths on the streets of their cities or coasts.
As a result, Blue state residents are less inclined to become upset over such things as abortion and gay marriage because they are used to multiple and diverse lifestyles resulting from multiple and diverse ethical and moral standards. Blue state residents are also somewhat more used to the idea that their life is pretty much worthless on any given day and could easily be taken in random gun crossfire - either gang related or police-gang activity. That is not to say that Blue state residents value their lives any less, it's just that they have accepted as a fact of their existence the notion of random killings. It's part of the background environment. They are also no less likely to accept abortion or gay marriage than their counterparts in the Red states but they do have a wider set of circumstances where the occasion of someone having an abortion or some gay couple wanting to or getting married will have occurred in their presence. This too is a background component of the environment they are living in.
Red state residents, except perhaps those in the inner wards of the largest cities in their states, are un-accepting of violations of their ethical and moral code. They are appalled when a random killing done on purpose occurs. These are experiences outside their world view and outside of their acceptance factors. These are NOT background elements of where they live and are not part of their daily lives.
We do have a divided nation. It is not a deliberately divided nation. It is a nation divided because of unique and regional evolutionary patterns and of historic realities. With the communications facilities we now have we are stunningly conscious of these divides in a way which could not have been imagined twenty years ago. There was no web twenty years ago. There were no picture cellphones twenty years ago. There wasn't satellite or cable television in every hamlet in the land twenty years ago. Much of what passes as the norm in a Blue state or in a metropolitan area has been the norm for much longer than twenty years, but, it was also not "in your face" for those outside the Blue states or not living in the metropolitan area.
I've got an idea on how to bridge this divide. But it will take an active participation from about half the country - the Blue state and metropolitan area half. If one adds up the numbers of people living in the metropolitan areas of the Blue states one arrives at a figure of 95.6 million Americans. If one adds the metropolitan areas of the Red states one arrives at a figure of 126.3 million Americans. There are estimated to be 293.0 million Americans throughout the land this year - 2004 - based on the 2000 Census and projections. That means that one third of this country lives in a city in a Blue state and that forty percent of this country lives in its largest twenty metropolitan areas. What this really means is that for every one of us living in a Blue state city, or a Red state city, we only have to talk to no more than two other Americans each. If we do that, everyone living in a Blue state and a Red state could have a meaningful conversation. The entire country.
Part of what I see as the divide goes to the heart of the inexperience factor. Red state residents do not have a very wide base upon which to draw their ethical and moral values or for the source of those values. Red state residents do not have experience with random terror and are perhaps more alarmed by the events of 9/11/02 than residents of Blue states. I say this because it seems that Red state residents cited issues over domestic security and morality far more often than did residents of Blue states when they provided exit poll interviews following Tuesday's voting. Residents of Blue states cited issues associated with international good will and the name and honor of the United States and concerns over self-determination far more often than their counterparts in the Red states. That would suggest that Blue state residents were more concerned with the existing and continuing reality of their states as border states for access to the rest of the world and with more emphasis on civil liberties than moral code. Red state residents were more concerned with security and morality than issues associated with the international nature of their country.
From the point of view of understanding the background and present and historical concerns of the residents of the Red and Blue states, their reactions and the manner by which these citizens cast their votes become connected empirically. As we move more toward an America of complete urbanity where everyone has an opportunity to a higher education or vocation of their choice, some of these limitations of experience will naturally disappear. It has taken forty years to move the number of college attendees or graduates in this country from 18 percent to 20 percent. That's a six-hundredths-of-a-percent per year rate of change. At that rate, the Blue state residents would be happy by the year 2500 if one were to assume that a 51-percent college attendance rate for the population of America would resolve some of the differences. That may be an appropriate number of years given the deepness with which some of these beliefs and historical norms are ensconced in their various Red and Blue states. But, given the historical norm of 20 years per generation, that's 25 generations in the future. That would mean we maintain this disparity for a period more than twice as long as we've been a nation. I find that length of time for a natural evolution unacceptable.
My idea is no guarantee of things happening faster but is is one where those unwilling to wait for the next 500 years can do something active right now. Get out. Travel across the country. Stop in places in the Red states which are outside the metropolitan corridors. Talk with the locals and engage them in a benign, low-key conversation which exposes them to a view from another morality or of a different ethic. But, listen to what they say in return. Listen to their concerns about their security. Their concerns that their family and offspring be taken care of - not just in this life but in the next one as well. Do not dismiss their concerns about hell and heaven. Even if you do not happen to believe in a god or in a hell or a heaven, that doesn't mean that those who do are wrong. Since we have absolutely no empirical evidence, one way or the other, their religious beliefs are as valid as your non-beliefs or your beliefs in another religion. What is needed is not a revulsion of religion, but an acceptance - a tolerance - of the right to have different religions and different ethics and different morals and for everyone to agree to NOT impose his or her doctrine on the secular aspects of life. It's the secular aspects where this becomes a real issue, where a woman's right to an abortion is impinged, where a gay couple's right to a happy and secure domestic life is denied or threatened. And, it's the secular aspects where we all meet. We need to at least engage our counterpoint citizens in a discussion of the secular aspects of life in America and to remove the religious elements of life in America to each other's private domain and private church, synagogue, temple or mosque. That is guaranteed in our Constitution and we need to begin having that discussion, each and every one of us, at every opportunity.
I'm reminded of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Each of those leaders faced a path of infinite resistance. A path strewn with the dead of valiant warriors of their kind who had tried to proceed before them. Each chose a completely non-violent and non-incendiary method of advancement. People will not budge if threatened. They will not budge if challenged. They will not listen if shouted at. They will not even grant the courtesy of eye-contact if treated callously or with disdain. That's as it should be. We are each and all of us - human. Humans have a certain dignity with which they must live - even with and by themselves. Grant that dignity and you grant equality. Grant equality and you can begin to have an open discussion. Have an open discussion and the two parties can eventually find common ground. Find common ground and you have a common goal and then you have two individuals working where there was one before.
That's my plan. Get out and talk to your neighbors across this land. Visit them in their own homes. See them for who they are and accept them for what they claim themselves to be. Try and allow them to see you for what you are and to accept you for what you claim to be. It's a start and though I've been doing this for decades, I've become reinvigorated in the purpose of my actions. I want all of us to live in the same country. I want all my fellow citizens and those who would want to become citizens to have an open and chance-giving society where each person's dignity and right to respect are both expected and granted.
When you boil it down to the essence, it's really about human dignity. It's not about guns; it's not about churches; it's not about jobs or education or income or elements of material wealth. It's about dignity - human dignity. The right to be a free and independent spirit and to be accepted in that light by anyone met along the path of life. And, as I've found so often, sometimes to give someone else dignity means giving up one's own dignity. If one has a true sense of self, if one's beliefs are strong enough to sustain one in the wilderness, in the middle of the night, in a trying moment at the peak of an accident, then one has enough self-sustenance to give another person dignity even if it must come from within. Share that dignity with someone you might have previously disdained and see how much of a world of difference having dignity makes in someone else.
And, yes, like I said previously, it's going to be tough. Turning the other cheek is always tough. Being ever the optimist is always tough because there is so much which goes against the grain in this land and at this time. Think of several different metaphors ... If one is stuck inside a deep castle prison, surrounded by walls of meter-thick blocks of stone and all one has for a tool is a spoon, one is not going to dig one's way out of the prison overnight. In fact, one may never dig oneself out of that prison. But, if one takes the spoon and chips away at the stone, day after day, each day a small bit of stone will fall. The effort never seems to lessen and the work never seems to diminish. But, after a reasonable period of time, there will be a small indentation in the stone. A path will be visible.
Or, try this one. If one is trying to grow a variety of crops in a garden, one may have a soil of particular pH. Some of the crops one is trying to grow may relish that pH, others may do poorly and even others may wilt and threaten to die or outright die. But, one can work the soil. One can change the pH of areas of the soil slowly, over time. One can plant new crops and test the pH until there comes a time when portions of the patch allow for the growth of crops which formerly would have wilted. Our national sociology has a pH. Right now it's not at the right value for as wide a variety of crops as we might like to grow. We have a set of crops - new values and new goals - which we wish to grow. We need to till the soil and we need to nurture that soil so the crops will themselves be nurtured. This takes time. Farmers know that. Sociologists and anthropologists know that. But, us citizens who want to change the world, we don't know that. We need to know how long some of the things we want will take. They may not grow and flourish in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tend these crops. If we don't tend them, who will? Who will chip that stone if we don't take the spoon first?
As I said before, you have every right to disagree with me and I will listen openly and intently to your arguments if you are willing to listen openly and intently to mine. We're in this together - it's a long ride in a very small country (it sure has become one, hasn't it?).
Chas
The loneliness of the linesman. First, the crow on the left was squaking like mad.
Then the crow on the right came over and joined the crow on the left. Then, the
two hopped a bit apart from each other and stared off into opposite directions.
The rice bowls at Uwajimaya Village in Japantown (the lower part of the International
District, starting at 5th Avenue and King Street). I love Japanese pottery but can't
really use all these bowls since I don't eat rice every day and we have a finite amount
of kitchen cabinet space. I may purchase a few just to hold pennies, nickels, dimes
and quarters, though.
More porcelain from Uwajimaya. It's a great Japanese superstore if you haven't been there.
It's in its own building, sort of an arcade like structure with a supermarket, this gift and
home furnishing mart, a bookstore, and a small collection of Japanese restaurants in
what amounts to the food court. The attention to detail here is extraordinary.
To complete the Japanese porcelain collection. I love the Japanese culture's infinitely
small attention to detail. Nothing is beneath spending time on and nothing is too small
to become inconsequential. For a fast-paced culture, they still revere ceremony and the
"little" things which make some events or moments so much more memorable than others.
What about this wonderful array of fruits and vegetables, laid out almost according to
the spectrum of their color. There are plenty of non-Japanese supermarkets which pay
attention to their fruit and vegetable displays so Uwajimaya's level of detail here is not
SO extraordinary, but it still was eye-catching.
Right in front of the train station at the edge of the International District. It was a wet
and dreary day but the fall colors of the trees and the generally interesting streetscape
of this part of town never fails to draw my camera out of my pocket.
Same general vicinity looking east up Jackson Street towards the heart of the
International District. Japantown is off camera to the right in this view, along
King Street rather than along Jackson Street. This section of town will be the
multi-modal transportation center once Light Rail and Monorail are finished as
there will be transfer stations from both those rail lines connecting to the
Amtrak and Sounder service at the railroad stations and with the buses.
Looking west from the station plaza and focusing on the maple colors and the bus-stop
patrons. It's hard to imagine the busy nature this part of town is going to get once the
Light Rail and Monorail stations in this section get built. In addition to being at the
beginning of the International District, this is a literal stone's throw from Pioneer Square and
an even shorter stone's toss from the south end of Downtown.
Looking at Qwest Field from an overpass between the two railroad stations, again the
same general vicinity - foot of the International District. In this view I was once again
taken by the trees and how the fall weather makes them even more green, despite
their fading glory.
A sepia-toned view of the King Street Station tower eclipsing the Smith Tower with the
more modern buildings of Seattle behind. The fact that it was such a dull gray day allowed
me to choose virtually any tint I wanted for nearly all the images except those of the trees.
Here's a shot where the dull gray character actually enhances the neon lights of some
of the restaurants and shops at the beginning of the International District. This is at
the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Jackson Street looking northwest.
Another shot where the color of the area surpasses the dull gray nature of the day. This
is the Main Street / Pioneer Square stop on the Waterfront Streetcar line - Metro Route 99.
$1.25 will get you anywhere along this line and transfers from other buses do work.
It runs every twenty minutes from early morning through 7:00 pm, daily.
This is a 180-degree panorama of Jackson Street at the intersection of First Avenue. The waterfront is where Jackson
dead-ends on the left with the Aurora Avenue Viaduct intercepting the view. To the right Jackson wends east for
a stretch along this flat section of the Pioneer Square area and then slowly climbs up the southwestern edge of First
Hill into the International District. The train stations are just about where the buildings on the north side of Jackson
(right street, buildins facing you) converge. First Avenue is the street in the middle and this view is looking north
toward the heart of downtown.
More Seattle Adventures coming soon to a journal near you...
This is an unusual post for me, I usually shy away from comments on politics because of the cleaving element conversations of that sort create.
But, given my love of the country, my interest in demography, sociology, psychology, anthropology and evolution, I thought I'd make a short comment on the obvious legitimate presidency of George Bush Jr. So here are some observations:
1. The country was founded on the basis of an independence from two prevailing elements of the latter stages of the Enlightenment - first a state-sanctioned religion and second a prevailing class system. Our fabric has these issues woven deeply into it - now more than two hundred years, or nearly ten generations, old. It's going to be tough to deprive people of their attachment to these values. What this means is that we shy away from "classes" because it's in our social genes to distrust royalty and an "upper" class. We also cling to whatever religious affiliation we have because it came about in defiance of a religion sanctioned by the country our forebears originally left. That means it's going to be hard to separate the religious elements inherent in a large proportion of the populace. If they're Baptists, they will remain so and with fervor; if they're Catholic - or Methodist - or Jewish - or Muslim - they will feel bound. Not just because of their belief in their religion, but also because religious freedom is one of the tenets of this nation. We will never be able to separate that element because it is one of the founding "rebellions" which made America a place to escape to. We're not going to separate the issues of class either. However, the class struggle has evolved and it is no longer just associated with castles and doweries and vaults filled with gold. Today, and for probably two generations now, the class struggle has evolved to include those with an education, those with nice cars, those who live in palatial domiciles. The new class includes not just the wealthy CEO's of big business, but also the moneyed and aloof professors of the universities, the well-off, toy-wielding denizens of the urban jungles living in their tony townhouses or their airy lofts. What this means is that for many liberals, they ARE the ruling class in the eyes of a large faction of Red-state residents. The Blue-state and Red-state citizens see "class" differently. To the disadvantage of the the liberals in the Blue states, they do not see themselves as part of a "class." That is both a serious weakness and a severe blindness. To the disadvantage of the residents of the Red states, they do not see themselves as self-victimizing when they shop at Wal-mart or continue to work for a Nissan or BMW in a non-union capacity.
2. The country has evolved into several well-definined regions and the residents of these regions are well-aware of the opportunities or safeties of their specific region. Along the border states of the Great Lakes, there is an internationalism present in the daily life. Along the Northeast, there is a continuous influx of individuals and goods from nearly half the world. The same is true for the West Coast. These regions are geared in their daily lives to accept a "foreign" element and to be in a nation which is a crossroads for the world. The outlook of individuals in these areas includes the acceptance of different languages, of street signs being in multiple languages - many of which are completely unknown to the resident. These Blue states are accepting of a view of their world in which the United States is one of multiple players on the world stage. In the interior of America, and along the southern East Coast and the Gulf Coast, there is far less of the influx of foreigners. There is an acceptance, perhaps, of a second language because of the proximity and common border with Mexico and the other nations of South America and the Caribbean where Spanish is more the native tongue. Spanish is seen as a non-native language but not necessarily as a "foreign" language. Most Americans understand at least a few words of Spanish. The residents of these Red states are also used to a far lower element of change in their immediate area. The land continues pretty much unchanging. Occasionally there might be a new building in the town or a new plant in the field or even a new highway. But, there is none of the foreign-flag airplanes or ships which the Blue states see often. The Red states have residents who are descendants of the original founding pioneers in that area. That is true, also, of Blue states, but there is a far higher proportion of residents in Blue states who are either transient residents or first-generation residents. It's rare to hear about a family living in an urban area of a Blue state which has had roots there for more than one or two generations. Red states abound in residents whose progenitors for generations are buried in a local cemetery. As a result, the Red state residents are much more concerned with what they rightly and historically see as their "own" land. It is, literally, their country. Blue state residents see a "sharing" of their land. Historically their homes have been adjacent to the homes of individuals who may come from some distant land or who will leave and be replaced soon by yet another "non" native citizen. There is a stasis to the landscape of the Red states. There is a dynamic change associated with the landscape of the Blue states. These elements help define how one "sees" one's homeland. Blue state residents see their homeland as a "nation" of immigrants, of visitors, of influences from afar. Red state residents see their homeland as a nation of self-raised evolution. It was an American who cleared the land in Kentucky, who first plowed the field in Oklahoma, who first mined the hills of Colorado. It was a foreigner who opened the new store in New York, who brought Old World skills to the docks of Boston, who founded a publishing house in Philadelphia or San Francisco. Although both of these views are "correct," neither of these views allows for the expression of the other view. The fundamental difference in how residents of the two "color" states "see" their homeland is one of the fundamental reasons why these two groups of Americans see the role of their country so differently. Neither is wrong, they are just different views evolved through different lifestyles over different numbers of generations.
3. There is a fundamental snobbery factor associated with each group which precludes their understanding of the other's philosophy. When a farmer or rancher sees a New Yorker with an international attitude and a proposition to out-source American jobs, that farmer or rancher sees an American who is abandoning their country. When a New Yorker working in the commodities market sees a group of farmers or ranchers who are unwilling to alter their price structure or pursue specific crops or let lie fallow a field because of a glut, the New Yorker sees an American who is unwilling to evolve with change. Neither is correct. The farmer or rancher is as American as the commodities broker. The commodities broker never sees the constant change and evolution which the farmer and rancher undergo in simply responding to the changing weather and landscape. They are both "snobbing" the other because they do not see the underlying philosophy which is at work. The commodities broker is just as red-blooded an American as the farmer or rancher and all of them feel the same depth of allegiance to this nation. The constant bickering between these - and the farmer, rancher and commodities broker are simply representative examples - contributes to a deepening divide.
4. None of us want our nation to be weak. None of us want the poor to die in the streets. None of us is willing to accept the notion that we don't have an equal chance at success. All of us want a good life. We want shelter, we want food, we want our children to have good childhoods and bright futures. All of us are willing to put forth a tremendous effort to achieve these ends. We are, all, willing to contribute to the commonwealth of our communities and to pitch in with gusto when tragedy strikes or calamity is at hand. None of us wants our Constitutionally-given Civil Liberties, our Rights to Freedom, our Independence to be gone. We're all Americans because we both love this country and because we express our personal freedoms on a daily basis. We have the right to go where we want, to be what we want, to help whom we choose, and to argue our points publicly. And, I've never met an American who didn't have these qualities. America makes "americans." Simply being in this country exposes one to the breadth of possibilities which lie before an American.
The reality of the next four years is that we're going to have to figure out how to renew our friendships with each other, how to renew our mutual commitment to the ideals of what America is, how to cross these divides which have sprung up between us. It's often taken as a liberal creed that tolerance is the norm. It isn't the norm. Intolerance has become the norm and that is not good. But, since it's the liberal position to be tolerant, then it's incumbent upon those who call themselves liberal to become tolerant again. Tolerance is an American hallmark - tolerance of religion, tolerance of ideas, tolerance of different methods. It is incumbent on those who might be intolerant to renew their commitment to being an American by reviewing some of the reasons this country is so great and tolerance is one of those standards which has provided America with its strength and enriched its opportunities.
So, we need to renew our vows as Americans. We need to remind ourselves and each other of the enumerable opportunities, enumerable positions, enumerable points-of-view which America allows. We need to resolve our differences in that special manner which this country allows - through our votes, through our voices, and through our commitment to evolve and improve. And, we need to be ever vigilant against intolerance and even more vigilant against those who would formalize intolerance. But, we need to do this openly and communally and as a people, not as groups divided arbitrarily based upon some misunderstood idea of each other. We don't need to shout and we don't need to vehemently oppose those who disagree. We need to come together to discuss these differences and to express our positions in a way which solicits understanding from those who would initially disagree or who may even subsequently disagree. We're a big enough country, a broadly-evolved enough people, such that we can and do have a huge set of opinions and heart-felt beliefs. That's what makes us strong and that's what makes us interesting.
It's going to be tough. A lot of us have really powerful feelings about a large number of ideas and methods. But, let's consider a family. Just because one family member is the odd person out at a reunion or holds the most viscerally-repugnant opinion possible on some issue does not mean the other family members dismiss the person, it means they allow as how one family member can have that opinion and still be a family member. So be it with our fellow Americans. They are, after all, still my fellow citizens. We are, all of us, Americans. We have so much to learn and so much to share and so much to discuss. Let's move forward in this new century with a dedication to improve this country, a dedication to creating a larger and more intricate quilt from the multiple and diverse fabric which we have become as a nation. We are evolving as a people and we have the rest of the world to express and explain ourselves to along with the three hundred million of us. Take a deep breath, think long and hard about relationships, and work even harder to create an aura and an era of mutual trust and respect. It's our country and we're the ones evolving and changing it. It's a tug-of-war at times and a seemingly-futile struggle at others, but it's the country we've got and it's the country we want and it's ours to shape.
You may disagree with me, but I will grant you the right to that disagreement and expect you to grant me the same right. That's the American way.
And after a long walk, I had this to add...
I've thought a bit more about the incongruencies of the present United Red and Blue States of America.
The Blue states exist where there have been generation after generation of immigrant arrival and settlement. Each generation of immigrant has brought into this land a new religion. If one travels widely through the Blue states and the Red states one is struck with the following observation. Blue states have a lot of "mixed" Christian denominations, including fundamental flavors - in fact lots of fundamental flavors. Blue states also have lots of synagogues and a burgeoning collection of mosques and Hindu and Buddhist worship palaces or retreats. That's not to say that every Blue state is a variegated collection of faiths, but it is at least a set of more than one flavor.
If one travels widely through the Red states one is struck with the following observation. Red states, some in their entirety (Utah, e.g.) and others for the large part, are monopolistic faith locales. That is, they are largely Baptist, or largely Methodist, or largely Protestant or other Calvinist, or largely evangelical (Pentecostal and others). There is, if there is any flavoring at all, usually a small collection of other non-Catholic Christian faiths such as a smaller Lutheran population in the midst of a large Baptist population. Occasionally there is a town which is largely Roman Catholic with a small collection of Orthodox Catholic churches. But, by and large, the Red states are either collections, state-wide, or by large groups of counties, a single faith set.
Of course, what all of these faiths have in common is either the King Jame's Bible or some other version of the Bible. Roman Catholics and Eastern and Russian Orthodox Catholic have at least an international oversight body or personage providing world-wide encyclicals. There are various synods of the Methodist faith which provide the same function. There is a somewhat narrower oversight review provided for the more fundamental of the Christian faiths. This means that as a set of faith-based states, the Red states and those faith-based areas of the Blue states are largely independent of any review outside their faith or even locality. In some very real terms, these areas exist in a theological vacuum.
This translates into a subscription to a morality and ethicality based on a single written guideline. What the Blue states have more of is a population which has been used to having moral and ethical values based on a variety of religious teachings from a variety of faiths, many of which are non-native to these shores. Consequently, the residents of Blue states are more used to hearing teachings which may be in conflict with each other and being able to discern the ethical and moral message from that set of diverse teachings and writings. The Red state residents have not had as broad an exposure to the moral and ethical teachings of the rest of the world's religions. Red state residents, therefore, have a narrower set of morals and ethics for which they can ascribe allegiance and from which they may seek guidance. It's simply not in their experience base to look outside the Bible.
Seventy-nine percent of the residents of this country do NOT have college degrees or have never attended a college. That's been changing slightly. Forty years ago it was eighty-two percent of the country which did not have a college degree or hadn't attended a college. That's phenomenal considering we count our citizenry among the world's most educated. More importantly, it means that for nearly eight out of ten Americans, their source of moral and ethic is from their community, from their high school, and, more importantly, from their church. It's also true that a higher proportion of residents of the Blue states are among the twenty-one percent of Americans who HAVE gone to college or received a degree. These Blue state residents have had the opportunity to learn about ethical and moral issues from college classrooms where philosophy, religion, history, anthropology, and other studies are taught and discussed. Even if the Blue state residents are devoutly religious there is a higher probability that they will have been exposed to other philosophies and religious beliefs than their counterparts in Red states. The exception, of course, is Red states with significant metropolitan areas where one would expect to find a higher proportion of college-schooled or college graduates. Not un-coincidentally, these same metropolitan areas also show a higher percentage of votes for Kerry than for Bush. Many metropolitan areas are split with the inner city going Blue (Atlanta, Houston, Denver, Phoenix, et al.) and the outer suburbs going for Bush. Many suburbs in large metropolitan areas resemble the Red states in their monopolistic faiths.
One method of explaining the differences between those who voted for Bush and those who voted for Kerry would be to look at the source and path of those individuals to their individual and group ethic and moral code. If they were brought up with a single faith view of morality and ethicality, it is more likely they would vote for Bush because his positions were closer to what they believed were the correct moral and ethical standards. If one grew up where there was exposure to multiple faiths or even to a set of moral and ethical codes learned from sources outside ones faith, then it was more likely that individual would vote for Kerry.
Certainly the issues of abortion and gay marriage are central to a morality and ethicality issue. If the moral and ethical standard one subscribes to and was raised on prohibits these acts as being either "sinful" or abhorrent to the standards of the moral and ethical code, then these issues are "line in the sand" issues because the believer has not had any exposure to an ethic or moral where such acts are acceptable as proper morality or acceptable as a proper ethic.
The same holds true for other issues dealing with elements of security. Is my home safe? Is my land safe? Are my children safe? For those raised and living in the Red states, the worst experience they might have gone through in their lifetime is the accidental death of a friend or relative. Someone got killed in a car accident either because alcohol was involved or weather was involved. Too bad, but an accident nonetheless. Or, someone lost a friend or relative in a gun-related accident. Someone was shot and killed during hunting season or cleaning a gun or playing with a gun. Again, too bad, but still an accident. Not an act of terrorism and certainly not a "random" bullet or bomb. To most residents of the Columbine High School area near Littleton, Colorado, that act of terrorism by their sons is still an inexplicable act. Most residents still do not grasp the significance of parental guidance and supervision, prevalence of guns and easy access to bomb-making equipment, and the horrible consequences which occurred at Columbine. To them it is not an act of terrorism but the singular act of a few miscreants. They don't understand the combined forces of non-supervision, school-sanctioned bullying, and easy access to weaponry made such an act an easy act to accomplish and they have yet to connect the dots with respect to terrorism, their locality, and their sons and daughters. As a result, the actions against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, perpetrated as they were by "outsiders," are seen as something against which they must guard and for which they will give up certain freedoms.
The act of terror perpetrated at Waco by their government and the subsequent act of terror perpetrated at Oklahoma City by those offended by their government are not understood. It's not even clear that Blue state residents understand this link. But Red state residents do not experience the kinds of random, gang-related, violence which is, alas, somewhat the norm in the cities of the Blue states and in the metropolitan areas of some of the Red states. Violence, as mentioned, is usually an accident resulting from a combination of factors any one of which is insufficient to cause the death of a friend or relative. A perpetrated act of violence against their country by foreigners hijacking an airplane and using it as a human-guided missile is outside their experience. Even New Yorkers were somewhat appalled and taken aback by the Twin Towers going down, despite the prelude several years earlier with the same group setting off a car bomb in the parking garage beneath one of the towers.
We have a combination of forces at play here. We have Red state residents who have a single source of ethic and moral standard who are exceptionally unused to being the random target of someone else's death threat. We have Blue state residents who have multiple sources of ethic and moral standard who are somewhat more accustomed to hearing about random deaths on the streets of their cities or coasts.
As a result, Blue state residents are less inclined to become upset over such things as abortion and gay marriage because they are used to multiple and diverse lifestyles resulting from multiple and diverse ethical and moral standards. Blue state residents are also somewhat more used to the idea that their life is pretty much worthless on any given day and could easily be taken in random gun crossfire - either gang related or police-gang activity. That is not to say that Blue state residents value their lives any less, it's just that they have accepted as a fact of their existence the notion of random killings. It's part of the background environment. They are also no less likely to accept abortion or gay marriage than their counterparts in the Red states but they do have a wider set of circumstances where the occasion of someone having an abortion or some gay couple wanting to or getting married will have occurred in their presence. This too is a background component of the environment they are living in.
Red state residents, except perhaps those in the inner wards of the largest cities in their states, are un-accepting of violations of their ethical and moral code. They are appalled when a random killing done on purpose occurs. These are experiences outside their world view and outside of their acceptance factors. These are NOT background elements of where they live and are not part of their daily lives.
We do have a divided nation. It is not a deliberately divided nation. It is a nation divided because of unique and regional evolutionary patterns and of historic realities. With the communications facilities we now have we are stunningly conscious of these divides in a way which could not have been imagined twenty years ago. There was no web twenty years ago. There were no picture cellphones twenty years ago. There wasn't satellite or cable television in every hamlet in the land twenty years ago. Much of what passes as the norm in a Blue state or in a metropolitan area has been the norm for much longer than twenty years, but, it was also not "in your face" for those outside the Blue states or not living in the metropolitan area.
I've got an idea on how to bridge this divide. But it will take an active participation from about half the country - the Blue state and metropolitan area half. If one adds up the numbers of people living in the metropolitan areas of the Blue states one arrives at a figure of 95.6 million Americans. If one adds the metropolitan areas of the Red states one arrives at a figure of 126.3 million Americans. There are estimated to be 293.0 million Americans throughout the land this year - 2004 - based on the 2000 Census and projections. That means that one third of this country lives in a city in a Blue state and that forty percent of this country lives in its largest twenty metropolitan areas. What this really means is that for every one of us living in a Blue state city, or a Red state city, we only have to talk to no more than two other Americans each. If we do that, everyone living in a Blue state and a Red state could have a meaningful conversation. The entire country.
Part of what I see as the divide goes to the heart of the inexperience factor. Red state residents do not have a very wide base upon which to draw their ethical and moral values or for the source of those values. Red state residents do not have experience with random terror and are perhaps more alarmed by the events of 9/11/02 than residents of Blue states. I say this because it seems that Red state residents cited issues over domestic security and morality far more often than did residents of Blue states when they provided exit poll interviews following Tuesday's voting. Residents of Blue states cited issues associated with international good will and the name and honor of the United States and concerns over self-determination far more often than their counterparts in the Red states. That would suggest that Blue state residents were more concerned with the existing and continuing reality of their states as border states for access to the rest of the world and with more emphasis on civil liberties than moral code. Red state residents were more concerned with security and morality than issues associated with the international nature of their country.
From the point of view of understanding the background and present and historical concerns of the residents of the Red and Blue states, their reactions and the manner by which these citizens cast their votes become connected empirically. As we move more toward an America of complete urbanity where everyone has an opportunity to a higher education or vocation of their choice, some of these limitations of experience will naturally disappear. It has taken forty years to move the number of college attendees or graduates in this country from 18 percent to 20 percent. That's a six-hundredths-of-a-percent per year rate of change. At that rate, the Blue state residents would be happy by the year 2500 if one were to assume that a 51-percent college attendance rate for the population of America would resolve some of the differences. That may be an appropriate number of years given the deepness with which some of these beliefs and historical norms are ensconced in their various Red and Blue states. But, given the historical norm of 20 years per generation, that's 25 generations in the future. That would mean we maintain this disparity for a period more than twice as long as we've been a nation. I find that length of time for a natural evolution unacceptable.
My idea is no guarantee of things happening faster but is is one where those unwilling to wait for the next 500 years can do something active right now. Get out. Travel across the country. Stop in places in the Red states which are outside the metropolitan corridors. Talk with the locals and engage them in a benign, low-key conversation which exposes them to a view from another morality or of a different ethic. But, listen to what they say in return. Listen to their concerns about their security. Their concerns that their family and offspring be taken care of - not just in this life but in the next one as well. Do not dismiss their concerns about hell and heaven. Even if you do not happen to believe in a god or in a hell or a heaven, that doesn't mean that those who do are wrong. Since we have absolutely no empirical evidence, one way or the other, their religious beliefs are as valid as your non-beliefs or your beliefs in another religion. What is needed is not a revulsion of religion, but an acceptance - a tolerance - of the right to have different religions and different ethics and different morals and for everyone to agree to NOT impose his or her doctrine on the secular aspects of life. It's the secular aspects where this becomes a real issue, where a woman's right to an abortion is impinged, where a gay couple's right to a happy and secure domestic life is denied or threatened. And, it's the secular aspects where we all meet. We need to at least engage our counterpoint citizens in a discussion of the secular aspects of life in America and to remove the religious elements of life in America to each other's private domain and private church, synagogue, temple or mosque. That is guaranteed in our Constitution and we need to begin having that discussion, each and every one of us, at every opportunity.
I'm reminded of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Each of those leaders faced a path of infinite resistance. A path strewn with the dead of valiant warriors of their kind who had tried to proceed before them. Each chose a completely non-violent and non-incendiary method of advancement. People will not budge if threatened. They will not budge if challenged. They will not listen if shouted at. They will not even grant the courtesy of eye-contact if treated callously or with disdain. That's as it should be. We are each and all of us - human. Humans have a certain dignity with which they must live - even with and by themselves. Grant that dignity and you grant equality. Grant equality and you can begin to have an open discussion. Have an open discussion and the two parties can eventually find common ground. Find common ground and you have a common goal and then you have two individuals working where there was one before.
That's my plan. Get out and talk to your neighbors across this land. Visit them in their own homes. See them for who they are and accept them for what they claim themselves to be. Try and allow them to see you for what you are and to accept you for what you claim to be. It's a start and though I've been doing this for decades, I've become reinvigorated in the purpose of my actions. I want all of us to live in the same country. I want all my fellow citizens and those who would want to become citizens to have an open and chance-giving society where each person's dignity and right to respect are both expected and granted.
When you boil it down to the essence, it's really about human dignity. It's not about guns; it's not about churches; it's not about jobs or education or income or elements of material wealth. It's about dignity - human dignity. The right to be a free and independent spirit and to be accepted in that light by anyone met along the path of life. And, as I've found so often, sometimes to give someone else dignity means giving up one's own dignity. If one has a true sense of self, if one's beliefs are strong enough to sustain one in the wilderness, in the middle of the night, in a trying moment at the peak of an accident, then one has enough self-sustenance to give another person dignity even if it must come from within. Share that dignity with someone you might have previously disdained and see how much of a world of difference having dignity makes in someone else.
And, yes, like I said previously, it's going to be tough. Turning the other cheek is always tough. Being ever the optimist is always tough because there is so much which goes against the grain in this land and at this time. Think of several different metaphors ... If one is stuck inside a deep castle prison, surrounded by walls of meter-thick blocks of stone and all one has for a tool is a spoon, one is not going to dig one's way out of the prison overnight. In fact, one may never dig oneself out of that prison. But, if one takes the spoon and chips away at the stone, day after day, each day a small bit of stone will fall. The effort never seems to lessen and the work never seems to diminish. But, after a reasonable period of time, there will be a small indentation in the stone. A path will be visible.
Or, try this one. If one is trying to grow a variety of crops in a garden, one may have a soil of particular pH. Some of the crops one is trying to grow may relish that pH, others may do poorly and even others may wilt and threaten to die or outright die. But, one can work the soil. One can change the pH of areas of the soil slowly, over time. One can plant new crops and test the pH until there comes a time when portions of the patch allow for the growth of crops which formerly would have wilted. Our national sociology has a pH. Right now it's not at the right value for as wide a variety of crops as we might like to grow. We have a set of crops - new values and new goals - which we wish to grow. We need to till the soil and we need to nurture that soil so the crops will themselves be nurtured. This takes time. Farmers know that. Sociologists and anthropologists know that. But, us citizens who want to change the world, we don't know that. We need to know how long some of the things we want will take. They may not grow and flourish in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't tend these crops. If we don't tend them, who will? Who will chip that stone if we don't take the spoon first?
As I said before, you have every right to disagree with me and I will listen openly and intently to your arguments if you are willing to listen openly and intently to mine. We're in this together - it's a long ride in a very small country (it sure has become one, hasn't it?).
Chas
The loneliness of the linesman. First, the crow on the left was squaking like mad.
Then the crow on the right came over and joined the crow on the left. Then, the
two hopped a bit apart from each other and stared off into opposite directions.
The rice bowls at Uwajimaya Village in Japantown (the lower part of the International
District, starting at 5th Avenue and King Street). I love Japanese pottery but can't
really use all these bowls since I don't eat rice every day and we have a finite amount
of kitchen cabinet space. I may purchase a few just to hold pennies, nickels, dimes
and quarters, though.
More porcelain from Uwajimaya. It's a great Japanese superstore if you haven't been there.
It's in its own building, sort of an arcade like structure with a supermarket, this gift and
home furnishing mart, a bookstore, and a small collection of Japanese restaurants in
what amounts to the food court. The attention to detail here is extraordinary.
To complete the Japanese porcelain collection. I love the Japanese culture's infinitely
small attention to detail. Nothing is beneath spending time on and nothing is too small
to become inconsequential. For a fast-paced culture, they still revere ceremony and the
"little" things which make some events or moments so much more memorable than others.
What about this wonderful array of fruits and vegetables, laid out almost according to
the spectrum of their color. There are plenty of non-Japanese supermarkets which pay
attention to their fruit and vegetable displays so Uwajimaya's level of detail here is not
SO extraordinary, but it still was eye-catching.
Right in front of the train station at the edge of the International District. It was a wet
and dreary day but the fall colors of the trees and the generally interesting streetscape
of this part of town never fails to draw my camera out of my pocket.
Same general vicinity looking east up Jackson Street towards the heart of the
International District. Japantown is off camera to the right in this view, along
King Street rather than along Jackson Street. This section of town will be the
multi-modal transportation center once Light Rail and Monorail are finished as
there will be transfer stations from both those rail lines connecting to the
Amtrak and Sounder service at the railroad stations and with the buses.
Looking west from the station plaza and focusing on the maple colors and the bus-stop
patrons. It's hard to imagine the busy nature this part of town is going to get once the
Light Rail and Monorail stations in this section get built. In addition to being at the
beginning of the International District, this is a literal stone's throw from Pioneer Square and
an even shorter stone's toss from the south end of Downtown.
Looking at Qwest Field from an overpass between the two railroad stations, again the
same general vicinity - foot of the International District. In this view I was once again
taken by the trees and how the fall weather makes them even more green, despite
their fading glory.
A sepia-toned view of the King Street Station tower eclipsing the Smith Tower with the
more modern buildings of Seattle behind. The fact that it was such a dull gray day allowed
me to choose virtually any tint I wanted for nearly all the images except those of the trees.
Here's a shot where the dull gray character actually enhances the neon lights of some
of the restaurants and shops at the beginning of the International District. This is at
the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Jackson Street looking northwest.
Another shot where the color of the area surpasses the dull gray nature of the day. This
is the Main Street / Pioneer Square stop on the Waterfront Streetcar line - Metro Route 99.
$1.25 will get you anywhere along this line and transfers from other buses do work.
It runs every twenty minutes from early morning through 7:00 pm, daily.
This is a 180-degree panorama of Jackson Street at the intersection of First Avenue. The waterfront is where Jackson
dead-ends on the left with the Aurora Avenue Viaduct intercepting the view. To the right Jackson wends east for
a stretch along this flat section of the Pioneer Square area and then slowly climbs up the southwestern edge of First
Hill into the International District. The train stations are just about where the buildings on the north side of Jackson
(right street, buildins facing you) converge. First Avenue is the street in the middle and this view is looking north
toward the heart of downtown.
More Seattle Adventures coming soon to a journal near you...
Posted: Wed - November 3, 2004 at 11:25 PM
Quick Links
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 04, 2005 05:41 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 04, 2005 05:41 PM