Of late, since Virginia's decision (or, rather, the governor's) to commemorate April as Confederate History Month, I have seen several incredulous remarks here on Facebook about how horrid and moronic anyone is who supports such an indefensible institution as the Confederacy. I feel the urge to address that contention.
I, on the Carpenter side, am a 14th generation South Carolinian. The Carpenters were French protestants (Huguenots), who came to the Carolina colony in 1685, the year of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The Carpenters, originally in and around the Charleston area, moved, with many others of French Huguenot descent, to the High Hills of the Santee. There, as planters, they acquired slaves. Carpenter, SC, is the site of the old family plantation. As I assume is the case for other southern whites, I am reminded of my family's slave-holding past when I run across a black folks with my surname. They are not my kin (on the by and large...a completely different discussion).
I am far removed from my slave-holding forefathers. I went to a public high school. I took out student loans and joined the military in order to afford college. After my service, I paid my way through law school. I am no recipient of silver spoon treatment; indeed, far from it. I will say, unabashedly, that while, as those who know me have readily assumed, I abhor slavery, I cannot and will not thrash the memory of my ancestors, regardless of the loathsome activities of which they were part. Outside of that though, aside from not denigrating them, yes, I do remember the cause for which they stood up and fought (and died) and respect their doing so.
For those who may not understand the apparent incongruence of that, please allow me to propose a scenario:
We, the United States of America, consume approximately 20.8 MILLION barrels of oil a day. That's more than the next five most oil consuming countries COMBINED. That's approximately 1/3 to 1/4 of all oil consumed on the planet. There are 300 million of us. There are 7 billion people on the planet. We, 2.1% of the population, consume a third of the oil. That's not remotely fair. In fact, that's patently disgusting when you put any thought into it.
Outside of oil consumption, we, the blessed 2.1%, also dictate the world economy. We allow our corporations to manufacture overseas where they pay a pittance to foreigners compared to what they'd have to pay American workers. We have to do this so that our Nikes can "only" cost $100. So that our Levi's jeans can cost "only" $50. We don't like to think about the people getting paid $3 a day, if that, to manufacture them. Nope, don't like to think that at all. But damn if these jeans don't look good.
We Americans like our freedom. We like choice. "I want my Levis! I want my Nikes! I want my Chevy Z71! It's my God-given right! Sorry they're poor, but they should have been born in America! America!"
The United States is part of the United Nations. The UN is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. We joined because we felt it was in our best interests to do so.
Suppose the rest of the world was tired of our wildly disproportionate consumption. Suppose, our Security Council veto aside, that they used the United Nations to order us to curb our oil consumption to our population (let's just go with 1 million barrels). Suppose they ordered our corporations to pay all of their workers according to what American workers would make, including benefits. It would be "fair" for the world to demand that. At least, it makes a sort of sense.
Would we accept the UN's demands? Of course not. "Insanity!" we'd cry. "There's no way!" we'd scream. Our entire economy would be destroyed. Our entire way of life would be destroyed. Do you think you're evil? You buy affordable blue jeans; you own a car and drive it daily; you do any number of things, most things, that you would not be able to do were it not for the fact that you were born into the situation you were. Sure, it would be great if everyone could have the benefits that you have, but there's just no way to do it. Ugandans dying of malnutrition is nowhere on your radar.
Say eventually, after years and years of watching the chorus of the rest of the world grow, the UN finally elects a Secretary General who was elected solely by the anti-US faction. The US sees that there is no point in being a part of the UN since it is obviously no longer not only not in our best interests to remain, but positively detrimental.
But no. The UN won't allow the US to leave. After all, a large proportion of UN funds come from the US. "No," the UN says, "you can't leave. This is an insoluble bond." Of course, nowhere in the charter does it say that it's an insoluble bond, but that's not the issue. "It's the UNITED Nations, after all. United means the US can't leave when the going gets rough for it," the UN says.
"Like hell we can't!" American hippie vegans and meat-eating SUV owners would cry in unison. Well, maybe not the hippie vegans...
Let's say that we do leave and that Secretary General, noble man that the rest of the world sees him as, says, "That's fine, but you have to continue to pay your share of the UN budget and provide resources to us. After all, we can't function without you."
"Too bad. No way in hell!" we'd scream.
Let's say that we waited for the UN to evacuate the UN headquarters building that we allowed to be built on our land. The UN knew our position, that we no longer considered ourselves part of the UN and wanted the UN off of our soil. Let's say they refused to leave. Not only did they refuse to leave, but they went to send the next election's worth of representatives to the UN Headquarters. Would it be wrong for us to prevent them access to the building? Would it be wrong for us to cut the power to the building? To shut off the water? To cut them off from supplies so that they'd leave. And, when they finally did leave the building, we'd escort them to the airport and send them on their way.
Let's say the rest of the world called to arms because of that. "That's it! We must save the union! We can't function without the US!" The UN mustered what military it could, which is not altogether insignificant in terms of sheer numbers, and invaded.
What would happen? Even those in the US who admitted that the US was existing on a relatively unfair system would be awfully angry that foreigners would dare to attack us. How would we handle it? Well, the US has the best military in the world. Even in the face of numerically superior numbers, we'd be able to hold them off. Not only that, but many red-blooded, patriotic men and women would get their guns (yay for the 2nd Amendment...the anti-invasion amendment) and fight. Because we have such a love of our country, even if it is fairly obvious that our practices keep others in virtual economic slavery, we'd fight tooth and nail.
Let's say that at first, the UN simply tries to take Washington, DC, but due to our advantage of having better soldiers and fighting on our soil, they just couldn't do it. The rest of the world also feels the pressure economically of the war. It needs to end quickly. Some of the other countries, those who were doing fine in the old way of doing things argue that there never should have been a war in the first place, that the system simply is at it is and can't be changed without destroying so much. A minority of the countries, the impoverished, clamor for economic fairness. Though it wasn't really the driving force of the war, that was more trying to keep the US in the UN regardless of whether it changed its consumption or not, the embattled Secretary General seizes on the ideology of economic fairness. "Jeans in the US will now cost $400! Nikes will now cost $1000!" he declares, with no authority to change the price of anything in the US. Of course, he makes sure that he doesn't expand that proclamation to Canada, a border country, because the UN needs Canada as a staging ground for its invasion and Canada would join the US if it were forced to pay for everything at its true price as well. But that's beside the point.
Eventually, shut off from the rest of the world, regardless of how fine our military is, we would begin to suffer from want. It would be hard to manufacture all we needed to supply our war machine. Still, we'd fight. We'd fight tooth and nail. No longer would we even consider the root causes of the war. We'd fight because we'd been invaded. We would be relentless in our defense. The UNers would die in droves.
Finally, the Secretary General, seeing that assault on Washington isn't working sends invading forces to the West Coast and instructs them to wage Total War. They start in Seattle and work their way down to San Diego, raping a little here and there, but mostly leaving the civilians alone. There goal is to bring the US to its knees economically, so they demolish Seattle, Oregon, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and San Diego. They destroy the homes and businesses of even those few people who might have agreed that the US was being unfair
Eventually, the weight of the world would be too much. The US would eventually fall in light of superior numbers and blockades. We'd surrender; even though we'd hate it and we'd hate the countries that attacked us. None of our leaders would be convicted as war criminals, because, legally, they were right to remove the US from the UN and were right to defend their country. We'd know we had the will to fight though and that if we had the means, we'd still be fighting, because no matter what the rest of the world accused us of, we were not all Corporate Executives, lavishly consuming far out of proportion to our actual contribution. We were Americans and we'd been invaded and the invaders hadn't just shot the Corporate Executives or the Washington Fat Cats. No, our brothers and sisters had died in that war. Our parents. Our children. Our cousins. Our friends. Our neighbors. We'd carry that will with us for the rest of our lives. We'd always remember our war. The UN would call it the American Rebellion and we'd call it the War of Foreign Aggression. We'd tell our children about it and make sure they were raised to tell their children about it. And so on and so forth.
The United States would be no more. The United Nations would set up a puppet government and set about rebuilding our infrastructure to meet their needs. UN governors would run our states. We'd hate them. Eventually, the system would work out to where the former US (I have no idea what we'd be called when we lose, maybe the United Nations Protectorate) finally consumed in proportion to its population. It would be fair. Eventually, we might even recognize it was just. We'd even get used to the system. Still, we'd remember.
And when 150 years from the end of the war, if my grandchildren's grandchildren want to wave the old Stars and Stripes and commemorate their forefathers, who fought invaders valiantly even while driving Hummers and wearing Air Jordans, I won't begrudge them that, even while the descendants of UN countries who participated in the invasion and even a goodly number of US descendants call them boorish, ignorant, and elitist.
I, on the Carpenter side, am a 14th generation South Carolinian. The Carpenters were French protestants (Huguenots), who came to the Carolina colony in 1685, the year of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The Carpenters, originally in and around the Charleston area, moved, with many others of French Huguenot descent, to the High Hills of the Santee. There, as planters, they acquired slaves. Carpenter, SC, is the site of the old family plantation. As I assume is the case for other southern whites, I am reminded of my family's slave-holding past when I run across a black folks with my surname. They are not my kin (on the by and large...a completely different discussion).
I am far removed from my slave-holding forefathers. I went to a public high school. I took out student loans and joined the military in order to afford college. After my service, I paid my way through law school. I am no recipient of silver spoon treatment; indeed, far from it. I will say, unabashedly, that while, as those who know me have readily assumed, I abhor slavery, I cannot and will not thrash the memory of my ancestors, regardless of the loathsome activities of which they were part. Outside of that though, aside from not denigrating them, yes, I do remember the cause for which they stood up and fought (and died) and respect their doing so.
For those who may not understand the apparent incongruence of that, please allow me to propose a scenario:
We, the United States of America, consume approximately 20.8 MILLION barrels of oil a day. That's more than the next five most oil consuming countries COMBINED. That's approximately 1/3 to 1/4 of all oil consumed on the planet. There are 300 million of us. There are 7 billion people on the planet. We, 2.1% of the population, consume a third of the oil. That's not remotely fair. In fact, that's patently disgusting when you put any thought into it.
Outside of oil consumption, we, the blessed 2.1%, also dictate the world economy. We allow our corporations to manufacture overseas where they pay a pittance to foreigners compared to what they'd have to pay American workers. We have to do this so that our Nikes can "only" cost $100. So that our Levi's jeans can cost "only" $50. We don't like to think about the people getting paid $3 a day, if that, to manufacture them. Nope, don't like to think that at all. But damn if these jeans don't look good.
We Americans like our freedom. We like choice. "I want my Levis! I want my Nikes! I want my Chevy Z71! It's my God-given right! Sorry they're poor, but they should have been born in America! America!"
The United States is part of the United Nations. The UN is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. We joined because we felt it was in our best interests to do so.
Suppose the rest of the world was tired of our wildly disproportionate consumption. Suppose, our Security Council veto aside, that they used the United Nations to order us to curb our oil consumption to our population (let's just go with 1 million barrels). Suppose they ordered our corporations to pay all of their workers according to what American workers would make, including benefits. It would be "fair" for the world to demand that. At least, it makes a sort of sense.
Would we accept the UN's demands? Of course not. "Insanity!" we'd cry. "There's no way!" we'd scream. Our entire economy would be destroyed. Our entire way of life would be destroyed. Do you think you're evil? You buy affordable blue jeans; you own a car and drive it daily; you do any number of things, most things, that you would not be able to do were it not for the fact that you were born into the situation you were. Sure, it would be great if everyone could have the benefits that you have, but there's just no way to do it. Ugandans dying of malnutrition is nowhere on your radar.
Say eventually, after years and years of watching the chorus of the rest of the world grow, the UN finally elects a Secretary General who was elected solely by the anti-US faction. The US sees that there is no point in being a part of the UN since it is obviously no longer not only not in our best interests to remain, but positively detrimental.
But no. The UN won't allow the US to leave. After all, a large proportion of UN funds come from the US. "No," the UN says, "you can't leave. This is an insoluble bond." Of course, nowhere in the charter does it say that it's an insoluble bond, but that's not the issue. "It's the UNITED Nations, after all. United means the US can't leave when the going gets rough for it," the UN says.
"Like hell we can't!" American hippie vegans and meat-eating SUV owners would cry in unison. Well, maybe not the hippie vegans...
Let's say that we do leave and that Secretary General, noble man that the rest of the world sees him as, says, "That's fine, but you have to continue to pay your share of the UN budget and provide resources to us. After all, we can't function without you."
"Too bad. No way in hell!" we'd scream.
Let's say that we waited for the UN to evacuate the UN headquarters building that we allowed to be built on our land. The UN knew our position, that we no longer considered ourselves part of the UN and wanted the UN off of our soil. Let's say they refused to leave. Not only did they refuse to leave, but they went to send the next election's worth of representatives to the UN Headquarters. Would it be wrong for us to prevent them access to the building? Would it be wrong for us to cut the power to the building? To shut off the water? To cut them off from supplies so that they'd leave. And, when they finally did leave the building, we'd escort them to the airport and send them on their way.
Let's say the rest of the world called to arms because of that. "That's it! We must save the union! We can't function without the US!" The UN mustered what military it could, which is not altogether insignificant in terms of sheer numbers, and invaded.
What would happen? Even those in the US who admitted that the US was existing on a relatively unfair system would be awfully angry that foreigners would dare to attack us. How would we handle it? Well, the US has the best military in the world. Even in the face of numerically superior numbers, we'd be able to hold them off. Not only that, but many red-blooded, patriotic men and women would get their guns (yay for the 2nd Amendment...the anti-invasion amendment) and fight. Because we have such a love of our country, even if it is fairly obvious that our practices keep others in virtual economic slavery, we'd fight tooth and nail.
Let's say that at first, the UN simply tries to take Washington, DC, but due to our advantage of having better soldiers and fighting on our soil, they just couldn't do it. The rest of the world also feels the pressure economically of the war. It needs to end quickly. Some of the other countries, those who were doing fine in the old way of doing things argue that there never should have been a war in the first place, that the system simply is at it is and can't be changed without destroying so much. A minority of the countries, the impoverished, clamor for economic fairness. Though it wasn't really the driving force of the war, that was more trying to keep the US in the UN regardless of whether it changed its consumption or not, the embattled Secretary General seizes on the ideology of economic fairness. "Jeans in the US will now cost $400! Nikes will now cost $1000!" he declares, with no authority to change the price of anything in the US. Of course, he makes sure that he doesn't expand that proclamation to Canada, a border country, because the UN needs Canada as a staging ground for its invasion and Canada would join the US if it were forced to pay for everything at its true price as well. But that's beside the point.
Eventually, shut off from the rest of the world, regardless of how fine our military is, we would begin to suffer from want. It would be hard to manufacture all we needed to supply our war machine. Still, we'd fight. We'd fight tooth and nail. No longer would we even consider the root causes of the war. We'd fight because we'd been invaded. We would be relentless in our defense. The UNers would die in droves.
Finally, the Secretary General, seeing that assault on Washington isn't working sends invading forces to the West Coast and instructs them to wage Total War. They start in Seattle and work their way down to San Diego, raping a little here and there, but mostly leaving the civilians alone. There goal is to bring the US to its knees economically, so they demolish Seattle, Oregon, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and San Diego. They destroy the homes and businesses of even those few people who might have agreed that the US was being unfair
Eventually, the weight of the world would be too much. The US would eventually fall in light of superior numbers and blockades. We'd surrender; even though we'd hate it and we'd hate the countries that attacked us. None of our leaders would be convicted as war criminals, because, legally, they were right to remove the US from the UN and were right to defend their country. We'd know we had the will to fight though and that if we had the means, we'd still be fighting, because no matter what the rest of the world accused us of, we were not all Corporate Executives, lavishly consuming far out of proportion to our actual contribution. We were Americans and we'd been invaded and the invaders hadn't just shot the Corporate Executives or the Washington Fat Cats. No, our brothers and sisters had died in that war. Our parents. Our children. Our cousins. Our friends. Our neighbors. We'd carry that will with us for the rest of our lives. We'd always remember our war. The UN would call it the American Rebellion and we'd call it the War of Foreign Aggression. We'd tell our children about it and make sure they were raised to tell their children about it. And so on and so forth.
The United States would be no more. The United Nations would set up a puppet government and set about rebuilding our infrastructure to meet their needs. UN governors would run our states. We'd hate them. Eventually, the system would work out to where the former US (I have no idea what we'd be called when we lose, maybe the United Nations Protectorate) finally consumed in proportion to its population. It would be fair. Eventually, we might even recognize it was just. We'd even get used to the system. Still, we'd remember.
And when 150 years from the end of the war, if my grandchildren's grandchildren want to wave the old Stars and Stripes and commemorate their forefathers, who fought invaders valiantly even while driving Hummers and wearing Air Jordans, I won't begrudge them that, even while the descendants of UN countries who participated in the invasion and even a goodly number of US descendants call them boorish, ignorant, and elitist.
No comments:
Post a Comment