We The People

Warning: Rant ahead! Proceed at your own risk!

[Historical trivia: The obviously most common literal translation of a given race or tribe's native language term naming that race or tribe is "The People".]

I've been forcefully reminded that there is nothing at all wrong with Humanity that couldn't be improved if we simply got rid of all of The People.

There's no denying that Man is a social animal. A man on his own, without the beneficial interactions with other people is pretty much good for nothing. Except maybe for there being less aggravation in his life. Or absence of the frequent reminders of how whatever it is he is doing, he's doing it "wrong". The People always seem to appear wherever people congregate to properly educate those other people about what is "proper" and "right" and therefore what will be permissible and what will be tolerated. And what things won't be tolerated or go unchallenged. The People know these things are true, because God (or gods) are on Their side, obviously. And because, just as obvious, alternate opinions or points-of-view are patently stoooopid and should be shunned, eschewed, belittled, and demeaned to demonstrate just how stoooopid and wrong-headed such alternate thinking is. After all, if such opinions were NOT stooopid, those would be the opinions that The People espoused, as opposed to the undeniably "right" standards and values currently held by The People.

Ever since Velociraptors banded together to haul down larger prey, anyone or anything outside of the pack was either A) something to be preyed upon, or B) something to be avoided. With an emphasis on A. Throughout the annals of recorded history, interactions between different groups almost always boiled down to "Us = Good; Them = Bad." With "Good" being defined by whichever group proved to be dominant in the interaction. It hardly matters which historical group is cited, almost invariably it can be seen that that group perceived itself as Righteous, Just, favored by God(s), while all others were NOT righteous, just, or favored by God(s). Didn't matter if the group was dominant or oppressed, it's members rest assured that They were "right" while others were "wrong". Even the Jews, held in bondage by the Egyptians for generations, viewed themselves as "the Chosen People of God".

Fast forward a few thousand years and we find that Mankind has been fruitful and multiplied. And multiplied. And multiplied. And for nearly 7 billion people, there are several gazillion groups of varying size, with most people holding membership in several distinctly different groups. Membership in groups usually revolves around the personal interests of the individual, though some memberships are unavoidable, e.g. family, race, ethnicity, etc. Many, perhaps most groups do NOT interact with other groups at all. But if they do, it's almost inevitable that friction will arise. Especially if groups have overlapping areas of interest. For instance, in the realm of politics, an arena will encompass multiple parties, each of which contends that it is Their party that offers the overall population the best solutions to any problem. [The "best" solutions being those that reward that party's members disproportionately, of course.] Religion frequently boils down to "_We_ can go to Heaven; others outside of our group can NOT."

And everyone seems to have the idea that "_We_ are right, while others not in our group are obviously wrong."

If you read this far, you've more than likely already said to yourself, "He is soooooo wrong." After all, odds favor that if you're reading this, you reside in an English-speaking country. (Numerous exceptions noted, but bear with me.) That suggests either the UK or some nation originally settled by Englishmen. Supposedly, ALL of those nations can be described as "melting pots", with large numbers of widely divergent ethnic groups inserting large numbers of people to flavor the stew that developed. For instance, as a native-born American, I can describe myself as "half-Irish" and "half-German". With that in mind, what cultural attitudes might I have inherited from those two immigrant groups, as well as the surrounding society I grew up in? How significantly different might my upbringing in Wisconsin been from someone raised in Alabama? We are both Americans, so that places us both together in at least one group, and given the 309 million people in that group, you might conclude that just what it is in the way of attitudes and opinions that defines us is kind of blurry around the edges.

Which brings us to the concept of niche groups. Sort of like a subset of a group. The number of niche groups within a larger group increases almost geometrically as the group's size increases. And the amount of overlapping in group attitudes can be so much as to make it nearly impossible to clearly identify some niche groups. Nevertheless, they exist. And a lot of them can/will be a royal pain in the butt.


You are undoubtedly already aware of many (in)famous niche groups, primarily because of how they adversely affected the public image of the larger groups to which they belonged. For instance, circa 1500, look at the subset of "Spaniards" known as "conquistadors". The conquistadors felt fully entitled -- nay, obligated to go forth and conquer the New World, with apparently not the least compunction about _how_ they went about doing it. They did so "for the glory of Spain", and with the blessing of Mother Church. [I've often wondered: just _how_ does torturing Native Americans to death in wholesale lots glorify God?] Murder, torture, pillage, plunder, enslavement, rape, the broad spreading of disease, et al.... It mattered not at all just what they did; they felt (demonstrated by the actions they took) it was the "right" thing for them to do. And despite the evidence of what they did, none of the conquistadors were ever censured by either the Spanish Crown or Mother Church for those excesses, so apparently both of those parties agreed that the conquistadors had done the "right" thing. From a PR perspective, should it be strictly the conquistadors that are pointed at when cataloging cultural excesses that were detrimental to the Native Americans that suffered at the hands of the conquistadors, or of the Spanish empire as a whole? Traditionally it is the entire Spanish empire as a whole that gets blamed -- and rightly so, for its failure to regulate its own members. That failure to regulate becomes a tacit endorsement of ALL actions taken "in the name of the Spanish empire!"

For being the world's largest "melting pot", the United States is, and continues to be, a prime example of Us versus Them. Initially, it was Europeans versus the Native Americans (whose population had already been ravaged by European diseases) that needed to be pushed out of the way. That particular campaign didn't end until the few surviving Native American tribes had been uprooted and shipped off to desert concentration camps over the course of a couple centuries. Then the paranoia of Us suppressed or absorbed all other Europeans in North America, until only the British-dominated colonies remained. Then, because of the catchy phrase of "No taxation without representation!", the English-descended Americans turned against the Them that remained behind in Britain. (Do you clearly understand that American colonists paid only one-quarter the taxes as British subjects everywhere else in the world at that time? Yet, I'm certain that had the Crown relented and allowed for Colonial representatives in Parliament, that would still not have been enough to appease the American agitators. Pretty much, "Independence or bust!") At that time, the population in the Colonies schismed into Loyalist Tories on one side and the Sons of Liberty on the other. The sum of the two groups was by no means the total of the entire population. Those caught in between were required to stay well out of the way, or be given a "You're either with us or against us!" ultimatum. Upon the conclusion of hostilities, the @20% of the population that had been active Loyalists needed to keep their Tory opinions to themselves if they knew what was good for them. Five of that twenty percent could NOT, and so relocated to the West Indies rather than remain shut up for life.

For generations after the Revolution, US history is riddled with groups that purported that they spoke for all "True Americans". A fine example can be found in the movie, "Gangs of New York". The Native Sons gang, led by Daniel Day-Lewis' character, "the Butcher", is a reflection of a VERY popular political movement, the Know Nothing Party. Themselves the descendants of immigrants to America, they despised and disparaged all of the immigrants entering the US in the 1840s and 1850s. Murder and mayhem in support of the hatred they espoused was not uncommon. Ironically, the KNP fragmented, with most joining the Republican Party shortly before the Civil War. (Ironic because consider: who is currently very outspoken against the wave of immigrants coming to the US of today? Many of those loudly speaking out suggest US borders should be militarized with shoot-to-kill policies put in place.) Then post-Civil War, there was the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, which had no compunction about lynching any that they felt "had it coming to them". (For a real eye-opener, watch the silent movie classic, "The Birth of a Nation". Viewing the KKK and it's actions as the "right" thing to do says much about the general attitudes of the US when the fim was released in 1915.)

Between World Wars, perhaps the most infamous niche group in all of history arose: the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, a.k.a., the Nazi Party. What it had going for it was that it claimed to speak on the behalf of true Germans everywhere, waxing poetic singing the praises of Germans and Germany -- "Us" -- which demonstrated just how superior Germans were. To a nation suffering severe economic hardship after having lost the First World War, the message fell on fertile ground. Simultaneously, they condemned everyone and everything else that was not true German -- "Them" -- which pretty much encompassed all other political parties along with all non-Aryans. It can be well argued that nowhere near the majority of German citizens belonged to the Nazi Party Yet that majority allowed the Nazi Party to gain total control -- and therefore should share the blame for the innumerable atrocities that the Nazis perpetrated. (As the saying goes, ""For Evil to succeed, all that is required is for good men to do nothing." Failure to act _is_ a choice, one for which people may be held responsible.)

Looking at the US today, the single most obvious Us versus Them model is the escalating feud between Republicans and Democrats. By extension, that includes Conservatives and Liberals/Progressives. Over the course of nearly two-and-a-half centuries, political discourse has moved from, "Our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle" to unending tirades about how The Opposition is comprised of bald-faced liars, thieves, murderers (depending on where you stand on Abortion and the righteousness of bombing abortion clinics), and schemers whose only _real_ goal is to see how much of the Treasury they can grab for themselves. The Us versus Them-ness of it all has gotten to the point where all that is required to get half the population of the country to instantly hate someone is to state that person's political affiliation. If not hate, then just the kneejerk conclusion that that person most likely is erroneous in whatever he contends.

Which finally -- FINALLY! -- brings us to what got me to launch this rant in the first place: internet social forums. It seems like it doesn't matter what the subject matter is, it seems that there is invariably a resident population of members that have been there for awhile and have adopted the forum as "our/my" site. That group of people is comprised of those that are most active, have a high number of posts, and for the most part, agree between themselves on the majority of topics that come up. These people are NOT necessarily Moderators, yet they have taken on the self-assigned task of acting as the site's unofficial Guardians. And Censors. For the most part, they hang back, making comments and chitchat here and there. But woe unto him that steps outside the bounds of what _they_ feel is appropriate/acceptable! Posting contrary or minority opinions is deemed "trollish behavior", and needs to be quashed, ASAP. Such opposing viewpoints are obviously moronic, stoooopid, and/or retarded (apologies to those that are honestly mentally-challenged) and MUST be described as such. Persistence in the adherence of such defective reasoning proves the trollish intent, because no one in their right mind is so blind as to not see the verity of the commonly held opinions and the glaring flaws in the (suspected) troll's contention. Which means that what is necessary is a constant avalanche, of "Are you actually this stupid, troll, or just retarded?" posts. Complete with graphics for emphasis and the entertainment of the rest of the lynch mob.

The specific forum where this took place was the BioWare Social Network. There I made the monumental mistake of voicing my very sincere opinion that Miranda, a major character in Mass Effect 2, is a Galaxy-class b****, complete with some of the reasons that I felt demonstrated this was so. Though there were, in fact a number of members that held similar views (and posted supportive comments), the pro-Miranda members buried the thread in lynch mob rhetoric and harassing commentary. Rather than accepting the -- what I thought was self-obvious -- fact that different people may and will hold different opinions, I/we in the minority were lectured at grrrreeeeaaaaatttttt length about how stupid and moronic we were for even thinking anything other than Miranda is the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread. When I say "avalanche", I'm not exaggerating: of the @150 posts to the thread, well over 100 (probably closer to 120) fall into the "We're right; you're wrong -- naturally" category. If you think I'm exaggerating, see for yourself: Why the Engine Room?

Now, it's just not the BioWare site that is infected with these self-appointed busybodies. I've run into people like them on nearly every LARGE forum where I have participated over the last couple of years. An ironic example is the Thom Hartmann discussion forums. Thom is a fairly well known and respected Progressive radio "talking head". MASSIVELY less vitriolic than his Rush Limbaugh Conservative counterpart. (With, unfortunately, only about 1/10th of the listening audience.) One would think that the discussion forum of a Progressive talk radio show host would be dominated by Progressives. Unfortunately for the Progressive members, a large group of VERY prolific Conservatives dominate nearly every discussion thread of any substantive value on Thom's _public_ forum. I don't know if these are self-appointed Conservatives that just like to take over every thread they find, or if they are paid Conservative shills meant to disrupt Progressive discussion. The end result is that as time goes by, sincere Progressive members eventually depart the forum in search of more civil discourse.

To get back to the Us versus Them mentality evidenced everywhere I look, I've experienced it in other areas as well. For instance, not too long ago I was quite active in American Civil War reenacting. I actually held membership in three different ACW reenacting clubs of varying sizes. The smallest had about 300 members, while the largest had over 3,000. Within the mix of membership you had people that covered the spectrum of "How involved in this pastime are you?" Many owned a bare minimum of outfits and gear. Some were what were called "hardcore" reenactors, that seemingly invested body and soul to the hobby. Hardcores would describe themselves as "dedicated to doing authentic reenactments"; non-hardcores often referred to hardcores as "stitch Nazis". For all three clubs, the obvious majority of members (at the time) was comprised of people that held the attitude, "I just want to reenact." As I'm fond of pointing out, any time you get more than three people together for a given activity, politics happens. All three clubs had VERY active political dramas playing out between (and often during) reenactments. I eventually retired from reenacting for health reasons -- "You're flirting with a heart attack if you keep that up." -- but within just a few years of my retirement, all three of those clubs were tiny fractions of what they once were. The LARGE majority of who remains are the hardcore reenactors. Why? Because a person can only take so much of, "If you won't do it _right_, we would ALL be better off if you weren't here" before they follow the obvious suggestion and leaves.

Now, if you review all of the examples I've laid out, you should perceive a pattern: The self-appointed Guardians of "Us" -- whatever the theme/function/purpose of "Us" may be -- start out being a clear but distinct minority. But because they are allowed to remain in place, unopposed, unchallenged, and unrestricted, they WILL eventually become THE soul of that group. Because any who disagree with them leaves or is cowed into silent submission.. Because those self-appointed Guardians actually (maybe not) believe that they are the "true" representives of what is "right" and "proper". And they know -- from the fact that no one has stopped them from doing so -- that it is they who have the power to get what they want from whatever "Us" group they belong to.

Unfortunately, none of us (hermits aside) can keep away from groups entirely -- complete with the self-appointed Guardians of the group's (their own, actually) values and standards. When the targets of the Guardians feel trapped you get incidents like what occurred at Columbine High School. Santana High School. Granite Hills High School. Pine Middle School. Virginia Tech. North Illinois University.......It's a _long_ list. And at the root of almost all of those shootings was someone being hammered with how "wrong' he was, by self-appointed spokesmen for whatever community was shared between victims and that felt confident that they were the appropriate representatives of that community.

Sadly, I have no solution to suggest; no panacea. I would think that it is obvious that diverse people hold diverse opinions -- and _everyone_ is entitled to their own opinions, without having to withstand the harassment of others that hold differing opinions. I can understand pointing out out the flaws in another's data or reasoning, but that should happen without condemnations of the individual or extensive ad homine attacks. That much _should_ be obvious, but it apparently is NOT. It is unfortunate that it is usually just a matter of minutes to find examples of Us condemning Them.

"We have met the enemy and they are us!" ~Walt Kelly, Pogo, 1971

"There is nothing at all wrong with Humanity that couldn't be improved if we simply got rid of all of The People." ~ CaptainPatch, 1971 (Yes, I've been CaptainPatch for even longer than that!)