Better to Forget

I can’t help it.  I grew up in the 1970’s.

Whenever I hear a German accent, my first thought is, whoa, bad guys.  Totally unfair, for sure, but so many of the movies I grew up watching featured German villains that the accent has lots of baggage.  Not only were there plenty of war movies, like Where Eagles Dare, The Dirty Dozen, and Victory, but many more of all sorts of genres featured Nazi villains, like The Boys from Brazil, and Sophie’s Choice.

As Paul Attanasio wrote for The Washington Post in 1985:

Over the years, the German has become etched in our imagination as a signifier of pure evil. "It's become a convention," says screenwriter David Freeman. "In the Elizabethan theater, a character would come out with a kind of mask on his face -- that would mean he was invisible, and everyone in the audience accepted it. We've done that to the Nazis."

No question, Nazis make great villains, and, obviously, justifiably so.  Their incarceration and systematic murder of millions of innocent people stands out as one of the most horrific chapters in human history, and the extent to which Germans are self-conscious about it is evidenced by the existence of a German word, “vergangenheitsbewältigung,” which “refers to embarrassment about and often remorse for Germans' complicity in the war crimes of the Wehrmacht, Holocaust, and related events of the early and mid-20th century, including World War II.”

But the Germans are hardly alone in having embarrassing chapters in their history.  Please consider this:

The first English settlement in North America was founded in 1607, on the banks of the James River, in what is now Virginia.  Just twelve years later, in 1619, slavery began in America, when a Dutch ship brought 20 African slaves to the Jamestown settlement.  Slavery didn’t end in the U.S. until 1863, when President Lincoln officially issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  So, for 244 years, innocent people were captured in Africa and brought to North America as property. As chattel. For 244 years.  After slavery was abolished, these innocent people went from being slaves to being officially considered second class citizens and, unofficially, subject to horrible abuse.  From emancipation until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these innocent people were legally discriminated against.  Legally.  For a century.

[As an aside, we don’t see as much embarrassment and remorse about this in our country as we should.  In fact, there’s controversy regarding monuments to and symbols of the Confederacy.  Controversy, meaning there are people who have no problem with those monuments and symbols.  Imagine if there were people in Germany favoring the display of Nazi symbols, which would be quite equivalent, in my book.  But that is a topic for a whole other essay.]

 

Let’s go on to consider another matter:

The indigenous people of what is now the United States are thought to have arrived here approximately 15,000 years ago.  And they were doing generally well. Until the European colonization of the Americas, that is, which began in the 1400s. After that “their population declined precipitously mainly due to introduced diseases as well as warfare, territorial confiscation and slavery.”

When you read “introduced diseases,” I’m sure you assumed the Native Americans got sick because their immune systems were not equipped to handle the diseases brought to their home by the Europeans.  And you would be right. But what you may not have thought of is that  (emphasis mine):

… there are a number of documented cases where diseases were deliberately spread among Native Americans as a form of biological warfare. The most well-known example occurred in 1763, when Sir Jeffery Amherst, Commander-in-Chief of the Forces of the British Army, wrote praising the use of smallpox-infected blankets to "extirpate" the Indian race.

Perhaps the best way to succinctly describe the effect the arrival of the Europeans had on the Native Americans is to simply state that, although estimates vary widely, it is thought that approximately 10 million pre-Columbian Native Americans lived in what is today the United States of America, but by 1890 the Native population had declined to 250,000.  

So, the Europeans arrived in North America and decimated the continent’s innocent indigenous people.  They then abducted millions of other innocent people from another continent and brought them here as slaves.  

Obviously I could go on ad nauseum.  There is probably no civilization on the planet that can look back on its history without cringing at some of the chapters.  Yet we are constantly reminded that we must remember.  Remember the Holocaust.  Remember the past.  Because, of course, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  

I don’t think so.

It seems that we are condemned to repeat the past whether or not we remember it.  Remembering the past makes us understand that we, as a species, have done horrible things to each other, but it doesn’t stop us from continuing to do those horrible things, over and over again.  The problem is not that we don’t remember the past. The problem is that remembering it just shows us who we are, but doesn’t give us the power to change who we are.

Maybe the answer is the opposite.  Maybe the answer is to forget. Maybe If we all wake up tomorrow morning knowing nothing of the past, we would mistake ourselves for a better species, and finally start acting like one.

An Open Letter to Derek Jeter

March 30, 2019

Mr. Derek S. Jeter

Chief Executive Officer

Miami Marlins

501 Marlins Way

Miami, FL 33125

Dear Mr. Jeter,

I write this as someone who has attended Marlins games since the very first one in 1993, and  wants, very much, for you to succeed in making the Marlins a successful, sustainable baseball franchise.  I’m all in with your rebuilding strategy, and look forward to seeing it develop. In the meantime, though, I have some constructive criticism (or “feedback,” in today’s corporate-speak) regarding ballpark operations.

I realize that you feel that reaching the Latin market in general, and the Cuban market in particular, are keys to the success of the Miami Marlins.  I don’t dispute that. What I do take issue with, though, is the way in which you are attempting to reach those markets.  Bilingual slogans and hashtags (#OurColores, #JuntosMiami, Party en el Parque, etc.).  Sixth inning “cafecito.”  Obscenely loud salsa bands walking around the concourse.  All of those things are transparently patronizing and condescending.  How is handing out “cafecitos” to acknowledge Cuban-American fans different from handing out watermelon to acknowledge African-American fans?  Not different at all. Both are patently offensive, shameful and repulsive.

Celebration of heritage should not be about stereotyping. I was born and raised in Colombia, but when I think of the times I’ve been to the ballpark on so-called “Colombian Heritage Night” I cringe with embarrassment.  And I’m the intended target of that awkward spectacle.  And, of course, you also have Cuban Heritage Night, Dominican Heritage Night, Venezuelan Heritage night, etc.  Let’s do away with “Heritage Nights” altogether. Let’s not focus on what makes us different from each other. Let’s instead focus on what makes us the same.  And let’s not forget that not everyone in South Florida is of Latin heritage.  If I’m offended by the incessant pandering, how do you think fans who are not of Latin heritage feel?  Insulted, I’m sure. Excluded as well, no doubt.  

One more thing.  I’m appreciative of the new food options at Marlins Park.  However, I believe it’s far more important to get the basics right than to offer all sorts of alternatives.  Mr. Jeter, I’m sure you’ve enjoyed a Dean Dog at Roger Dean Chevrolet Stadium. Have you had the garbage that passes for a hot dog at Marlins Park?  You can offer ceviche, sushi, pulled pork, etc. That’s fine, but before that, have a great hot dog. It’s a baseball game, after all. How can it be that the hot dogs are great at Roger Dean, but lousy at Marlins Park?

Come to think of it, it’s not only the hot dogs.  The baseball experience is better in almost every way at Roger Dean than at Marlins Park.  At Roger Dean, there are no stereotypes, no pandering, no DJs, no salsa bands, no incessant noise.  It’s a classic ballgame experience, enjoyable by everyone, regardless of background or culture. It’s easy to come to the conclusion that the Marlins organization considers Roger Dean attendees serious baseball fans, but Marlins Park attendees rubes that need to be pandered to.  

Mr. Jeter, the potential fans you seek are better than you give them credit for.  They don’t want to go to the ballpark to listen to loud DJs, dance to salsa, drink cafecitos, or see slogans like JuntosMiami, which I cannot believe you don’t realize is, in comical irony, tremendously divisive.      

I hope you take my comments in the positive spirit in which  they are given. My wife, son and I will be there, supporting you, every step of the way.

Go Marlins!

Sincerely,

Jack Azout

Movie Review: Roma

Alfonso Cuarón, you’re a rascal.

I like giving movies a totally clean slate.  I don’t like to hear people’s opinions before I see them.  I don’t read any reviews until I’ve gathered my own untainted thoughts about them. So that's how I saw Cuarón’s Roma.  Clean slate.  Untainted.

Shot in magnificent black and white, Roma is perhaps the most beautiful motion picture I have ever seen.  The detail in every scene is exquisite. The distinct camera tracking style seems simply magical to the eye, but is the result of impeccable timing, tight coordination and artistic genius.  In Roma, there are intimate scenes, and there are, surprisingly, huge, epic scenes, and they are all handled flawlessly.  But the scenes that this cinematographic masterpiece captures are frequently disturbing, often bleak, and, in many cases, profoundly sad.      

Roma chronicles the life of a financially comfortable family in early 1970s Mexico City.  There’s Sr. Antonio, the aloof, seemingly unfeeling, and mostly absent father, Sra. Sofía, the mother who at times appears fragile but turns out to be formidable and resilient, four spoiled yet endearingly tender children of varying ages, and Adela and Cleo, two indigenous women who work and live in the household, and speak between themselves in a combination of Spanish and Mixtec, their native tongue.  Adela mostly cooks, but Cleo, the movie’s protagonist, is the true center of the family.  It is Cleo who sweetly puts the children to bed at night, and patiently wakes them up in the morning.  It is Cleo who does the laundry, picks up around the house, and cleans the ever present feces of Borras, the family dog that never leaves the property and has no choice but to use the house’s semi-covered driveway as his restroom.

Once the daily household routine is established, the disasters begin.  The father goes on what begins as a business trip and ends up being something altogether different.  There’s an earthquake, an unwanted pregnancy, bloody, violent riots, and death. But not just death; there’s a  gut-wrenching hospital scene that is so well done it’s almost unbearable.

Cuarón uses incessant noise, lingering cameras, extended scenes and that slow, panning camera to pull you into the events as if demanding that the audience suffer along with the characters.  And it works. Despite the beauty of its cinematography, Roma is not pleasant to watch.  And, knowing nothing about the movie, my initial impression was that it comprised a beautifully shot series of mostly disturbing, but apparently disjointed events with no overarching theme or message.  What does this all mean? Having grown up in Latin America in the early ‘70s, I identified with a lot of what I saw, but I didn’t understand exactly what I was seeing. Each scene made sense, but I could not make sense of the whole.

Then I read about Roma.

The movie is autobiographical.  The house, in Mexico City’s Roma neighborhood (hence the movie’s name), is a recreation of the house Cuarón grew up in, and the family is a recreation of Cuarón’s, although it is apparently not well known which of the male children represented him.  At the end of Roma, the text “For Libo” appears; the film is dedicated to Liboria Rodriguez, basically Cuarón’s Cleo.

So Roma is a love letter from Alfonso Cuarón to the woman who raised him.

Knowing that makes all the difference.  Roma is not a collection of random disturbing things that happen to a family.  It is a collection of memories from Cuadrón’s childhood, which center around the person who gave him the most love during that time.  The beauty of the cinematography is now matched with the beauty of Cuarón’s loving tribute.

Would it have killed you, Alfonso, to give us a few hints about this in your movie?

In my fantasy edit of Roma, I make two changes.  First, I find a way to subtly include the name of the neighborhood in the movie, so that audience members who are not familiar with Mexico City’s neighborhoods can appreciate the title. Second, I move “For Libo” from the end of the film to the beginning. And I change it to

For Libo (my Cleo).

With love,

A.C.

Nested Irrationality

As an irreligious person, the earnest belief in religion is difficult for me to fathom, yet fascinating.  I’m even more fascinated by those aspects of religion that make no sense, even within their nonsensical premise.  A quick example from Wikipedia’s page regarding the Jewish holiday of Passover:

In the narrative of the Exodus, the Bible tells that God helped the Children of Israel escape from their slavery in Egypt by inflicting ten plagues upon the ancient Egyptians before the Pharaoh would release his Israelite slaves; the tenth and worst of the plagues was the death of the Egyptian first-born.

The Israelites were instructed to mark the doorposts of their homes with the blood of a slaughtered spring lamb and, upon seeing this, the spirit of the Lord knew to pass over the first-born in these homes, hence the English name of the holiday.

So God, purported to be omniscient throughout the Bible, still required the Israelites to mark their homes so he would know to pass them over.  To make sure he didn’t screw up?  Makes no sense, even accepting the nonsensical premise.  If you believe in God’s omniscience, the marks on the doors cannot make sense to you.  I’m going to call this irrationality within a larger irrationality a nested irrationality.

A much wider, and perhaps even more ludicrous example of a nested irrationality is the Bible itself, taken as a whole.  A Gallup poll conducted last year found that 24% of Americans believe that the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," while another 47%, although they do not believe all of it should be taken literally, still believe it to be “the inspired word of God.” So, quoting Gallup, “the vast majority of Americans -- 71% -- continue to view the Bible as a holy document, believing it is at least God-inspired…”

Please consider these quotes, all from this “holy” document (this handy website returns the text of any chapter and verse, in case you want verify any of them):

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)

Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. (Deuteronomy 22:9)

Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them... (Leviticus 24:16)

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1 Timothy 2:12)

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1 Samuel 15:3)

The quoted passages are consistent with the belief that the Bible is simply a collection of antiquated writings that may have historical value, but not much else.  The passages present no issue even to believers in a higher power, as long as they don’t ascribe divinity to the Bible. But the 71% of Americans who believe that the Bible consists of God’s words, or words inspired by God, are caught in a nested irrationality.

That is, unless they consider God an ignorant, vain, tyrannical, sexist homophobe who condones slavery and promotes genocide.

In Response to Ms. Lang

Michelle Lang, a lifelong, dear friend of my daughter, recently commented on my post, Behind the Curtain.  Although judging from her observations it seems Michelle and I have differing views with regard to the current administration, I know Michelle to be intelligent and thoughtful, and I respect her opinion, so I thought it appropriate to respond to her comments here.  Michelle’s comments (including her quotes from my post) are shown in blue below.

"So, Trump acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is the fulfillment of a campaign promise to evangelicals, a promise that helped this despicable human being get elected President." False. The last 4 presidents AT LEAST have declared the same thing. People had no reason to believe Trump would follow through with it during the campaign when others had not. Not to mention that Jerusalem is Israel's capital not because the US declared because it's own country declared it.

Also it was passed as a law in 1995 by Congress that the US embassy was supposed to be moved to Jerusalem.

I dispute your contention that “People had no reason to believe” he would follow through.  I believe it likely that backroom deals were made. It is indisputable that Trump would never have gotten elected without the support of the evangelicals, and their hypocrisy in overwhelmingly supporting a person so antithetical to their own purported value system is stunning.  Trump and the evangelicals is the epitome of politics making strange bedfellows. Previous presidents have walked a fine line, trying to support Israel yet also trying not to sabotage the peace process. No such nuance with Trump. Bottom line: the evangelicals would not be engaging in these absurd moral gymnastics to attempt to justify their support of Donald Trump without a quid pro quo.

"During a tone-deaf event Monday" What exactly was tone deaf?

The juxtaposition of a tony inauguration event with the bloody confrontation taking place 60 miles away made it far too easy for the media to come up with headlines like “Daddy’s Little Ghoul.”  I’m not defending the headline, just pointing out that the situation made it inevitable.

"as described in detail in this article in The Guardian, and this one in Haaretz" You may want to use sources from both sides of the aisle or things will get very skewed.

Who would you have me quote, Fox News?  Granted, The Guardian and Haaretz are considered liberal publications, but they are also considered high quality sources.  I presented my point of view, and quoted reputable sources to help make my points. My post is an opinion piece, not news reporting.

"Trump chose two bigots to be featured in Monday’s ceremony." False. The person you are calling a bigot was simply expressing his beliefs "People that believe in Jesus will go to heaven, people that don't won't" The same way that Jews consider themselves "the chosen people"That is not bigoted, and using words like that so callously is not good.

The two people I called bigots are Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef and Robert Jeffress.  And I’d like to take this opportunity to, once again, call them bigots. Regarding Yosef, Margaret Hartmann writing for New York Magazine:

In March, Yosef was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League after using the term “kushi,” a derogatory Hebrew word for black people, in a sermon, and comparing them to monkeys.

“You can’t make the blessing on every ‘kushi’ you see — in America you see one every five minutes, so you make it only on a person with a white father and mother,” he said. “How do would you know? Let’s say you know! So they had a monkey as a son, a son like this, so you say the blessing on him.”

So he’s a racist as well as a bigot.

Regarding Jeffress, Hartmann again:

Jeffress, who runs the First Baptist Church in Dallas, has referred to Islam and Mormonism as “a heresy from the pit of hell.” He’s also claimed that Islam promotes pedophilia, called Catholicism the “genius of Satan,” and dismissed various other religions as cults. Unsurprisingly, he’s also denounced homosexuality as a “filthy practice” and vividly railed against the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Calling this guy “a bigot” is like calling Michael Jordan “a basketball player”.

Even Republican Mitt Romney joins me in calling Jeffress a bigot:

Robert Jeffress says “you can’t be saved by being a Jew,“ and “Mormonism is a heresy from the pit of hell.”  He’s said the same about Islam. Such a religious bigot should not be giving the prayer that opens the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.

To your point about expressing beliefs, I contend that a person who believes that “People that believe in Jesus will go to heaven, people that don't won't" is a bigot, as is anyone who considers people of any faith to be “chosen.”  

"So, the acknowledgement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is just Trump once more delivering on his pact with evangelicals, cleverly disguised as a show of support for Israel." False. It is a promise kept to both. He has absolutely showed his solidarity with Israel numerous times.

What Trump has shown numerous times is that he is a shameless panderer who will do whatever and say whatever, first to get elected and then to keep his approval rating high among his base.  Ideology, solidarity and values have nothing to do with it. It’s all about self-benefit, and self-aggrandizement, basically what Trump has been about his whole life. Regarding “solidarity with Israel,” please keep in mind that Jews globally are divided about the embassy move.  Many feel it will hurt Israel in the long run by hindering the peace process. I can certainly see both sides of that discussion. The only group unanimously in favor of the move is the evangelical community.

A little less emotion should be used, and sources from everywhere. This is misleading and comes off as hateful.

With due respect, I think I’ll choose the level of emotion to use on my own blog, thank you.  Regarding “sources from everywhere,” again, this is an opinion piece.  Think editorial.  I am not reporting the news.  You may disagree with me, or have a differing opinion, but I don’t consider anything on my original post to be misleading.  I don’t think I would describe my post as “hateful,” either.  However, it is demonstrable that Trump cynically exploited the latent hate in a particular segment of our population to come to power, and continues to exploit it every day to keep his political base happy.  

And I do “hate” what that is doing to my country.