POVERTY AND DENIAL

POVERTY AND DENIAL

I attended an event a few years ago which included a talent show.  One of the performers, a folk-singer/songwriter wannabe introduced her first song as follows:

“I was driving in my hometown awhile back and I saw a woman beside the road with a young girl at her side holding a sign, which read (her voice choked with emotion), ‘Homeless.  Will work for food.’  Now, I didn’t give her any money because most of them just use it to buy drugs, but I felt so moved by her plight and the plight of all homeless people that I wrote this song…”

[Insert sappy song here]

This annoys the hell out of me on so many levels!  First of all, what possible good is her goddamned song going to do for the homeless?  I mean, a million songs—no matter how poignant—aren’t going to do the homeless a fraction of the good that could be accomplished with your basic bologna-and-cheese sandwich or a few coins from her pocket.

But worse is an attitude reflected in her remarks that is all too common here in the U.S.  She implied that the homeless woman she saw holding the sign was living and begging in the street with her daughter because she was addicted to drugs.  Her bad decisions in life led to her sorry state, and worse, to that of her poor daughter.   

In other words, it was her own fault.

Now leaving aside for a moment the fact that, whatever sins which might’ve been committed by the mother, the daughter was without blame and deserving of at least sympathy, if not charity—these proclamations are never based on actual contact and conversation with the homeless person.  Our singer/songwriter never bothered to stop and actually ask the woman about her situation.

I hear this sort of rationalization all the time, and it’s always used as an excuse for refusing to help, or even to acknowledge the problems of the poor.  Worse yet, if these people do stop to offer a few cents to the homeless, they patronize them with simplistic advice on how to deal with their complex problems.  Many have told me that having to listen to this sort of paternalistic claptrap is worse (almost) than going hungry.

I wish I could remember where I saw it, but I read of a survey that was done several years ago which asked respondents, ‘Why are poor people poor?’  About 65-70% of the respondents in the U.S. (if memory serves) gave answers like, ‘they’re lazy,’ or ‘they made bad decisions,’ or ‘because of alcohol and drug abuse.’ 

In other words, 65-70% said it was the poor's own fault.

When the same question was asked of Europeans, an equal percentage—about 65-70% (if memory serves) gave responses like, ‘because of economic changes beyond their control, or, ‘because of illness, injury or the need to care for family members.’ 

In other words, 65-70% said it wasn’t the poor's fault.

So why do so many people in my country blame the poor for their plight?  And why do they do it so reflexively, so uncritically?  The obvious answer is that they’re self-obsessed cheapskates, unwilling to lose even a few cents to anything that doesn’t offer immediate gratification for them. 

Their apologists will argue that these tightwads are themselves victims of a shrinking economy and with money so tight, well, “charity begins at home.”  But any panhandler will tell you that the most generous donors are almost always blue-collar folks, while the well heeled usually pass by with nothing more than a scornful look and the occasional stern admonishment.  If the apologists were right, it would be the other way ‘round, with the wealthiest giving the most.

To discover the reason we blame the poor for their poverty, I think we have to look a little deeper.  It’s been many years since I read Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff, but the parts that stuck in my mind all these years were the passages in the book that dealt with how the test pilots of the 1950s coped with the deaths of their colleagues.  Because they were flying experimental aircraft of a multitude of designs in those early days of jet aircraft, accidents were common and usually fatal.

In the barroom discussions following such a fatality, the other pilots always found some reason, some error on the part of the pilot to account for his death.  ‘He didn’t lift his nose enough as he landed,’ or, ‘He didn’t do a good enough pre-flight inspection,’ or some such. 

As Wolfe pointed out, these reasons were usually bogus.  The real reason most test pilots died was because their aircrafts’ designs were fundamentally flawed and no one could have survived attempts to fly them.  But the pilots couldn’t accept that and had to come up with errors on the part of the dead pilots—errors they would never make—to explain their demise. 

If they were to accept the real reason—that their lives were in grave danger from forces utterly beyond their control—they’d never again be able to muster the courage to enter the cockpit. 

If you look for it, you’ll see this form of denial in all sorts of situations because almost nobody can face the realization that our position in life, our very survival is, in this uncertain world, inherently precarious. 

And that’s the reason we blame the poor for being poor.  Millions in the U.S. are only a few paychecks away from living on the street.  Wages have been stagnant for decades and the gap between rich and poor has been widening at an appalling pace.  With the Barons of Finance wrecking the economy and a safety net that has shrunk to virtual nonexistence (at the behest of those selfsame Barons of Finance), it would take but a hiccup in the economy, the next burst bubble, and millions of middle class people would find themselves in dire straits.

To admit that the poor became so because of these blind forces is to admit that it could happen to them and, as with our test pilots, that’s intolerable to contemplate. 

Fixing blame on the poor has the added advantage of derailing any sense of collective guilt for our participation in an economic and political system that is steadily pushing millions of people down the economic ladder into poverty.  Any supporter of the massive tax cuts of recent years (and the resultant cuts in social services needed to pay for them) has to come up with some way to explain the poverty they see all around them, and you know they’re never going to admit that their policies had anything to do with it so, Presto!

“It’s their own fault!”

Movie Night

I’m a big fan of propaganda. Whether it supports my beliefs and personal prejudices or opposes them, I’m fascinated by the many ways in which we’re influenced by media.

Of course, as with advertising, no one is willing to admit that propaganda affects their behavior, but its efficacy cannot be denied in an age where it has led us into war on false pretenses, where we’ve been frightened into sacrificing our liberties to the ironically-named Patriot Act, and where perfectly law abiding Muslim-Americans are persecuted and shunned (and their brothers and sisters abroad slaughtered at the slightest provocation--justified or not).
Some of my favorite examples of movies as socio-political propaganda come from the days of the Cold War. The late 1940s and 1950s gave birth to some of the most unsubtle, over the top movies ever made. And our first offering is a prime example. Released in 1951, I Was a Communist for the FBI told the highly fictionalized story of Matt Cvetic, who spent ten years working undercover for the FBI as a member of the Communist Party USA.

Although most of the events in the movie never happened, Cvetic was a real undercover infiltrator who was influential in smashing the CPUSA. I guess the truth of what he did wasn't sensational enough, so they had to invent Wild Adventures with which to titillate audiences.

In it, we are told that racial strife and the civil rights movement were inspired by communist agitators, as if African Americans had no reason to be angry until the communists convinced the poor, simple creatures that they did.

We are told that labor unrest is also inspired by those evil reds. When communist infiltrators rig a union vote to generate a wildcat strike, the dissenting union members try to dissuade the picketers from marching, so the commies send a gang of tough guys to beat them senseless with steel pipes (all of which are wrapped, for some strange reason, in Hebrew language newspapers). In a stunning turnabout, union-busting goons weren't sent by the Big Shots who run the factory, but those slimy Bolsheviks. I should've known it was them all along!

In another hilarious scene, a member is ordered to start a fascist movement in order to arouse sympathy for the communists. You see, even the Nazis are a commie plot.

But best of all is how we are taught all Good Americans should treat anyone who joins or even sympathizes with those Red Devils. Cvetic’s brother and son don’t realize that he is only pretending to be a communist and treat him with furious hatred. His brother even punches him out at their mother’s funeral.

In those days, it was widely believed that ‘every communist is Moscow’s spy.’ Because of this, someone who sincerely believed in communism (however misguided that might be), even if he was opposed to the outrages committed by the Soviet Union, was almost universally despised in the U.S.

But the chief irony is the film’s main message: It is nobler for us to hold loyalty to the state more sacred than loyalty to our family. If a loved one adopts beliefs that run counter to the established party line, he must be spat upon, shunned and hopefully, imprisoned or killed. I needn’t point out that this attitude is more characteristic of a totalitarian society (like, ahem, Stalin's Soviet Union) than a free country.

Watch, and be amazed.



As an antidote, I now present some leftist propaganda from the same era. Salt of the Earth, released in 1954, was also based on a true story. But, unlike the last film, it actually follows the real events fairly accurately. The story of a miners' strike in New Mexico, it deals boldly with issues like racism, women's rights, labor struggles, arrogant one-percenters, and police violence against unions and the poor--unheard of in the movies of those days.

There are only five professional actors in the entire film. The rest of the parts were played by the people who staged the strike on which the film is based. Because of this and a shoestring budget, it isn't as slick and professionally produced as the last film, but that doesn't diminish the power of its story.

The film's proposed solutions to these problems would seem self evident to today's eyes. I mean, it's hardly controversial these days to suggest that women, racial minorities and union organizers should receive fair and equal treatment (even if these dreams have yet to be realized). The last film tried to make us think these problems didn't exist, and that anyone who suggested they did was a traitor, out to destroy our nation and its freedoms. Salt of the Earth deals with them unflinchingly, and with no little amount of humor.

I think you can see which side was proved to have the right idea. Salt of the Earth could be remade today and it would fit right in with later union classics like Matewan and Norma Rae. No one would bat an eye. I Was a Communist for the FBI, on the other hand, appears ridiculously shrill to modern audiences. I mean, it looks about as relevant as D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

So how were the films received? Salt of the Earth almost wasn't produced. The federal government relentlessly harassed the production, flying planes overhead when they were shooting and even deporting the female lead to Mexico in the middle of production. They had to shoot some of her scenes in Mexico and smuggle them back into the U.S.

Needless to say, all of its actors and producers were blacklisted in Hollywood, in spite of the fact that the movie doesn't advocate--or even mention--communism.

From the Wikipedia entry on the film::

The film was denounced by the United States House of Representatives for its communist sympathies, and the FBI investigated the film's financing. The American Legion called for a nation-wide boycott of the film. Film-processing labs were told not to work on Salt of the Earth and unionized projectionists were instructed not to show it.^{[citation needed]} After its opening night in New York City, the film languished for 10 years because all but 12 theaters in the country refused to screen it.
By one journalist's account: "During the course of production in New Mexico in 1953, the trade press denounced it as a subversive plot, anti-Communist vigilantes fired rifle shots at the set, the film's leading lady [Rosaura Revueltas] was deported to Mexico, and from time to time a small airplane buzzed noisily overhead....The film, edited in secret, was stored for safekeeping in an anonymous wooden shack in Los Angeles."

Yes, America must be protected--at all costs--from such dangerous propaganda!

And what about I Was a Communist for the FBI? It was nominated for an Academy Award for, get this, Best Documentary! Fortunately, it lost.

The Best Diet For Everybody

There’s been a lot of debate lately—much of it quite heated—about what sort of diet is best. Vegetarians tell us their diet is the one. Vegans believe their diet is better still. Omnivores insist that meat and other animal products are essential for optimal health. Still others believe that we should eat mostly raw foods. The level of passion in these discussions is reminiscent of the arguments in the Middle Ages over the One True Religion.

Over the years, I’ve met many devotees of each philosophy—some of them healthy and some not so healthy. And since many of these beliefs directly contradict one another, it’s difficult to know who’s right.

But I think I have the answer. They’re all correct…for them. If you’re a vegetarian, your food tastes good and you’re vigorous and healthy, you should be a vegetarian. Same goes for an omnivore. If you like animal products and you feel good, then that’s the right diet for you.

Before I go any further, I should point out that I’m not a doctor, don’t have medical training, and I don’t work in the health field. So this is more of a philosophical treatise than a medical one. Believe this if my line of reasoning makes sense to you, but not because I’m some sort of expert whose pronouncements can be taken on faith.

Biochemical Individuality

Each of our bodies is a collection of hundreds of systems—digestive, circulatory, respiratory, etc. All of these operate in dynamic balance with the other systems. So when there’s a change in one system, the others must adjust to keep things in balance.

When you eat, for example, you activate the digestive system. The circulatory system adjusts to this change by diverting more blood to the stomach and intestines. Other systems within the body also adjust to the decreased blood flow and thus the dynamic balance is maintained. Every time something changes in one system, the others adjust themselves to the new circumstances.

Because of this incredibly complex balancing act, it is meaningless to characterize one diet as optimal for all humans. Since each of our bodies must balance its systems in its own way—based on its unique genetics and environment—what works for one person might be disastrous for another. Scientists call this “biochemical individuality.”

Every couple of years, physicians and researchers tell us something new about our diets. Once we were told to eschew butter in favor of margarine. Now we’re told the opposite. Once we were told that we should eat lots of red meat. Now we’re advised to reduce or eliminate it from our diets.

So who are we to believe? The doctors? The vegetarians? The omnivores?

Well, we all have a much more reliable source of nutritional advice than all of these put together: our own bodies. Perhaps it’s the puritanical belief that our natural impulses are base and wicked, but most of us have been conditioned to ignore our bodies’ messages, especially when they contradict the prevailing wisdom. When we crave something or it tastes extra good it is—I believe—our body’s way of telling us what we need.

Caveats

Of course, it isn’t quite that simple. I’m not advocating just eating anything you want. There are a few rules that are important to follow, since modern processed foods are designed to trick our bodies. They make us think we’re getting something we need when we aren’t. And our body can’t tell us what it wants if it doesn’t know what it’s getting.

That’s the dirty little secret of the processed food industry. The taste of these foods doesn’t so much come from the vegetables, meats and spices in them, but from added flavor concentrates. Because processing effects flavor, either weakening it or changing it to something unpleasant, quite often the taste that you think is coming from the food ingredients is really from artificial or natural flavorings.

So you can’t really follow your cravings if you eat processed foods. If the ingredient label says “artificial flavor” or “natural flavor,” it means that your body is being tricked. Your craving for, say, bell peppers will be satisfied if the taste of fresh bell peppers is there, even if the nutrients you need from those peppers have been washed out by processing.

Moreover, many of the additives in processed food aren’t there to make it more flavorful or nutritious, but to enable it to withstand the long trip to market and to extend its shelf life. So you have preservatives, chemicals to inhibit the formation of ice crystals, chemicals for the retention of color, etc. None of these additives make the food more healthy.

To avoid this problem, I follow the “200-Year Rule.” If something hasn’t been widely consumed by humans for at least 200 years, I avoid it. So that means no processed foods, no refined sugar and no bleached, fortified white flour. It also means buying organic whenever possible. Other than that, I eat anything that tastes good to me.

For me, that means a diet rich in meat, potatoes and dairy, with very little in the way of grains or green vegetables. While, according to common wisdom, this diet should leave me in horrible health (and likely would for someone else, if their cravings told them otherwise); the effect has been the opposite.

For thirty years I had stomach trouble about three times per week—ranging from a little heartburn to, about once a month, major stomach pain that kept me up all night. It had been going on for so long—regardless of what I ate—that I had assumed it was just something I had to live with. But once I began eating only what I craved—and ignored the food advice that almost everyone wanted to give me—I found the problem disappeared completely. I literally haven’t had any indigestion in over a year and my overall health is better than its been in decades.

So who ya gonna believe? Doctors and researchers whose advice seems to reverse itself every five or ten years, or your very own body—your oldest and most intimate friend? Doctors can only tell us what is good (they believe) for the average person—one size fits all. But our body tells us exactly what is best for us at any given moment. And it tells us with taste and cravings.

All we have to do is pay attention.

COPYRIGHT 2009

WILLIAM B. MC LAUGHLIN

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED