The United States' relationship with the nations to our South has long fascinated me. By using "America" as the universal shorthand name of our nation, we make clear how insignificant we consider the 20 nations to our south, each of which could just as easily be called "America".
America is not a country; it is a hemisphere. The United States is largely a legacy of England. France's legacy in the new world has been relegated to Quebec and isolated parts of Louisiana. Portugal's legacy lies in the rising behemoth of Brazil. But Spain's legacy in the new world dwarfs that of England, France, or Portugal. And it is growing.
It was the king and queen of Spain, after all, who financed and sponsored the European discovery of the New World. And while England founded what would become the dominant nation in the Americas (and eventually, the World), it is Spain's influence which runs deeper and wider.
Spain and England both have obvious linguistic legacies in the Western Hemisphere. Most people on our half of the world speak either Spanish or English (or both). But Spain's legacy runs deeper, and it is uniquely "American".
The tragedy of the "discovery" of the Americas was the near-extinction of Native Americans, which was accomplished by germs far more often than by guns. But in the Spanish sphere of the Americas, unlike in the English sphere, the Native Americans survived in a sense.
Most Spanish speakers in the Americas today are descendants of the offspring of European Spaniards and Native Americans, which is why most of them are not "white". Most English speakers, on the other hand, are "white".
In North America, there was relatively little mixing between Europeans and Native Americans. So when Native Americans died, they disappeared. But in the central and southern parts of the hemisphere, there was mass mixing between the cultures.
So today, in the United States, 70% of the students in my classrooms have the complexion of Native Americans and speak Spanish as a first language. There simply is no equivalent in the English spheres. Most of my Spanish-speaking students are from the Dominican Republic, on the island of Hispaniola, where Columbus landed on Spanish ships in 1492.
500 years on, it appears that the Americas are, linguistically and ethnically, far more Spanish and Native American than they are English. As time passes and demographics inexorably create a "new" reality, the Americas will be dominated by the (diluted) blood of the natives and the language of the original conquerors.
People who have a deep-seeded and passionate feeling against homosexuality will inevitable reference the Bible as the justification for their prejudice. More specifically, they cite the book of Deuteronomy, a book of codes of conduct that makes the reader want to claw his eyes out.
To use Deuteronomy to justify homophobia requires keyhole vision, since the issue of homosexuality is just one of many issues covered in Deuteronomy. Most of the other codes have to do with dietary laws, hygiene, clothing, and so forth.
The ban on homosexuality is always spoken of in isolation, because to put it into the context it was actually written in makes its ridiculousness tangible and palpable. Here are some of the jewels that are also in Deuteronomy:
If a woman enters the home while menstruating, the house must be burnt down. If a person wears clothing made of 2 types of cloth, that person must be put to death. If a person digs a hole on the Sabbath, that person will be put to death. And on and on and on.
The Bill of Rights was passed into law 219 years ago today. And just like the Old Testament, it is subjected to a keyhole vision by fanatics and idiots. The Bill of Rights is infinitely more just, humane, and relevant than the Old Testament, of course, but both are used for similar ends by similar people.
The equivalent to the homosexuality ban in the Bible is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
The 2nd amendment guarantees protection for a "well regulated militia". For some people, this means protection for "individuals to own handguns and assault rifles". To suggest that this code was written for a world that no longer exists is a conversation stopper in the circles of power.
If there is ONE issue that is destroying our society, it is guns. All societies have young men. All rich societies have young men with penises, alcohol, and cars. But our society alone insists on allowing guns into this equation of youth, testosterone, and recklessness that is universal among young men.
And because we insist upon our citizens having the "freedom" to buy guns, we murder 20,000 of each other each year, while less "free" countries are not free to kill each other. In this country, we slaughter each other and jealously protect our "freedom" to do so.
How out of context is this insanity? Just like Deuteronomy, context is key. With all the obsession about the 2nd amendment, we would do well to ask ourselves, "what is the 3rd amendment?"
Here it is: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house". When was the last time this was relevant? Around the same time the 2nd amendment was, I would argue.
When was the last time a "well-regulated militia" protected the United States from foreign invasion or a tyrannical government? When was the last time the government forced citizens to let soldiers live in their houses? When was the last time you burned down a house because a woman menstruated in it?
Nobody talks about repealing the 3rd amendment. Instead, we just did what we should do with the 2nd amendment: let it drift into irrelevance and die an ignored death.
The above photo is of Harry Truman during World War I. 30 years later, Truman was president, due entirely to the fact that FDR seemed to have thought himself immortal. When Truman was thrust into the presidency, he became the most awful and awesome warlord the world had ever seen, ordering cities full of human beings to be annihilated with nuclear weapons.
But when that war was over, Truman did something else. He ordered the American military to end racial segregation in its ranks. Prior to this decision, which was made after World War II but at the height of the Cold War, blacks in the military were cooks. After this decision, they became generals.
Before Truman used the power of the presidency to force integration in the military, he commissioned a study. The (white) army was interviewed, and fully 80% of America's soldiers declared that they would not serve with black Americans. The army that had just crushed Japan and Hitler was polled, and their answer was "no niggers".
Truman's response (and Truman was definately a racist by modern standards) was "too bad". He ordered integration in the face of the prevailing sentiment.
In 1948, black men were integrated into the American military. 60 years later, a black man was elected Commander in Chief. And now that man is confronted with the issue of gays in the military.
Like in Truman's time vis a vis blacks, there was a study of the military's attitude towards integrating gays. Unlike the survey regarding blacks, the survey regarding gays met with far more tolerance from the soldiers polled. This time, the majority of soldiers said they had no problem serving with open homosexuals.
Sixty years ago, the majority of our soldiers declared themselves bigots, and our President told them to get over it. Today, the majority of our soldiers declare themselves tolerant, and our President still hesitates.
Our president would do well to consider where he would be today if his predecessor had not been willing to unapologetically spit in the face of bigots.
