Books read in January 2022

1. Fields Where They Lay by Timothy Hallinan

2. Charlie Thorne and the Last Equation by Stuart Gibbs

3. Dogs on the Trail: A Year in the Life by Blair Braverman and Quince Mountain

4. Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman

Flaws in my antiracism education: educating us like children rather than future adults

If I'm talking to one of the adults who was around when I was a kid and I mention one of my racism-related shortcomings, such as the fact that I was blithely ignorant of the racist tropes contained in the media I was consuming, their response is invariably "But you were just a kid!"

 

Yes, I was just a kid. 

And now I'm not. Now I'm a middle-aged adult. A middle-aged adult who's woefully inadequate at even spotting racism, to say nothing of countering racism. 

 

And, as a middle-aged adult who's established in my profession and my community, I have (or am perceived to have) a certain amount of influence. I have no actual authority, but I can sometimes set the tone. If I say "This is a problem we should do something about," I tend to get listened to, insofar as even if they opt not to address the problem, they take seriously the fact that I see a problem. 

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to racism, I am currently too ignorant to reliably see the problems. Even though I'm trying to do the work and learn about problems that exist and what I can do about them, I haven't yet developed the ability to extrapolate from what I've learned and identify other problems that I haven't specifically read about or been told about.

If my antiracism education had led me to start thinking along these lines, maybe I'd be better at it. Maybe by the time I'd aged into the privilege and influence that comes with being an established middle-aged adult, I'd have been thinking about it for longer and have come up with some clue about how to actually make use of that privilege and influence.

My other posts in this series have been entitled "flaws in my education". This one is entitled "flaws in my antiracism education", because the other aspects of my education did in fact assume that I personally and my peers in general would eventually be in positions of authority or influence. 

 

"Leadership" was a buzzword when I was in high school. Our teachers would compliment us or respond to others' compliments of us by saying "They're leaders!" If you'd asked any of the adults involved in our upbringing and education, they would absolutely have agreed that we would eventually be in positions of authority or influence, hiring people, training people, making decisions that affect people's lives and affect broader policy, righting the wrongs of the past.

Except, apparently, when it came to racism. Then we were just a bunch of kids who couldn't possibly be expected to know better.

 

Which is an obstacle on the path to becoming adults who can do better.

An alternative to "I'm sorry" is "My condolences"

Dear Miss Manners: I am a reasonably empathetic person. I’m not a sob sister, but I do feel true sympathy for other people’s misfortunes. But I have reached my limit.

If someone tells me that a family member has died, and I respond with an “I'm sorry,” the rejoinder is often, “Not your fault.” If a friend mentions her recently broken bone, her divorce, her speeding ticket or broken fingernail, I obviously say that I am sorry. Again, the response is, “Not your fault.”

I agree that I was not the cause of any of the aforementioned disasters; I was not indicating my guilt. I am certainly old enough to say “You have my sympathy,” but I am not formal enough to pull it off. “I see” seems heartless. “Imagine!” seems cruel. “That is so sad” sounds sarcastic.

In this age of online trolls, rudeness passing as humor, and constant hate speech by politicos, what does one say to show empathy with a friend’s or acquaintance’s tale of woe, discomfort or loss? I need an appropriate response or I’m going to start saying “huh.”

A response that would meet the letter-writer's needs is: "My condolences." 

You can make it more formal or intensive (e.g. "My most heartfelt condolences to you and your family") or just leave it as it is, depending on what's most suitable to the context. 

You can also use "My condolences" as a wry response for things like speeding tickets or broken nails, but if you want a more sincere response, and option is "Oh no!", with the same tone and delivery you'd use if the next thing coming out of your mouth was "I'm so sorry!"

I agree with Miss Manners and with LW that "I'm sorry" is perfectly appropriate, but apparently this standard script leads the people around LW to respond in a way that LW dislikes, so it's time to change up the script. I am surprised that Miss Manners didn't suggest this phrasing in her response.

Why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?

Currently, there seems to be a shortage of political will to lock down to stop the surging omicron variant of COVID-19.

What I don't understand: if they're unwilling to lock down now, why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?

Usually if you ask this, people answer "because capitalism doesn't care about people's lives."

But we had the same capitalism in March 2020. And in March 2020, lockdowns were unprecedented - I don't think most ordinary people would have faulted the government for not locking down, because that just . . . wasn't a thing that we did. And in March 2020, we didn't know about Long COVID yet. (Or, at least, ordinary non-medical people whose lives hadn't yet been affected by post-viral syndrome didn't.) And in March 2020, it was less commonly known that COVID is airborne. 

 

Even if we think about it solely from the point of view of capitalism without regard for human decency, in March 2020 we didn't have so many people out sick that it was causing staffing shortages, closing nearly half of library branches and cancelling GO Transit trips.

 

As far as the general public could tell, capitalism could have chugged merrily along in March 2020 without issue, whereas the impacts are visible and tangible and undeniable in the omicron era.

So why were they willing to proceed with lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020?

To be clear, I'm not saying that they were wrong to do lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020. Rather, I'm saying that the argument for lockdowns and restrictions is far more compelling right now, and we're all old hands at it now. We all know how to zoom and pivot to takeout-only and choose the optimal grocery pickup slots.

So why were they willing to take then-unprecedented measures in March 2020, but aren't willing to take well-established measures now?

Thoughts (without advice) on Captain Awkward #1359

Captain Awkward #1359:

Dear Captain Awkward,

I (she/her) have a Dad (he/him) and Mom (she her) who value their traditional culture and religion even though they did not raise my sister (she/her) and I to be very religious, i.e. we were allowed to go away to college, I was encouraged not to observe religious dress and they didn’t expect us to participate in daily religious activities (they didn’t either). You could say we were culturally faithful but not pious. They took a lot of crap from relatives who insisted they were making a huge mistake and would end up with kids who have no values or faith.

My sister married a guy who was of our background but even less connected to the culture and religion. My parents welcomed him though I suspect privately they were a bit uncomfortable because he drinks alcohol and has tattoos which are prohibited in the religion. Then my sister put up a Christmas tree (not Christians but her in-laws do Christmas). I happened to be there when they found out and it was like watching my parents take a fist to their face. My sister was their closest child, she could do no wrong in their eyes and they’ve always bent over backwards for her. After being so sure that they could raise us liberally while still upholding the culture and religion, they were devastated. No amount of me reminding them that she doesn’t consider it a religious act or framing it as a decoration has helped. They’ve decided they won’t go to her house until the tree is gone. My mom does daycare for my niece so BIL (he/him) drops the baby off at her house now.

I’ve tried to point out that they may regret this and harm their relationship with their only grandchild once she is old enough to figure out that her paternal grandparents happily celebrate Christmas and drink alcohol with her parents while her maternal grandparents make a stand every December, but they won’t budge. My sister is surprised they are upset and says a tree is no big deal which strains credulity in my opinion. I’m visiting and keep walking in on my mom just sitting silently with tears running down her face and my dad quietly counting the days until he can see niece again on daycare days (he is the only name/word she can say so far, total bff’s). I resent my sister for taking so much over the years (I was not similarly favored) and then so casually throwing us into this chaos. I am annoyed with my parents for not seeing something like this coming considering her husband’s background. Do I keep defending her, comforting them or should I just stay apart like normal?

Never thought I’d miss the days when they were a unit of three + me.

I absolutely agree with Captain Awkward's advice that LW's role is to stay out of this. 

But what baffles me is that the parents seem to see this as LW's sister's tree and seem to be having a falling-out with LW's sister over it, rather than seeing it as BIL's tree, since his family of origin is the one that does xmas. Even if the sister literally put it up, they somehow got to "The person who brought this family tradition into the marriage is utterly blameless!" 

If I were advising BIL, I'd recommend that he "take responsibility" for the tree - not in the sense of sitting down and having a serious conversation, but more in the sense of blithely chattering in LW's parents' presence about how lovely it is to be sharing his family's traditions with the daughter.

 

I'm also rather baffled that they're wondering about what to tell the child and thinking the different families' different behaviours will harm their relationship with their grandchild. All they'd have to tell the kid is different families do things differently - they could probably even point to benign examples, like how one set of grandparents uses the front door of their house and the other set uses the side door.