Jeffrey Rubin grew up in Brooklyn and received his PhD from the University of Minnesota. In his earlier life, he worked in clinical settings, schools, and a juvenile correctional facility. More recently, he authored three novels, A Hero Grows in Brooklyn, Fights in the Streets, Tears in the Sand, and Love, Sex, and Respect (information about these novels can be found at http://www.frominsultstorespect.com/novels/). Currently, he writes a blog titled “From Insults to Respect” that features suggestions for working through conflict, dealing with anger, and supporting respectful relationships.
George Herman (Babe) Ruth (1895 - 1948) hugs former teammate Lou Gehrig (1903 - 1941), 1939. (Photo by Waite Hoyt Collection/Cincinnati Museum Center/Getty Images)
Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
The game of baseball offers us a unique look at the nature of respect for two reasons. First, the game provides several unusually objective statistics that give us a pretty good idea of the talent of a player. In many other fields, such as art or teaching, the criteria for talent is far less objective. Second, we find that despite this unusually objective talent criteria of baseball, when we take a look at two players that played the same position in the same era and have excellent statistics, sometimes we discover they have very different levels of respect given to them by the players’ peers and baseball fans. When we see such differences, by looking at the reasons players and fans give for this, we get particularly keen insights about the nature of respect, insights that can be applied not only to the green fields of baseball, but to other fields as well.
The Classic Example
Students of the game of baseball know that outfielders Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth were among the all time most talented players and yet the respect afforded to each can not be more different. In Lawrence S. Ritter’s wonderful book, The Glory of Their Times: The Story of the Early Days of Baseball Told by the Men Who Played It, we get a sense of why this is. So, for instance, Davy Jones played on the same team as Cobb. Here’s what he had to say:
Cobb was a very complex person–never did have many friends. Trouble was he had such a rotten disposition that it was damn hard to be his friend. I was probably the best friend he had on the club. I used to stick up for him, sit and talk with him on long trips, try to understand the man. He antagonized so many people that hardly anyone would speak to him, even among his own teammates.
Ty didn’t have a sense of humor, see. Especially, he could never laugh at himself. Consequently, he took a lot of things the wrong way. What would usually be an innocent-enough wisecrack would become cause for a fist fight if Ty was involved. It was too bad. He was one of the greatest players who ever lived, and yet he had so few friends. I always felt sorry for him.
In many ways he was resented by a lot of players because he was so doggone good, and that plus being ignored because he had such a nasty disposition meant that the man was very lonely. Of course, he brought a lot of it on himself, no doubt about that. A lot of time it seemed as though he was just asking for trouble.
Like one time in Detroit, when Cobb was in a batting slump. When Cobb was in a batting slump you couldn’t talk to him. He’d be meaner than the devil.
Davy Jones was not alone in his evaluation of Cobb. To take another example of this, teammate Sam Crawford described Cobb as follows:
Cobb was a great ballplayer, no doubt about it. But he sure wasn’t easy to get along with. He wasn’t a friendly, good natured guy, like Wagner was, or Walter Johnson, or Babe Ruth…. He came up with an antagonistic attitude, which in his mind, turned any little razzing into a life-or-death struggle.
Now compare this description of Cobb, with how third baseman, Jimmy Austen, described Babe Ruth:
The Babe was always friendly, a real nice guy who’d go out of his way any time to do you a favor. When Cobb was out there on that ball field, look out. He wasn’t anybody’s friend then. He was out to win, regardless….
Now Babe Ruth, he was different. What a warmhearted, generous soul he was. Always friendly, always time for a laugh or a wisecrack. The Babe always had a twinkle in his eye, and when he’d hit a homer against us he’d never trot past third without giving me a wink.
The Babe would give you the shirt off his back. All you had to do was ask. The big fellow wasn’t perfect. Everybody knows that. But the guy had a heart. He really did. A heart as big as a watermelon, and made out of pure gold.
Remarkable differences in levels of respect for ball players are observed not only by their peers, but by their fans as well.
The Perspective of Fans
Mike Gilmartin’s perspective.
I have several friends who are huge baseball fans, and as I began to think about writing this post, I decided to confer with them. Mike is from duh Bronx, so naturally he is a huge Yankees fan. When I asked him about this topic he wrote me an email that said in part:
Been thinking hard about the respect/baseball thing. There are several layers here:
1.Respect for the player. 2.Respect for the person who is the player. 3.Respect for the game.
Respect for the player, I think, has to do with what you personally have witnessed via countless games watched or listened to, accounts of his performance via reputable sources (books by baseball historians, interviews with peers, historical metrics). I would largely discount authorized biographies.
Respect for the person, I think, is very difficult to assess since few fans know the player as a person. There are countless examples of superb players who are rotten human beings. Several are in the Hall of Fame, ex. Ty Cobb. There are also examples of superb players who were also superb human beings. Several are in the Hall of Fame, ex. Lou Gehrig. Most players of all levels of ability are unknowable as human beings to fans.
Respect for the game, I think, depends largely on one’s definition of “how the game should be played.” For some, that is linked to sportsmanship. For others, that is linked to the bottom line of winning (I’m talking about pros here.) The recent Houston Astros scandal [involving using electronic devices to steal a catcher’s signals to his pitcher and relaying it to the batter] for example, was not valuing sportsmanship, but was valuing winning. Respect for the game is about behavior and that’s what is so tricky. Throwing a spitter, stealing signs, pitching high and tight, scuffing a baseball, juicing a bat, showing up an opponent, taking out a middle infielder or catcher, running up the score, bunting when far ahead, sliding with spikes up, hustling, showboating: some are time-honored acts, others are against the rules (written and unwritten) of the game. Some were, to complicate things, within the rules at one time and are not within the rules now.
It has been said that hitting a round ball square with a rounded bat is the hardest thing to do in sports. It has also been said that pro baseball is a hard game played by hard men. Most fans idealize the game and its players and collectively have created a mythology about it. Most players are doing every thing they can to earn a living and have no illusions about being part of a mythology. That is a real disconnect, wouldn’t you say?
This is a fine overview of the issues. As far as the disconnect that Mike mentions, I think that whereas there is some truth in what he says, nevertheless there does exist a mythology in many a major leaguer’s dreams. These players, as they were growing up, had their own special baseball heroes, and many thrive to respect this sense of greatness as they go about their lives.
Interestingly, Mike once had one of his poems published in ELYSIAN FIELDS: THE BASEBALL REVIEW, 1994. It poetically asks how fans feel about the incredibly talented player, Pete Rose, after he was banned from baseball for betting on games and lying about it. Mike used E. E. Cummings’s “Buffalo Bill” poem as the template for his poem, with its unusual combining of words:
e.e.cummings/pete rose goings
Pete Rose’s
defunct
who used to
wield a whipcrack-black
bat
and tattoo onetwothreefourfive hitsjustlikethat.
Jesus
he was a great ballplayer
and what i want to know is
how do you like your barrelchested boy now
Mister Fan?
No question Pete was talented, but did he end up being respected? I’ve run into some fans that still respect him to some degree, but most agree their esteem took a nosedive after they heard about the gambling incident.
Lennon Rubin’s Perspective
When I asked my son, Lennon, what he thought about this subject, he replied:
I’ve always respected Mariano Rivera. He was the best ever at a position but always seemed so humble and down to earth. And even though he made millions of dollars, he moved back to Panama to be a preacher after he retired. It’s not at all the life path I would have chosen, but as far as I can tell, he avoided all the pitfalls of fame and fortune, and I respect anybody who can handle that situation with class and not be pulled in by all the peer pressure and expectations attached to that.
Lennon’s not alone when it comes to having an enormous esteem for Mariano. The stellar reliever became the first player unanimously elected into Baseball’s Hall of Fame.
Bill Vincent’s Perspective
My friend, Bill, grew up in Danville, PA, and became a huge Phillies fan. When I asked him which player he came to respect most of all, he quickly mentioned the Phillies’ Hall of Fame pitcher, Robin Roberts. As I discussed with Bill his reasons for this choice, he explained,
When I was growing up, the Phillies were arguably the worst team in the major leagues. After so many years rooting for a team that would lose so, so many games, suddenly Roberts appeared on the scene, along with the other young “Whiz Kids” and it was such a thrill to suddenly have a competitive team.
Roberts was respected on and off the field of play. He was incredibly smart and a great storyteller with a great memory and an eye for details. Stan Musial said of Roberts: “he is one of the most respected senior citizens in the game and serves on the board of directors for both the Baseball Hall of Fame and the Baseball Assistance Team which seeks to help former players experiencing financial difficulty.”
Dave Lesser’s Perspective
Dave is a friend of mine who grew up in Queens and naturally became a Mets fan. However, now that he has been living in Georgetown, he has been rooting for the Nationals.
When I asked Dave about this topic, like Mike Gilmartin, he was quick to point out the importance of drawing a distinction between respect for the player’s skills and respect for the player’s character. Expanding on this topic, he said,
To a large extent we seem to equate the two, assuming that a talented, handsome ballplayer with a winning smile must be a great guy. That, we know, is often not true, as baseball players are at least as likely as the general population to have character flaws.
Early Photo of Reporters at a New York Giants Game
In the old days of baseball, reporters were much more loyal and beholden to the ball club, and therefore less likely to write unflattering stories about a player’s off the field behavior. So it wasn’t until after a player retired that we learned about their true character. Today we know more—but not everything—about a player’s character, as those subjects are no longer off limits.
Hall of Famer Roberto Clemente is Dave’s choice for all time most respected baseball player. Dave mentioned Roberto’s incredible athleticism and his devotion to helping people living in dire circumstances. For those not familiar with Roberto’s charitable efforts, here’s some of the story according to Wikipedia:
Clemente spent much of his time during the off-season involved in charity work. When Managua, the capital city of Nicaragua, was affected by a massive earthquake on December 23, 1972, Clemente (who visited Managua three weeks before the quake) immediately set to work arranging emergency relief flights.[65] He soon learned, however, that the aid packages on the first three flights had been diverted by corrupt officials of the Somoza government, never reaching victims of the quake.[66] He decided to accompany the fourth relief flight, hoping that his presence would ensure that the aid would be delivered to the survivors.[67]The airplane he chartered for a New Year’s Eve flight, a Douglas DC-7cargo plane, had a history of mechanical problems and an insufficient number of flight personnel (missing both a flight engineer and copilot), and was overloaded by 4,200 pounds.[68] It crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Isla Verde, Puerto Rico immediately after takeoff on December 31, 1972 due to engine failure.[69] …. The bodies of Clemente and three others who were also on the four-engine plane were never recovered.
Clemente was posthumously presented the three most prestigious US civilian awards, The Roberto Clemente Walker Congressional Gold Medal, The Presidential Medal of Freedom, and The Presidential Citizens Medal. The citation for this last award reads:
All who saw Roberto Clemente in action, whether on the diamond or on the front lines of charitable endeavor, are richer for the experience. He stands with the handful of men whose brilliance has transformed the game of baseball into a showcase of skill and spirit, giving universal delight and inspiration. More than that, his selfless dedication to helping those with two strikes against them in life has blessed thousands and set an example for millions. As long as athletes and humanitarians are honored, Roberto Clemente’s memory will live; as long as Citizens Medals are presented, each will mean a little more because the first one went to him.
Mighty fine praise for a heck of a fellow.
Oh, oh! Yipes! I’ve run out of time and yet I wanted to say something about Derek Jeter and a couple of team managers. Moreover, today’s topic requires a summary section that pulls together all of the various characteristics of people in baseball who are well recognized as being particularly deserving of respect. Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to include all of this in my next post. Until then, I’d love to hear from all of you about the qualities you look for when determining your degree of respect for players.
Thanks for stopping by,
Jeff
——————–
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
The Baseball season is in high gear, so let’s listen to one of its greatest fans, Bob Dylan.
Listening to Bob’s Baseball Show
It begins with a few brief notes from an organ you might hear at a ball park. Then we hear a crowd apparently getting stirred up just as a game is about to get underway. And then we hear Bob welcoming us, and introducing this show’s theme:
Tonight we’re going to head out to the fields of dreams, schemes and themes, the ever widening diamond, to take a look at the national past time, baseball.
Bob then begins to recite a poem:
Nelly Kelly loved baseball games, Knew the players, knew all their names, You could see her there ev’ry day, Shout “Hurray!” when they’d play. Her boy friend by the name of Joe Said, “To Coney Isle, dear, let’s go,” Then Nelly started to fret and pout, And to him I heard her shout.
Here, Bob begins to sing the poem’s next stanza, and to my surprise it turns out that this poem contains the original lyrics of a song that all fans are thoroughly familiar with–“Take Me Out to the Ball Game.”
“Take me out to the ball game, Take me out with the crowd. Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack, I don’t care if I never get back, Let me root, root, root for the home team, If they don’t win it’s a shame. For it’s one, two, three strikes, you’re out, At the old ball game.”
After singing this verse, Bob continues reciting the poem:
Nelly Kelly was sure some fan, She would root just like any man, Told the umpire he was wrong, All along, good and strong. When the score was just two to two, Nelly Kelly knew what to do, Just to cheer up the boys she knew, She made the gang sing this song.
At this point, Bob plays us a version of “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” by some artist, but doesn’t reveal who it is. Although it has the same lyrics with which we fans are all so familiar, the singer employs an entirely unique melody.
Next, Bob sends up to bat the swinging Mable Scott doing “Baseball Boogy.”
Do you, baby, know what it’s all about, Get that bat baby, You can hit a home run!
And when I wind up, I’m pitching my all to you So get your bat ready And let’s see what you can do.
Man, that Mable can sure belt one right outta the park!
Next, Bob steps up to the plate and tells us,
In the 50’s, every red blooded American boy wanted either to play baseball or be Elvis Presley. Here’s a Rockabilly song by Chance Halladay that combines both.
The lyrics on this one are pretty wild. Here’s a little taste:
Grand slam,
Yes Ma’am A clean sweep off of your feet. A home run Oh Honey Bun, A smack on your lips. Honey babe,
Come on, let’s cross home plate!
At one point, Bob tells us about a conversation he had with a famous actor.
I caught up with Charlie Sheen at a car wash. He’s a big baseball fan and he has a lot of opinions about the game.
Bob then plays us a recording of what Charlie had to say:
Baseball, to me, represents life. It’s about heroes and goats, it’s about success and failure. It’s about individual effort, it’s about team effort. Baseball is about the game within the game. It’s really the only game that is not governed by time. And the thing that makes me insane is the people who say baseball is boring. It’s just playing catch. They don’t understand the game within the game. They don’t understand that how much changes from pitch to pitch. It’s actually fractions of a second that a hitter has to make a decision that he is actually going to swing, and then put it either between guys or hit it over the fence.
From there, Bob plays us a little audio clip of an announcer calling the thrilling, yet poignant, moment when Ted Williams, at his last at bat of his career, hits a long home run. The reaction of the crowd is just heartwarming.
As the show goes on, we get to hear a powerful poem about how the sport celebrates the American dream, with Latin, Black, and White players joining together to thrill a San Francisco Giants crowd. Some of the lines have a distinct edge to them, a kinda kick in the pants to the time when the major leagues were a whites only affair. Here’s a little of what I mean:
And Juan Marichal comes up, and the Chicano bleachers go loco again, as Juan belts the first ball out of sight, and rounds first and keeps going and rounds second and rounds third, and keeps going and hits paydirt to the roars of the grungy populace. As some nut presses the backstage panic button for the tape-recorded National Anthem again, to save the situation. But it don’t stop nobody this time, in their revolution round the loaded white bases, in this last of the great Anglo-Saxon epics, in the territorio libre of Baseball.
Soon, we get a little sliver of the great Abbott and Costello “Who’s on first, What’s on Second” routine. And of course, there are tribute songs to Jackie Robinson and Joltin’ Joe DiMaggio. One of these have lyrics written by Woody Guthrie. Here’s Bob setting up the song:
Here’s another song about Joltin Joe, done by Billy Brag and Wilco, where they take the unfinished lyrics of Woody Guthrie and add music to them. Woody Guthrie of course was the American folk artist that at the time of his death in 19 and 67, Guthrie left behind 2500 songs, the lyrics about New York streets, film star idols, drinking, dying, and even spaceships for providing a completely different aspect of Woody’s public persona. Here’s a song that Woody wrote about Joe, the Yankee Clipper.
A few of the lyric are:
Joe with wife, Marilyn Monroe
Up along the clouds where the eagles roam Joe cracked that ball to whine and moan His buddies all laugh as they trot on in Joe DiMaggio’s done it again!
One of my favorite songs in Bob’s collection of baseball songs is The Treniers swinging version of “Say Hey,” which is about the magnificent Willie Mays. Part of the fun of it is that it actually has the participation of the Say Hey Kid himself.
Say hey, say who? Say Willie,
He runs the bases like a choo-choo train
Swings around second like an aeroplane
His cap flies off when he passes third
And he heads home like an eagle bird.
Say hey, say who?
Say Willie
Say hey, say who?
Swinging at the plate
Say hey, say who?
Say Willie
That Giants kid is great
At one point Bob says:
Let’s check out the email basket. I hope they don’t throw us a curve.
Today’s email is from Jamie Vincent from Las Vegas, Nevada. She writes, Dear Theme Time, I enjoy listening to baseball games late at night, but my parents say the radio keeps them up. What should I do?
Jamie, you should do what I used to do. When I was supposed to be asleep, I would take my radio and slip it under my pillow. Then put your ear next to the pillow, which you’re supposed to do with pillows anyway. This way you can hear the second game of a double header without bothering anyone else in the house. Thanks for your email, your private pillow pal.
As the show begins to wind down, Bob plays us “Heart” from the Damn Yankees musical. Man, if that song doesn’t lift your spirits, I don’t know what will:
Listen, guys, this game is only half skill,
the other half, well you gotta have heart.
You’ve gotta have heart All you really need is heart When the odds are sayin’ you’ll never win That’s when the grin should start You’ve gotta have hope
Mustn’t sit around and mope Nothin’s half as bad as it may appear Wait’ll next year and hope When your luck is battin’ zero Get your chin up off the floor Mister, you can be a hero You can open any door, there’s nothin’ to it but to do it You’ve gotta have heart Miles ‘n miles n’ miles of heart!!!!
Well, there you have it, a little fun as we await the opening of next year’s fresh new season.
My Best,
Jeff
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
From time to time, many of us find ourselves in a position of leadership. This may come about because we are a parent, or asked to plan a trip with some friends, or hired to be a supervisor in some business, or elected to some political office. Each time we take on the role of a leader, we also take on the risk, will we end up being respected or insulted. What are some suggestions for guiding us through the possibility of such turbulent waters? Perhaps I can find some sound advice by flipping through my copy of the Tao Te Ching.
For those of you unfamiliar with the Tao Te Ching, the title can be translated as The Book of the Way and Its Virtues. It’s designed to teach inner strength and integrity. The author is thought to be Lao Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher and founder of philosophical and religious Taoism.
Although I draw upon this book from time to time, I wouldn’t want anyone to think I’m a strict adherent to that way of thinking or to any of the isms for that matter. Whenever I have a concern, or others ask me to address their concerns, I draw upon a variety of wisdom traditions, and the Tao Te Ching is certainly among the greatest of these.
As I personally deal with a concern, all of the wisdom traditions that I have learned about tend to get all mixed together as if they were in a multi-ingredient soup. Then, I throw into the pot a dash of my own creativity, and voila, I come up with my own unique concoction.
As I flip through the book’s pages, one of the poems catches my interest:
To be in favor or disgrace is to live in fear. To take the body seriously is to admit one can suffer.
What does this mean, to be in favor or disgrace is to live in fear? Favor debases: we fear to lose it, fear to win it. So to be in favor or disgrace is to live in fear.
I think I’ll stop here for a minute even though there are still two other stanzas to the poem. I want to mull over what I had just read.
A few minutes pass. I think I’m beginning to catch its meaning. To be in favor, is kind of like what I mean when I refer to a person as being respected. And when I think about why someone who is respected might have some fear about being respected, I think about an old saying–“People like to cut down the tallest bamboo tree.”
When a person becomes respected, some people compare themselves to the respected person. If, in this comparison, they come to believe they are not as respected, this may ignite feelings of envy. Some of these people may seek to act in ways that harm the respected person in an effort to bring her or him down to a lower, less threatening, level. I wonder if President John F. Kennedy might have been assassinated because of this type of motivation.
Initially, it was hard for me to see what point Lao Tzu was trying to make here because I often admire people who are respected and try to learn from them. Of course, there are some exceptions to this. Apparently Hitler was respected by many in Germany many years ago. Despite that, I doubt that I would have respected him.
In contrast to my difficulty understanding why to be respected is to live in fear, I have no difficulty understanding why living in disgrace is to live in fear. Bernie Madoff, the former investment advisor who became disgraced for carrying out a massive Ponzi scheme, comes to mind. His disgrace led to him currently serving a lengthy federal prison sentence. People who act in a manner that leads to their disgrace certainly have good reason to fear some bad things will be the result.
Anyway, I guess I’m ready to move on to the next stanza of the poem:
What does that mean, to take the body seriously is to admit one can suffer? I suffer because I’m a body; if I weren’t a body, how could I suffer?
That stanza reminds me of the first noble truth of Buddhism. Life is not ideal: it frequently fails to live up to our expectations. Human beings are subject to desires and cravings, but even when we are able to satisfy these desires, the satisfaction is only temporary. Birth brings about suffering, as does aging, illness, the approaching of death, union with what is displeasing, separation from what is pleasing, not to get what one wants, etc.
With this understanding, I guess I’ll move on to the final stanza of this poem to see what insight it might provide regarding leadership.
So people who set their bodily good before the public good could be entrusted with the commonwealth, and people who treated the body politic as gently as their own body would be worthy to govern the commonwealth.
Hmmm? Well, I guess there are a few ways to interpret all of this. Here’s my take, and I would love to hear from others about their takes as well.
Upon finishing the whole poem, I remembered three additional relevant passages from the Tao Te Ching. The first says,
If my mind’s modest, I walk the great way. Arrogance is all I fear.
The second phrase says,
He who strides cannot maintain the pace. He who makes a show is not enlightened. He who is self-righteous is not respected. He who boasts achieves nothing. He who brags will not endure.
Accept disgrace willingly. Accept misfortune as the human condition. Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things. Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things
The Third one says,
Working yet not taking credit, Leading yet not dominating, This is the Primal Virtue.
As I include these phrases with the poem, I find myself thinking that major virtues of the Tao Te Ching are to be kind, compassionate, and helpful. These are essential qualities, from the Tao Te Ching perspective, when we seek to do something virtuous for the public good. But, we must first take care to learn to care for our own body, noticing the fear, and then to act to deal effectively with this aspect of our body.
To be aware that to be arrogant, or to seek to be more in favor than others, can be risky. At the same time, awareness that if we do act in ways that could lead to our disgrace, this too can be risky. Such awareness encourages the virtuous person to be humble, and this includes being humble when we make mistakes that lead people to view us as being disgraced.
How to utilize effectively the fear that comes from being in favor, or in disgrace? The virtuous person has learned that to be effective under this set of circumstances is to avoid being domineering and a braggart. By fully and deeply understanding this, he or she becomes worthy to be a leader of the commonwealth.
There are far more subtle lessons in the Tao Te Ching regarding being virtuous, but this is what came out of my recent visit with its thoughtful pages. I hope you find something nourishing to take away from it.
Before leaving you today, allow me to humbly express the hope that we all remain well as we deal with this wild and crazy world we find ourselves living in these days.
My Best,
Jeff
———————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Civility in politics is a rare commodity. Sadly, the insults are bitter and unrelenting as ever. But do disagreements have to lead to the abandoning of civility? To deepen our thinking about this, I invite you to take a little stroll with me along the path Abraham Lincoln took during the USA’s greatest conflict.
Lincoln’s Way Of Responding to People With Different Views From His Own
Lincoln and Douglas
When Lincoln was just getting into politics, there were a few occasions when he wrote some insulting words about his rivals. Then, by about 1842, he decided to cut it out. Rather than to insult his rivals, who typically had supporters Lincoln hoped to switch allegiance to him, he came to understand that it was better to be kind to those who hold opposing opinions. In defending his position that owning slaves is wrong, rather than hurling hatred toward southerners who were supporting it, he explained during one of his debates with Stephen Douglas,
As I have not felt, so I have not expressed any harsh sentiments toward our southern brethren. I have constantly declared, as I really believe, the only difference between them and us, is the difference of circumstances. I have meant to assail the motives of no party, or individual; and if I have, in any instance, (of which I am not conscious) departed from my purpose, I regret it.
Rather than malice toward rivals, he spoke loud enough to be heard, but without shouting, and rather than revealing a heart of anger, his voice communicated sadness and great sincerity. When Douglas argued that by freeing the slaves, this would lead to what many in the audience viewed as the absolute horror of the mixing of blood by the white and black races, Lincoln responded by pointing to the last census at the time. It indicated there were 405,751 mulattoes (a term used to refer to offspring who had both black and white parents) in the United States in 1850. He then went on to say,
Nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white masters… the chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood with that of white people would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent. But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite of themselves; the very situation that produces nine-tenths of all the mulattoes–all the mixing of blood in the nation.
Notice, if you will, that in the above quote, Lincoln expresses his disagreement with Judge Douglas without any insulting name calling, and yet still manages to powerfully make his point.
During one of the debates with Douglas about slavery, it was Lincoln’s turn to counter what Douglas had just said. He began,
I do not propose to question the patriotism or to assail the motives of any man, but rather to confine myself strictly to the naked merits of the question….Let me say I think I have no prejudice against the southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances, and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew if it were out of existence…. When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in a satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do it myself.
At another debate, Lincoln responded with relatable reasoned arguments to those who were wondering if they should or should not support slavery. Thus, in describing the meaning of “all men are created equal,” he explained,
All I ask for the negro is that, if you do not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy. Certainly the negro is not our equal in color–perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every man, white or black. In pointing out that more has been give to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given him.
When asked to speak in Chicago, he found many with different nationalities. Many were people asking themselves in what special and particular ways this country was better than the old. Most had no grandfathers who served in the American Revolution because they or their parents arrived afterwards. Speaking to the torch-lighted faces who gathered to hear him speak from the Tremont House balcony, he explained something profound about these peoples’ connection to all Americans:
If they look back to trace their connection with those days of blood, they find they have none; they cannot carry themselves back to the glorious epoch and make themselves feel they are part of us; but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,” and they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relationship to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are.
And then he passed on from here to describe the argument made by some that their race, or some other race, is to be treated as inferior. To this, he explained:
What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people–not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is the argument–You work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.
To those who believe that without insulting those with whom we disagree it would be impossible to rouse the audience of a candidate, listen for a moment, to the reaction of Lincoln’s no insult Cooper Union speech, as described by a New York Tribune reporter.
There were applause, cheers; hats and handkerchiefs went into the air. He’s the greatest man since St Paul. The tones, the gestures, the kindling eyes, and the mirth-provoking look defy the reporter’s skill. The vast assemblage frequently rang with cheers and shouts of applause. No man ever before made such an impression on his first appeal to a New York audience.
Upon hearing the news that Lincoln had won the 1864 presidential election, he was serenaded by a crowd of supporters. He responded to them, ”
I am thankful to God for this approval of the people. But while deeply grateful for this mark of their confidence in me, if I know my heart, my gratitude is free from any taint of personal triumph. I do not impugn the motives of any one opposed to me. It is no pleasure to me to triumph over any one; but I give thanks to the Almighty for this evidence of the people’s resolution to stand by free government and the rights of humanity.
Lincoln understood that to build a strong country and a better future he would have to work with those who disagreed with him, and that included many who not only disagreed with him, but had launched some pretty rough insults at him when he was running for president. Doris Kearns Goodwin’s insightful book Team of Rivals is the story of Lincoln building his team of advisors that included as central players these very same rivals. A lesser man would have been threatened by this, kept them at arm’s length, and brought in only yes men.
Throughout his presidency, throughout the civil war, he liked to use sentences and phrases such as,
Let us at all times remember that all American citizens are brothers of a common country, and should dwell together in the bonds of fraternal feeling.
and,
..let us judge not, that we be not judged.
And, as the war approached its end, he spoke to the American people, saying:
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Conclusion
Lincoln Memorial
Well, there you have it, an example of a highly successful politician who tried his best to remain civil even when confronted with positions with which he strongly disagreed, and when dealing with people who had not been at all civil to him. In providing this example, I don’t want to accidentally mislead you, so let me be clear about one particular point.
Lincoln would criticize a person’s opinion, and at times this could come across as insulting the person who had expressed the opinion. He often used a little humor to make the point. For example, after Douglas made a particular argument, Lincoln responded that it was as thin as chicken soup made with the shadow of a chicken. Often, even those who disagreed with him would burst out laughing. That said, I hasten to point out that he never let the humorous comment provide his only reason why he disagreed. Instead, he would go on from there to provide clearly stated reasons for his disagreeing.
So, with that clarification, I leave you today with the hope that we can find it in our hearts to express our disagreements in a kind and civil manner.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. Today’s topic–money.
The way we handle money can influence how much respect we have for ourselves and others have for us. A classic illustration comes from Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol where we find the unforgettable Ebenezer Scrooge transformed by ghostly experiences from a disrespected miser to a lovable, generous employer. As we delve into our topic, we will draw upon a couple of episodes of Bob Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hourshow, both of which happen to be on the theme of money.
Money, Part One
As Bob introduces the first of his two episodes on money, he tells us, with reggae music in the background,
…we’re gonna take our cue from a sign Harry S. Truman kept on his desk: The Buck Stops Here. And not just the buck, the yen, the shekel, the nickel and dime, and if you still subscribe to the barter system, maybe a bushel of corn. So break open your piggy banks and cash in your bonds. This week’s episode of Theme Time Radio Hour is most definitely cash and carry.
Then, Bob plays us a recording of a man who sounds like someone delivering a US service announcement;
Wherever we go we see money being used as a medium of exchange. Money is a convenient method of exchanging many kinds of goods among many persons. Money is also a standard of value. The value of goods is stated in terms of money.
The first song Bob plays for us is the bluesy “That’s What They Want.” Performed by Jerry McCain and His Upstarts, it tells about a guy grieving about the women he knows who are just interested in finding men who have a lot of money, and a Cadillac too.
They don’t want no man, Who don’t got no cash. They’ll tell you quite quick, They don’t mess with trash.
That’s what they want, Oh yeah, money honey.
They don’t want no lovin’ No 24 hours a day, They just want to know When you get your pay.
That’s what they want, Oh yeah, money honey.
There is some fine harmonica playing on that one. As I interpret the song, the singer appears to be upset with women who view a guy as trash because he doesn’t have money. He’s looking for a gal who would be satisfied with a loving guy who will always be there for her. It captures the tension between wanting a relationship in which all of your material desires are achieved, versus the willingness to give up some, or all of that for someone whom you truly love because of his or her more intrinsic values. Reflective of this tension, over the years, I observed on occasion a guy or gal pointing to someone’s spouse while saying with disdain, “She married for money,” or “He married for money.”
A little later in the show, Bob tells us that some people will do anything for money. And then, setting up the next song, he says:
I almost think we play too much Van Morrison, but then I play one of his records and I say, “No we don’t.” Here’s one that Van recorded back in 1970, from his album, His Band and the Street Choir–“Blue Money.”
Blue money, according to the Urban Dictionary, refers to 100 dollar bills, which got its name from a blue line that goes up and down the bill. But in some circles, it means money from making porn movies. Thus, according to this interpretation, the song is about the singer’s girlfriend making porn movies, which involves engaging in sexual activities for money.
For many, people who make porn movies are looked down upon. There are better ways to make money, they say.
Although I personally believe there are indeed better ways to make money, I have some mixed feelings about completely losing respect for those who do earn money by engaging in sex. It comes from a couple of unique personal experiences.
When I was an undergraduate at Brooklyn College, I drove a taxi in Manhattan to cover my expenses. From time to time, as I was driving past the Port Authority, where buses and trains would bring loads of out-of-towners to the city, a few women dressed in very scanty, sexy outfits would jump in my taxi and tell me to drive around the block. As they peeked out the window, I could tell they had spotted some police officers, and they had me keep circling the block until the men in blue were gone.
Prior to this, I did think of those involved in this type of business in a pretty negative light, but this experience, meeting them in this strange way, well, I got to see a more human side of them as they talked among themselves in the taxi. I still feel that for myself there are far better ways to earn money, but this experience softened my unkind attitude toward those in the “Blue Money” trade.
Later, while a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, I worked at a Juvenile Correctional Facility, where I honed my counseling skills. Several of the female teenagers were in the facility because they had been engaged in prostitution. Here, I got to know what led these young ladies into this path to earn money. All came from extremely stressful financial situations. All were first lured into becoming hooked on drugs, which initially relieved their financially strapped stress. The leaders of the industry provided, at first, the drugs for free, along with other enticing gifts. In time, desperate to feed their addictions, these teenagers found turning tricks were the only way they knew how to survive. Somehow, during the counseling sessions, their humanity came to light, and a more kind and understanding attitude was fostered.
As Bob’s show continues, Bob plays for us, Nic Jones’s “Farewell to the Gold.” It provides a touching story of a man who, with a friend, spends his life hoping to strike it rich by prospecting for gold. In the end, his dream never comes true, and a flood leads to his friend drowning. The story is a metaphor for the real possibility that seeking gold doesn’t always work out well, and it’s important to be aware of this if we are to wisely choose our life’s pursuits.
In another song, this one called “Your Cash Ain’t Nothin’ but Trash,” by the Clovers, we hear about a woman who, in contrast to the women earning money in the Blue Money industry, this woman refuses to lower herself to a guy flashing his roll of dollars:
I was walking down the main track One night I met a fine chick She was built just right
She stopped when I flashed my roll I told her she could have all of my dough
She turned around and with a frown She said this ain’t no circus And I don’t need a clown
Your cash ain’t nothin’ but trash Your cash ain’t nothin’ but trash Your cash ain’t nothin’ but trash And there ain’t no need in your hangin’ around
As this episode winds down, Bob plays us, “You Can’t Take It With You” by Jessie Price. If you like piano, clarinet, and trumpet solos, this number is sure to put a smile on your face. And then, Bob concludes with the following words:
That was, “You Can’t Take It with You,” and one reason you can’t take it with you is that it usually leaves before you do. You know, I’m looking at my bag of records, and I brought too many again–bad planning. There are just too many songs about money to fit into a single hour, and there is no reason to cut fiscal corners. Hell, we did two shows about birds last year so we could do two about money. So, next week, we’ll dig back into our pockets, and continue to look at the filthy lucre. Join us again in seven days as we present part two of the Almighty dollar. Two shows about money, it makes good cents. See you next week.
Part Two
Bob begins part 2 by welcoming us back to the show. And then he says:
If you were listening last week, and if you weren’t, what the hell is wrong with you, but if you were listening last week, you know we started our look at cold hard cash. We had too many songs, so here we are back again.
Soon, Bob plays for us “I’ve Got Money,” sung by an incredibly energetic James Brown. It’s all about a guy who has money but still needs love. Some of the lyrics go like this:
I’ve got money And now I need love When I get my lovin’ I’ll be the happy one
The theme, it seems to me, is money without love, is simply not enough for a full life.
At one point, Bob answers his phone:
Bob: Hi caller, you’re on the air.
Caller: Hi Bob.
Bob: Where are you from?
Caller: Carbondale, Illinois.
Bob: What’s your name?
Caller: Carol.
Bob: Well, Carol, what can I do for ya?
Caller: I heard last week’s money show and I really enjoyed it.
Bob: Hey, thanks a lot. We worked hard on it.
Caller: It shows. I heard you were doing another one this week, and I was wondering if I could make a request?
Bob: What do you want to hear?
Caller: The Beatles’ song, “Money Can Buy Me Love.”
Bob: Carol, I think it’s, “Money Can’t Buy Me Love.”
Caller: No, No, it’s can buy me love. I have the record, so I know.
Bob: [insisting] Carol, It’s “Money Can’t Buy Me Love.”
Caller: I know you are Mr. Sixties, but I have the record. It’s can buy me love.
Bob: All right, Carol. We’ll look for it. Keep listening.
Caller: Thanks Bob.
Bob then hangs up, let’s out a long sigh, and says, “You can’t help some people. Carol, if you’re still listening, money can not buy you happiness, but it can buy you more places to look. Still looking for that song, but in the meantime, let’s listen to one by the Drifters.”
After some background remarks about the Drifters, Bob plays their song, “Money, Honey.” With the smooth voice of Clyde McPhatter, and some fine sax solos, the lyrics go,
You know, the landlord rang my front door bell I let it ring for a long, long spell I went to the window and peeked through the blind, And asked him to tell me what was on his mind
He said, “Money, honey! Yes, money, honey! Mhm, money, honey, If you want to stay with me.
I was cleaned and skinned and so hard-pressed I called the woman that I love the best I finally reached my baby ’bout a half past three She said, “I’d like to know what you want with me”
I said, “Money, honey! Money, honey! Money, honey, If you want to get along with me”
She screamed and said, “What’s wrong with you? From this day on, our romance is through.” I said, “Tell me, baby, face to face How could another man take my place?”
She said, “Money, honey! Money, honey! Money, honey, If you want to get along with me.
Now I learned my lesson, The wind may blow, Before I pay I will love them so.
No doubt that in some situations, without money it is hard to get along. The solution, of course, is to find some respected ways to earn some, or find situations where money is not so essential.
As the show draws to an end, Bob tells us:
We spent so much time talking about money, I want to leave you with someone who had an opposing opinion. He’s a smart guy about relativity, and he’s smart about this. We’re talking about Einstein, and he said, “I’m absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can keep humanity from moving forward. Even in the hands of the most devoted worker the examples of great pure individuals is the only thing that can move us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly invites abuse. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or Gandhi armed with the bags of money of Carnegie.” We’ll see you next week with all new themes, dreams, and schemes.
Well, that’s my post for today. I hope it provides some useful perspective on the relationship between the nature of respect and how one goes about fulfilling a desire for money.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. As several of my earlier blog posts have indicated, many professionals, mental health service users, involuntary patients, and the general public have little, to no respect, for the American Psychiatric Association’s most recent version of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manualof Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
Just before the DSM-5 was published, early drafts were made available, and in 2011 the British Psychological Society (BPS) and the American Psychological Association’s Society for Humanistic Psychology expressed concern that:
…clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation…
Additionally, many researchers have pointed out that psychiatric diagnoses are plagued by problems of reliability, validity, and prognostic value.
These concerns, among others, appeared in an Open Letter to the DSM-5 developers that was endorsed by over 15,000 mental health professionals and other individuals, as well as by over 50 professional organizations, including 15 additional divisions of the American Psychological Association. These concerns were largely ignored by the DSM-5 developers.
Since then, we have seen the development of a few proposals for alternative frameworks. Most of them continue to pathologize those seeking mental health services.
In contrast, there is now my own proposed alternative, the Classification and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Concerns (CSM) which I presented at the American Psychological Association’s Annual Convention, and published in a peer reviewed psychology journal (see HERE). The CSM approach recognizes mental health professionals require some classification system for providing a common language for them to communicate about those utilizing their services. These terms must, for practical purposes, be short phrases that are convenient for placing them into titles and search engines, and for efficient/streamlined communication in the often hectic environments of many hospitals and clinics.
However, unlike the CSM, other frameworks being proposed use the term “diagnosis,” which implies that the mental health professional, once providing the diagnosis, now knows the cause of the concerns being expressed by the person seeking services, which is simply not true. Instead, they may have some tentative theory for the cause or be completely puzzled. Nevertheless, to access services, the misleading diagnosis is provided. Moreover, the “diagnostic” terms used identify and locate problems within individuals and labels the individual as having a mental disorder, which is often stigmatizing.
In contrast, the CSM does not seek to label anyone. Instead, it classifies the expressed concerns of those seeking mental health services, using the typical non-jargon phrases employed by them. These phrases would become the short phrases that would be used by mental health professionals for titles and search engines, and for efficient/streamlined communication.
Beyond creating this practical classification system, the CSM then relies on a psychological formulation approach that opens the door to finding causes for these types of concerns in the circumstances of the service seeker’s lives. Locating problems within only individuals, as the DSM-5 does, misses the relational context and undeniable social and structural influences on many of these concerns.
I developed the CSM approach while working with the Task Force on Diagnostic Alternatives of the American Psychological Association’s Division 32 (Society of Humanistic Psychology). That group has not officially supported, as of yet, any single alternative. Instead, it has wisely decided that its next step is to send out a new open letter hoping to garner support for starting a process that will involve all of the mental health stakeholders including former and current mental health service users, individuals who experienced involuntary treatment, their family members, and mental health professionals.
Why bother to create a new open letter to those who are in positions that can really make meaningful changes since the last one was largely ignored? It is because of a deep understanding of how meaningful positive changes do occur. Advocates for change are, at first, largely ignored. Then, through continued advocacy, some meaningful discussions do get underway. And finally, positive changes occur. The process by which women obtained the right to vote is one notable example of this.
So, this letter was created with the flame of hope still flickering within the hearts of many of us.
The letter is addressed to:
Co-Chairs of the World Health Organization Joint Task Force (JTF) on the ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics,
Stefanie Weber, MD
Head, Medical Vocabularies
German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI)
Waisenhausgasse 36-38A
50676 Cologne, Germany
James Harrison
Director, Research Centre for Injury Studies
Flinders University, Adelaide Australia
GPO Box 2100 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia
Chair, DSM Steering Committee:
Paul S. Appelbaum, MD
Elizabeth K Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine & Law
New York State Psychiatric Institute
1051 Riverside Drive, #122
New York, NY 10032
Coordinator, RDoC:
Bruce N. Cuthbert, PhD
National Institute of Mental Health
NSC BG RM 6200
6001 Executive Boulevard
Rockville MD 20852
I was one of the consultants that helped to craft the letter. Among the main points that it seeks to make are:
In practice, diagnoses are not conferred in a contextual vacuum. The criteria are not culture or value-free but instead reflect current normative social expectations. At the same time, psychiatric diagnoses have substantial impact on the social and occupational lives of those to whom they are applied. And reductionist biomedical diagnoses obscure the social determinants of our distress. This is important: as the United Nations Special Rapporteur concluded in 2017, we are under an international obligation to ensure that mental healthcare adequately addresses social contexts and relationships.
The letter concludes:
As a next step to address these concerns, we request an online, telephone or in-person meeting to discuss these issues in more depth. We look forward to your response.
Readers of this blog are invited to read this letter HERE.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we once again take up the controversial topic of the usefulness of the group of drugs referred to by psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry as “antipsychotics.” In most of the articles that I have read that have been written by psychiatrists, “antipsychotic” drugs are the first line of treatment for schizophrenia. And yet, a growing number of mental health advocates have been fiercely critical of this. As someone who has given considerable thought to helping people resolve challenging conflicts, I set myself on trying to find out what is going on here. After a review of the scientific research and participating in several debates, I then wrote three blog posts that reported to my readers what I have found.
In the first post, I conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates these drugs are causing far more harm than good. In the second post, I explain how people come to have the illusion that these drugs are helpful. Upon publishing the first two posts, several defenders of the use of these drugs claimed these drugs are worth using because they reduce the risk of early mortality. I, therefore, published a third post that reviews the mortality research studies. As it turns out, some rather weak evidence does exist that appears to support a positive correlation between “antipsychotic” use by those labelled as having schizophrenia and reduced early mortality. However, those studies have significant flaws and more convincing evidence exists suggesting these drugs actually increase the risk of early mortality.
A recent article published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, succinctly summarizes much of this research:
[The evidence] “shows that many patients choose to refuse or discontinue their pharmacological treatment…. Patients with psychosis are often ambivalent about taking drugs, 6 and evidence suggests that the effectiveness of such drugs has been overestimated, whereas the severity of their adverse effects have been underestimated.7 A systematic review concluded that the improvements claimed for antipsychotics are of questionable clinical relevance, 8 and a multiple-treatments meta-analysis 9 showed that although differences in efficacy between antipsychotics and placebo were noted, they were smaller than those for most of the analysed adverse effects.10 Research suggests that adverse effects include structural abnormalities in brain volume,11 increased risk of sudden cardiac death,12 and substantial weight gain induced by antipsychotics,13 which is associated with cardiovascular and metabolic risks.”
In addition to the adverse effects and lack of clinically meaningful positive effects, there is an enormous cost to using these drugs, costs that are siphoning off resources that could be better used for more healthy alternatives. The cost for the drug approach is not just confined to the cost of the “antipsychotic” drugs which has been estimated to be in the range of several billions of dollars. Doctors often prescribe a whole cocktail of drugs for these patients, dramatically adding to the cost of the drug approach, while evidence indicates the combination of “antipsychotics” with these other drugs often leads to additional adverse effects. The cost of the doctors’ time for prescribing and monitoring the treatment must be added, as well, as the cost of the revolving door of placement in a hospital, releasing from the hospital, and readmitting to the hospital, which has been the frequent pattern with this drugging approach. Finally, we must add the cost of treating patients for all of the adverse effects of these drugs.
Given all of these problems, what alternatives to “antipsychotic” drug management are out there?
The Alternatives
There are several very promising alternatives, but in most regions they are not yet available. Articles like mine are designed to expand the general population’s knowledge of just how ineffective, harmful, and financially wasteful the drug treatments are, and that there are safer alternatives. This increased awareness campaign has been a major reason for the slow rising tide of advocates demanding that these more healthy alternatives become readily accessible in every community.
With this background, let’s take a look at these more healthy, humane alternatives.
Cognitive Therapy
A study funded by England’s National Institute for Health Research was published in 2014, that carried out a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Participants aged 16–65 years who were labelled as having schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and who had chosen not to take antipsychotic drugs, were randomly assigned to either receive cognitive therapy plus treatment as usual, or just treatment as usual. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation.
The authors summarized their results as follows:
“Cognitive therapy significantly reduced psychiatric symptoms and seems to be a safe and acceptable alternative for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who have chosen not to take antipsychotic drugs. Evidence-based treatments should be available to these individuals. A larger, definitive trial is needed.
The central features of this treatment for this group of patients involve normalization and evaluation of the appraisals that people make, helping them to test such appraisals with use of behavioral experiments, and helping them to identify and modify unhelpful cognitive and behavioral responses. Additionally, it aimed to provide warm, empathic, and non-judgmental face-to-face contact, supportive listening, signposting to appropriate local services for unmet needs, and crisis management when needed.
Treatment as usual was variable across both sites. In practice, participants within these services received regular care-coordination and psychosocial interventions, including the offer of family interventions.
On average, neither group deteriorated over time, in a population that has been assumed to deteriorate without total adherence to drugs; in fact, some participants receiving treatment as usual who were not taking drugs achieved good clinical outcomes, and more did with the addition of cognitive therapy. The study also showed that cognitive therapy is an acceptable intervention for a population who are usually considered to be very challenging to engage by mental health services, with low rates of drop out and withdrawal. The effect size on psychiatric symptoms in the study is similar to the median effect size reported for overall symptoms in a large meta-analysis of 15 antipsychotic drugs versus placebo.
Humanistic Approaches
A recent issue of the Journal Of Humanistic Psychology (JHP) is devoted to the humanistic perspective on understanding and responding to extreme states. There you will find several non-antipsychotic approaches for addressing psychological concerns that are labelled as schizophrenia by psychiatrists.
In one of the articles, Yana Jacobs, who once worked as a staff member at Soteria House, tells us about its approach. Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, Soteria House provided a place to live for people who fit the criteria for schizophrenia and having their first episode. These patients were given the choice of staying at the hospital where they had first been labelled, or coming to Soteria, where “antipsychotics” usually would not be used. As Yana describes the program,
“All six residents were given their own private room and had the freedom to do what they felt like. This might include staying in their bedroom, sleeping all day, or hanging out in a living room and listening to music or chatting with whomever was around. Relationships developed naturally, and we all got to know one another to various degrees, no different than how we develop friendships. This was not a therapist-patient relationship but rather a sort of social relationship. As a staff member I had some responsibilities—going to the market and preparing dinner. Everyone was on their own for breakfast and lunch and could help themselves to whatever they might like. Grocery shopping was often an outing to the market. Usually, one or two residents would accompany me to the store. When we returned, I would ask for help prepping the meal. It was quite informal. The house was often a bit of a mess, but then, we’d all get together and decide it was time for a quick house cleaning and again, whoever wanted to join would do so.”
For those who have come to believe that without the use of “antipsychotics” all hell would break out and the world would pretty much come to an end, consider Yana’s experience:
“I never felt like I was ‘working,’ and honestly, I loved being at Soteria so much that it wasn’t till the end of my employment that I even took note of how much I was being paid. There’s something about being with people when they are going through a difficult time that is such a privilege and truly an honor to be part of this intimate journey.”
Yana explains that there were times when someone was going through deep pain, tears, screaming, throwing things, and sleeplessness, “but always something would emerge and calm would eventually arrive, you really had to have faith in the process.”
Since the original Soteria House opened and funding ran out, several other programs based on a similar model took its place. Berne, Switzerland has had a Soteria House since 1984, and Soteria houses in Vermont and Israel recently opened.
Soteria House programs are designed to help people through an original episode of an extreme experience typically labeled as schizophrenia. The stay at one of these houses lasts for just a few months.
Another approach well described in the JHP special issue is written by Charles Knapp. The Windhorse therapeutic perspective has a Tibetan Buddhist orientation that offers meditation, and spiritual teachings, along with a supportive, empathetic staff. Unlike the Soteria House approach, which aims to support people through a recovery process over a few months, the Windhorse approach recognizes that individual recovery periods are highly variable, and it is not uncommon for people to stay in their programs for eighteen months and even longer.
There are several other approaches described in the JHP special issue, all worth while to think about. All have had their share of success in helping to provide support for people experiencing extreme states.
That said, I would be negligent if I didn’t say that no approach currently available manages to avoid having some disappointing results. This is true for the standard medical model which urges all people labelled as having schizophrenia to immediately take “antipsychotics,” and it is also true for all of the alternative approaches discussed above. However, those alternatives lead to far fewer people eventually choosing to take “antipsychotics,” thus decreasing the chances of people experiencing the various adverse effects associated with consuming “antipsychotics.”
Beyond the decreased risk of “antipsychotic” adverse effects, available research can not say for sure that these alternatives lead to additional improved life outcomes. Nevertheless, results have been very encouraging, and it is high time that these alternatives become far more accessible while high quality ongoing research better assesses what works well, and what needs to be modified.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. Today’s post takes a close look at an exchange that Senator Martha McSally of Arizona had with CNN Reporter Manu Raju while he attempted to ask her a question in a Capitol Hill hallway.
The exchange went like this:
RAJU: Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?
McSALLY: You’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you.
RAJU: You’re not going to comment, Senator?
McSALLY: You’re a liberal hack, buddy.
You can view the exchange on YouTube HERE. There you can readily see that Mr. Raju asked Senator McSally the question in a professional manner, and she clearly responded with disgust in her voice.
McSally on Left and Sinema on Right
A little background on the Senator might be helpful. She was not elected to her position. She lost to Kyrsten Sinema and was then appointed to fill the seat vacated by Senator Jon Kyl. Currently she is in a very competitive race against Mark Kelly, hoping to be elected as Senator this coming November.
There’s been talk that McSally staged the episode to excite the Republican base. And indeed, Republicans are already using it to raise money for her reelection campaign, in which McSally is very vulnerable.”
Supporting this notion that the incident was staged is that McSally quickly posted the video. Fox News host Sean Hannity instantly began to praise her conduct, and she got additional publicity by appearing on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show. Meanwhile, President Trump’s 2020 campaign tweeted out “THREE CHEERS” for the senator while directing followers to donate to her campaign. To me, this appears to be a bit too choreographed to have come out of an unplanned emotional outburst.
That said, I hasten to say, I did not choose this incident in order to attack a Republican candidate. Instead, I chose it because just as I was about to write today’s post the McSally incident happened to go viral. The incident, therefore, is particularly fresh in the minds of readers and of high interest, so that it serves as a useful jumping off point to address issues relevant to this blog. Before going on, in an effort to be fair, I point out that I personally have seen both Democrats and Republicans throw insults at news outlets that tend to be biased toward their opposing political party.
Why Did The Incident Go Viral?
Although it is not unusual for both Democrats and Republicans to insult news outlets when it publishes a specific negative story about their representatives, this McSally incident is nevertheless unusual for the following reason. We don’t typically see a senator, upon being asked a reasonable question by a reporter, responding disrespectfully, quickly post it on line, and then have the president cheer the insulter.
Senator McNally received a great deal of free press coverage, so should this become the new norm? Is this really how Americans want to see their elected officials respond to reporters? And do we really want our kids learning to insult everyone they disagree with by observing our national leaders acting this way? I suggest that the anxiety provoked by these questions are at the heart of why the McSally incident went viral.
A Paradox
On the one hand, there is a considerable amount of evidence that people who are very insulting tend to be less liked and respected. On the other hand, many politicians can be very insulting toward people with whom they disagree, and despite this, they win elections and many people idolize them.
Explaining the Paradox
First of all, the negative effects of being insulting is strongest in interpersonal relationships. As I define these terms, your interpersonal relationships are your interactions with people with whom you have direct, face to face interactions on an ongoing basis.
The relationship that politicians have with voters is best viewed as an intergroup relationship. The intergroup relationship I’m discussing today regarding McSally involves the group of people who might potentially vote for her, the groups of people who have a vested interest in getting her elected, and the groups of people who are working to get someone else elected. Although insulting people is relevant to intergroup relationships, other issues often become more important.
In an interpersonal relationship, if you attempt to insult the person with whom you are personally interacting, that person might insult you back and the interaction can escalate into violence. In fact, the most common reason people turn to violence is because they felt someone treated them disrespectfully.
When we see politicians seeking to insult someone, they are modeling for others this type of violence producing behavior. But what makes this type of behavior very different for politicians is that they almost always have a group of supporters standing by them and a team of armed security personnel well trained to intervene if an insulted party makes any moves at all that can be viewed as violent. Under this set of circumstances, it is far safer to play the part of a tough person who doesn’t take any crap. Meanwhile, as politicians model this behavior for people without the protections afforded to politicians, it can potentially increase levels of violence for non-politicians.
Here’s another difference between what typically happens during your interpersonal relationships and the intergroup interactions that involve politicians. When someone directly seeks to insult you, unless you are well trained in handling this in a peaceful manner, you are likely to take the insult personally. The emotions that arise in this situation are more likely to be stronger than typically experienced when groups of people see on TV or in a large arena a politician throwing insults at someone they don’t personally know.
Politicians, moreover, are not seeking to develop a sound interpersonal relationship with you. They are, instead, seeking your vote. They know very well that not everyone is going to vote for them. If they anger the voters who aren’t likely to vote for them anyway, and end up getting 51 percent of the vote, this, to them, is success.
Now, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, if you act in a manner that leads to even a minority not liking you, this can lead to far more direct problems for you than if a minority of people don’t vote for some politician. If those who personally know you don’t like you, they can begin to say things behind your back to people who actually personally interact with you. Some of what gets said can be untrue and very unfair, but you may never hear about this. This behind your back treatment may result in people that you like no longer inviting you to parties. When you used to be invited to go bowling, now someone else is getting invited. In a work setting, you may be passed up for promotion. These types of consequences can have direct effects on your personal life. For politicians, the personal effects that may occur if they anger a minority of people who would have been unlikely to vote for them, would be far less important to them than getting elected.
Also, note that when people decide on who to vote for, they consider many issues, not just whether or not the candidate insults anyone. When politicians insult someone, many voters are apt to say to themselves, they aren’t doing anything much different than all the other politicians. These voters then choose a candidate based on other issues. If some voters recognize that a particular politician insults others more than other candidates, they may feel that his or her stand on immigration is a far more important issue.
Others will actually like the insulting because the insults are aimed not at them, but at people whom they have come to dislike. If you have become angry because you like to use the “N-word” and people have criticized you about it, you may have become angry about what strikes you as political correctness.
Other voters are very angry at the lack of progress being made by current career politicians on solving immigration, economic, and other problems. Many of these voters’ own personal style for dealing with this anger is to throw insults at these politicians. When politicians do the same thing, these voters see them as one of them. These same individuals are apparently unable to see that if these politicians were throwing the same types of insults at them, they would not like this. To them, it’s perfectly okay to insult people they have come to dislike. If they are personally insulted, however, then they would view it as wrong. It seems to me that because it is wrong for people to insult them when someone disagrees with them, it is equally wrong for them to insult others when they disagree with others.
Many like to characterize politicians that use insults as their way of being a tough no-nonsense kind of person. But in my view a person can surely be a tough no-nonsense kind of person without seeking to insult people.
When politicians are asked why they use insults, they at times say that those whom they insult, insulted them first. But those who insulted them often say they did it because others insulted either them, or someone they personally know. And so many who are either leaders of our nation, or hope to be so, are choosing to engage in this “You Started it First” name-calling game.
It is simply not true that if someone throws an insult at you the only intelligent way to respond is to seek to insult them back. In my view, within the political arena, one way to respond in a manner that I would respect is to state firmly, “I’m not here to get into this name-calling game. I’m here to let the public know what my positions are on the problems of this nation, and how I, if elected, plan to go about fixing them.”
I hope this post will help you to think twice if you have begun to think that the type of insulting behavior that appears to be helping to get attention from politicians would be just as effective in your own interpersonal relationships.
———————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
“Blowin’ In The Wind.” “With God On Our Side.” “Masters Of War.” These are songs Bob Dylan has written and performed expressing deep emotions about the wisdom of going to war. As I began to reflect on these songs, to my mind came the pounding of war drums, the cries of vicious insults emanating from a deadly divide, images of fear, pride, disgrace, bombs exploding, and thousands screaming in horror.
And then I found myself pulling up on the internet Bob Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hour show, and clicking to hear his specific show on the theme of war. It’s available for free HERE.
The show provides a musical meditation on war, along with Bob’s comments and his reciting of little snippets of relevant philosophical thoughts and poetry.
For many, when the topic of war comes up, they see visions of glory. Bob’s show provides a far wider vision, incorporating thoughts and emotions we would be wise to incorporate into our considerations regarding the possibility of further escalations of violent conflict in the coming days. Here are some highlights from this show.
Highlights
The show begins with a series of brief audio clips of the sounds of a country at war–bombs going off as Marine helicopters are approaching a battle field, a news reporter describing the scene of burning tanks, the voice of President Lyndon Johnson committing an additional 20,000 troops to Viet Nam as that war was escalating, etc. Then we hear Bob introducing the show’s theme:
Back to Theme Time Radio Hour. As you know, we cover a lot of ground here, but this week the subject has a greater gravity than usual. Plato once said, “Only the dead has seen the end of war,” and sadly it is as true today as it was then.
Edward Starr said, “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.” That’s not true. War is good for the economy, and for medical and scientific advancements. What it is not good for is people. Blood is spilled too often for too little. Bertrand Russell said, “War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” As General Patton once said, “The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.”
Today we are going to examine battles and beaches, skirmishes and embroglios, we are going to let loose the dogs of war, pay tribute to Mars in Aries, shed a tear for the widows and orphans. We’re mustering cadets, for Theme Time Radio Hour is going to war!
With this, we hear the explosion of bombs. Then Bob tells us, “It’s going to get heavy in here, so while we can, why don’t we start off on a lighter note.”
Johnny Mercer
He then introduces a rather lively, humorous song written by Johnny Mercer, titled, “The G. I. Jive” that makes fun of all of the abbreviations used in the military.
A little later, Bob plays a song by Roy Acuff, “Searching for a Soldier’s Grave.” It’s a real heartbreaker:
Somewhere here among these many soldiers
Of Americans who all died true and brave That’s where I know I’ll find him resting
So I’m here I’m searching for his grave.
You ask me stranger why I made this journey Why I crossed three thousand miles of rolling waves.
Like many others my darling’s killed in action That’s why I’m here I’m searching for his grave Somewhere here among.
When I come to this far where he’s sleeping I know it will cause more heartaches inside But I long to be by his side once more and tell him Tell him that I love him and will until I die.
Of the various songs portraying the bloody scenes of war that Bob plays in this edition of his show, “The Band Played Waltzing Matilda” is the one most graphic:
When I was a young man I carried me pack And I lived the free life of the rover From the Murray’s green basin to the dusty outback I waltzed my Matilda all over.
Then in 1915 my country said: Son, It’s time to stop rambling, there’s work to be done So they gave me a tin hat and they gave me a gun And they sent me away to the war.
And the band played Waltzing Matilda.
When the ship pulled away from the quay And amid all the tears, flag waving and cheers We sailed off for Gallipoli.
It well I remember that terrible day When our blood stained the sand and the water And how in that hell they call Suvla Bay
We were butchered like lambs at the slaughter.
Oh those that were living just tried to survive In that mad world of blood, death and fire And for ten weary weeks I kept myself alive While around me the corpses piled higher Then a big Turkish shell knocked me arse over head
And when I awoke in me hospital bed And saw what it had done, I wished I was dead I never knew there was worse things than dying
Oh no more I’ll go Waltzing Matilda All around the green bush far and near For to hump tent and pegs, a man needs both legs No more waltzing Matilda for me.
And the Band played Waltzing Matilda….
There’s quite a bit more tear soaked lyrics to this song, but you get the general idea.
At one point in the show, Bob shares a particular dislike about one aspect of wars:
Some say war is a game that men play using boys as the tools. Truth to tell, you don’t see many men in battle, but you see a lot of boys. Wars used to be fought by men and I think that fairer. Men are the ones waging the war, they ought go out and fight it.
Bob also has a heart that aches for the soldiers who come home from battle and need a helping hand, showing this by playing for us a song titled, “The Forgotten Soldier.” Here’s a few of its lines:
I’m just a poor ex-soldier that’s broken down and blue, Fought out in the Great War for the old red, white, and blue.
I left my parents and my girl I loved,
To France did go.
And fought out on the battlefield through hunger, sleet, and snow.
I saw my buddies dying, and some shellshocked and torn.
Although we never faltered at the battle of Amarne
And we were told when we left home we’d be heroes of the land,
So we came back and found no one would lend a helping hand.
About half way through the show, Bob tells us:
One staple of songs about war is the letter. Sometimes it’s the letter that the guy writes from the battlefield. Other times it’s from home. But the worse kind of letter of all to receive was one written by a military chaplain. It usually had a line in it, something like, “You would be delighted to know that your son died a hero.” It’s a nice sentiment, but I doubt it was really any solace.
Tom Waits recently wrote a song about a letter to a soldier. Here it is, “The Day After Tomorrow.”
Here’s a few of its touching lyrics.
I got your letter today And I miss you all so much here I can’t wait to see you all And I’m counting the days here….
I close my eyes every night And I dream that I can hold you
They fill us full of lies,
That everyone buys ‘Bout what it means to be a soldier
I still don’t know how
I’m supposed to feel ‘Bout all the blood that’s been spilled Will God on His throne Get me back home On the day after tomorrow
You can’t deny The other side Don’t want to die Any more than we do What I’m trying to say, Is don’t they pray To the same God that we do?
Tell me, how does God choose? Whose prayers does he refuse? Who turns the wheel? And who throws the dice On the day after tomorrow?
As Bob begins to close this show, he tells us, “I wish it was as easy to get to the end of war.” Then he says, “I want to leave you now with this song, because I didn’t want to leave the hour with war talk without giving you the opposing view. I’m going to let Los Lobos do it, and join you in wishing for peace. Stay safe.”
Here’s a few of the lyrics:
Peace to the world
I see a baby in a crib Reaching up for Mama’s arms Love is rising in their hearts, oh yeah.
There is a man standing on the street Shouting loud above the crowd Saying amen to everyone around, oh yeah.
I see a man who loved his land Laying lifeless on the ground He said the time is now To bring peace to the world Say yeah, yeah, yeah Peace to the world
We build a wall of stone As high as the trees are tall Higher then the mountains Stronger then us all, oh yeah
Some day that wall will crumble Tumble and fall, the sun will shine And bring peace to us all.
Conclusion
An American flag waving in the breeze along with stirring patriotic music; this can be a fitting end to a Hollywood movie, but before we go marching once again into war, there is far more to consider.
Bob’s show provides us a magnificent musical, literary march through many of the consequences of war too easily ignored. In the end, Bob has us turning our attention toward promoting peace.
In a recent post (see HERE) I describe five factors that have led to the human race dramatically decreasing its use of violence to settle conflicts. I then describe how a president can coordinate all five of these factors to bring about a more peaceful international situation. It is my deeply felt hope that countries, in coming years, will seek to elect leaders that have the wisdom to utilize these factors for the benefit of not just all of us, but for all of the children yet to come.
——————–
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
I hope all of you are having a fine holiday season. This, of course, is the time of year when the longing for peace on Earth and good will to all is beautifully expressed in songs and stories.
Despite this longing, over the centuries, during the holiday season, for many, it brings a lamenting because we have not achieved this deeply heartfelt desire. For example, during the American Civil War, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote a poem titled “Christmas Bells,” that was later made into a song renamed “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.” It begins with pleasant aspects of the season, but then the reality of the war sets in:
“And in despair, I bowed my head; ‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said; ‘For hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on earth, goodwill to men.’”
Being among those who respect people that take some responsibility for actually doing something to achieve that which is desired, I found myself seeking some way to help bring about a more peaceful world. This post, meager as it is, presents the result of that effort.
It explains why we have every reason to be hopeful that there are constructive things that can be done, and presents the factors that have, over the centuries, led the human race to become more and more likely to resolve our differences peacefully. It then puts forth a vision of how we can combine those peace-promoting factors in a way that just might transform the longing for peace on Earth, good will for our fellow human beings into a set of circumstances that move us steadily closer and closer toward the fulfillment of this beautiful age old desire.
There is Reason to Hope
For people who are absolutely convinced that we have violent genes and therefore there is no hope of changing our violent nature, consider this. In the earliest period that humans thrived, they were chiefly hunters and gatherers. At that time, it has been estimated that death came as a result of one person killing another about twenty percent of the time. Evidence for this was obtained by looking at the skeletons from that period. Quite often we find fractured skulls and arrowheads embedded in chest cavities.
Then came the development to an agricultural civilization with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago. These governments provided rules to resolve some common conflicts in a manner that struck the citizens as somewhat fair. With that, there was approximately a fivefold decrease in rates of violent death.
Next came the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with a centralized authority to resolve conflicts and an infrastructure of commerce to obtain goods and services peacefully. Violence decreased another tenfold to fiftyfold.
Another dramatic decrease occurred around the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. The invention of the printing press had made pamphlets and books far more readily available, spreading humanistic values throughout the human population. That era saw the first organized movements to abolish slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killings, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals.
Now, in most places on Earth, humans have reached a point at which they kill other humans at a rate of approximately 2 per 100,000, a tiny fraction of the amount of earlier times. However, significant sections of the world have not followed a similar developmental trajectory. Since some of these regions have large Muslim populations, many are asking the question, Are Muslims less capable of psychological development?
Actually, we find that the vast majority of Muslims who are living under similar sets of conditions as other religious groups in the developed countries are in no way more violent, nor are they more likely to violate what are now viewed by most as basic human rights. Also relevant to this question is the fact that people from religious groups other than Muslims, when raised under the conditions similar to the violent Muslim areas, are every bit as violent as groups like ISIS. Consider the murder rate in communities like South Chicago.
Today, the major parts of the world that are most violent prone are at the same psychological developmental level as the largely Christian southern states were just about when the American Civil War began. Let us compare, for example, the highly violent group known as ISIS with that bloody period of American history. The confederate southern states had, like ISIS has today, an ideology that slavery was essential to their way of life, and outsiders (the northern states) were actively interfering with what they believed is right. Moreover, the confederate states used quotations from their holy book to defend their beliefs and to justify going to war to protect their ideology in a way that is similar to how ISIS utilizes sections of their holy book.
Now some may believe that the only way to have created the conditions for the confederacy to change their ideology to one more consistent with a higher level of development was to engage them in a horrible civil war. I hasten to point out that in many other places in the world, the slavery ideology changed without a war. In England, for example, certain conditions, such as the availability of literature from the enlightenment age, changed, and its citizens peacefully ended slavery within its own borders.
After abolishing slavery, England continued for about a hundred years to use violent force to maintain its hold on colonial labor, but Mahatma Gandhi effectively used nonviolent resistance to put an end to colonial rule. Soon afterwards, colonialism began to end elsewhere.
I will just add here, that the violent American Civil War actually did little to change the ideology of those who lived in the southern slave states. Rather, it embittered many, and in fact hardened, for many, their prewar positions. This was reflected in how southerners instituted “Jim Crow” laws. In the end, the non-violent approach of Martin Luther King, Jr. proved to be far more effective in creating the conditions for real psychological development in that region of the US.
So, given where ISIS and other violent prone regions of the world are on this theoretical developmental trajectory, let’s take a look at five steps that, when taken together, might be a better alternative to dealing with these areas than violent approaches.
The Five Steps Toward a More Peaceful World
Step1: One of the factors that tends to increase violence is the degree to which some group feels they are being pressured by violent means to act in ways they don’t wish to act. Therefore, one thing that we can do is to reduce the impression that we are seeking to violently control the lives of the people in the regions where violence is terribly high.
There are some credible reasons for supporters of the most violent regions of the Earth to feel that there has been an ongoing effort to force them to do whatever is in the interest of the US and its allies. Years before the creation of ISIS, for example, meddling in Middle East affairs occurred by the US’s CIA. Then came the US invasion of the largely Muslim inhabited Afghanistan and Iraq countries.
So, the first step we, the American people, can do is to advocate that the new incoming US president openly states:
In the past, the US has been involved in using violence in an effort to control some foreign groups. We now realize this causes far more harm than good. Although it took us some time to develop a psychological understanding of this, we are now ready to move forward in a nonviolent manner to promote peaceful ways to cooperate on mutually beneficial agreements.
Taking responsibility for previous harmful actions, and making a commitment to nonviolent ways to achieve common goals, when combined with the other steps described below, would, if we reliably stuck to this policy, provide for all the world a model of what can be achieved in this manner.
Step 2:
With regards to responding to regions that continue to enslave people, the US would use nonviolent approaches such as boycotting any goods or services that might fund the violent group’s operations, along with boycotting any country or enterprise that does business with such violent groups, while offering a vision for engaging in peaceful commerce as described in step 4.
Step 3: As more and more reliable processes are developed that fairly, peacefully resolve conflicts, and the group members view these processes as just, violence plummets. Therefore, the US would launch an all out peaceful advocacy effort to have the United Nations offer to fund a constitutional convention for all of the stakeholders in the regions where violent groups are operating. Those violent groups’ representatives would be invited to be central players, and incentives to participate would be provided. UN Peace Keepers would be employed throughout the convention period to help decrease the likelihood that some would seek to violently sabotage such efforts.
Professor Steven Pinker provides evidence in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, that although UN peacekeeping missions, at times, have had their share of failures, when all of the available data is looked at, these missions led to an 80% reduction in the probability of a subsequent war.
Step 4: In step 2 of this proposal, it was mentioned that the US, in response to groups that have enslaving policies, would boycott its commerce as one means to nonviolently encourage a change in policy. It is important to point out, however, that one of the conditions that Professor Pinker has identified as hugely important for the development of nonviolent approaches for resolving conflicts and an increase in respecting basic human rights is improvements in commerce. When people wish to do business with others, they typically seek to improve relationships with them, make them feel welcome, and offer opportunities for shared benefits.
The regions that have the most violent groups have some unique challenges in this regard. And in fact, many believe that it is this set of challenges that is the main cause of the region’s violence problems. In mid-day much of these regions are often so hot it could make the Dalai Lama ignite in irritability. Large sections of these regions are as parched as the moon’s surface. But the regions do have some natural resources. For example, they tend to have plentiful sunshine. Nevertheless, they remain rather poor in contrast to the more developed countries.
Under the plan that I am advocating, the US would work with the United Nations to offer the stakeholders of these regions an opportunity to set up a convention that can tap world experts on economic development with the goal of coming up with plans that are designed to improve sustainable commerce. People from these regions would be invited and incentivized to participate. Once these violent group members come to understand the value of peaceful commerce, and a hopeful plan adopted, many will end up abandoning their violent ideology.
Step 5. One of the major conditions that foster psychological development is the availability of stories that reveal the humanity of people that lie outside our immediate circle of family and friends. Professor Pinker notes that prior to the invention of the printing press there were very few books available. Those people who lived in the upper classes rarely had much direct contact with the lower classes. A nobleman’s quick glance while passing by a downtrodden worker often merely left the impression of a filthy, smelly soul, hardly human at all. After novels became available, a nobleman might read of a poor young woman pressed into very sad circumstances by a cruel person of the upper classes, and discover tears running down his cheeks. Discovering that people all over the world, in all classes, and other religions have very similar desires, dreams, and feelings that we can all relate to, increases empathy and the desire to deal with a wider range of humanity in kind and respectful ways.
So, how would we get these kinds of stories before those who are in groups prone to violence? At the two types of conventions I mentioned above that would be funded by the United Nations (constitutional and commerce) short, readable, relatable books would be freely provided that convey these heartwarming stories. International funding for public libraries for regions too poor to provide for them on their own would be provided. Moreover, there are ways to make these types of stories particularly accessible on internet sites that violent groups tend to visit, not only in written form, but also in audio-visual forms as well. And instead of the steady dropping of bombs in regions occupied by violent groups, an international coalition could drop little parachuted packages that include a little tasty healthy treat, a little toy or stuffed animal as a gift to the children, an interesting puzzle that adults would enjoy doing, and the type of stories that I have just described.
Conclusion
Okay then, there you have it, my proposal for an alternative approach for furthering peace on Earth, good will among our fellow human beings. I know that some of what I described may sound familiar because they have been tried before in a dribs and drabs manner, but with a significant increased support for these efforts, and by combining all of the steps in a systematic, coordinated manner, I believe they just might lead to progress toward achieving the desire for a more peaceful, kind world.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
The game of baseball offers us a unique look at the nature of respect for two reasons. First, the game provides several unusually objective statistics that give us a pretty good idea of the talent of a player. In many other fields, such as art or teaching, the criteria for talent is far less objective. Second, we find that despite this unusually objective talent criteria of baseball, when we take a look at two players that played the same position in the same era and have excellent statistics, sometimes we discover they have very different levels of respect given to them by the players’ peers and baseball fans. When we see such differences, by looking at the reasons players and fans give for this, we get particularly keen insights about the nature of respect, insights that can be applied not only to the green fields of baseball, but to other fields as well.
Students of the game of baseball know that outfielders Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth were among the all time most talented players and yet the respect afforded to each can not be more different. In Lawrence S. Ritter’s wonderful book, The Glory of Their Times: The Story of the Early Days of Baseball Told by the Men Who Played It, we get a sense of why this is. So, for instance, Davy Jones played on the same team as Cobb. Here’s what he had to say:Cobb was a very complex person–never did have many friends. Trouble was he had such a rotten disposition that it was damn hard to be his friend. I was probably the best friend he had on the club. I used to stick up for him, sit and talk with him on long trips, try to understand the man. He antagonized so many people that hardly anyone would speak to him, even among his own teammates.
In many ways he was resented by a lot of players because he was so doggone good, and that plus being ignored because he had such a nasty disposition meant that the man was very lonely. Of course, he brought a lot of it on himself, no doubt about that. A lot of time it seemed as though he was just asking for trouble.
Cobb was a great ballplayer, no doubt about it. But he sure wasn’t easy to get along with. He wasn’t a friendly, good natured guy, like Wagner was, or Walter Johnson, or Babe Ruth…. He came up with an antagonistic attitude, which in his mind, turned any little razzing into a life-or-death struggle.
The Babe was always friendly, a real nice guy who’d go out of his way any time to do you a favor. When Cobb was out there on that ball field, look out. He wasn’t anybody’s friend then. He was out to win, regardless….
Mike is from duh Bronx, so naturally he is a huge Yankees fan. When I asked him about this topic he wrote me an email that said in part:Respect for the person, I think, is very difficult to assess since few fans know the player as a person. There are countless examples of superb players who are rotten human beings. Several are in the Hall of Fame, ex. Ty Cobb. There are also examples of superb players who were also superb human beings. Several are in the Hall of Fame, ex. Lou Gehrig. Most players of all levels of ability are unknowable as human beings to fans.
Respect for the game, I think, depends largely on one’s definition of “how the game should be played.” For some, that is linked to sportsmanship. For others, that is linked to the bottom line of winning (I’m talking about pros here.) The recent Houston Astros scandal [involving using electronic devices to steal a catcher’s signals to his pitcher and relaying it to the batter] for example, was not valuing sportsmanship, but was valuing winning. Respect for the game is about behavior and that’s what is so tricky.
Throwing a spitter, stealing signs, pitching high and tight, scuffing a baseball, juicing a bat, showing up an opponent, taking out a middle infielder or catcher, running up the score, bunting when far ahead, sliding with spikes up, hustling, showboating: some are time-honored acts, others are against the rules (written and unwritten) of the game. Some were, to complicate things, within the rules at one time and are not within the rules now.
It has been said that hitting a round ball square with a rounded bat is the hardest thing to do in sports. It has also been said that pro baseball is a hard game played by hard men. Most fans idealize the game and its players and collectively have created a mythology about it. Most players are doing every thing they can to earn a living and have no illusions about being part of a mythology. That is a real disconnect, wouldn’t you say?
Interestingly, Mike once had one of his poems published in ELYSIAN FIELDS: THE BASEBALL REVIEW, 1994. It poetically asks how fans feel about the incredibly talented player, Pete Rose, after he was banned from baseball for betting on games and lying about it. Mike used E. E. Cummings’s “Buffalo Bill” poem as the template for his poem, with its unusual combining of words:I’ve always respected Mariano Rivera. He was the best ever at a position but always seemed so humble and down to earth. And even though he made millions of dollars, he moved back to Panama to be a preacher after he retired. It’s not at all the life path I would have chosen, but as far as I can tell, he avoided all the pitfalls of fame and fortune, and I respect anybody who can handle that situation with class and not be pulled in by all the peer pressure and expectations attached to that.
When I was growing up, the Phillies were arguably the worst team in the major leagues. After so many years rooting for a team that would lose so, so many games, suddenly Roberts appeared on the scene, along with the other young “Whiz Kids” and it was such a thrill to suddenly have a competitive team.
Dave is a friend of mine who grew up in Queens and naturally became a Mets fan. However, now that he has been living in Georgetown, he has been rooting for the Nationals.
Hall of Famer Roberto Clemente is Dave’s choice for all time most respected baseball player. Dave mentioned Roberto’s incredible athleticism and his devotion to helping people living in dire circumstances. For those not familiar with Roberto’s charitable efforts, here’s some of the story according to Wikipedia:The airplane he chartered for a New Year’s Eve flight, a Douglas DC-7 cargo plane, had a history of mechanical problems and an insufficient number of flight personnel (missing both a flight engineer and copilot), and was overloaded by 4,200 pounds.[68] It crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Isla Verde, Puerto Rico immediately after takeoff on December 31, 1972 due to engine failure.[69] …. The bodies of Clemente and three others who were also on the four-engine plane were never recovered.
All who saw Roberto Clemente in action, whether on the diamond or on the front lines of charitable endeavor, are richer for the experience. He stands with the handful of men whose brilliance has transformed the game of baseball into a showcase of skill and spirit, giving universal delight and inspiration. More than that, his selfless dedication to helping those with two strikes against them in life has blessed thousands and set an example for millions. As long as athletes and humanitarians are honored, Roberto Clemente’s memory will live; as long as Citizens Medals are presented, each will mean a little more because the first one went to him.
“Take me out to the ball game,
Nelly Kelly was sure some fan,
Do you, baby, know what it’s all about,
Grand slam,
Baseball, to me, represents life. It’s about heroes and goats, it’s about success and failure. It’s about individual effort, it’s about team effort. Baseball is about the game within the game. It’s really the only game that is not governed by time. And the thing that makes me insane is the people who say baseball is boring. It’s just playing catch. They don’t understand the game within the game. They don’t understand that how much changes from pitch to pitch. It’s actually fractions of a second that a hitter has to make a decision that he is actually going to swing, and then put it either between guys or hit it over the fence.
From there, Bob plays us a little audio clip of an announcer calling the thrilling, yet poignant, moment when Ted Williams, at his last at bat of his career, hits a long home run. The reaction of the crowd is just heartwarming.
And Juan Marichal comes up,
Say hey, say who?
Jamie, you should do what I used to do. When I was supposed to be asleep, I would take my radio and slip it under my pillow. Then put your ear next to the pillow, which you’re supposed to do with pillows anyway. This way you can hear the second game of a double header without bothering anyone else in the house. Thanks for your email, your private pillow pal.
Listen, guys, this game is only half skill,
Perhaps I can find some sound advice by flipping through my copy of the Tao Te Ching.
To be in favor or disgrace
When a person becomes respected, some people compare themselves to the respected person. If, in this comparison, they come to believe they are not as respected, this may ignite feelings of envy. Some of these people may seek to act in ways that harm the respected person in an effort to bring her or him down to a lower, less threatening, level. I wonder if President John F. Kennedy might have been assassinated because of this type of motivation.
In contrast to my difficulty understanding why to be respected is to live in fear, I have no difficulty understanding why living in disgrace is to live in fear. Bernie Madoff, the former investment advisor who became disgraced for carrying out a massive Ponzi scheme, comes to mind. His disgrace led to him currently serving a lengthy federal prison sentence. People who act in a manner that leads to their disgrace certainly have good reason to fear some bad things will be the result.
That stanza reminds me of the first noble truth of Buddhism. Life is not ideal: it frequently fails to live up to our expectations. Human beings are subject to desires and cravings, but even when we are able to satisfy these desires, the satisfaction is only temporary. Birth brings about suffering, as does aging, illness, the approaching of death, union with what is displeasing, separation from what is pleasing, not to get what one wants, etc.
He who strides cannot maintain the pace.
When Douglas argued that by freeing the slaves, this would lead to what many in the audience viewed as the absolute horror of the mixing of blood by the white and black races, Lincoln responded by pointing to the last census at the time. It indicated there were 405,751 mulattoes (a term used to refer to offspring who had both black and white parents) in the United States in 1850. He then went on to say,
All I ask for the negro is that, if you do not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy. Certainly the negro is not our equal in color–perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every man, white or black. In pointing out that more has been give to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given him.
If they look back to trace their connection with those days of blood, they find they have none; they cannot carry themselves back to the glorious epoch and make themselves feel they are part of us; but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal,” and they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relationship to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration; and so they are.
I am thankful to God for this approval of the people. But while deeply grateful for this mark of their confidence in me, if I know my heart, my gratitude is free from any taint of personal triumph. I do not impugn the motives of any one opposed to me. It is no pleasure to me to triumph over any one; but I give thanks to the Almighty for this evidence of the people’s resolution to stand by free government and the rights of humanity.
Doris Kearns Goodwin’s insightful book 
A classic illustration comes from Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol where we find the unforgettable Ebenezer Scrooge transformed by ghostly experiences from a disrespected miser to a lovable, generous employer. As we delve into our topic, we will draw upon a couple of episodes of Bob Dylan’s 
As Bob introduces the first of his two episodes on money, he tells us, with reggae music in the background,
The first song Bob plays for us is the bluesy “That’s What They Want.” Performed by Jerry McCain and His Upstarts, it tells about a guy grieving about the women he knows who are just interested in finding men who have a lot of money, and a Cadillac too.
Blue money, according to the Urban Dictionary, refers to 100 dollar bills, which got its name from a blue line that goes up and down the bill. But in some circles, it means money from making porn movies. Thus, according to this interpretation, the song is about the singer’s girlfriend making porn movies, which involves engaging in sexual activities for money.
When I was an undergraduate at Brooklyn College, I drove a taxi in Manhattan to cover my expenses. From time to time, as I was driving past the Port Authority, where buses and trains would bring loads of out-of-towners to the city, a few women dressed in very scanty, sexy outfits would jump in my taxi and tell me to drive around the block. As they peeked out the window, I could tell they had spotted some police officers, and they had me keep circling the block until the men in blue were gone.
Later, while a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, I worked at a Juvenile Correctional Facility, where I honed my counseling skills. Several of the female teenagers were in the facility because they had been engaged in prostitution. Here, I got to know what led these young ladies into this path to earn money. All came from extremely stressful financial situations. All were first lured into becoming hooked on drugs, which initially relieved their financially strapped stress. The leaders of the industry provided, at first, the drugs for free, along with other enticing gifts. In time, desperate to feed their addictions, these teenagers found turning tricks were the only way they knew how to survive. Somehow, during the counseling sessions, their humanity came to light, and a more kind and understanding attitude was fostered.
As Bob’s show continues, Bob plays for us, Nic Jones’s “Farewell to the Gold.” It provides a touching story of a man who, with a friend, spends his life hoping to strike it rich by prospecting for gold. In the end, his dream never comes true, and a flood leads to his friend drowning. The story is a metaphor for the real possibility that seeking gold doesn’t always work out well, and it’s important to be aware of this if we are to wisely choose our life’s pursuits.
As this episode winds down, Bob plays us, “You Can’t Take It With You” by Jessie Price. If you like piano, clarinet, and trumpet solos, this number is sure to put a smile on your face. And then, Bob concludes with the following words:
Bob begins part 2 by welcoming us back to the show. And then he says:
After some background remarks about the Drifters, Bob plays their song, “Money, Honey.” With the smooth voice of Clyde McPhatter, and some fine sax solos, the lyrics go,
We spent so much time talking about money, I want to leave you with someone who had an opposing opinion. He’s a smart guy about relativity, and he’s smart about this. We’re talking about Einstein, and he said, “I’m absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can keep humanity from moving forward. Even in the hands of the most devoted worker the examples of great pure individuals is the only thing that can move us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly invites abuse. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or Gandhi armed with the bags of money of Carnegie.” We’ll see you next week with all new themes, dreams, and schemes. 
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. As several of my earlier blog posts have indicated, many professionals, mental health service users, involuntary patients, and the general public have little, to no respect, for the American Psychiatric Association’s most recent version of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
I developed the CSM approach while working with the Task Force on Diagnostic Alternatives of the American Psychological Association’s Division 32 (Society of Humanistic Psychology). That group has not officially supported, as of yet, any single alternative. Instead, it has wisely decided that its next step is to send out a new open letter hoping to garner support for starting a process that will involve all of the mental health stakeholders including former and current mental health service users, individuals who experienced involuntary treatment, their family members, and mental health professionals.
Today we once again take up the controversial topic of the usefulness of the group of drugs referred to by psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry as “antipsychotics.” In most of the articles that I have read that have been written by psychiatrists, “antipsychotic” drugs are the first line of treatment for schizophrenia. And yet, a growing number of mental health advocates have been fiercely critical of this. As someone who has given considerable thought to helping people resolve challenging conflicts, I set myself on trying to find out what is going on here. 
After a review of the scientific research and participating in several debates, I then wrote three blog posts that reported to my readers what I have found.
Upon publishing the first two posts, several defenders of the use of these drugs claimed these drugs are worth using because they reduce the risk of early mortality. I, therefore, published a third 
The cost for the drug approach is not just confined to the cost of the “antipsychotic” drugs which has been estimated to be in the range of several billions of dollars. Doctors often prescribe a whole cocktail of drugs for these patients, dramatically adding to the cost of the drug approach, while evidence indicates the combination of “antipsychotics” with these other drugs often leads to additional adverse effects. The cost of the doctors’ time for prescribing and monitoring the treatment must be added, as well, as the cost of the revolving door of placement in a hospital, releasing from the hospital, and readmitting to the hospital, which has been the frequent pattern with this drugging approach. Finally, we must add the cost of treating patients for all of the adverse effects of these drugs.
There are several very promising alternatives, but in most regions they are not yet available. Articles like mine are designed to expand the general population’s knowledge of just how ineffective, harmful, and financially wasteful the drug treatments are, and that there are safer alternatives. This increased awareness campaign has been a major reason for the slow rising tide of advocates demanding that these more healthy alternatives become readily accessible in every community.
A 
The central features of this treatment for this group of patients involve normalization and evaluation of the appraisals that people make, helping them to test such appraisals with use of behavioral experiments, and helping them to identify and modify unhelpful cognitive and behavioral responses. Additionally, it aimed to provide warm, empathic, and non-judgmental face-to-face contact, supportive listening, signposting to appropriate local services for unmet needs, and crisis management when needed.
Relationships developed naturally, and we all got to know one another to various degrees, no different than how we develop friendships. This was not a therapist-patient relationship but rather a sort of social relationship. As a staff member I had some responsibilities—going to the market and preparing dinner. Everyone was on their own for breakfast and lunch and could help themselves to whatever they might like. Grocery shopping was often an outing to the market. Usually, one or two residents would accompany me to the store. When we returned, I would ask for help prepping the meal. It was quite informal. The house was often a bit of a mess, but then, we’d all get together and decide it was time for a quick house cleaning and again, whoever wanted to join would do so.”
Another approach well described in the JHP special issue is written by Charles Knapp. The Windhorse therapeutic perspective has a Tibetan Buddhist orientation that offers meditation, and spiritual teachings, along with a supportive, empathetic staff. Unlike the Soteria House approach, which aims to support people through a recovery process over a few months, the Windhorse approach recognizes that individual recovery periods are highly variable, and it is not uncommon for people to stay in their programs for eighteen months and even longer.
There are several other approaches described in the JHP special issue, all worth while to think about. All have had their share of success in helping to provide support for people experiencing extreme states.
Supporting this notion that the incident was staged is that McSally quickly posted the video. Fox News host Sean Hannity instantly began to praise her conduct, and she got additional publicity by appearing on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show. Meanwhile, President Trump’s 2020 campaign 
Here’s another difference between what typically happens during your interpersonal relationships and the intergroup interactions that involve politicians. When someone directly seeks to insult you, unless you are well trained in handling this in a peaceful manner, you are likely to take the insult personally. The emotions that arise in this situation are more likely to be stronger than typically experienced when groups of people see on TV or in a large arena a politician throwing insults at someone they don’t personally know.
ikes you as political correctness.
“Blowin’ In The Wind.” “With God On Our Side.” “Masters Of War.” These are songs Bob Dylan has written and performed expressing deep emotions about the wisdom of going to war. As I began to reflect on these songs, to my mind came the pounding of war drums, the cries of vicious insults emanating from a deadly divide, images of fear, pride, disgrace, bombs exploding, and thousands screaming in horror.
And then I found myself pulling up on the internet Bob Dylan’s Theme Time Radio Hour show, and clicking to hear his specific show on the theme of war. It’s available for free 
The show begins with a series of brief audio clips of the sounds of a country at war–bombs going off as Marine helicopters are approaching a battle field, a news reporter describing the scene of burning tanks, the voice of President Lyndon Johnson committing an additional 20,000 troops to Viet Nam as that war was escalating, etc. Then we hear Bob introducing the show’s theme:
Plato once said, “Only the dead has seen the end of war,” and sadly it is as true today as it was then. 
Today we are going to examine battles and beaches, skirmishes and embroglios, we are going to let loose the dogs of war, pay tribute to Mars in Aries, shed a tear for the widows and orphans. We’re mustering cadets, for Theme Time Radio Hour is going to war!
Why I crossed three thousand miles of rolling waves.
When I was a young man I carried me pack 
When the ship pulled away from the quay 
Some say war is a game that men play using boys as the tools. Truth to tell, you don’t see many men in battle, but you see a lot of boys. Wars used to be fought by men and I think that fairer. Men are the ones waging the war, they ought go out and fight it. 
I’m just a poor ex-soldier that’s broken down and blue,
One staple of songs about war is the letter. Sometimes it’s the letter that the guy writes from the battlefield. Other times it’s from home. But the worse kind of letter of all to receive was one written by a military chaplain. It usually had a line in it, something like, “You would be delighted to know that your son died a hero.” It’s a nice sentiment, but I doubt it was really any solace. 
I close my eyes every night
Is don’t they pray
Peace to the world
An American flag waving in the breeze along with stirring patriotic music; this can be a fitting end to a Hollywood movie, but before we go marching once again into war, there is far more to consider.
I hope all of you are having a fine holiday season. This, of course, is the time of year when the longing for peace on Earth and good will to all is beautifully expressed in songs and stories.
For example, during the American Civil War, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote a poem titled “Christmas Bells,” that was later made into a song renamed “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.” It begins with pleasant aspects of the season, but then the reality of the war sets in:
In the earliest period that humans thrived, they were chiefly hunters and gatherers. At that time, it has been estimated that death came as a result of one person killing another about twenty percent of the time. Evidence for this was obtained by looking at the skeletons from that period. Quite often we find fractured skulls and arrowheads embedded in chest cavities.
Another dramatic decrease occurred around the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. The invention of the printing press had made pamphlets and books far more readily available, spreading humanistic values throughout the human population. That era saw the first organized movements to abolish slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killings, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals.
Actually, we find that the vast majority of Muslims who are living under similar sets of conditions as other religious groups in the developed countries are in no way more violent, nor are they more likely to violate what are now viewed by most as basic human rights. Also relevant to this question is the fact that people from religious groups other than Muslims, when raised under the conditions similar to the violent Muslim areas, are every bit as violent as groups like ISIS. Consider the murder rate in communities like South Chicago.
Today, the major parts of the world that are most violent prone are at the same psychological developmental level as the largely Christian southern states were just about when the American Civil War began. Let us compare, for example, the highly violent group known as ISIS with that bloody period of American history. The confederate southern states had, like ISIS has today, an ideology that slavery was essential to their way of life, and outsiders (the northern states) were actively interfering with what they believed is right. Moreover, the confederate states used quotations from their holy book to defend their beliefs and to justify going to war to protect their ideology in a way that is similar to how ISIS utilizes sections of their holy book.
After abolishing slavery, England continued for about a hundred years to use violent force to maintain its hold on colonial labor, but Mahatma Gandhi effectively used nonviolent resistance to put an end to colonial rule. Soon afterwards, colonialism began to end elsewhere.
There are some credible reasons for supporters of the most violent regions of the Earth to feel that there has been an ongoing effort to force them to do whatever is in the interest of the US and its allies. Years before the creation of ISIS, for example, meddling in Middle East affairs occurred by the US’s CIA. Then came the US invasion of the largely Muslim inhabited Afghanistan and Iraq countries.
With regards to responding to regions that continue to enslave people, the US would use nonviolent approaches such as boycotting any goods or services that might fund the violent group’s operations, along with boycotting any country or enterprise that does business with such violent groups, while offering a vision for engaging in peaceful commerce as described in step 4.
Therefore, the US would launch an all out peaceful advocacy effort to have the United Nations offer to fund a constitutional convention for all of the stakeholders in the regions where violent groups are operating. Those violent groups’ representatives would be invited to be central players, and incentives to participate would be provided. UN Peace Keepers would be employed throughout the convention period to help decrease the likelihood that some would seek to violently sabotage such efforts.
Professor Steven Pinker provides evidence in his book, 
And in fact, many believe that it is this set of challenges that is the main cause of the region’s violence problems. In mid-day much of these regions are often so hot it could make the Dalai Lama ignite in irritability. Large sections of these regions are as parched as the moon’s surface. But the regions do have some natural resources. For example, they tend to have plentiful sunshine. Nevertheless, they remain rather poor in contrast to the more developed countries.
Professor Pinker notes that prior to the invention of the printing press there were very few books available. Those people who lived in the upper classes rarely had much direct contact with the lower classes. A nobleman’s quick glance while passing by a downtrodden worker often merely left the impression of a filthy, smelly soul, hardly human at all. After novels became available, a nobleman might read of a poor young woman pressed into very sad circumstances by a cruel person of the upper classes, and discover tears running down his cheeks. Discovering that people all over the world, in all classes, and other religions have very similar desires, dreams, and feelings that we can all relate to, increases empathy and the desire to deal with a wider range of humanity in kind and respectful ways.
So, how would we get these kinds of stories before those who are in groups prone to violence? At the two types of conventions I mentioned above that would be funded by the United Nations (constitutional and commerce) short, readable, relatable books would be freely provided that convey these heartwarming stories. International funding for public libraries for regions too poor to provide for them on their own would be provided. Moreover, there are ways to make these types of stories particularly accessible on internet sites that violent groups tend to visit, not only in written form, but also in audio-visual forms as well. And instead of the steady dropping of bombs in regions occupied by violent groups, an international coalition could drop little parachuted packages that include a little tasty healthy treat, a little toy or stuffed animal as a gift to the children, an interesting puzzle that adults would enjoy doing, and the type of stories that I have just described.