Underplayed Story of the Day: Juanita Goggins

A MASSIVE tribute to the present worship of “individualism” in this country.
.
Something that MY parents, anyway, would have thought a moral crime, having lived through the Great Depression.
.
That we don’t pay MORE attention to the condition (and needs) of those around us.

The inevitable by-product of the culmination of capitalism and liberalism.

I read this story yesterday. Reading it I felt such admiration for Ms Goggins and sorrow that she passed in such a lonely way.
The article I read said she was dressed in layers of clothing and had access to heat. It conjectured she might have been suffering from dementia.

“She spent her final years turning down help from neighbors who knew little of her history-making past.
.
Who knows? She may have just wanted to be alone at the end. Not wanting to be “a bother”.
.
Impressive lady and story, thanks for posting this.

I read the complete article that KT linked. How very sad. It is a tremendous problem to figure out how to help people that won’t allow help. We have no way to deal with mental illness against a person’s will.

Thanks for highlighting this sad story. Mrs. Goggins certainly made a lot of contributions in her lifetime. At least we can take a moment to celebrate that.

Probably, but it shouldn’t matter. I can remember that, out where I lived, you didn’t need to be told that a neighbor was sick. You knew their patterns well enough to see if they broke it, then went to see.
.
Friends of my mom knew her well enough to call when “something wasn’t right”. Different culture, different priorities.

The inevitable by-product of the culmination of capitalism and liberalism.
.
Hold on there just a second, Slim…
.
What?

SZ:

I am with you. What?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Individualism is a valid concepts but dramatically overplayed.

Self reliance when you lack the physical, economic or, if she did have dementia, mental capacity provide for one’s self is just false pride which friends, family, neighbors and acquaintances should not encourage.

In some respects, this is a sad story but I think in the end this woman died the way she lived- on her terms. It’s hard to argue with that.

Maybe she did, Paul. Question is – did anyone ask?
.
One thing to be told that by the person when you check on her. Then, if you know a family member, you cal them to check up on her.
.
Quite another to speculate about her needs/wished AFTER you read the obituary in the papers.

I would caution against drawing any broad conclusions about society based upon this incident.

Not just THIS incident, square1. I can see the same lack of attention to individual members at church from time-to-time.
.
No one pays any real attention until they stop attending. And they don’t make any attempt to truly befriend newcomers.
.
They’re not from “around here”.

“What?”
.
I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant “Liberal Capitalism”: http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summer%2007-08/anderson_summer07.html. Basically, “centrist” corporatism, which, of course, has nothing to do with actual progressive liberalism.
.
Anyway, this happens all the time: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_58033.shtml. Nothing to see here…and Soylent Green is people.

Not trying to stir up anything with my comments here. Just trying to get you to think about what you would do if this had happened to some one who lived close to you.
.
Without naming any names, some of you are being very revealing..

My thought, too. She was apparently adamant about wanting to be left alone. She would have been happy having that wish to be ignored and violated, however well meaning? May she rest in peace.

formerly,
.
If someone offered help that I hadn’t requested or felt I needed, my response would be, “No, thank you… but thanks for caring enough to ask.” I wouldn’t be resentful. It doesn’t sound like she was either.
.
I use a response similar to that when fielding calls from some telemarketers. You’d be amazed how unprepared they are to deal with something like that.

It is, unfortunately, easy to loose track of elderly neighbors.

There was one not long ago who I had not seen around my apartment complex. I knew he had an assistant even though he lived alone.

I finally saw him and said hello. I didn’t know that he had moved several neighborhoods away NINE MONTHS EARLIER.

Ooops.

It’s a good thing that he didn’t need to depend upon me for assistance.
I felt bad about not having a clue about his moving even though I never knew his name, either.

Ah, I see there is confusion. Let me clarify. Classical liberalism (what governs American political philosophy on both sides of the aisle) places societal emphasis on the individual, especially in terms of freedom from community encroachment, as opposed to the communal societies of old Europe. Capitalism, obviously, places emphasis on the individual, especially in terms of the ability to rise above one’s peers in profit and ownership. Mix the two and what you have is a system where individuals can easily fall between the cracks of society, at times of their own volition, and no one around will care to take notice, too busy pursuing their own individual elevation over examining the community welfare.

Let’s make sure we’re not confusing individualism with selfishness and self-absorption. Individualism which founded this country, was about the principles of self-reliance and of self-determinism. People back then worked together, rallied the wagons, had barn-raisings, helped their neighbors. That individualism was what I still experience in my faith community: we fast individually once a month a donate freely to help our neighbors who are going without. I freely choose to make meals for the sick, the homeless–right now we’re working on assembling a cookbook for homeless people who are finding homes but need simple meals with few ingredients. Note: we believe in OUR individualism, but also help, but promote others’ individualism. That’s what we’ve lost as a country. We’ve lost our natural souls, that when we’re in our own “skins,” we will take care of ourselves and be drawn to take care of our neighbors. Selfishness and greed is self-absorption or the worst variant of “individualism.” Our worst selves.

This story is very chilling and very sad. it is sad that such a trailblazer as Ms Goggins should die in such a manner. It is further sad, that there seems to be signs she suffered from dementia, but evidently she was undiagnosed.

A lot of people have wondered what happened to her neighbors and why did they not get more involved, but I am wondering about the son. Now I am speaking from a personal standpoint.

My father is about the same age and lives in a neighborhood, probably much like Ms. Goggins did. The neighbors are very friendly, but they won’t meddle into people’s business. I worry about my father as I am his only child and I live in Virginia and he lives in Minnesota without any family near by (Ironically, I live in his old neighborhood and most of his family lives near me now).

While my father appears to be in good health, I have to wonder about if something happened to him, what could I do. I mean I speak to him several times a week, but if, God forbid, he had a stroke, who would know?

When I was in college, my father had a stroke, while I lived in Pennsylvania, and I went nuts (My mother was alive, but she was in such poor health, my father retired early to care for her). And that was more than 20 years ago. I guess I could look to his neighbors, but most of his neighbors are at least the same age as him, if not older. The advantage they have is that most, if not all of their children live close by.

For that reason, a number of my family members have tried to talk my father into moving back to Virginia. Personally, I would almost rather move back to Minnesota (Luckily, my wife’s family is from nearby.)

Be it as it may, this is certainly a wakeup call.

neorationalist86:
.
I think you may be romanticizing serfdom a bit, but I understand your point.

Not too shabby there, sechandler…

And I would counter that we have all romanticized classical liberal enlightenment. Our modern minds have difficulty comprehending the benefits of the fuedal system. We cannot properly fathom what would be desirable about a lack of choice, about lack of individual sovereignty. For the time, however, there was little more comforting than knowing your necessities were provided for, that you had land to live on, were you willing to work it, of course, and that a certain level of security, vis-a-vis the nobility, was present at all times ensuring your well-being. It was a reasonable and mutually beneficial system.

Last year, a WWII vet froze to death after MichCon turned off his gas because of non-payment of utility bills.
.
Big sh!tstorm.
.
The MI Legislature resolved to do something about this, but they still can’t tell their elbow from their…

It was a reasonable and mutually beneficial system.
.
Now you’re being deliberately provocative, aren’t you?
.
I readily concede that feudal society worked to the extent that it did, and that there were great advancements upon classical and earlier social forms.
.
The concept of “Commons” is a wonderful piece of feudal residue whose true value can never probably be known by moderns, and we rely on patronage even still.
.
“Quality” as it was understood to exist in humans is a very different thing than “Utility,” and it is instructive to try to compare these two notions of human goodness/value, even if they are so incompatible. Even to examine the value of “Quality” is to (to a certain extent) apply positivist measurement to utilitarian evaluation of something that lies outside of both realms.
.
That said, you are our of your freaking mind, if you are to seriously make the case that feudal hierarchy was justified by its “mutual” value to lower and higher classes. “Mutually beneficial” is hardly the word that can describe that system. The aristocracies ended up conducting wars (and ruining the productivity of the peasantry) simply to justify their own existence!
.
I’ll be the first to concede to conservatives that what’s lost is sometimes lost as a result of new, good things coming into being (notice I didn’t use the Marxist/modernist concept of linear “progress” there), but I know you can’t possibly be pining away for feudal obligations!

That said, you are out of your freaking mind, if you are to seriously make the case that feudal hierarchy was justified by its “mutual” value to lower and higher classes. “Mutually beneficial” is hardly the word that can describe that system.

You will notice that I said mutually, not equally, beneficial. There was a shared interest in maintaining the relationship between serfs and nobles, even if there was a disparity in the benefits received by each group. I don’t think any student of history can disagree with that.

The aristocracies ended up conducting wars (and ruining the productivity of the peasantry) simply to justify their own existence!

Honestly, have things changed all that much? Who conducts our liberally enlightened wars? Èlites (aristocracy)? Who pays the toll of these wars? The lower classes (peasantry)?

I know you can’t possibly be pining away for feudal obligations!

No! I am not pining away for a return to feudalism. Merely acknowledging its positive aspect. Perhaps, I’m just being a gadfly with respect to the perceived probity of our system.

Wow, Feudalism.
I never thought we would be discussing that even with extreme reactionaries running for office.

I do grasp that Exiled meant the concept of serfs being in very tight communities.

My favorite line from the semi-accurate play turned movie The Lion in Winter was when the king pronounced “I am fifty years old! I am TEN YEARS OLDER THAN THE POPE!”

The old folks of European peasants were about thirty five years old.

The interdependence must have prevented loneliness and isolation,I guess.

What a strange digression.

I’m rather fond of our strange digression.

Okay, while digressing, I find how many people – more often politically conservative, but not always – tend to have very romanticized ideas about days gone by.

For times gone by within one’s own memory, studies have shown (please do not expect too many details since I did NOT major in psychology) that the human brain deletes most of our worst memories except for the truly traumatic ones.

So, on a crummy day, many people remember the best times of years gone by forgetting that they had crummy days ten, twenty – when you are older than I am – thirty or forty years earlier and begin to believe that things are getting worse and worse.

Multiply this over many generations and you’ll have a very distorted view of history.

Except, perhaps, the closeness of one’s community, most people from the middle ages through to the first half of the last century would likely give their right arm to have what we have today.

To the contrary, I am positive that any generation past would be utterly appalled to stumble upon the 21st century. I honestly do not think all the amenities in the world can compensate for our absolute level of mediocrity, intellectually, morally, productively. Our shameful hubris allows us to believe that we are the culmination of thousands of years of advancement, when in fact, mankind has largely digressed. It’s simply historical snobbery, to borrow a term from C.S. Lewis, that allows us to be comfortable in our modern skins.

Not to belittle the indisputable advancements society has made in science, technology, medicine, etc., but individually, we cannot compete with any generation in history. Blackberries, iPods, GPS, fast-food, media as a capitalist endeavor. These things have crushed the human potential and replaced it with a complacent and lethargic dependency on surreality.

Changes we all like in approximate chronological order:

1) Serfdom is long gone
2) Rule of law
3) Democracy
4) Higher education
5) Longevity
6) Civil Rights
7) Women’s rights
8)Transportation improvements
9) Communication improvements
10) Average income almost two and a half time poverty rate rather than far below it.
11) Low crime rates (since we started measuring such).

Only three of those are material.

Hence, we are better off than we once were in nearly all ways.

Exile: I have a certain concern for our current society. However, at 69 I have lived enough decades to not think the good old days were the best.
//
Child labor banned in our country
Education for all
The end of segregation
The extraordinary expansion of the knowledge base
Kids volunteer more than ever
Students are more prepared for college entrance
Women have been recognized as more than chatel
Medical progress
//
There are many other advantages in our modern world.
I would not for one minute want to return to the past. Maybe to visit, but not to dwell for any time.

Blackberries and cell phones as well as the internet (including this) bring people together.

Fast food… That is not an advancement – agreed.

IPods can be a way of shutting off life. I kept on seeing the same woman in the same place every day. Twice I came up to her to speak with her since she was pretty and unless I yelled, she couldn’t hear me over her IPod.
(I spoke with her eventually. Nice enough girl but it didn’t go anywhere.)

I think television was a terrible setback, but, TiVo lets you pause TV for life rather than telling your family to shut up for the TV. Now the TV or DVD shuts up when life happens. This undoes some of the setback.

Excuse me, I meant to add that this occurred in Saginaw, MI, and that last winter was particularly brutal up here.

Ok, so you’re making me grateful for my faith community. We have two women assigned to me that call me monthly, visit with a message, make me meals when I’m sick, etc. Our family has two men that visit our family once a month, teach us and our children, check in to see how we’re doing, etc. Help us move (I moved in July and at 8pm I pulled up in 113o heat in the moving van that had broken down several times, and 7 men were waiting to unload it, with a pan of brownies from someone else to thank them and welcome us when they were done).

A lady who I didn’t know, who didn’t go to church anymore (had lived a wild life), whose family told us where she was, was dying of cancer. We set up an around the clock group of women to stay with her (there was no one but hospice) for the 3-4 weeks til she died. We sang to her, read to her, and just held her hand, fed her, and were there at the end. I just wish that religion wasn’t so vilified these days. No welfare check could replace what we did for her, and the church system provided a vehicle for doing this. And, by the way, it changed MY LIFE, and helped open my heart to someone I never knew and could never really thank me.

Too bad so many people think religious people are nuts. I know a whole bunch of really good ones. We’ll probably lose our tax exempt status at some point, because we stand for our beliefs, but trust me, we’ll still continue to love people, help our neighbors. And when the economic poop hits the fan and the government’s slow to respond, you’ll wish me and my friends were your neighbors. We’ll have plenty to share, and we will no matter what color, sex, religion, ethnic group or persuasion you are. That’s what our belief reinforces to us each Sunday. For the cynics against religion, I would highly recommend you NOT throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are some pretty good traditions interwoven with a few extremists and hypocrites.

Since I don’t believe religion is the ONLY way to get that goodness, but that we all have that light within us, I heartily recommend you all go home tonight, look around your neighborhoods, pick a few weeds, take some cookies to the neighbors, organize a block party, and connect with a stranger. It’ll do you a world a good. Why don’t we save all the money spent on these crappy, greed-ridden bills, and everyone of their own free will go out and hold a hand, pay a light bill, train a worker. You’d feel the Founders’ smile, the debt get reduced, and our country to start returning to its former greatness.

apr, patrick~
I understand both of your perspectives. Surely, in terms of equality of races and sexes, quality of life, and opportunity we have achieved a superior level than preceding generations. I acknowledged as much when I posited that society has made vast advances, and admirable ones. Where we digress, however, is on the individual level, in our capabilities. We are slaves to technology (which has many benefits, admittedly) in that we lack the knowledge or wherewithal to sustain ourselves without it. We are dependent, in every sense of the word. So, rather than peasants beholden to nobles, or minorities subjected to the will of the majority, we are all in servitude, enslaved to our own lack of prowess. We are a society that glorifies lethargy.
~
For matters of clarification, I would also like to adjust your timeline, Patrick. For one thing, the concept of democracy preceded European feudalism. Realization of that concept took millenia to be fully achieved, however. The rule of law, likewise, is an ancient notion, among other times, found prevalently in the Roman Empire’s rule. Higher education, i.e. the university, was birthed in the so-called “Dark Ages, which were actually an enlightened period in contrast to the barbarism that befell Europe immediately following the fall of Rome. During this time we were also given the concepts of code of law, international systems, free markets, banking, inherent human rights, rational debate, astronomy, astrology, seismology, oceanography, the study of language, evidentiary trials, cartography, charity of will (as opposed to status), art, and numerous other foundations of liberal western civilization. Just to be clear.

Exiled,

Another thing I would say about history is that almost everything happens in a quiet evolution instead of a revolution.

One example I think of is civil rights.
Sure, Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man and his charisma played a significant role in the matter, but, it was a process which took approximately a century. King was not the one who invented the concept of asking to be treated as an equal.

Yes, most of the concepts I brought up, if not all, had their origins over a millennium or more.

All In all, though, this is becoming a philosophy class and I believe I have most of your points.

It is interesting.

I have been trying to follow this exchange but not sure I have a handle on what exiled says.
.
I do agree with apr2563 that the present is good by me. I wouldn’t so easily dismiss technology as all bad. Lot of good to it, most notably in resolving social issues that previously languished in the dark. That doesn’t happen anymore. Not only am I happy with the present technology, I regret that so much evolved late in my life and what I will miss in the future.

I’m telling you guys, this is an amazing blog to have this interesting of commentary follow these posts.

To further your point, sechandler912, I would suggest that our nation embrace the idea that we, collectively, in the form our our government – by the people – can step in to help fill the gaps in this nation of 300M.
.
I laud your efforts and am happy to be similarly engaged.
.
Sadly, my service visits to Detroit as well as Appalachia convince me that the needs of many can barely be met by the few.
.
Empowering our government as a helping hand is indeed a noble goal.

In general, life is better than it has ever been, and if you think that, in the past, there was some golden age of pleasure and plenty to which you would, if you were able, transport yourself, let me say one single word : “Dentistry”.

-P.J. O’Rourke

Formerlyjames~
I’m young. I think perhaps that the void between our respective views of technology is an odd result of the age differential. In your case, you endured life without some of the more recent technological advancements, and by that same respect, you understand life without it. You also have an entire generation of your peers who understand this. In my case, however, I am surrounded by buffoons whose only concept of reality is technological surreality. It’s all they know. All they’ll ever know. For my generation, who do not understand the concept of self-sustainability, of life without buttons or gadgets, the mere notion of challenging the mind is a painful concept. We’re lazy, irresponsible, frivolous, detached, incoherent, disrespectful. All, in large part, because of our obsessive relationship with technology. Oh, yes, I’m bitter. Long live the past. It’s a happy place, at least in my head…

Kbanginmotown~
My point is not that we have failed to make any meaningful advancements. As I’ve said, quality of life has improved greatly, as have the notions of equality and freedom, along with revolutionary leaps in medicine, technology, science. I’m not saying that societies were historically more advanced than we are today. I’m lamenting the current quality of individuals. We, as people, have digressed.

I’m lamenting the current quality of individuals.
.
There’s that word again, “Quality.”
.
What’s the exact meaning of it with respect to “individuals”?

Damm*t, Stu! You are pesky, indeed! Forget me, you’re clearly the gadfly here.
~
Righto, “quality” in respect to individuals is completely in the eye of the beholder. For me, one’s qualitative worthiness rests on the commitment, or even ability, to engage in cognizant thought. The lack thereof is grounds for dismissal. It’s harsh, it’s rigid, it’s preconceived. Apparently, I am alone in my perception of individuals having varying levels of quality. Apparently, we’re all progressively superior to those before us, and all equal amongst our contemporaries. Sorry, but I reject that. Come on, man. Quality! You know the term. You can apply it in whatever manner makes you comfortable…

In case it wasn’t clear -it probably wasn’t clear- my last post was entirely facetious. I cannot answer the question, Stu. Quality…it’s quality, man! What’s a high-quality steak taste like? What’s high-quality anything? It’s inherent, and yet indescribable in concrete terms. Let’s just say, that whatever it is, people generally lask it these days. I don’t want to descend into a repeat of parsing words, like “natural.” Sheesh. That took 300 comments, and still unresolved.

Exiled,

I know that when I was in my 20s I sometimes thought that there was a time far greater.
For me the particular era was not as distant as yours seems to be.
I admired 1929 through 1945.

Yes, the Great Depression through the end of World War II.

Besides the clothes, women wearing skirts, not pants, men wearing suits with cool hats, the big glossy cars and the rest, there was something which vaguely resembles what you seem to be describing if I understand you correctly.

People were tenacious, courageous and tough.

Not to belittle your point of view, but, to make a long story short, I got over it.

It’s a very hard concept to put into words so, I can believe that I can identify with your point of view to a fair degree. But, as then, I can not easily describe it.

You’ll probably see it differently when you are in your late 20s or older, depending upon your life experiences if it was at all like what I saw.

It isn’t a bad thing. It was hard to describe and I think you feel that way about the middle ages.

Basta!
*…people generally lack it these days.

kbanginmotown – I hear you in thinking the Fed govt represents the collective, but it doesn’t play out that way in reality. It loses something when it moves from handholding to a check — the essence of the care. In the end, helping only helps when it empowers people, and humans are empowered when they find the strength within themselves. Help from others needs to be temporary or personal. Never impersonal and chronic – the two together are deadly to the spirit of man. My experience as a social worker – Prove me wrong. Collective power is good, but never more important to an individual than personal power. And God-person power is the ultimate…

It’s not that I’m relishing the middle ages. I just think the revisionist monopoly of academia and history has egregiously skewed the perceived reality of those times. I, like you once, would prefer the 1920s-1950′s era to those of the middle ages without hesitation.

How many times can I post this on Swampland – Phd at Catholic UA in Social Welfare in response to my student’s query of “What is the solution to our social welfare problems?”

Reply: “I have absolutely no idea.”

Now REALLY you guys know better than the expert? Humility please – this is all a lot trickier than we think, and if I have to err I’ll err more towards leaving it to people to steer their own cars, jerry-rig solutions, bandaids, etc. than to have them all sitting by the side of the road waiting for the tow truck, ambulances, police, fire and rescue and all to come when 1,000,000s are waiting for the same service…

Two things I love about the 21st-century: birth control and the confidence I will not die in childbirth.
.
Surely, in terms of equality of races and sexes, quality of life, and opportunity we have achieved a superior level than preceding generations. I acknowledged as much when I posited that society has made vast advances, and admirable ones. Where we digress, however, is on the individual level, in our capabilities. We are slaves to technology (which has many benefits, admittedly) in that we lack the knowledge or wherewithal to sustain ourselves without it. We are dependent, in every sense of the word. So, rather than peasants beholden to nobles, or minorities subjected to the will of the majority, we are all in servitude, enslaved to our own lack of prowess. We are a society that glorifies lethargy.
.
The irony of this conversation occurring on a blog is priceless.
.
Do I wish I were an illiterate maid working 14 hours a day doing laundry and cooking on a dangerous stove that doesn’t actually work while bleeding on rough (and unsanitary) pieces of cloth attached to some weird belt device? Or would I rather develop my intellect by writing essays on my laptop while I sit in a nice cafe, secure in the knowledge I can use a tampon if I need it, and listen to Regina Spektor on my iPod?
.
The benefits of technology have not been distributed evenly. We all know this, and we can all see the obvious differences between New York and Sub-Saharan Africa. But too often we forget arguably the biggest winners in the technology revolution: women in developed countries.
.
We, especially women, were not just slaves to the nobility and men. We were slaves to laundry; the need to have children to provide for our families and the high risk of dying in the process; feeding our families without reliable ways of preserving food; boredom, uninterrupted by the joy of a nice evening with a good book.
.
This should sweep away any romantic notions about the past: http://www.youtube.com/show/the1900house

exiled: I am just trying to figure out why you think people in the past were of better quality. Ever read Dickens?
///
Maybe I am an elderly naive person, but I supervised young people for a number of years. There were people of every level of quality. Some were average and some I admired a great deal. They had quality.
///
And exiled, you would not have liked living in the 50s. It was called the “silent generation” for a reason. Although, we did give you rock and roll.
///
Enjoy and share with the generations following you. They may inspire you.

“The irony of this conversation occurring on a blog is priceless.”
.
Thank you, rose. The conversation probably should have ended at:

Child labor banned in our country…
…Women have been recognized as more than chatel…

…except: 1) it was kind of interesting (in a totally geeky academic way) and 2) it’s what a bunch of white guys think.

She died at age 75.
No one knew for over a week.
The last years while she was alive,
Sharing her life, she did not seek.
The first black woman decades past
In South Carolina to be
A state legislator at last,
Education issues her key.
Neighbors, former colleagues and kin
Wonder if they should have done more.
But her life and death might have been
What she freely had chosen for.

Juanita Goggins froze to death,
At home alone in her last breath.

“it’s what a bunch of white guys think”

Come on. We all know that black people weren’t invented until sometime in the mid 1950s.

(Obviously, I am saying, large scale public awareness of non-whites and the well being of women were not realized until, at the earliest, the early 1950s.If you even saw the movie Casa Blanca, there was only one black guy and he was an American.)

We don’t know what mental state she was in based on the story. My mom’s a little bit older still living on her own, but I’d be crazy to not check in on her.

Blackberries and cell phones as well as the internet (including this) bring people together.
.
Unfortunately, this type of contact is used to replace the real “face-to-face” kind, you know, the type where you have to read a person’s facial expressions to see if they are happy with what you are saying (or if you have insulted them).
.
While I absolutely enjoy this type of interaction (online/blogging), it CAN’T totally replace the other type if we are to survive.
.
Even at church, the leadership has started to recognize the “breakdown” and self-enforced isolation of the membership. We have started having smaller groups meeting together each week in a different member’s home, each providing a small part of a larger meal for everyone.
.
You learn a LOT more about a person by seeing their surroundings than by just an “online chat”.
.
They are remembering what used to work when the religion they practice worked a lot better and trying to apply it. And what they remember working was trying to be closer together personally – not just number of members on the roll.
.
Too many of those that celebrate “rugged individualism” have forgotten how to interact well with others. Rather than recognizing this as a problem, they’ve compensated by evelating it to the position of a virtue.
.
Compensation by marketing, if you will. Another thing we’ve become really good at as a nation.

nflfoghorn,
.
I think you will find that most of the other cultures in the world are appalled by the degree to which we warehouse our elderly relatives.
.
There, older family members aren’t a bother to them but someone to be respected and cared for.
.
That a respected family member was allowed to die unnoticed by the family would be horrifying to them.
.
Any future enemy is liable to notice this tendency we have for personal isolation and exploit our lack of personal communication and caring.

neorationalist86:
.
At least I didn’t ask you through which sensory organ you were able to observe the characteristic of “Quality,” right?

So, are you saying we are at our best when we can finally say, “I can take care of myself BY myself – I don’t need ANYONE else.”
.
Is your ideal then the “self-made man”?

I’m saying that my rule is, “if I care more about someone’s life (an adult) than they do, I’m caring too much.” and vice versa. The buck stops with me, and always will. I am my most important resource, the Lord God is my perfect resource, and any human being who is available to help is a bonus and gift from God. That’s sitting in my own driver’s seat, with my seatbelt on. No one else can drive my car, and I have the capacity to drive to the gas station (and if it’s closed go invent a fuel to use, walk, ride a bike, etc), make the repairs or get someone to IF I can pay them or do without, etc. But do I NEED a human to rescue me? Too much of a power giveaway… They will be provided, but not with more power than I have… only temporarily.

sechandler912,

It is interesting that you bring Christianity into things.

For myself, the ideal Christian was Mother Theresa.

She was not an individualist.

No, I am not claiming to be anything like Mother Theresa in any way – I am not even a practicing Catholic anymore – but, what would she have done if this were here neighbor?

I think she would have been more persistent about being helpful to this woman. Sometimes people well into their adult years – more so if they are very ill and/or elderly need this.

Christianity meets America: that concept about covers much of it.

Do I wish I were an illiterate maid working 14 hours a day doing laundry and cooking on a dangerous stove that doesn’t actually work while bleeding on rough (and unsanitary) pieces of cloth attached to some weird belt device?

.

The conversation probably should have ended…except…it’s what a bunch of white guys think

.
Why must we always bastardize perfectly innocent discourse? To anyone who read this exchange, it would be quite apparent that I was not glorifying or romanticizing the social conditions of the past. I was not turning a blind eye to the lack of women’s rights or to segregation or slavery. I am not viewing this through the prism of a white male. I was speaking solely to the individuals of the past, their self-preserving abilities, mental fortitude, and intellectual prowess in stark contrast to my generation of snotty iPod worshippers. But all any of you took away from this was that I have the audacity to say anything kind about the past, you know that dark decrepit place where people held backwards views and such. Are there any progressives who actually find history interesting?

Exiled,

I grasp it.
As I said, I had a true fascination of a period about forty years before my birth in era of bootleggers vs cops, the wildcat strikes in factories, the red squad and J. Edgar Hoover chasing out any progressive as a communist through the era of the second world war, the storming of the beach at Normandy and the heroics of those times.

However, I thought back, how do I know that I would have, even if I had lived then, experienced any of those things. I might have been one of the thousands of young people who caught polio (rather than my own, real-life healthy childhood), been unemployed and so on.

I think there is far less disagreement than you think there is.

It is just that there are, if anything, more people in more places in days gone by you would much rather not have been than there are in places today in the developed world.

Should somebody, very hypothetically, have put you in a time machine and dropped you in a random place in the distant past, you might have been with goofy, shallow comic book readers (early this century) with shallow and vacant New York socialites or some other terrible scenario where the great people and great places did not happen around you.

Yes, people today can include many wimpy and self absorbed people, but, it is my belief later on in life is that there were just as many people with that mentality throughout all of history.

Instead of IPods, they were peasant farmers obsessed with mud, dirt and an obsession with religion not imaginable today anywhere outside of the most extreme places in the Islamic world.

There were heroes then, there are heroes now and there will be heroes in the future.

You know, I realize that coming to know Christ is a tricky thing. Mother Teresa was an amazing human being. But that’s not what Jesus did. Jesus’ ministry only lasted 3 years. What was he doing all that time? I’m sure he was helping, I am sure he was doing. But I know it says he was learning too, he was figuring out how to be a human and love them. I deal with a lot of women who are depressed because they THINK they should be Mother T when actually they need to figure out THEIR road, their path. I believe all of us have a caling, so to speak. Hers is a selfless and noble one. But not all of us have her gifts, her talents and her inclinations. She, believe it or not, had to develop her abilities I expect. And she had limitations as well. I work with people, mostly women, who have to figure out what the “light within them” tells them to do. There are true principles that need to be applied in each life. Mother T chose her road — it was her car, her seatbelt. No one MADE her be nice. Her choice is what makes her a “saint”. We all have to learn how to be independent, but ALSO interdependent. Two skills – not one choice between them.

Why must we always bastardize perfectly innocent discourse? To anyone who read this exchange, it would be quite apparent that I was not glorifying or romanticizing the social conditions of the past.
.
Innocence is not the issue. The issue is that you are failing to integrate your acknowledgement of the social progress that has been made with your assessment of the “quality” of individuals in this century, the 19th century, etc. To choose a really basic example, I would say that however you define “quality”, mine is greater because I know how to read. You’re also not looking at how we were slaves to a lack of technology. Am I person of better quality because I don’t have to worry about that belt device? Well, I’m certainly not worse. Is someone who spends 12 hours a week washing laundry without automated devices a person of better quality than someone who uses a washing machine and spends 30 minutes a week doing laundry? Not necessarily.
.
Our “self-preserving abilities, mental fortitude, and intellectual prowess” are not completely unconnected to the prejudices we encounter. If that’s the standard we’re using, then not having to encounter people on a daily basis who assume I am stupid, shallow, weak, or inherently corrupt because of my gender has made me a person of better quality.
.
Your analysis here is nothing if not innocent. Too innocent to grasp that prejudice harms the very core of anyone it touches or resides in. And that’s the problem.

Rose:
.
Is there anything worse than prejudice?
.
Is cowardice worse?
.
How about decadence?

Is there anything worse than prejudice?
.
Is cowardice worse?
.
How about decadence?
.
stuart, could be. What’s the point of knowing the right thing if you are too cowardly or selfish to do it? I guess it would be a matter of degrees and situations.
.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that people are of better “quality” (still not really sure what that means…) than they have ever been because there is less prejudice. I am making no judgments about that. I’m just saying that the prejudice we encounter and possess affects our character, including our intellectual prowess and mental fortitude. So a comparative analysis of the quality of people in this century and past centuries should include an examination of how prejudice has affected both its propagators and targets in different times and places.
.
Exiled appears to be saying these two discussions can be separate: E.g. We can compare the quality of people in contemporary America with the quality of people in antebellum America without looking at slavery. Just to be clear, I understand that exiled is not denying the horror of slavery. It just seems that he is ignoring how the horror of slavery affected people’s intellects, mental fortitude, etc.
.
BTW, it’s far too simplistic to suggest that there is less of every kind of prejudice now than at any other time or place. The concept of “History” isn’t excluded to the last millennia of human life in Europe. And I say “human” because many of our European ancestors would probably be appalled by how we treat livestock today. Should that perhaps count for something when we compare different times and places? IMO, it’s a persuasive argument.

Rose:
.
Thanks so much for the comprehensive reply.
.
I’d like to put the topic you raise of Euro-centrism aside for a moment to ask:
.
Is prejudice simply a lack of knowledge, i.e. ignorance?
.
You seem to be considering it a character flaw, as cowardice is.
.
Isn’t it possible to see prejudice throughout human history as a lack of understanding, much like a lack of understanding with respect to the cause of thunder and lightening being attributed to ghostly spirits? Even considering the targets of prejudice –which is, in actuality, to say every individual, majority or minority, powerful or powerless within a culture– can’t the effect you posit on the character of the victim of cultural hegemony be understood to be a lack of self-knowledge, an alienation from the unaffected self?
.
In that light, isn’t it easily possible to have two separate discussions, one about the quality of character of people, and the other about the level of knowledge of people?
.
Isn’t it possible to have a discussion of classical Rome, in which slavery was a component of relations of production, in comparison to modern Rome, in which political equality is now recognized as a fundamental feature of useful human organization, without discussing the rise or decline of traits such as modesty or courage?
.
Isn’t it possible to have a conversation about human virtue independent of historical levels of prejudice, just like we could speak of character independent of the historical awareness of bacteria or the properties of electromagnetism?
.
When people in 14th century Europe were unaware of the existence of germs carried by fleas borne by rats, or lung viruses, they were unable to save themselves from the Black Death, a genocidal event that caused the cruel, agonizing deaths of young and old, perhaps up to two-thirds of the entire continent. Ignorance caused a century and a half of needless human suffering. Ignorance is tragic.
.
Isn’t prejudice a type of ignorance, and the extent of its damage a function of its relationship to social organization?
.
How is unawareness the same as lack of virtuous character, like venality or hubris or cowardice?

Exiled appears to be saying these two discussions can be separate: E.g. We can compare the quality of people in contemporary America with the quality of people in antebellum America without looking at slavery.
~
Precisely. I absolutely believe we can distinguish between the two, for if we inherently link the human condition to the level of individual quality, then quality remains static. Let me explain. In your suggestion that individual quality has improved with the abolition of slavery, for example, or the acceptance of women as equals in society, you gloss over other areas of the social condition that have digressed. Essentially, you are cherry-picking which social developments you wish to highlight as emblematic of improved individual quality. Are we of higher quality because of these developments in spite of the vast disparity between the developed world and the third world? I would venture a guess that a young teen girl living in the DR Congo would disagree with your assessment that individual quality has improved because of social improvements in the United States. What of the Sudan? Gaza? Burma?
.
You see, Rose, the human condition has improved in pockets, but social destitution and inequality remain facts of life in many parts of the world. Not only do these societal ills thwart your conclusion of perceived social improvement, but what does our turning of a blind eye to these matters say of our individual qualities? Are we in the United States of better quality, stronger mental fortitude, and intellectual prowess simply because of legal equality and tampons, whereas those living in the third world lack these and therefor lack our level of individual quality? Are we in the United States of better individual quality even though we glorify the frivolity of life and cherish entertainment value over virtuous pursuit of righteousness the world over?
.
No, Rose, I do believe that the individual qualities existent in man must be analyzed absent of the global human condition. Otherwise, qualities have not changed, for global conditions have not reached the level of superiority that you seem to present, or are you saying that individual qualities have improved only in those areas where there has been social progress? Are you saying that Americans and Europeans are of higher individual quality than Nigerians or Palestinians?

In that light, isn’t it easily possible to have two separate discussions, one about the quality of character of people, and the other about the level of knowledge of people?
.
stuart, Not if you define quality as including “intellectual prowess”. And not if the quality of a person has some relation to how he or she treats other people. Frankly, if we are defining “quality” in such a limited sense I have little interest in the discussion! I would also point out that prejudice can be very convenient. It can serve the cowardice and decadence you mentioned earlier.
.
Isn’t it possible to have a conversation about human virtue independent of historical levels of prejudice, just like we could speak of character independent of the historical awareness of bacteria or the properties of electromagnetism?
.
One is the creation of humans, the others are not. This discussion relates to the Wacquant article I linked to last year. Prejudice isn’t some tragedy we have no or little responsibility for, and must struggle to overcome. It’s something we produce. It’s like the difference between cancer and genocide: both kill millions but humanity is only responsible for one. And when humanity is responsible for the other – such as during the misinformation campaign about the dangers of tobacco smoke – it does say something about us. The imminent explosion of tobacco-related cancers in developing countries is relevant to who we are as human beings in a way that deaths from poorly understood illnesses, such as ovarian cancer, are not.
.
Isn’t prejudice a type of ignorance, and the extent of its damage a function of its relationship to social organization?
.
Ignorance, along with stupidity, is often one of the products or effects of prejudice. It is also usually deliberate when it supports prejudice, and almost always so when the prejudice itself is very convenient. But first “ignorance” needs to be defined. There is a distinction between ignorance in the sense of a lack of knowledge and ignorance in the sense of actively false knowledge, especially when the ignorance would be easy to correct. Not knowing the earth is round is the first type of ignorance. Believing that your neighbor is inherently corrupt because of her gender is the second type. Believing that water causes fire is also the second type. The distinction is based on belief: Ignorance coupled with belief, especially but not only when the ignorant belief is obviously false, is unlike ignorance that is free of belief and often full of curiosity.
.
We are born ignorant; we are not born believing that Jews caused the Black Death.
.
Correcting ignorance can of course often help reduce prejudice. That is because ignorance helps justify prejudice; the prejudice usually arises because it is convenient, and the ignorant belief is adopted to support and justify the prejudice. The history of slavery, racism, Social Darwinism and the economic realities of tobacco farming illustrate this.
.
Isn’t it possible to have a discussion of classical Rome, in which slavery was a component of relations of production, in comparison to modern Rome, in which political equality is now recognized as a fundamental feature of useful human organization, without discussing the rise or decline of traits such as modesty or courage?
.
That’s a great question. I think it depends the kind of discussion, and area of comparison. If the subject is people, I would say not. Those traits seem pretty integral to a discussion of “useful human organization”. Perhaps if architecture was the area of comparison, one could have an adequate if not comprehensive discussion without discussing courage.
.
Finally (sorry for the length!), I just want to emphasize again that prejudice affects the characters of its targets, not just its perpetrators. In fact, that’s what I was mainly focusing on, perhaps because that’s easier for me to relate to: I think frequently encountering people who thought I was stupid and corrupt because of my gender would have made me a person of inferior quality. Which I supposes raises another distinction with respect to prejudice: the kind that says you’re comparatively better vs. the kind that says you’re comparatively worse. I very much doubt they will affect a person’s quality in the same way.

Essentially, you are cherry-picking which social developments you wish to highlight as emblematic of improved individual quality. Are we of higher quality because of these developments in spite of the vast disparity between the developed world and the third world? I would venture a guess that a young teen girl living in the DR Congo would disagree with your assessment that individual quality has improved because of social improvements in the United States. What of the Sudan? Gaza? Burma?
.
exiled, Perhaps you missed this comment of mine? “BTW, it’s far too simplistic to suggest that there is less of every kind of prejudice now than at any other time or place. The concept of “History” isn’t excluded to the last millennia of human life in Europe. And I say “human” because many of our European ancestors would probably be appalled by how we treat livestock today. Should that perhaps count for something when we compare different times and places? IMO, it’s a persuasive argument.”
.
I’ll reiterate that I am not saying that humans are of higher quality than they have ever been, or even necessarily that people in developed countries are. I am questioning your assessment, not making one of my own. The most I would say is that people in the western developed world are of better or equal quality than they were 150 years ago.
.
Are you saying that Americans and Europeans are of higher individual quality than Nigerians or Palestinians?
.
Are you not precisely saying the reverse? Surely you are not suggesting that this technological revolution has made us people of lower quality to an equal degree around the globe when its effects have been so unevenly distributed. iPod dependence is not the same problem in Kerala as it is in London. Nor is the addiction to video games equally prevalent among men and women.
.
Are we in the United States of better individual quality even though we glorify the frivolity of life and cherish entertainment value over virtuous pursuit of righteousness the world over?
.
Um… I don’t even know where to start with that sentence! Once again, I’m not making any assessment here: I am only arguing about what is relevant to such an assessment. And I know this is a dying thread, but I would be interested in knowing what historical eras you are comparing. If you are suggesting that this is a time of unprecedented frivolity in human existence I would have to disagree.
.
Not only do these societal ills thwart your conclusion of perceived social improvement, but what does our turning of a blind eye to these matters say of our individual qualities?
.
It says terrible things. Which was the whole point of my argument that prejudice, along with progress and decline in those areas (sorry for the historical progressivism in my vocabulary here – I don’t have the time to fix that), is relevant to a discussion about our quality as human beings.

exiled, I mistakenly posted my reply at the end of the comments.

Rose, you’re back! I’ve missed you.

Thanks, KT! I’ve missed my fellow Swamplanders too. If only my posts here counted for university credits…

If only my posts here counted for university credits…
.
They should, Rose, they should.