Concord, MA – our neighbor town – home to minutemen, abolitionists, transcendentalists, feminists – and Henry David Thoreau – has a history to be proud of. But Concord, MA, was also slave town and a place where scenes of cruelty toward enslaved and free black people were played out in places very familiar to me.  I had no idea - until just recently, thanks to a museum exhibit and a book which have taken on these issues, with a view to showing a more complete truth, some of it quite ugly. It’s too easy to point fault at the southern states for the long history of racial trouble in this country. Even in the most “enlightened” of places, sad and terrible things have occured, never reckoned with, never accounted for, never faced, hidden over. 
 
In the 1770’s, a man named Case Feen, enslaved in Africa, was chopping wood on a winter’s day for his Concord master. The master’s son pelted him with snowballs as he worked, for fun.  Case turned and threw his ax toward the youth, missing. In fear of his life, he took off through Gowings Swamp, a place I pass on my drive into Concord; he ran through the Great Meadows, where I go to bird-watch; and he hid in the shallow waters of the Concord River, where I have skipped stones with my sons; escaping the townsmen who had turned out with guns and dogs in pursuit of a fugitive slave. He gave himself up to a neighbor and slipped away to enlist in the colonial troops – ultimately returning to work in Concord as a freedman, since he had no where else to go and his labor was still needed.
 
In another story, Brister, a freed slave living in Concord, was never humble enough to find acceptance or even tolerance from his white neighbors, even in his older years. One day, a white man and his friends, decided to test and torment 68-year old Brister, by luring him into a barn with an angry bull, and locking the door shut, leaving him with only an ax for defense. To the men’s surprise, Brister managed to kill the bull and survive, finally emerging through the unlocked door – but “white as a ghost” from his battle, which became the punch-line of the other men’s “joke”-- having turned a black man white from fright, traumatized and silenced for the remainder of his years.
 
Not every story involving the black population of Concord in its early years is a tragic one, but none is very happy. A young woman, Ellen Garrison Jackson, in spite of discrimination, was a star pupil at the Concord public schools, going on to become an abolitionist before the Civil War, and a teacher to freed men and women after the war, but she left Concord in her late teens, never to return. There was no life for her there. Not long after the Civil war, the small population of black residents in Concord disappeared from the landscape – migrating out, or succumbing to disease and malnourishment, from their lack of ability to own and work viable farmland.
 
I’ve lived in Bedford, MA, located between Lexington and Concord, for almost 25 years – and am an ardent student of history – there’s hardly a local tour I’ve missed. But, only in recent years have I learned these different versions of their history - through a visit to the Robbins House museum near Concord’s North Bridge battle site, home to black families in the 19th century.  And from reading “Black Walden” by hometown author and professor, Elise Lemire – who says she herself was taught nothing of this other history while growing up in Concord. From them, I’ve learned about the lives of people of color who moved here or were brought here, gleaned in large part from a surprising source: the journals of Henry David Thoreau, and “Walden” itself – where Thoreau speculates on former residents – squatters who were allowed only to live on undesirable soil, surviving on the fringes until no more were left. 
 
It’s not just “additional” history that’s come to light, but essential history, that impacts the traditional interpretations. The “freedom” to plot and to act against the royalist government was allowed in part from enslaved, unpaid labor. Abolitionists were willing to upset the social and economic systems of the South, but not to accept people of color as neighbors. And as always, always, we need to “follow the money” of early American prosperity – which in the case of northern businessmen, as well as southerners, was often tied up, one way or another, in the trade of enslaved human beings. 

Sexual harassment on the job, sexual assault on campus, sexual abuse in the church and private schools – none of this is new. In fact, it’s old, old stuff – covered up for ages. So, why is it now “NEWS” of the type that hasn’t disappeared over night? After the first women spoke up, many chimed in, offered support, while others shook their heads in confusion, skepticism, and even worry. “Where will it end?”
 
 I’m surprised and glad the day has come, given my own experiences as a young single woman on my own supporting myself in the 70s and 80s. Stuff happened, bad stuff. But let me say here, also, that in my own long history, I encountered so many more good men of kindness and character. And the men I said “No” to, for whatever reason, stopped what they were doing, and I was never assaulted. For that I am grateful.
 
I’ve been pondering this – about sharing some incidents that happened when I was a teen, at my workplace.  The first involved my boss, the owner, who asked me to accompany him to a location remote from the main business for some purpose, and so I went along.  When we were some distance away, out of sight, he parked and started kissing me – the first time ever kissed by a grown man-- although I didn’t want to. I was so surprised, I let it go for a few minutes before pulling back, doubtfully.  He wiped his mouth, started to drive away, and never said a word, then or after.  I learned quickly to become “busy” and engaged with customers or a job if he came around.
 
In another incident, also at the work place, a customer came up from behind, put his arms around me and squeezed my breasts.  He had me pretty firmly, but I elbowed him and stepped away, only looking to see who it was and give him a dirty look. I remember thinking, “You old geeser” – although he was probably in his 50’s.  I wasn’t so much afraid – I could have gotten away, but I was disgusted and offended. I didn’t say anything then. Who was I going to complain to – the boss?  On another occasion, on another job, my new boss asked me out for dinner and drinks ON MY FIRST DAY – saying afterwards he’d like to go out again. I had to say NO – in fear of risking my job – which he accepted, but it made for an awkward situation. Waiting tables at a "fine establishment"? Forget about it; hands everywhere.
 
From those experiences, I was wary and careful about being alone with men in the workplace, or other situations out of the public eye – including conferences where there was lots of drinking – early to bed, lock my door. I know that other women handled things differently. And, let’s be real, there are women who have used looks, sexuality, etc. as a way of getting what they wanted, when other forms of power were so much harder to get. But if I had a daughter, I wouldn’t want her hampered or limited in opportunities because she was made to feel uncomfortable at work – that’s just another way of keeping someone “in their place”-- because it’s part of the power structure that has existed and been reinforced by silence.
 
It NEVER occurred to me to complain or ask for help. And I thought I was a feminist!  I thought it was normal to dodge guys who did or said something inappropriate.  What’s weird is I remember reading a passage from a book – Tom Jones by Henry Fielding, (I think) – that compared a young, unmarried woman on her own, between the safety of father and husband, as  “hare” on the run from hunters in pursuit. And I thought we were so far removed from that day!
 
 How did we reach the tipping point after so many years and so many incidents, so much silence, and so much disbelieving?  I can only conclude that enough younger women, emboldened by the gains of women in terms of power and economics, are just not willing to take the inappropriate behavior – to go along.  The actors and celebrities who started the protest against Harvey Weinstein had reached a social, emotional and psychological place where they decided it was worth this risk to speak out. Then the #metoo movement gained traction from women and some men of all ages, adding their stories.  I know this hasn’t been everyone’s experience – men or women – but I know enough people, certainly women of my age group, who went through this. And kept silent.
 
I’m glad these people spoke up. I never reached that point of speaking publicly – until now – when those men are long past accounting for. But I have told these things to my husband and my sons – and told them, too, I will be silent no more.

Perhaps we have reason to thank Russia – for the DNC hacks, the election meddling – and so much more.  But principally for revealing ourselves to ourselves.  Helping us in the USA, finally, take off the “cloak of innocence” that so many have worn since our nation’s beginnings. That is, the willing ignorance about parts of our history, such as Native American genocide or the unprosecuted lynchings of the Jim Crow era. The lack of accountability for how our behaviors have had consequences for others or for the environment. And, to some extent, a basic refusal to deal with a reality that calls to question some of our illusions of freedom and prosperity, aka, the American dream. For all the achievements and innovation of the American culture, there is a stubborn denial of the true costs. Ta-Nahisi Coates calls it the “plundering” of land and bodies and environment – the taking for gain without regard for harm to others or our collective future.
 
We have Russia to thank for showing us that our cyber-intelligence is not so first rate as we might have thought. Some of the major discoveries of governmental email hacking came out of AP reporters' investigations, not the FBI – which moved slowly to notify victims well after they knew.  We can thank Russia for showing that America is not as savvy, desperate or innovative in knowing how to undermine elections.  We never even guessed what they might be up to – too naïve, it seems.
 
We have Russia to thank for showing us that our social media companies were very capable of looking the other way when new users with Russian names and/or addresses, opened accounts, bought advertising and started posting “fake news” during the last presidential election. According to an article in the Boston Globe, “Facebook has acknowledged that more than 126 million users may have seen inflammatory political ads bought by a Russian company, The Internet Research Agency.”
 
 Russia helped us to see that many users of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, as well as visitors to other websites, are not likely to question assertions or check sources before responding and/or sharing false information. Is it any consolation that the Russians did the same thing in Great Britain at the time of the Brexit vote – also very close, also could have gone the other way? Pretty much, both elections stolen out from under our feet, as we were waiting and hoping and casting our votes, heedless of the danger.
 
We have Russia to thank for showing us that our own politicians were ready, if not complicit, in riding the waves of bad information, rumors, and outright lies.  The plutocrats of post-Communist Russia were able to connect with and enable American plutocrats to be bolder and braver, more explicit in getting what they want. And to use their leadership to inspire fiercer, more virulent language and behavior in their followers, hoping to share the spoils or avoid the targettng.
 
Mainly, the Russian interference revealed, but did not cause, the underlying racism of American society.  Yes, significant progress has been made, but not without a “backlash” of bias and violence against people of color or different religions. America, being a patchwork of cultures and ethnic groups, has always had frictions and tensions related to assimilation or accommodation, but mostly, gradually, freedoms and rights have spread across populations.  Until they haven’t.  Progress is not inevitable, and can be reversed, at least in the short term. 
 
Those clever Russians, they got us this time. Caught snoozing. But for what reason? What’s their end game? It’s not clear to me what the long-range agenda might be – except to weaken the USA and the EU, creating an atmosphere more beneficial for plutocrats to consolidate their own trans-global power.  Or, is it that they want to shake the grip of American dominance that has prevailed over the last half-century? Is it “against” something, rather than for?  America may not have been quite as exceptional in all ways as we might have hoped or thought, truth be told. For it's own purposes, Russia has been kind enough to hold up a mirror for us to look at ourselves – not always a pleasing image.
 
The potential for true greatness in America -- in freeing the creative energy of the greatest number of people in the greatest number of possible situations is not lost – yet – unless we allow the plunderers to continue, by not doing our part in holding them accountable.

Even dead a couple hundred years, Jane Austen has legions of fans. I’m jealous. For a woman author from the 1700’s who didn’t get a lot of support or recognition in her own lifetime, her brand has endured and grown…into a literary empire as well as movie and TV industry.  Good for you, Jane!
 
Gentle readers, you may well appreciate Jane Austen, but you don’t know Jane like I know Jane.  I like to think of us as sisters, almost, sharing a special bond….of writing (at least trying) and also “genteel poverty”. That’s the kind of poverty you were not born into, but spent time in after some kind of disaster wrecked your comfortable middle-class existence.  In our case, both of us lost fathers who were educated and respectable gentlemen. With our dads went the family’s main source of income and the loss of financial security and certain opportunities. We both spent time living with other relatives and we both struggled to figure out our place in the world…and how to get by.  
 
As it turns out, Jane’s brother eventually was able to help out financially, and Jane went on to produce classic literature (although she got little benefit from that).  She never married nor had children. I paid my way through college and spent some time perusing my theater dreams, living on my own, supporting myself with a variety of jobs, pretty much living hand to mouth until I became more financial secure through marriage (my husband and I were fairly equal wage earners in our early years, but he soon outdistanced me after the children were born). My other siblings did not have it easy, but chose more prudent employment or achieved financial security through military service.
 
Of course, two hundred years apart, separated by 3,000 miles, Jane and I did not live identical existences.  In her writing, she had a keen eye for social customs and manners that dominated her world.  As a contemporary American, I was less tuned into those kind distinctionss, until I began so see how truly prevalent they are, in spite of what we tell ourselves. It’s our little secret, Jane’s and mine, that the American dream, like the British, can capsize and sink just as easily as it rises, and often does. It’s no coincidence that a modern rendition of Jane’s stories are the “cozies” – Agatha Christie style murder mysteries, where a chief motive for murder is inheritance. No sociopaths here, just “rational” upper middle-class individuals in utter terror of losing their identities – tied to their income and socio-economic status. Truly, a whites-only affliction.
 
In Jane’s day, there was a stark future for spinsters who did not marry well.  Or, an emotional prison for those who did marry, but not well.  For a woman today, society is still structured so that men are better paid and less expected to be caregivers.  If a woman with young children is divorced or widowed, she must still somehow find means of income AND cover childcare. The math does not add up. There is a modicum of aid through government programs, but none is designed for comfort, only for getting by. Some women will still marry for financial security, but that is uncertain in a day of high divorce and insecure employment. I know personally several educated white women with brains, skills and experience who have ended up in tough financial straights due to divorce/widowhood and caregiving responsibilities. It still happens, not infrequently. Welcome, my sisters, to the world of “genteel poverty”.
 
OK, my poverty was never quite as “genteel” as Jane’s – it had to be more rough and tumble being out in the world. I took lots of sh** jobs to pay my rent and expenses.  At one time, I explored donating my womb as a surrogate parent – the $10,000 fee was very enticing, but I just couldn’t do it—too genteel, I guess.
 
What was hardest for me, I think, was what was hardest for Jane: putting on a good front, that nice smile, when everything at home was falling apart.  Of course, you had to use good manners, speak well, and to go along with what was socially expected. But the other part of you is thinking desperately, “Will they see these run-down shoes? How will I pay this bill?  I haven’t eaten a good, square meal in weeks and months.”  What about when my “date’s” family discovers I’m from a “broken home” without money of my own – will they think I’m a “gold-digger?
 
Sometimes, a nice girl like me (and Jane) would just like to curse the world, and run off to hide under our blankets with a good book.  Or, we’d like to write out stories of how it all turns out fine for the good-hearted, deserving people.  The prick of discomfort, of worry, and of having known a better life is what turns us inward and burns inside our breasts. If we should ever meet in the afterlife, Jane and I, I expect we’ll have a lot to talk about.

My husband and I just finished listening to Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance in the car on our various trips. We agreed that it was worth listening to, with engaging stories narrated by the author himself. But I had to keep putting my tablet on pause to vent some of my issues with Vance’s analysis.  Yes, I agree, the problems of the group of people he comes from, which he calls Hillbillies, are cultural – that is, learned and handed down. He says, “We spend our way into the poorhouse. We buy giant TVs and iPads. Our children wear nice clothes thanks to high-interest credit cards and payday loans. We purchase homes we don’t need, refinance them for more spending money, and declare bankruptcy. . . . Thrift is inimical to our being,” Betsy Radar, with the same Appalachian background but a thrifty family, takes issue with Vance in her response in The Washington Post.



And so do I.  First, because Vance’s background culture is not likely as monolithic as he presents it. And second, because he’s describing pretty much all of American culture, top to bottom, in the sense of making sometimes bad choices, overspending, bad health habits, not doing their share for the environment, not informing themselves with good sources and not participating in democracy--the “freedom from being held accountable for our actions in America”.  Why pick on the poor, those who receive government aid for basic necessities, mainly single parent families living in bad housing with bad resources and education opportunities? There may be generations of trauma and racism, as well as lack of social capital – how to navigate “the system” --as opposed to those with plenty of money who drive up housing and health care costs by overspending and not taking good care of themselves. Simply put, irresponsible behavior.


At this time, so many of our health problems are disease of lifestyle – not infection or famine or accidents.  Overeating, fast food, overdrinking, smoking, lack of exercise.  I’m not fat-shaming here. Some people are just big – and may be perfectly healthy. Someone thin may not be fit at all.  But – the extra weight or the lack of exercise – in many cases directly contribute to diabetes, heart problems, high blood pressure, arthritic joints, back pain, etc. This is costly to society in terms of insurance premiums, health care – and work missed.


Addiction in America doesn’t respect social or economic barriers. The opioid crisis may have come out of unregulated pain prescriptions, but comfortably middle-class young people have overdosed at record numbers. Is it really the high?  Or, perhaps, emotional pain, uncertainty, a lack of purpose – even from otherwise well off young people?


Money problems. Apparently Americans are not good at saving, either – no matter the income level.  For those with greater incomes, the extra spending may be for things they don’t need – mcmansions, big cars, eating out, private schools, children’s sports programs, expensive vacations – fine, until there’s nothing left to retire on.  Instead of paying down mortgages, some folks re-finance in order to pay off credit card debt.  If they’re lucky, they may get a bump when the grandparents die, but not necessarily--if they have a long or expensive old age.  Many folks in nursing homes are average middle class folks who had little saved and now depend on Medicaid – government aid.
As described by Vance, the problems of “hillbillies” are those of attitude as much as circumstance (not related to skin color, language, religion or ethnic customs) – partly related to the Scotch-Irish heritage and “honor culture” of their forbears, forces not well explained. These are, in many instances, problems of their own making – a kind of inability to manage strong emotions of anger and resentment; and a lack of forming communities of mutual support. As Vance sees it, money given to the poor is wasted and won’t change their lot. But not all poor are the same: refugees, immigrants, those affected by past and present racism, escapees from relationship abuse, those who work hard and are thrifty, but cannot achieve a living wage never mind the ability to put money aside.  They have actual, concrete reasons for their situation.



There are two problems here: the violent, self-defeating and self-medicating behavior of Vance’s version of Hillbillies.  And the overspending and unhealthy behaviors of Americans across the board.  Both seem emotional, not rational problems. “Poverty is the new obscenity” I once read.  Are the poor too repulsive to look at or consider? Or is a rich nation which picks on its poor that is so obscene?


e to edit.

My mother and I were talking about the recent NFL controversy regarding symbols: taking a knee, the flag, and the national anthem. We concluded only that symbols mean different things to different people, and that some people are very attached to the symbol itself, regardless of what it means to others.  My mother said she thought the players were taking a knee in honor of someone who had died, or, possibly for victims of the hurricanes.
She didn’t know the backstory about Colin Kaepernick taking a knee

during the national anthem back in the spring, generally agreed to mean in protest of police killing of black people, and racial injustice generally.  She heard on TV that some people felt the players were disrespecting the flag, the country, and, by extension, the military.  Others felt that it was the players’ right to express their views during the time before the game when the focus, by custom, was on the national identity. Only after Trump made his comments did the actions escalate by the players, and coaches, before the next games – in all different manners – as confused as diverse as the spectators’ reactions.
 That’s the problem with symbols. They don’t have inherent meaning – a rose does not mean love all by itself – we choose what the meaning is, and certainly it differs across time and cultures. A rose most likely does not mean love to those living in the Arctic, for instance.

Another example of this would be the Confederate monuments, meaning honoring the war dead to some; while others, certainly most black Americans feel threatened by it: the message they get is “we honor those who died trying to keep black people enslaved.”  The fact that many of the monuments were raised well after the end of the Civil war, many during the Jim Crow era, suggests the symbols retain some of the message of white supremacy.

The further problem is that we can’t insist that everyone view symbols the same way that we do. And if we try to, there is large room for mistakes and conflict. When one of the NFL players was interviewed, he was distressed to think that people interpreted the gesture of taking a knee as being against the military – not so, he said, many players had family members actively serving, and they would not choose to insult them.

So, taking the knee – as a symbol – is just what many athletes do when listening to the coach –a source of wisdom – and/or for a moment of prayer. It would seem mainly peaceful, humbling and an appeal for action and recognition.  On its merits, I don’t find it disrespectful, not like turning their backs or covering their ears, or mooning, for example.

The national anthem – as a symbol – is somewhat military based, celebrating battles in war.  I would rather hear America the Beautiful, myself.  I’m not sure why it became a custom during games – perhaps the “war” like confrontations on the field.  In any case, it’s not a prayer and it’s not in church. People respond in different ways, in my experience.

The flag – as a symbol.  We fly the American flag at our house every day; and one inside and one outside at the Cape house in Falmouth. This predates 9/11. I think it’s Don’s family as children of immigrants, they wanted to show – and be seen – as supporting the country.  After the last election, we wondered, “Does flying the flag now symbolize the new administration and its nationalist agenda?” Somehow the Trump voters were able to create that association; but that’s not the association we wanted. After some thought, I said. “Of course we’ll still fly the flag. We’re no less American.  We want it to symbolize all kinds of Americans, including us. ” By flying the flag, we choose it to mean our ideal of America, not another version that has been appropriated in recent years.

The NFL controversy has given way to the mass shooting in Las Vegas, and more, continuing news about the hurricanes.  Mostly, the start of game is back to normal – and we’ll never know if there was money at stake or jobs on the line.  It’s not a happy thing to see people protesting – in most cases there is some basis to it. But I feel that Americans have a right to freedom of expression, and I would defend that right in those circumstances by those players. Trump is right that the spectators can choose not to watch the game; that’s their right, too. 

In the end, Colin Kaepernick put his career on the line – for a principle. His choice. But a high price to pay for speaking up.  Most black Americans have been in this country for longer than most immigrant Americans – but their experience has not been great. When and where should they protest the unjust circumstances that endure? 

In recent days, I see increasing divisiveness -- not less. Not moving toward greater understanding of those who feel differently -- like those who are drawn to the white nationalist movement and its agenda. Coming to the rally prepared for battle and ramming a car into a crowd constitutes domestic terrorism.  I will never agree with that view and believe that it’s important to protest any movement that supports white supremacy.  But it doesn’t serve to de-humanize the white racists themselves or to make them the scapegoats entirely for racism that has advantaged whites for centuries and has never really been addressed.
 
White racism is no good for anyone. Minority populations know how terrible, unfair and oppressive the experience has been. Liberal whites see injustice, blaming it on the past and on others. Two prominent African American writers, Frederick Douglass and James Baldwin, have described the corrosive, blinding and soul-destroying effects of white racism on whites themselves and on society as a whole. And that is true today.
 
White racism is killing off white men. Some white men in American are having a hard time of it: the loss of jobs, the dislocation, the portrayal in the media. Those who work in the health fields have watched the life expectancy for white men go down in the present generation – for the first time, ever, since statistics have been kept – unlike other groups. This is partly due to poor health habits, but even more from depression, drinking, drugging and suicide.  Their standard of living has declined from the previous generation, as well as their social status. Only, objectively, THEY ARE STILL BETTER OFF ON ALMOST EVERY ECONOMIC MEASURE than women, people of color, immigrants, and other minorities.
 
It is the expectation of many white folks in America that they deserve to do well, because this is their country and their birthright.  They cite hard work, following rules, fighting the nation’s battles – which other races and genders have done as well, but not seen the same benefits.  And they blame the decline on immigrants, robots, affirmative action, when to some extent it’s a social and class problem; the shrinking of the middle class, aided by the very rich who would keep all struggling groups divided. It’s just harder for some white folks, men especially, to accept being one of the struggling groups. And it’s hard to see white racism for the disease it is with white vision.
 
There is a telling scene in the recent TV series, “American Crime” (season 3), where a young white man in rural North Carolina, hooked on pills and out of money, makes a last desperate call to a brother who will not help. A Hispanic recruiter for a farm comes along, offering work, wages, a place to live. The young man wants to know, “Doing what?” When the recruiter answers, “Picking tomatoes,” the young man laughs at him.  What? He’s not going to do that. Only he does, and it’s brutal.
 
It takes a whole lot of effort from a whole lot of white people to change direction. It takes giving up something of value: best homes, best schools, best jobs to make room for others. Changes in zoning, in transportation, using more taxes for collective good, rather than individual advancement. Take as an example, an exceedingly well qualified white male candidate for med school, who didn’t get all the admissions he might have a generation ago – maybe ten years ago – because of decisions to make the playing field more equal and value qualities other than “best positioned.” Rather than cry “unfair”, maybe it’s better to look at it as “making less unfair” than it’s been in the past.
 
I believe it’s going to come some day to reparations – making up in some form, financial and legal, for the labor, lives and land of Americans of color, which were taken by force and by legal maneuvering.  In a matter of time, between DNA and family history documentation, we’re going to find out what was thought safely hidden in the past, impacting current day rights and ownership. Because it’s the American way – to use the law to make restitution.

White racists are not going to succeed in the end to get this country to go backwards. America was Not so Great Before, for many people.  I continue to believe this country has the potential for greatness unlike any other place at any other time, and is moving inexorably in that direction. The question is how many more people will suffer or die along the way?

old charleottsville post