Cancel Culture Is Nothing New: Examples Ancient and Past

12 Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” 13 But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the leaders. 
--John 7:12-13 (NIV)

While reading from the Gospel of John recently I was struck by the statement highlighted above. They were talking about Jesus, of course. Their response--fear of expressing their thoughts publicly--seemed to encapsulate our moment in history these past three years. People are afraid to speak publicly about many issues out of fear. Jobs have been lost for expressing the wrong point of view on a hot topic. Many are ridiculed simply for having honest doubts.

*

When I was growing up my mother used to say, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Nowadays people are bullied and bludgeoned for questioning the current pop creed. This is not the way people are "won over" to a new idea that goes contrary to their beliefs or experience.

Then again, this is nothing new. Read the story about the man born blind whom Jesus healed. It's found in the Gospel of John, chapter 9. The religious leaders tried to corner his parents, but the parents knew it so they played it coy and gave evasive replies. 

20 “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. 21 But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” 22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. 23 That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” --John 7:12-13

One of the things I like about these stories from the Bible is that the behavior of these characters corresponds with the behavior we see in people today. Insecurity, alertness, political pressure, sorrow, confusion, fear of those in authority... It's nothing new.

*

Throughout history there have been numerous instances where freedom of speech has been abridged by both governmental actions and cultural norms. Here are some historic examples:

Sedition Acts (1798): The United States passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which included laws aimed at curbing criticism of the government. The Sedition Act criminalized false, scandalous, and malicious statements against the government, leading to the prosecution of individuals critical of President John Adams and his administration.

McCarthyism (1950s): During our Cold War with the Soviet Union, the government's fear of communist infiltration led to witch hunts that cost people their jobs simply by being accused. When you can't express honest doubts or ask honest questions due to fear of repercussions, it's an abridgement of our feedom of speech.

Espionage Act (1917) and Sedition Act (1918): In the context of World War I, the United States passed these acts to suppress dissent and opposition to the war effort. They were used to prosecute individuals who spoke out against the war. Hundreds, and maybe a couple thousand, were imprisoned for expressing anti-war sentiments. At the same time, the government was allocating money to create propaganda in support of the war effort. 

* * * 

To be fair, censorship of free speech has not been limited to the United States. Nevertheless, the degree to which social media and government agencies justified the repression of contrary voices during the Covid lockdowns (and other ethical concerns) has been quite alarming.  

 

Related Link

He Who Controls the Narrative Controls the People

Of Hedgehogs and Foxes, with Applications to Current Events

An op-ed by Lance Morrow in today's Wall Street Journal used an Aesop's fable-style metaphor as a means of illuminating the problem with Critical Race Theory. He begins by citing an observation by political philosopher Isaiah Berlin regarding a statement by the Greek poet Archilochus: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

Berlin's essay, published in 1953, suggests that the world is divided between hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs like to explain things by fitting it all into one big, comprehensive super-explanation. Foxes take the approach that things don't work that way and that in fact many things are contradictory or have no explanation at all, or are at best incoherent. 

So begins Morrow's "The Hedgehogs of Critical Race Theory." The subtitle is, "They start with important truths--slavery was wicked--and get carried away into monomania."

MY PURPOSE HERE is not to discuss the pros and cons of CRT, but rather to note that this hedgehog approach to many issues has generally done more harm than good. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head.

McCarthyism
I think it's safe to say that the overzealous excesses of Senator McCarthy were driven by a monomaniacal Hedgehog worldview.

Cold War
By the end of the 20th century's two world wars, most of Western Europe had relinquished control of its colonies. On one level this was a victory for freedom as many parts of the world experienced self-rule for the first time in ages. On the other hand, this resulted in power struggles in many parts of the world. U.S. leaders took a Hedgehog view and interpreted all of these conflicts as a fight against the tentacles of Global Communism.

Marxism
Morrow points to Karl Marx as another example of Hedgehog thinking as Marx attempted to fit every problem in the world into a worker's struggle. (Saul Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals, extended this same viewpoint into a Haves vs. Have Nots or Have Nots vs. the Status Quo.)

In fact, whether it be Global Warming/Climate Change, Critical Race Theory, Democracy, Environmentalism, Public Education or even Housing (e.g. The Housing Theory of Everything), there are hedgehogs who have distilled that issue into being the backdrop or foundation of all other problems in the world.

The WSJ editorial ends with this summation: "The hedgehog’s most profound character defects are moral vanity and self-righteousness—his fatal, paradoxical intolerance." Beware of dogmatists.

The biggest problem that I see with hedgehog thinking is what it does to dialogue. When hedgehog thinking makes everything else a threat, it kills communication, the primary way we develop solutions to complicated issues. What's needed is the Miracle of Dialogue.

* * *  

I believe the WSJ charges a small fee to read its content. If you're able, the full story can be found here:
The Hedgehogs of Critical Race Theory.

Fox photo by Linnea Sandbakk on Unsplash

Edward R Murrow's "Wires and Lights in a Box" Speech

Last weekend I picked up Good Night, And Good Luck for 50 cents at a rummage sale. David Strathairn as Edward R. Murrow is uncanny. And 50 cents for a great film is a steal.

If you recall, the film begins with Strathairn as Murrow addressing a black tie media event in mid-October 1958. The actual speech he delivered is much longer than what we hear in the film, so I thought it worthwhile to find it online and share it.  

Murrow, as a journalist, came to national prominence through his radio coverage of World War II, doing live broadcasts from Europe for CBS. He was a noted pioneer in the medium of radio and television. He was committed to the highest ideals of journalism and believed in its importance, and the importance of integrity. His courage in confronting Senator Joseph McCarthy resulted in events that led to McCarthy's censure by the Senate.

The film has a stellar cast, including Jeff Daniels, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, George Clooney and Frank Langella as William Paley, head of CBS. Langella is always at home in these roles, playing people with weight. I think here of the film Dave.

Sig Mickelson (Jeff Daniels) introduces Murrow who takes the podium and, with appropriate gravity, addresses the leading members of the journalism profession.

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But I am persuaded that the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television in this generous and capacious land. I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard the one that produces words and pictures. You will, I am sure, forgive me for not telling you that the instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you of the fact that your voice, amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other, does not confer upon you greater wisdom than when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor any longer a director of that corporation and that these remarks are strictly of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot very well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for any kind of personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

When he says, "These instruments have been good to me beyond my due," he is referring to the media of radio and television. "Beyond my due" may be referencing the expectations life may have had for him as an infant born on Polecat Creek, North Carolina, in a log cabin with no electricity or running water.

Further on he says:

This nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But in terms of information, we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Remember, this is post-McCarthyism 1958.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

In his second-to-last paragraph we have a summing up, and the reference from which the speech took its title.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it's nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

* * * *

In the final paragraph he cites a quote from General Stonewall Jackson. In light of recent events, would his advisors have encouraged him to use a quote from a more politically correct source?

I strongly encourage anyone, especially those working in the journalism profession, to read the full transcript of Murrow's "Wires and Lights in a Box" speech.

* * * * 

Trivia: The R in Edward R. Murrow's name is for Roscoe, which was my grandfather's name. Both were born in the first decade of the last century, so it initially made me wonder what famous Roscoe they were named after at the time. Further reading led me to discover he was named after his father.