The "American Way."
The night after the Academy Awards, when I got around to checking my email messages, I noticed a huge number referencing an apparent spat between Chris Rock and Will Smith. Those messages lead me to check social media to ascertain what actually happened, if possible. I’ve looked at the video a number of times and, frankly, the blow looks staged to me. Despite my perspective many folks were busy debating the appropriateness of Smith’s response to Rock’s joke about Jada Smith’s hair. (Ms. Smith apparently suffers from alopecia, a disorder known to many folks who suffer from Lupus, myself included). Certainly Rock’s joke was in poor taste and despite the theatrical appearance of Smith’s already infamous slap most folks were engaged in deciding whose sin was greater. In my view the answer is simple - EVERY person who condones the behavior of either party is guilty of a much greater sin - the worship of violence.
Humans have relied on violence as a means to survive since the dawn of Homo Sapiens. Initially, that violence was aimed at beings that posed an immediate existential threat to an individual or group of humans. Justification for violence has continued to escalate since then. First, violence was about self-preservation in the moment. Then it became about self-preservation into the foreseeable future. As humans’ conception of the future grew longer so too the justification for violence grew. The justification for violence has continued to grow since the first groups of humans banded together.
Apologists for the violent no doubt would point to the fact of limited natural resources as those limits could spell doom for one or more groups of humans. The only alternative, they might contend, was (and is) to use violence to secure more natural resources than one’s neighbors. When commerce was born however the need for violence should have been abated as food, water and shelter became readily available. In fact the opposite happened. The concept of “wealth” became closely married to our innate desire to survive. Wealth was effectively viewed as a way to ensure survival without the need to hunt and forage (or risk physical harm). Today we know, or should, that wealth continues to be pursued and that violence in the name of wealth has become all too common.
In the United States we’ve laid the groundwork for folks to believe the use of violence to obtain wealth (and the power to gain and preserve it) is fully justified. While there are attempts to ground that justification in terms of survival the reality is the Corporate and Wealthy overlords of America have learned, for now, a way to control the average American without having to fight to retain and grow their wealth - keep them hungry, cold and sick. In the past 3 years their efforts have worked all too well. In the past 10 years the United States has witnessed the greatest and largest transfer of wealth in human history, this is not an accident. The question to be considered here is whether working to obtain and maintain wealth is, itself, a form of violence.
Webster’s has an interesting first definition of violence, splitting it into 1a: “the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy” and 1b: “an instance of violent treatment or procedure.” No doubt an overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with 1a but might take issue with the second. Let’s take a look. Most Americans, for various reasons, focus on “the use of physical force” as the defining characteristic of violence. A more accurate focus should be on “to injure, abuse, damage or destroy.” It is the focus of violence that matters much more than the means. In this regard can there be any real debate that those who struggle to buy food, pay rent, obtain clean water and health care are victims of violence? My answer is an unequivocal - NO!
I believe the biggest reason folks don’t like this view is they presume violence is a personal matter i.e. one person commits violence upon or towards another. In truth the most horrific violence our species has ever encountered involved groups. Nazis, Conquistadors, Settlers, Rioters, Gangs, Armies etc… are examples of such groups. Today, the most violent groups are termed things such as “Oligarchs,” “1 percenter,” “Mega-Rich” and “Billionaires.”
It is almost laughable that those described by these terms would insist they are anything but violent when, in fact, they are never anything but violent. Bill Gates isn’t buying up farmland to ensure every American gets healthy, nutritious food. Gates is buying it to force the overwhelming majority of Americans to pay him if they want to live. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos aren’t looking to the stars to find solutions to the crises that threaten our planet and our species. They’re doing so to ensure any form of space travel will require they be paid. Nestle hasn’t illegally stolen uncounted millions of gallons of water from California’s mountains so they can re-distribute it to those without clean water, they’ve done it to ensure the pockets of their senior management members are filled with your money.
In short, these ostensibly human creatures have taken steps to ensure that YOU have no choice but to work at their command, sell them your blood, sweat and tears for a pittance only to eventually find, albeit too late, that you are little more than a slave. Perhaps they’ll reward you for openly supporting them and their goals (middle management) but you’ll always know you’re but one step from poverty.
Coming back to Messrs. Rock and Smith perhaps we can now see that whether their “violent” interaction was scripted or impromptu is irrelevant. Both turned to a form of violence. One trying to get laughs and the other trying to save face. In the end the only thing they’ve done is keep the American people focused on unimportant matters so we never have the time or chance to see just how much violence we suffer at the hands of the “filthy” rich.