Response to Fowarded Nonsense

This morning a forwarded piece showed up in my inbox, and my impulsive nature refused to be curtailed. My reply to the piece has already been sent to the sender and recipients. I am copying it here with identities protected simply as another post to my blog page.

Dear friend _____,

The e-mail below, purported to have been forwarded by you, is determined by Snopes.com to be false. The piece, attributed to Andy Rooney, first appeared in 2003, but he did not say these things; in fact, the Snopes' article includes comments by Rooney indicating his disgust and offense at the statements made in his name. (Found on Snopes under the title "Andy Rooney's Political Views")

Honestly, I was surprised that you forwarded it and am wondering if some Trojan worm has infected your computer and committed this deed under your imprimatur. Knowing you as I do, I have decided that is the case.
Even so, I am caving into the impulse to respond to several of the points contained in the piece, and would be interested in any responses you or any of the other recipients may have.

The problem with the Internet is that it allows for unsubstantiated legends to emerge in much the same way that the Bible evolved. Because the Bible was written in a pre-scientific age, people tended to believe any of the yarns that were woven around the campfires while the sheep were dozing or grazing in the field. It was a time when people believed stuff simply because someone told it--and what may have been intended as metaphorical took on literalistic overtones in later generations. It seems the Internet has returned us to a similar time--if it appears on the Net, then it must be true. Sounds like biblical literalism to me, but as Judge Judy says over and over again, "If it doesn't make sense, then it isn't true." Immediately upon reading the piece it didn't make sense that Andy Rooney would say such things, and a quick look at Snopes.com revealed that, indeed, he didn't.

Obviously whoever the author is, s/he is motivated by racist/sexist/ethnic/homophobic leanings. Rooney in his response makes the same point, and goes so far as to say that he is offended that anyone would believe that he would make such statements. He is a more sophisticated thinker than the author of the piece makes him out to be.

Then there's the bit about legal or illegal residents in America learning to speak English. Having just returned from a very hot and humid trip in Florida, and witnessing migrant workers tending the orange groves and other agricultural pursuits from sun up to sun down, doing back-breaking work for sub-standard pay, and if news reports are to be believed, sending most of their meager compensation back to Mexico to support their families (all made possible because no American citizen would agree to do such work under such conditions for such a pittance), I find it just a tad unreasonable to require English as a pre-condition to do work that we Americans won't do. Not only so, but some futurist studies are indicating that if persons are not bi-lingual in the coming generations, they will be regarded as disadvantaged. Maybe rather than expecting everyone to be just like us, we might do well to develop fluency in other languages and cultures, if, for no other reason than that we wish to avoid intensive labor in oppressively hot and humid orange groves.

As you know, I am a child of parents whose communication was bi-lingual: written English and Sign Language, which is not English (though there are attempts to turn it into English) but is classified as a foreign language. Because my parents were deaf, they could not hear the names they were called by peers at work or buddies at the Moose Club or neighbors in the street, but my sister and I could: dummies, crazy, weird, stupid, to say nothing of the mocking gestures behind their backs (some of which included that infamously flipping middle finger). While I cannot know what it is like to be a part of a racial or ethnic minority in an intolerant society, perhaps I do possess some kinship with those who are, and I am deeply offended and hurt when a kind of narrative as this one lands in my inbox.

And, I'm sorry, but it absolutely does take a village to raise a child. Had there not been other significant, credible adults in my life growing up in a government housing project with parents who were looked down on because of their disability, I'd probably be in prison now. It was because of caring youth advisers at church, the few good teachers at school, and humane neighbors and friends that I was able to see broader horizons and have hope that something more was possible. Whoever wrote this piece sounds like a man very much like my father: abusive and troubled in a way that led to severe acting out. Thank God for the other gentler people in my life.

The fact that this piece is resurfacing now after having originated six years ago is curious. Let's see: we have an African American as President, there's a woman who is Secretary of State, there's that imbroglio about Professor Gates and racial profiling, there's the hullabaloo about gays in the military, etc. Hmmmm, is this coincidence?

The author of this diatribe invokes God, as if somehow the opinions he expresses are sanctioned by God. I remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance before the phrase "under God" was included, and I remember how at first it was difficult to say it the "new" way. But if saying "under God" means that we are saying that God relates only to English speaking, non-alien, intolerant, prejudiced, homophobic, pure-lily-white folk, then I'll have to omit the phrase when asked to say the pledge. I understand the Australians also have the same phrase in their pledge, but their parliament made it legal for people to choose to include it or not. And we say we believe in the separation of church and state.

Speaking now as an Ordained Christian (though retired) pastor, I must object to any understanding about God that does not profess that the Divine relates to all creation and to all peoples--English speaking or not--Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist--even the bigot who wrote this article and sought to give it credence by attributing it to a well-known journalist--urging all of life toward less hurtful wounding and more healing wholeness.

Once again, _____, I am choosing to believe the forward of this article is some kind of cybernetic fluke. You have never come across to me as someone who would support the kind of sentiments reflected in this article. I am presently reading James Bamford's THE SHADOW FACTORY, a cumbersome, yet convincingly detailed expose of the capabilities that Big Brother has acquired in cybernetic technology. Who knows where such urban legends as this originate or who is responsible for passing them on?

Polly and I are looking forward to being with you and ____ at the beach in September.

Peace,

Jim N.