Thoughts on Brexit

Thoughts on the Brexit Vote

Written by Dan McDonald

 

            In college I studied history hoping it would give me understanding of the present and how that would help create the future. My youthful exuberance in the ability of understanding the present and the future by understanding history has been modified and humbled. The reality is that the present era is always an era with myriads of themes at play and we see them playing out through mist and fog. In fifty years historians will understand what happened in our times better than most any of us can hope to understand them while making our way through the fog. But I write on the Brexit vote as an American from a distance seeing the vote more in my American context than I ever could understand it as a British participant. I write hopefully in a way that might add more light than fire as we pass through the fog of our own times.

            Many of us try to follow international news and events, although most of us are not experts. We simply try to understand some themes shaping the world in which we live. I would suggest Paul Krugman’s perspective as an article to begin with in understanding the Brexit vote. Krugman feels Britain’s vote was a mistake, but he also believes that the European Union was bound to face a number of exit movements whether or not Britain had voted on exiting the European Union. He points out that a number of decisions made by the European Union from its institution of a singular currency (not for Britain though) to its not always well thought out policies of allowing completely free movement of labor between EU nations has given rise to numerous nationalistic reaction movements. While Krugman comes down hoping the European Union successfully navigates its present problems, he acknowledges the problems were going to plague the union with or without a British vote to remain or leave.

            While most of us speak favorably regarding cultural diversity, there is often a gap in how diversity is treated in theory and reality. We acknowledge cultural diversity as the ideal and we might be ready to see an “All in the Family” rerun with Archie Bunker and quickly see the problems in his prejudicial world perspective. But we less often discuss how the problem of white prejudice is not isolated in human relations. African-American communities seeing significant number of Hispanic people moving into their neighborhoods often feel a sense that their communities are being invaded. The European Union had rising tensions as people from one nation and culture moved towards others in search for opportunity. North Africans in France, people from former Soviet satellite countries, as well as people from historic European colonial lands all seem to be changing societies far more quickly than many in a nation can accept. Nationalistic reaction movements are springing up throughout the European continent. The xenophobia criticized in the Brexit vote is not a uniquely British response to the European Union’s present problems. As some have pointed out, the success of Donald Trump in gaining the support of the Republican Party shows that issues of diversity and immigration and the protection of a uniquely American culture are as much a part of our American present scenario as that of England. Nationalism and xenophobic elements are part of a trending reaction to global integration.

            It seems to me that a second consideration in understanding the Brexit vote was the nostalgic desire for a return to the past. The reality is that the older a voter was in the Brexit vote, the more likely they would support an exit from the European Union. The English and European worlds have experienced dramatic changes especially in the lifetimes of the older generations. As one who has watched most every Bond movie from Dr. No to Spectre one can see the changing self-perception of the Bond character in the movie series with the changing times and changing actors. The Sean Connery 007 was a self-conscious Englishman and part of the free world. The British Empire had been downgraded into the Commonwealth of the Nations, but there was still at least an illusion that the commonwealth mattered. By the time Roger Moore was 007, Britain was increasingly accepting its role as no longer a world power but it did have a role to play in promoting the good of the world and while Bond remained a self-conscious Westerner, he was increasingly a promoter of détente. With Pierce Brosnan, Bond was more of a globalist. He could drive a tank through St. Petersburg, Russia with the help of good Russians against anachronistic Soviets in a world where borders were being erased and a new global society was growing up. With a change in the generations of Broccolis running the franchise and the appearance of Daniel Craig as 007 the bond character was more an individual trying to figure out where he fit in. Perhaps it was fitting that in Spectre, the last Daniel Craig installment of 007 he sees the villain at his mercy and it doesn’t seem to matter any longer. He walks away. Perhaps for older English persons, the changes that had taken place over the decades had left them wanting to walk away with a sense that nothing any longer made sense. Perhaps for the older voters who voted “leave” rather than “remain” there was a tempting imagined belief that the understandable life of the past could be regained by leaving the present where nothing made sense. The “leave” vote was perhaps the surrealistic temptation of nostalgia making its siren’s call to a voyager incapable of resisting the temptation. Nostalgia is seldom a realistic perspective, but it often has a beautiful sense of promise to those of us tempted to believe the past was better than the present. But most often we do well to hear the warning of the author of Ecclesiastes: “Do not say: How is it that the former times were better than these? For it is not in wisdom that you ask about this.” (Ecclesiastes 7:10 NAB) Perhaps nostalgia better explains the patterns of voting even better than xenophobia. For many who wish to go back to the past, it is not for a desire to return to racism or a supremacist colonizing perspective, but simply to reach back to a time when life made sense. There is even an illusion for such as are captured by the nostalgia that everyone would enjoy coming back to the older times if only they could join us. Nostalgia was surely part of the Brexit vote. We can so easily love our former golden times.

            There is one other aspect of the Brexit vote I would suggest is important to be recognized. The European Union represents globalism. In many ways the EU was the attempt to create a new less bordered world where increased trade would lead to greater freedom and prosperity for all the partners within the expanded union. It was the brainchild of diplomats, international industrialists, and international bankers. The promise was prosperity for all. The reality has become tremendous wealth for a few, opportunities for some, economic stagnation for many, and actual decline for more than a few. John Harris showed how the leave vote represented those whose regions were in decline in this excellent article presented in the Guardian.

From my perspective, agreeing with the Guardian article’s assessment I would suggest we can understand the “leave” voting mentality by recognizing that globalization has created greater prosperity for some while creating despairing pockets of those overlooked in the new globalized world. In America it is what we call “fly-over” country. The areas in the USA where Donald Trump received his largest voting percentages were areas where both economic expectations and life expectancy rates have declined. In Britain the “leave” voters were generally older and the “remain” voters were generally younger. There might be a tendency to believe that only the older people are resisting the effects of globalization. But that would be, in my opinion, definitely a mistaken perception at least in the United States. There is a huge difference in perspective in the USA regarding globalization. But the difference is not in viewing globalization as having some unwanted side-effects. The difference of perspective between the elderly and the younger is how to deal with the negative effects of globalization. The elderly in Britain voted leave and in America have a greater tendency to vote Trump. But the younger were voting for Bernie Sanders. Sanders resisted the rush to globalization as he has seen its tendencies towards rewarding a one percent of those in the upper echelons of international corporations and the financial industry. The younger voter is looking for mitigation of the negatives brought on by globalization. The younger voter is not interested in returning to a past golden age but in finding solutions to move forward in the remainder of their lifetimes.

In summary, Brexit to use an antiquated metaphor is the death of the canary in the coal mine. It is an alarm sounding out how globalization’s excesses resulting in immense benefits for a few while leaving many behind cannot be overlooked without creating destructive consequences. Globalization is, in places, intensifying tensions between ethnicities, economic classes, and between locales either connected or disconnected to the globalization process. Without mitigating such circumstances there is a danger that Brexit will represent a beginning of turmoil not an isolated event. This is a time when awareness of problems needs to be coupled with creativity of solutions. Globalization can be beneficial but it has also created a set of problems that must not be ignored.

A story of High Stakes E. W. Marland

Documentary Review of

“High Stakes:

The Life and Times of  E. W. Marland”

Reviewed by Dan McDonald

 

            I suspect most people outside of Oklahoma won’t get an opportunity to see the documentary with acted scenes of “High Stakes: The Life and Times of E. W. Marland.” Growing up in Illinois I never heard anything of the story of E. W. Marland, but after moving to Oklahoma as a young adult you began to hear the story of one of Oklahoma’s legendary oil men. The opening scenes of the documentary are captured on the trailer here. As far as I know the DVD version of the documentary is available for purchase only at the preserved Marland Mansion near Ponca City for $20. I hope a broader distribution is planned in the future. I will try to capture in this piece what I found interesting and inspiring about the movie/documentary.

            Marland’s was not in the truest sense the rags to riches story. He came from a family that had acquired some wealth. His father worked in the steel industry in Pittsburgh and had invented a banding material to be used in shipping cotton bales. The patented banding material provided enough wealth for the family to see to Marland’s education in the field of law. But E. W. Marland determined that a law career was not something he wanted. His approach to work was “hands on” learn from the ground up. His legal studies may not have prepared him as much for his future success as his acquiring the hobby of playing cards which he picked up as a university student. He learned that one could do well playing cards if he could both understand the hand he had been dealt while also being able to read the faces of those in the game. It would seem that one would never quite be able to understand Marland, the businessman without understanding how Marland liked the thrill of risk. It would help make him and threaten to break him but once he was broke he would simply move to pursuing the next opportunity.

            It would be a mistake though to imagine that Marland was simply a high stakes gambler. Once he entered the young oil industry as a wildcatter seeking to discover oil, he poured himself into learning what the relatively young scientific field of geology could teach him about how to better seek oil. He worked at first in the Western Pennsylvania areas and proved himself one of the better wildcatters. John D. Rockefeller hoped to buy him out, but Marland wanted to remain an independent oilman. Then he heard from a friend stationed at Fort Sill in Oklahoma that there were those who believed there might be oil in Oklahoma. Marland decided to give the area a look. Marland’s interest in geology convinced him as he looked at some outcropping that the lower plains looked promising for discovering oil. He decided to try to persuade creditors and investors to back his efforts to find oil and applied those lessons he had learned playing cards to convince those at his table to throw their money into supporting him as he played his hand. Marland threw everything he owned into the venture and finally struck oil as he was nearly completely out of credit. Within ten years Marland Oils was producing an estimated ten percent of global oil production.

            Marland’s father had taught E. W. Marland that there was a responsibility towards others that came with wealth. Marland worked out this responsibility by seeking to make sure that his employees who helped make him wealthy were given opportunity to better their lives. He also figured that if he paid his employees more than others paid their employees that they would be happier, more productive employees. He created a school for those of his employees who wished to learn more skills to advance their usefulness to his company and their earnings for their family. He offered low interest loans so that the employees could own their own homes, and provided free medical and dental benefits. He gave to area charities. One of the charities in the early twentieth century that Marland respected and gave to was the YMCA. Marland had such a high regard for them he sought to be able to use their symbol as the basis for his corporate symbol. The YMCA agreed to sell him the rights to make use of their logo. You can see the similarities between the Marland Oils logo and the YMCA logo.

The Marland Oils symbol

The YMCA symbol

 

            The boom years were amazing, but the oil industry was a competitive industry and Marland was a competitor by nature and he had that drive to find and process oil wherever there was oil to be discovered. He began bringing together geologists to discover oil worldwide, and employed scientists to do research to figure out new innovative uses for petroleum being discovered and processed by his oil company. That led to a fateful decision. He needed capital to finance his new investments and being confident that his investments would pay out he made an agreement with banking magnate J. P. Morgan for the financing he needed. Morgan was one of the shrewdest men of business in the world at the time. Morgan gave him the financing but required that Marland agree that Morgan’s Bank and Trust Company would be the sole company handling Marland’s credit needs. Morgan also needed an officer on the board of Marland Oils. It was a horrible decision by Marland. He became a victim of his own confidence. Oil discoveries in Texas, and a downturn in the global economy during the thirties, caused Marland Oils to lose money and now only J. P. Morgan could be used as a source of credit. To make a long story short, Morgan forced Marland to enter a merger with a couple of other small oil companies. Marland would no longer run the corporation which would be known as Continental Oil Company or Conoco. Marland resigned from the company he had built and many of the company’s longest serving employees were dismissed since many of them had loyalties to Marland. This was the world before American employees had rights.

            In the 1920’s Marland had built a mansion near Ponca City and adjacent to the mansion, he built a golf course which he then opened to public use without charge. After being run off from his own company, he could afford taxes only with the help of friends, and could not afford to live in the mansion. He and his wife lived in the gardener’s quarters while the house remained vacant.

            It might seem that Marland would have drifted off into obscurity, but once more he decided to offer his abilities to people that might invest in his ideas and dreams. Oklahoma struggled with the Great Depression, perhaps more than any other state in the Union. Thousands of Oklahomans died during the Dust Bowl years. Unemployment was high and the lives of Oklahomans looking for work became the stuff of Steinbeck novels and those who turned to bank robberies became legend as well. Marland began thinking he had some political ideas that might help Oklahoma.

            Marland had come to Oklahoma as a Republican, but with the Great Depression he was attracted to FDR’s New Deal policies. He began to envision how the state of Oklahoma and the nation could be remade into a better place to live. He was first elected to Congress, the first Democrat elected in his congressional district. He worked at getting banking and pension reforms passed. He then decided to run for Oklahoma Governor. He championed conservation projects to avoid the massive land erosion problems that plagued Oklahoma in the Dust Bowl years. Oklahoma has a tendency to have large spring rains that create flooding and then dry summer months and at times lengthy drought. Marland began seeking to build dams to offer flood control, create reservoirs, and produce hydroelectric power help to bring electricity to all of Oklahoma’s residents. He became one of the officials that helped to lay the foundation for Oklahoma’s recovery from its Dust Bowl Depression days to its moving forward in its post-Depression days. Marland also accomplished something else Oklahoma’s three governors before him did not accomplish. He followed three consecutive governors who were impeached by the legislature. He created enemies while governor because that is the nature of decision making, but the legislature never found grounds to impeach him, so at the time that was a positive contribution to Oklahoma politics.

            Sometimes you watch a movie of a legacy of a man such as E. W. Marland, and you wonder how he would live life now. I suspect if Marland lived today he wouldn’t necessarily be an oil man. I would imagine him as a man of science, a man imagining his life needed to be about helping others as well as creating new things, but it seems like part of who he was included not only pursuing high stakes but also tackling life with innovation. That is certainly needed in today’s oil industry where providing energy without contributing to the destruction of ecosystems is a challenge, but a man like Marland would perhaps have thrown his energy into a much different direction if living today.

All in all, the man who enjoyed the challenge of pursuing high stakes left Oklahomans one of the most impressive and colorful legacies in our state’s history. There are also other interesting stories I can’t share with you because this is already a long piece. But one piece of information I can’t resist sharing is something of the story of Marland’s surviving widow after his death. Marland’s first wife died at an early age, probably due to cancer. His second wife was a controversial choice and much younger than him. After Marland died, his second wife who was not fond of being in the limelight became a missing person. For twenty years almost no one knew her whereabouts and some believed something had happened to her. In the 1960’s most people didn’t know who the older woman was taking part in war protests and marching with civil rights protesters. But friends of the family continued to seek her whereabouts and eventually after twenty years of seeking anonymity returned to Ponca City. The mansion Marland built only to be able to live in the Gardener’s quarters had been purchased for dimes on the dollar by a Catholic order. She was granted to live in the quarters where she and her husband had lived. Eventually the Catholic Church decided to sell the grounds and mansion as monastic living was in decline at the time. Marland’s widow wrote a letter proposing that the grounds be purchased and maintained as a museum for the public. The E. W. Marland mansion near Ponca City remains one of Oklahoma’s favorite attractions. It seems right to remember a one of a kind man, and it seems right that the one who encouraged the public preservation of this part of history should be the one of kind widow he left behind. One might wonder if there really was a Marland Oils Company accounting for ten percent of the world’s oil production? Was there really an E.W. Marland, whose widow who disappeared for twenty years? Was this Oklahoma story real or is it the stuff of legends? I suppose there is a bit of history and legend in Oklahoma’s telling the story of E. W. Marland.

Review - Better Living through Criticism

Book Review of:

Better Living through Criticism

How to Think About Art, Pleasure, Beauty and Truth

A book written by A.O. Scott

Reviewed by Dan McDonald

 

            A few weeks ago I saw a short Twitter recommendation of A.O. Scott’s book Better Living through Criticism. Then I discovered that an interview with A.O. Scott was to take place at an independent movie theater in Tulsa, where I live. I did not read the information about the interview carefully. I expected to see the interview on screen. Instead when I got to the cinema house the interview was in person. After seeing the interview I quickly went and bought the book and had him sign it. I snapped a photograph just before handing him my copy of the book to sign.

            A. O. Scott has been a movie critic for the New York Times since January 2000 and chief critic since 2004. I was drawn to read the book partly because on occasion I blog about books I read and movies I see. Imagining myself as an amateur critic, I thought perhaps I would find help on how to do critiques in my blog. I found that the book helped me realize that at sixty years of age, I will not likely ever be a critic in the way A.O. Scott is a critic. Scott’s work reveals a person who has thought philosophically about what a critic does and should do and where he fits in the scheme of humanity’s search for meaning as it is expressed in art and becomes part of our humanity’s conversation about our search for meaning and understanding.

As I read his work I could not help but notice for me a sense of a parallel that I find as an Anglican of being an interested layman compared to an actual theologian. We all have our views and opinions and convictions of what we understand as truth, but the true theologian is normally much more trained in theology than the interested layman. The trained theologian learns to study the Scriptures and tradition in the broader contexts of how the information of theology is impacted by philosophical movements, cultural considerations, historical context, local congregational scenarios, and individual considerations. The trained theologian should have layers of depth to his theological viewpoint that will elude the interested layman. I think this parallel is true enough that when I finished reading Scott, I realized that he views a movie, a book, a piece of art, or a gourmet dish with this sort of layered training in how to view the arts. His book brings us into a contemplation of an overview of humanity’s analysis and critiquing of the arts through the centuries from Aristotle to Susan Sonntag, with considerations of various critics through the centuries including those who were themselves creators of art such as Keats, Shelley, and Wilde.

That isn’t to say that a blog like mine has no place any more than a congregant’s perspective is to be disregarded because he isn’t a priest or a layman. But there is something to be argued for the craftsman who has sought to understand his craft in its history, technique, varied schools of thought, and has reached a point where when seeing a movie, painting, or a written piece there are instant parallels and connections and contrasts the critic sees in the piece within the history of the art form.

In some ways I have learned that as a blogger I need to see myself realistically in what I do in comparison with A.O. Scott does at the Times. I get to watch occasional movies, read occasional books, visit museums occasionally – and Scott spends his life and works at a vocation where he gives himself to do this on a full time basis. I have had for some time the concept of writing that sees writing as conversation. The big issues of life never are really settled. In theology and behavioral sciences there are continually robust conversations about how free or how determined are our actual determinations of will. What constitutes the best form of government in encouraging individual freedom while strengthening what the preamble of our constitution described as the nation’s general welfare? These kinds of considerations are discussed in theology, politics, around workplace water fountains, in pubs with fine ale, and in theaters, books, and pieces of art. Not only are these matters discussed and become expressed in works of literature, film and other arts, so are other aspects of life. As every teenager has ever experienced, sometimes what a sixteen year old wants to see addressed in film or literature is that which actually appeals to the gender of one’s choice. “Sixteen Candles” may not have addressed supposedly great issues, but John Hughes had the chance to show a work of art envisioning  a handful of young people working through their coming to age struggles that characterize the experience of surviving that temporary high school culture and learning to discover the important qualities required to create the bonds that will bind people together through a lifetime.

I learned in reading A. O. Scott that the work of creating art, and the work of our critiques whether office workers exchanging viewpoints of the latest movie around a water fountain, or the staff writer for the Times or the Atlantic, are each involved in this big on going conversation of what is good, true, beautiful, pleasant, vile, disdainful, lacking fullness, or actually an expression of genius inspiring excellence is the timeless work which binds together in distinctive manners the art creator, the professional critic, and the occasional blogger that despite his common lot feels he must say something about what he sees, feels, and believes.

There is so much more to be said about Scott’s book, how he believes in the development of argument to set forth a critique, how he understands that critics being wrong is part of the process by which criticism works, and how the critic is an artist expressing his criticism and the artist is inescapably a critic expressing his relationship to the world in which the artist lives. This is a book I both recommend and will read again because I know I missed a lot reading the book one time. I suspect for most readers this book will deepen your love of the arts as well as strengthening your ability to analyze the arts you engage with more definite considerations.

Christian Dating Rules

Rules for Christian Dating

Written by Dan McDonald

 

            I usually don’t write on this subject. I am a sixty year old bachelor. The last thing a single Christian who hopes to get married needs is advice from a never married sixty year old. I write now in the hope to encourage younger people with struggles perhaps similar to mine to have the sort of advice I think might have helped me in my younger days.

            My reluctance to marry probably grew out of my family background. My parents never divorced but there was a day when my father discovered something that made him feel like his marriage had been a sham. My father was a Stoic. He had his principles and they firmly ruled over his passions. He had made his bed, so he would sleep in it. My mom was not a stoic. She might well have been bipolar or something akin to that. When my mom was happy and thoughtful towards others, you learned to cringe because that was often the calm before the storm. Her normal state was to be depressed and self-absorbed. But sometimes she would try to rise above that. She would be happy and try to be outgoing and thoughtful. But soon something would break and then things could get nasty. As the affliction was never understood, the thing I got from it was not to give your trust to kindness. Kindness seemed like a temporary mask worn over the real personality. I felt more the need for a distant stability than a troublesome nearness. There seemed to be wisdom in holding relationships to a comfortable distance. Intimacy is frightening.

            It would be nice if we could say that my background was unique and few people face anything like that. But I fear that many people living in our post-modern world are damaged people for whom intimacy is frightening. Many kids grow up in broken or dysfunctional homes. They grow up not knowing exactly how or whom to trust. It is estimated that one in four women are sexually assaulted at some time in their life. Many of those find partial healing, but probably very few find complete healing. There are many ideas of the rules Christians need to adopt for good relationships. Few of them, in my estimation, are meant to encourage people to build healthy loving relationships.

            My reason for writing this piece is that I recently was following a Twitter conversation about dating. A thirty-something gal, a responsible entrepreneur, was being given the Christian dating rulebook. I replied that we Christians tended to put so many rules on dating that no one gets married until they figure out which rules to ignore. I propose three brief relationship rules for Christian dating.

1. Respect the person you date.  That is the first rule of Christian dating. If dating is a way of entering a relationship which might end up in marriage and intimacy – respect the person. I went to a diner recently. Sometimes when you are alone you notice people. A young couple came into the diner. He was black and she was white. In every way in which they acted and carried themselves there was a dignity and respect they showed for one another. You could see that respect was written over their relationship. I felt good about what I saw. Without respect, no two people will ever be able to create a sustainable partnership. An intimate partnership will only be built upon the respect each person shows to the other.

2. Honor the person you date. Perhaps honor and respect are the same things. In my mind they are related but slightly different. Maybe I don’t use the words correctly or the same way you do. So I will tell you how I differentiate the two words. Respect acknowledges boundaries. When I respect someone I realize that my domain ends at the top of my head, the reach of my fingers, the bottom of my feet, and the tips of my toes. I have to respect that my self-control is limited to my body form. Honor is one step further. I look at a woman and I realize she has opinions, passions, dreams, and feelings. Respect teaches me that I don’t have the right to impose my opinions, passions, dreams, and feelings over hers. Honor is a step further. I realize that not only do I not have the right to force mine upon hers, but I have a responsibility to help her realize how to express her opinions, passions, dreams, and feelings. Respect makes us not want to impose our particularized sense of personhood. Honor leads us to desire to empower another’s sense of inner personhood.

3. Don’t Sin. This is self-explanatory.

I believe these rules are sufficient. They will serve you from the moment of your initial friendship. They are broad enough to grow with you in your relationship. They will help you to be content if you reach the determination that your friendship is a friendship not meant for marriage. These rules will help you to be committed partners if you come to the point that you believe marriage is a right avenue for your relationship to take. Most other rules – will seem trite and silly (and sometimes even harmful and creepy) in comparison.

Muhammad Ali's Legacy

Muhammad Ali

(January 17, 1942-June 3, 2016)

The Greatest One’s Legacy

Written by Dan McDonald

 

            Muhammad Ali has passed away. He was one of the great boxers of the Twentieth Century. Some might claim Louis or Marciano was equal or superior. We will never know. We just know that in his prime, when he was in full training, he had no equals. Ali managed to be much bigger than simply a heavyweight champion of the world. He became a cultural icon whose impact left no one neutral to his presence. He used his boxing greatness to leave an exclamation point on American culture.

            I will not write about his legacy as someone who was always on Ali’s side in the controversies. It is important for me in trying to understand Ali’s legacy to know that for many years I was uncomfortable with him, even enraged by what he represented. He was arrogant when I appreciated humility. Perhaps it is a shame it took me so long to appreciate him. But perhaps what I felt towards him in younger days shows all the more the legacy he left behind.

The first time I heard of Cassius Clay, was as a kid on the bus in a rural northern school district. One of the other kids on the bus was talking of the Sonny Liston v. Cassius Clay fight. Liston was favored, but Ali, or Clay as he was then known won by knockout. He had predicted it. He was perhaps the only one that had predicted that outcome.

            It was a time of turmoil. America was going to war in Southeast Asia to help the South Vietnamese to remain free. Meanwhile racial divides within the United States were being addressed. Some African-Americans were wondering about the irony of being drafted to fight in a war to keep South Vietnam free while the eradication of oppression against people of color was only slowly and painfully being addressed in the United States.

            The heavyweight champion boxer gave up what he viewed as his colonial imposed Christian religion and Christian name to accept his new name as a convert to Islam. He was served with draft papers, and in reply he served notice he would not serve in the military as he was not at war with the people of North Vietnam. He went to jail.

 

            Many of us who were patriotic white Americans were offended by what Muhammad Ali had done. In our minds, America was the greatest nation on the face of the earth. We were committed to freedom and liberty and equality. Slavery had been wrong and now it was illegal. Segregation had been wrong and we were dismantling it. As a nation we had not always treated people of color as equals, but now we were giving them equality. He was causing trouble when he should have recognized the strides we were making. He rejected our Christianity. He had not one shred of humility. He was living in the greatest nation in the world and was pompously declaring himself the greatest. He was a troublemaking arrogant man. Whomever he fought we were for whether it was Frazier or Foreman or any other fighter.

            It has taken me the entire span of Ali’s life to begin to understand the importance of what he was doing. My white culture had decided that our America was the greatest nation on the earth. Here was a heavyweight boxing champion of the world declaring himself to be the “greatest.” We Americans took pride in being “the greatest” collectively, but individually we had been taught to be humble. My idea of the perfect athlete had been Lou Gehrig as portrayed by Gary Cooper in “Pride of the Yankees.” We had individual humility connected to our collective national pride. Collectively, as a nation we reeked of pride and arrogance but we took pride in being individually humble, citizens of the greatest nation on earth.

            Ali turned the tables and questioned everything we valued. He turned his back on our Christianity and refused to serve in our military and instead of accepting individual humility within our greatest nation claimed individually to be the greatest. He pushed the line from being the greatest boxer by right of his winning the world championship to pushing it in our face and saying his individual greatness was as true as our collective national greatness.

            As a nation he would have happily enshrined him into our national pantheon of heroes if he had accepted his place with the grace of individual humility while embracing our national greatness. We would have declared him an equal and made room for him in our gradually integrating shrine of heroes. But Ali seems to have seen that as a temptation he could not accept. The temptation to accept that America could give someone the gift of equality was a blasphemous offer that he rejected. That has been part of the American fantasy for our centuries. We moved quickly from being a nation which expressed ideals about equality to being a nation believing it was in our power to liberate men and women and give them equality. For Ali, that American fantasy of being able to give someone equality was anathema.

            To use a boxing metaphor, Ali stepped into the ring to fight an opponent who was saying to him, if you prove yourself one of us, we will grant you equality. He was replying to us, “I am already an equal. Are you worthy of being my equal?” No one perhaps in American history had so turned the tables in his dealing with America. We were a nation with a white power structure that had labeled and identified people by races, naming them as savages, slaves, and illegals. We were the greatest nation but we were willing to confer equality to people willing to show themselves one of us. Ali pronounced himself the  greatest and was offering equality to anyone worthy of standing with him. He turned the tables.

In time most of us learned to respect him and he also grew in his understanding of life, because as he pointed out we aren’t the same at fifty as we were at twenty.

 

            He made us uncomfortable. We loved the idea of equality. He demanded to be treated as an equal in his humanity and demanded to be recognized for his accomplishments in his sport. His claim to humility had to be a hidden one for he used his individual greatness as a one man attack on our own idolatry of national superiority that was coupled with personalized individual humility. He showed personal greatness with a submerged hidden humility as a counter punch to the system that had in his youth refused to recognize his equality. His legacy is that he lived as an equal and called upon us to wonder if we were worthy to be his equal. He was truly a remarkable man in all that he accomplished.