For many, the past weeks and months have been devastating. Depressing, discouraging, enraging. An emboldening of hateful preexisting realities and mentalities pervading this country. For me, over the past many months and over the years of my life, I have felt -- each and every day -- the rising of my heart in the back of my throat. A feeling of dread and despair for such pervasiveness, from the reality of hate.

In my short life and in my narrow experience, what I alone have seen of this world is enough to break my heart.  

In these past weeks has come a decisive blow.  

No matter what, I cannot understand how the hearts of so many, especially those with power even slight, are so capable of immunity to this. Of indifference. It is not because other hearts are stronger than mine that they are intact. And no, although each day I strive to learn more of the experiences of those outside of myself and though I may yet have much more to learn, I am not wounded because I am new or innocent, as a child, to the injustices and hurts of this world.

Though I would be clear: I have known relatively little, in the scheme of death, and suffering, and war, and pain. I live with some of the greatest privilege. Aside from my womanhood. But in that too, because of the color of my skin, because of my ability, because of the country that I was born to, I am privileged.

So, for one such as I, it is unfair -- it is absurd, it is pathetic -- to complain of a heart that is broken. I do not claim that right. Not when there are little children dying in attacks in places like Syria, or ignored or overlooked in my own country, and when men and women in my own country are murdered and imprisoned and oppressed and beaten for the color of their skin. No, my experiences cannot compare. My own existential struggles, my own struggles of faith and sorrow and humanity -- those pale in the comparison to much greater pains.  

Still, I would have it known to those whose hearts are indifferent, because I do not know what else to say anymore and I am begging you. To the friends of mine who continue to act with close-mindedness, who continue to embrace hate and fear and support rhetoric that would bar others from safe haven even when you are told that it is wrong, who are unwilling to embrace kindness first, who blindly follow the interpretations of interpretations of hearsay of their own small worldviews rather than pause to listen, who legitimize or justify or excuse or uphold or entertain hatefulness, to those who have plenty yet wish for more while others lack, to those who lay down their heads at night with reasonable assurance that they will wake, to those who dare to think for one moment that their own life is more worthy of safety, to those who weigh the validity of another human's worth before bothering to question the validity of their own comfort. Each and every day, you who obstructs the path of peace and kindness, each and every day you who spurns those whom do not look or pray or speak or love as you do: you break my heart. 

It is not for my sake that you should care. The tender heart of a young woman such as me, that is the last thing that you -- you who are hateful, you who is indifferent -- have to answer for in this moment. 

But I want you to know, indifferent person, because I have no other means left to reach you. Again and again, friends, family, fellow Americans, those of you who have power from your privilege and you use it to defend the freedoms of the hateful before you defend literal lives, you break my heart. 

Nothing that is happening now in the United States or that is happening across this planet is exceptionally unique, and many know this more intimately than I. That ubiquity is not meant to comfort. It is cementing. It is infuriating. It is appalling. For some, regrettably, it the reality of existence. All of these are words which do little justice to the astonishing ability of humans to hate. Still, I think across hours, days, years -- across time -- and I am struck again and again by the cruelty of my fellow humans. I am reminded of the continuum of human history, and of the short but vicious history of the United States, which in those years alone spans genocide, slavery, misogyny and ongoing oppression.

Still, I cannot comprehend such indifference as I see in this world, particularly from those with privilege.

And of course, there is goodness in the world, too. I am reminded also of the many kind and resilient people who have walked and who still walk this earth. In their example, I mend and improve myself. In their example, I try again and again to repair and to build a more compassionate, more enduring, more learned, more strong-willed heart from the fissures in my own. But the stark contrast of good and cruelty, and the vast, painful ambiguity of all that is in between, feels many days to be an insurmountable wall. How much suffering, how many lessons of history, how many times must this play out? What would be enough, for those of you who are still hateful, to open your hearts?

What reasoning would finally be enough for you, to know that there are men and women and children who are desperate for safety and to welcome them? What reasoning would finally be enough for you to look at those who are different from yourself, and to love first? So many questions burgeon within me. 

In these past days, it is dangerous not to keep these questions in my mind. For, it seems increasingly that if one looks away for but a moment, the enmity of this world is all the quicker to encroach. 

It is something I have never been able to comprehend, the unkindness of so many who have so much. Yet, so very often, those without are selflessly generous. These days, such hurts and such confusion and such divides continue to play out on a national and global level.

My privilege has retained for me the right to speak up, at least for a time and at least in some measure. I take that very seriously. But I plan and remind myself each and everyday to use whatever power that I have, for the sake of good in spite of the reality of people in my own country who cling to their hatreds, misconceptions, and selfish fears. 

I harbor each of these hurts like a thorn, and I remember it. Though it is enough to break my soft and sheltered heart, it is not enough to break my resolve. It is not enough to break my voice. Nor should it, for there are much greater fights where effort should be spent rather than within my own chest. Now is not the time, except that I share this as a desperate plea.

Because I hope, if you have the gall to act with such hatefulness that would cast aside your fellow humans fleeing fear and death and persecution, the gall to place yourselves as more worthy of peace and safety than any other, that you also have the gall to look me in the eyes as you turn in the knife to my heart too. For, perhaps you will never meet the ones who your decisions and your words and your actions (or your inaction) devastate through their consequence. Perhaps you will never know or admit or relate to the resounding tragedies of the policies that you support, or the politics that you embrace because they do not harm you personally. Perhaps your empathy is unable to extend beyond those in your immediate awareness.

But you have met me. And I am telling you just what you do. Remember it. If I live a hundred years, though I mend my heart and forge on despite you, I will not forget it. 

Today I participated in one of many, many, many Women's Marches occurring across the United States and across the world. The march I attended was in a much smaller city. But I was very pleased to see an attendance estimated between 95-100 people (and overjoyed to see the estimated 2.9 million people nationally). The atmosphere was peaceful and open. Before marching and after marching, attendees stood along the sidewalk outside of the County Courthouse, holding their signs towards the cars driving past. There were many honks of support, peace-signs, friendly waves and nods. It was encouraging.

About 80% of what I observed from cars and bystanders was positive and supportive. To be expected, however, there were a few pro-trump calls. This did not surprise, or particularly phase me. One did incident did.

"Be nice, be nice, be nice" one woman chided in warning from a passing car. She sat in the passenger seat, window rolled down and in the nearest lane to us as the car slowed ever-so-much while driving past. She ended with something along the lines of "trump" or "trump won", or other such intone of his name. She did not shout, but it was clear she wanted it to be heard. The meaning was clear too.

Although this might seem harmless enough, I'd like to talk about it. I think it is very ​important to understand, and speaks to a dangerous attitude that has been developing. Niceness. Maybe more so than foul or degrading language might, this woman insulted me with such a call.

​Her words also disturbed me, because when I looked around me, I was surrounded by people holding signs calling for love, respect, solidarity, equality. Literally. Enthusiastic, friendly faces of all ages. Little kids, adults, elderly. It disturbed me, because I was surrounded by people who were filled with such love and concern for our country,  who came out on a cold, rainy PNW winter Saturday to join the many like-minded individuals across the world participating in similar marches and to insure that presence was heard locally as well. It disturbed me, because when I looked around me, I was surrounded by people wearing kind smiles and waving enthusiastically in defense of literal human rights. I was disturbed, because why should someone see such a peaceful crowd with such a clear message and feel the need to warn us: be nice. Why imply that we are not being nice?

​I know why, but I'll get to that.

​I thought a lot about why this incident stuck with me. It is more than it seems on the surface, and is not as simple as this woman's failure to recognize the good and the love we all brought with us because of political differences. (Though that, too, baffles me)

Rather, it is very much an insult. Being "nice" is not an aspiration or a compliment. I do not want to be told to "be nice." I am not a toddler fighting over toys. For most people, being chided to "be nice" is patronizing. I know very well how to be nice, thank you very much. ​Besides which, you will know when I am not nice​.

It strikes me, because on a deeper level, being "nice" means being complacent. It means not speaking up. It means not making waves. I do not think anyone should be "nice", unless it is possibly in the situation of a playground disagreement, and sometimes not even then. Otherwise, telling someone to be "nice" -- let alone a peacefully assembled group of well-informed individuals concerned about the status of human rights and well-aware that there is much at stake -- is demeaning. I'm relatively certain the women who said this knew that. I'm also relatively certain that she meant it, indeed, as a pointed warning.

​Here's why.

As a Minnesotan, I can tell you right now, I am very familiar with the word "nice." I am very familiar with its many meanings. In fact, there is a well-known saying: "Minnesota Nice." ​In that (and my experience as a woman), the discourse of ​n​​ice ​runs in my blood. Sometimes, "nice" refers to a general culture of helpfulness and friendliness that many Minnesotans (and broadly, though not exclusively, mid-westerners) espouse. You see someone with a flat tire? You help them out. Someone drops a wallet? You return it to them. No brainer! That is all very good. Sometimes such ubiquitous behaviors surprise people not from the mid-west or not from a similarly-minded environment. ​The good deeds are good indeed. I appreciate an environment that looks out for one another. But the deeds may, sometimes, be fake.​ That is, while sometimes these deeds are done very genuinely, other times the friendliness is only skin deep. Hence, they are "nice."

However​, what is more problematic is that, nice also means passive aggression. It means not making a scene. It means a culture of not speaking out and not speaking up, even when something is upsetting or frustrating, right or wrong. It means swallowing your words with a smile, right or wrong. Oftentimes, it means harboring that upset or frustration. It can also mean ingenuity. This is often carried out in order to not upset the situation and to not make things uncomfortable.*

It can be troubling or damaging, both to the person forced to swallow their experience in order to not "disturb the peace" or not be "unpleasant", but also to the other party, who is not informed of their actions, not informed of their misstep, and may not realize that they have possibly done something wrong. They may go on with their day or their life and never know that they offended someone, or hurt someone, or did something unacceptable. But there you are, let's get along, and we'll not mention it. Every once and a while, it comes back to bite both parties, though not always equally. And such a culture does not, usually, resolve a situation when someone is "nice" out of obligation or to lessen discomfort or out of pressure to avoid problem. It leaves issues to fester, and no one learns, and things don't really change.

​ Given the current political situation in the United States, now is not the time for being nice.

Now is a time to be kind​.

There is a difference. What you really mean -- when you act out of compassion, generosity, empathy, and respectfulness, for example -- is kindness. To be kind is to speak and act from ones heart. Kindness requires love, not obligation. It lacks the demeaning, trivializing, suppressive, simplistic, infantilizing connotations of being "nice." It might be "nice" to keep quiet in the face of injustice or wrongs -- after all, to speak up often causes discomfort and may cause a "scene". It is not, however, kind. In many cases, it is very unkind.

​In fact, I feel strongly that it is impossible to consider yourself to be kind, while also denying equal rights or ignoring human rights crises.

On top of that, just to be very clear, nice​ has never really been a compliment or a goal to strive towards, not even since the word was first ​uttered hundreds of years ago. Although the original patronizing meaning still peeks through now and again, most people seem to forget. It is worth reminding, because, to me, the true usage remains unchanged from its origin. It is important to remember such word origins. Outlined etymologically, "nice" literally comes from the 13th century meaning of "foolish, stupid, or senseless" and from 12th century Old French for "careless, clumsy, weak, poor, needy, simple, stupid, silly, foolish". This, in turn, comes from the latin "nescius" for ignorant/unware (ne- meaning "not" and scire meaning "to know", so, "not-knowing). Eventually, in the late 1700s, the word adopted the meanings agreeable/delightful, and then​ only in the early 1800s was it ever used as "kind, thoughtful." The original meaning is striking. It is not at all the same as being kind​. To conflate the two, as has happened little by little since the 1800s, has always been dangerous.

​I do not want to be foolish, stupid, simple, or unknowing in this time. I do not want to be ​agreeable and delightful​ in this time. But I do want to be kind​. That, I think, is among the most vital qualities of ones character. And do not be fooled, it is not the same​ as nice.

Indeed, its origin would teach us too. Kind, very unlike nice, comes from the Old English word "cynde" meaning "natural, native, innate" and, as described etymologically, "with the feeling of relatives for each other." This comes from the Proto-Germanic "kundi-" (meaning natural/native) and "kunjam" (related to the similar modern word kin) and meaning family​. That is very striking.

​That is a very big difference. So, to be nice and to be kind are not the same thing. To me, I should always​ wish to be kind. Ask me to be kind, and I shall do so.

​But, that is not what was asked by this woman, or in fact by most trump supporters. And I highly doubt this woman was intentionally waxing Shakespearean in the linguistics of her patronizing. No, her intention is clearer.

​When this person chided a crowd of peacefully assembled people to be nice​, she meant for us to be quiet. Don't be disruptive. Remember to stay in your place, now! Be agreeable! It meant "you should not be objecting". Be careful. It meant do not speak too loudly or be unruly. Otherwise, you will be in trouble. It implies that we are, or might become, a problem and we should be cautious and submit. That we should mind our behavior. It is telling us not to use our voice, trying to shame and cow.

​In these ways, telling someone to be nice can be meant as a threat. It is not simply dismissive and demeaning and patronizing. It implies that you are the disruptive one, because you are not being "nice". And if you were not being "nice", it is easy to place blame. Now, now, why did you have to go and make things unpleasant and uncomfortable and disruptive? It is meant to make you feel shamed or embarrassed, and to get back into line. The child who is told to "be nice!" often recognizes that this is not just a request. It implies 1) that the child is not being nice and 2) that there will be further reprimand if the chide is not followed. In the case of one adult to another, it is more of a mind-game and power dynamic, making one question themselves and quiet down in favor of order.

So, I come back to this. That anyone freely wishes to defend such a man is depressing enough. Shouts of support for trump anger and confuse me at a visceral level. Yet, in all of that, calling me names is one thing. Deriding or demeaning me is one thing. I kind of expect that sort of thing in a scenario of apparent mutual disgust, where part of the populace hates or doesn't care much about the existence of those I love. But getting behind a man like trump, who very clearly disrespects my rights and existence along with so many others, and then telling me to be nice​ in my response? That pisses me the hell off.

This tendency of trump-supporters to expect agreeableness or niceness​, really, really, really gets me. If you are going to wear bigotry on your sleeve, or hide it in your pocket, or fail to object when it is woven into the cloth that you passively don because maybe the article still serves your purpose, that is one thing. That is bad. But you made a choice. And that's that and here we are. Your choice and values are apparent, and our positions towards each other apparent. So to dare​ to go so far as to literally expect and demand no resistance against what you've chosen? That I be nice​? No resistance against the danger you've put so many people in? Nah. That's disgusting, and you know it, but you're trying to get away with it. It's overwhelmingly hypocritical, and overwhelmingly selfish and just too convenient, especially given the behaviors of the right-wing over the last 8 years.

​If I told someone that I am ok jeopardizing their life because of the color of their skin, who they love, where they come from, what language they speak, the religion they practice, their gender, or their sex, I would not also have the lowliness to ask that person to lay down as I walk over them.

Besides that, between the two of us, given your love that only goes so far, your helpfulness that ends when it comes to safety and equality, your welcoming demeanor that cannot go to the lengths of respecting ​all​, oh yes, between the two of us you, trump-supporter, are far more nice​ than I. (And in fact, I know a lot of nice​ people. What I need, what the world needs, what our country needs, are kind​ people.)

​What the world needs are people who love and respect and care for other people of all skin tones, of all gender and sexual identities, of all religions, of all abilities. Who love and respect the existence and integrity and dignity of all people not by "accepting​", or "tolerating", or ​"ignoring"​. But who helps and respects all people innately, with the feelings of relative​s for each other. 

And for the record, white people, men, Christians, rich people, straight people, empowered groups etc... you have not been doing this equally. For trump-supporters, you may be resistant to hearing this. But I need​ you to listen. I need you to look beyond your own exclusive experiences. The world, this country, is more vast than what you alone have experienced. Many people of oppressed or marginalized groups have continued to be exceedingly kind to you ​even as you continue to hurt, oppress, take advantage of, insult, ignore, or trivialize their lives and experiences. To be kind means listening when black communities and Native communities say that they are being discriminated against. This means, when a police officer shoots an unarmed black man, that you don't immediately assume he ​deserved it. Listening​. This means standing up and demanding that everyone have equal rights and safety, and not blindly following your own narrative. When a person is raped, you don't immediately assume it was their fault or that they are ​lying. ​These are all ​basic kindnesses​ that so many in positions of privilege (yes, especially white people, and men, and white men) have ​pervasively neglected​.

I can only speak as a woman, but, my own experience is that it is exceedingly​ hard to maintain kindness towards men, for example, who continue to dismiss the pain I feel when I am called lesser or when control of my own body​ is debated. Men who do this or hold such a position, and yet treat me nicely​. I do not feel quickly compelled to reciprocate with kindness, nor, perhaps, should I. Despite that, the vast majority of women including myself continue to treat other men with exceptional kindness even as a startling number of men continue to react with violence towards the simple declination of a date. No, it's not all men. But yes, it's a lot of men. Likewise, many people of color continue​ to be kind towards white people, ​despite hundreds of years of ongoing history wherein white people have enslaved, raped, or murdered people just like them, for the color of their skin or origin. ​Muslim communities continue​ to be loving towards their fellow Americans, despite being constantly​ scapegoated and threatened. So many LGBTQ+ individuals practice incredible forgiveness towards people close to them, who would call their lives a ​​​sin. That all takes exceptional grace and kindness on behalf of those who are being oppressed or endangered. And it is not obligated. I know I, personally, understand if someone has been hurt so continually and so deeply that to be kind​ to those who hurt them, even after a full understanding of the one who hurt them, that they can no longer risk kindness.

Every so often, the wound is too deep. For a lot of people on the national level, the election cut especially deep, even if it was not necessarily surprising. It meant that a significant portion of the country (especially white men and women) was willing to overlook another very ​significant portion of the country's very literal fear for their lives. To me, it was fellow Americans literally​ stamping their purposeful or passive approval on sexism, racism, xenophobia, classism, etc. If you're a trump-supporter, maybe you think that's not why you voted as you did. But the thing is, it is impossible to disentangle those repeated negative words and actions and intentions expressed by your party from your desire for jobs​. It is not that simple. It is a package deal.

​So, tell me to be nice​? That is not how this works.

​You damn well better expect resistance. You sure as hell do not have any place telling others to be nice​. Or trying to convince us that we need to correct our peaceful behavior. Or dropping such an insidious threat. ​​Niceness has no place here, ma'am. Not when you place the stakes this high. I am sick of niceness. I am sick of people like you, who would betray others who are unlike yourself, but would stop to help change someone's tire in a pinch. I am being kind to your sorry self, and that is all the more you damn well deserve if you endanger my life and the lives of others. You are not going to shame me into being nice​. You are not​ going to make me believe, even for one moment, that I should be ashamed for speaking up against hate. And it is disturbing that you think the practice of respectful free speech, the full embrace of love, and the rejection of hate, is not being damn well nice enough already. It is disturbing that you think you can start this, and ask that I go quietly. No ma'am, resistance means resistance, and that is what you get when you align yourself, passionately or passively, with hate. That was always quite clear.

Still, myself and many others strive continually to embrace kindness. Kindness, in that we commit ourselves to continually learning, to empathy, to listening, to love. And as such, we are concerned. We are outraged. At this moment, it is you who has failed to do likewise. I may not be perfect, but goddamn if I won't fight for human rights instead of ​ever trading in the lives of my fellow citizens for jobs ​​(much less jobs promised by a millionaire)​.

​So, I know why she said it. And I know why it insults me. Be nice! Or else, I suppose!

​But here's my​ guiding principle, especially in times like these: Don't be nice. Be kind.

Be open-hearted. Be outspoken. Be informed. Be respectful. Be rational. Be dedicated. Be brave. Be compassionate. Be enduring.

But don't be nice​.


_________
Footnote:
* In a somewhat similar though not identical way, women and many individuals of other oppressed or marginalized groups (people of color, in particular) are often strongly pressured to swallow discomfort, hurt, frustration, or anger because they will be labeled a problem or shamed otherwise. Not out of choice or something as trivial as "Minnesota Nice", but out of a very real sense of self-protection. In those cases, being "nice" is sometimes necessary for safety.

 I am writing on the eve of the inauguration of a man who, like many wealthy white men before him, has ridden to power on the backs of the oppressed. I am writing as our Nation's most ugly, corrupt, and unjust legacies embody themselves corporeally, and take an open and unabashed seat of overt leadership. Again and again, I have contemplated what this means for a country.

None of the rhetoric that the president-elect soon-to-be president espouses is new, novel, unique, or surprising, although it is not normal and should never be normal. It is, however, ​business as usual, based on the United State's track-record. Just a bit more in-your-face. His mentalities and platforms are very firmly grounded in the inheritance of genocide, rape, theft, slavery, and entitlement that form the foundation of the United States.  One look at our history should inform you of this. Indeed, you may already be aware of this if you pay one ounce of attention to the experiences of your fellow humans or if you are someone who experiences oppression. (1)

Those beloved founding fathers? I find most of them abhorrent in their treatment of those who did not possess a y-chromosome and did not have their same pale complexion. So, given all of that, this outcome is not shocking. If you are shocked, you need to educate yourself. It is, however, painful. Frankly, I have never expected much of anything from the White people of this country, very little from men, and much less from the wealthy. And least of all from the wealthy White man. It is a lot to expect, after all, that someone might inherently possess the qualities of human decency, empathy, and respect for life. (2) ​

Perhaps you can sense my exasperation.  But in that exasperation, what I keep coming back to is this: in the test of a nation, we have failed. Many times over.

Over the past century, some people might argue that there have been strides forward. Steps towards a more equitable, fair, just, and compassionate society. Yet, for many oppressed peoples -- the many Native Nations and Native individuals, people of color, women, those who are LGBTQ+, those who are poor, those with disabilities: in summary, those who differ from the cis-gendered able-bodied white male -- those strides forward are perhaps more realistically framed as the marginal and incomplete concessions of a predominantly White, privileged class's violent, aggressive  monopolization on equality. The many intersections of race, gender, sex, sexual identity, economic status, and ability all make the issue of power and privilege complex. However, terming these strides forward as "progress" is an outright lie, meant to convince that somehow the onus is on the oppressed to garner their own rights. Chris Rock​ (3) voiced this very well in 2014: "White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before." It is not on the oppressed to make themselves somehow more worthy of rights, dignity, and respect. It is on the oppressors to realize that they are acting like assholes. It is on those supporting the oppressors to stop supporting oppression​.

​Oppressors don't often have that realization voluntarily or independently, nor do those who are comfortable in such a system. (And so, usually, it is through the hard work and struggle of the oppressed themselves that rights are gradually wrested from the monopolizing grasp of the oppressing group rather than via some moral epiphany from the powerful.)

​It is the nature of the oppressor to restrict such rights. To diminish, to belittle, to dehumanize, to other, to divide, to restrict, to bully, to deny, to perpetuate itself, to twist. To control the narrative. The fact that a disturbing majority of people lack an awareness of some of the most basic truths of American history (this land was stolen from its original inhabitants, genocide happened and continues today, North America had a long history and hundreds of cultures for many thousands of years, slavery happened until very recently and we are still dealing with its effects, women have been written out and treated as lessor, Andrew Jackson was a piece of shit, etc.) is testament to the control of that narrative. It does not excuse such behavior, but should serve as a warning that the status-quo is unlikely to be changed by those who benefit ​significantly from it. (4)

In fact, prior to the election, my thoughts were often on a question, as to whether my life and the lives of others would be valued. I got my answer (no, my life is not valued as a woman. In that, the resounding answer was that I am worthless. My skin color and able body, though, are still as valuable as ever.) The particularly disappointing thing is that, this time, the test was exceptionally easy. Which candidate supports the lives and liberty of all? I'd wager on the candidate whose slogan is "Stronger Together" rather than on the one who calls for a return to a time of slavery, praises a fascist Russian dictator, and would punish women for exercising control of their own bodies, as only a few examples. Hear me now: there is no question that Hillary Clinton was the ethical, compassionate, educated choice in this election. It was a very clear decision between the two candidates, not a lesser-of-two evils. Yet, across the spectrum, a distressing number of people demonstrated their lack of regard for the lives of others in either a) voting for trump and ignoring his words and actions b) willingly not voting or c) casting a foolish protest vote.

​ As an extension of this, in our election, we faced a test. We faced a test on the human-level of "will white people recognize the oppressive system which they support?" (Failed). We faced a test on the human-level of "will men recognize the oppressive system which they support?" (Failed) Mind you, these are not tests that one should fail.

And we also faced a more philosophical test: can this country claim legitimacy? (Failed)

Let me explain.

As much as I might disagree with some aspects of old, white, male philosophers, when we consider some of the figures at the fount of the "Nation" model, many cite back to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Now, this citing is in itself an example of the perpetuation and glorification of oppressive forces. There have been countless people of color and women who have made major contributions to the philosophical discourse of nation, society, and the formative discourse on rights and civil liberties prior to Hobbes/Locke and after, but whose contributions have been suppressed or ignored in the telling of history while Hobbes and Locke are remembered. (5) Hobbes and Locke are remembered in part because of their historical privilege and empowered status. Both are very guilty in my mind of embracing patriarchal, racist, sexist, patronizing mentalities towards non-"Western" societies and especially towards people of color and Native peoples. And, as usual, towards women. 

So I don't have a whole lot of faith that they would leap to my ​defense as a woman or that they'd enthusiastically defend someone unlike themselves. They're mostly preoccupied with white men when it comes to liberty. I bring them up here because many would claim that their works on the social contract and philosophies on liberty were formative in the development of the United States and its political sentiments. And in many ways, they were indeed influential. So, if we want to understand some of the underlying, basic concepts of our country in terms of its "philosophy" and legitimization for its existence, let's take a moment to discuss. (Plus, I've noticed that White folks, who arguably need to get this sort of discussion in their heads, only really like to listen to other White folks. Here are some old white dudes for you, White folks!)

In the 17th century, Hobbes outlined that in the state of nature all are equal. (6) And that in a "state of nature" (i.e. before the formation of a society or nation or community, etc.), the ​only​ right is the preservation of one's life. That's it. Nothing else. You have a right to your life. Subsequently, there are two guiding "laws of nature". These differ from literal laws as in rights or liberties. Again, the only inherent right is the preservation of one's life. Hobbes' laws of nature are rather guiding rules of human nature in the absence of legal laws or a society. The first: "every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it." The second: "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself." Got it? Again, basically, the ​only​ right one ​truly has is to the preservation of their life, and then when we all get together and form a society or a nation or a community, it is with the contract of certain restrictions of rights (giving up the right to kill people, for example, which increases peace and reduces a state of "warre" i.e. war/conflict/strife). We do this with the human tendency towards peace (mostly out of self-interest) and with our contentedness based on being treated by others and treating others as we'd like to be treated. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not long thereafter, John Locke expands on this to include the preservation of one's life, liberty, and property. (7)

But at the most very basic level​, at the core of the justification for a country such as the United States, we've got this social contract that says if we lay down certain rights to come together (i.e. lay down the rights to ​all ​things), then it is with the guiding prescript of  "so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself." That's why we're cool with it, that's what we'll be content with, since we like peace and we like equal treatment. Hobbes also goes on to describe how some rights are subsequently ceded to a sovereign authority (i.e. a government) to help preserve a state of peace. Many would agree that Hobbes starts to go overboard in his calls for absolute authority. At the premise, though, is that these rights are ceded for protection (the enhanced possibility of the preservation of ones' life via maintenance of peace) to a governing authority. Yet, this ceding of rights and political obligation to a sovereign authority ends when it endangers one's life.

​So, remember the test? We currently live in a country which presently and historically has not ​accorded so much liberty against other men (people) as one would allow against oneself. The liberties of people of color, of women, and of many other marginalized and oppressed groups (read: not​ wealthy, cis-gendered white men) have been restricted to ​less​ than that of wealthy, cis-gendered white men. Again, it is important to remember intersectionality. But by and large, brown and black lives have been de-valued in this country in favor of white lives. Have been treated as lesser, and the rights (liberty) of those with pale skin have been and remain greater in practice​ ​across the board. Perhaps, in theory​, all have the same liberties, perhaps in theory oppressed groups have liberties that would treat them as white men prefer to be treated. But that is not how things presently or historically have operated. That's not how our system operates now, or plans to operate. And when you look at literal law, often those liberties are unequal as well, writing unequal treatment into word.

On top of that, very often our governing authority places the lives of oppressed peoples in danger. It does so either directly, through law, and through force, and also in the embodiment of hateful rhetoric from one group against the existence of another group. (So, for example, when a president elect does not vehemently denounce the endorsement of the KKK, that would be the authority threatening the lives of people of color. Likewise when a vice-president elect endorses hateful rhetoric such as conversion therapy and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation known to jeopardize the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals). 

This goes against the very premise of our social contract. It de-legitimizes it. (Not that a founding on land theft, genocide, rape, and slavery does not also, perhaps, de-legitimize the United States just a bit!)

Now, some aspects of entering a social contract are tacit or assumed. You're born into a country and you live there as a citizen, so guess what, you've probably accepted the social contract of that country. However, again, that contract assumes ​so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself​ ​​as a primary stipulation for entering the contract. White folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to people of color as it does to you​? Men, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to women as it does to you? Rich folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to the poor or middle class as it does to you? Straight, cis-gendered folks, can you honestly say that this country accords so much liberty to LGBTQ+ individuals as it does to you? I could go on. (And if you answered yes to those rhetorical questions, then you need to listen to the experiences of those unlike yourself).

The United States is very literally violating the most basic prescript of the contract for its existence. The government to whom we have ceded some rights for the sake of protection as a sovereign authority -- guess what, again and again it puts the lives of many of its citizens in danger. Literally. When it incarcerates people of color for minor offenses? (Black men and native peoples, for example, are far​ overrepresented in prisons and are far more likely to experience police brutality). When a government-appointed or government-supported force shoots​, strangles​, or otherwise physically assaults someone unduly, unjustly, or excessively, someone it is sworn to protect? That is not according the same liberty as a white man would likely experience under the law. Nor is it protecting​ the lives of those it systematically discriminates against.

​This is what I cannot move past: the United States has failed and continues to fail the test. This election was not only a test of the decency of the White-populace of this country and whether White people are still crazy (which, fyi, we failed. Still crazy. Still hateful. Still myopic). (8) It was also a test of the legitimacy of the United States over all. A nation that does not follow its most basic prescripts is not a Nation. It is an oppressive state. It is in a state of war, not in a state of peace.

If, over the next four years, those who are oppressed are particularly resistant, then remember that. Remember that each of us has an inherent right to the protection of our life, based on the founding principles of this country's philosophy. Remember that the president-elect outright embodies the illegitimacy I have discussed, that threat against lives and that unequal liberty. Past presidents and administrations have all failed as well. There is not a single president or administration, I would argue, that has truly upheld so much liberty against other men as she/he/they would allow other men against themselves​ and which has not placed black and brown lives, women's lives, LGBTQ+ lives, the lives of the differently-abled in danger, though some have done far better than others. If there are many of us who are exceptionally pissed that the president elect doesn't even attempt to uphold a façade​ of protection for lives unlike his own and equal liberty as he affords himself, know that anger is justified.  Know that it has gone on long enough. Know that, even though other administrations might have failed, some at least were improving the systems. Even if marginally. The promises of the president elect donald trump do no such thing, in word, in action, or in intent.

​Do not expect us to easily forgive or trust those who voted against our lives and liberty or did not care enough to vote at all when we were in jeopardy and needed your help. Do not expect us to submit quietly to a sovereign authority or governing authority who violates the safety of our lives. Do not expect us to submit quietly to a sovereign/governing authority, or to sign on to a contract, that does not respect the equality of its citizens. Do not expect us to contentedly follow a contract that is meant to protect us, too, and that has demonstrably failed to do so.

This is not normal. It has never been normal.






​
----------------------------------------------
​Footnotes:
1: Not you, white dudes! Especially not you, rich cis-gendered white dudes. And white women, you best listen up too. If you disagree and think that White people are facing oppression, I'd like to engage in a productive and respectful conversation with you about privilege, bias, discrimination, oppression, racism, sexism, and history. There are also many great resources out there, written from the perspectives of those who live with and experience oppression in many forms. I'm happy to help guide you to the extent of your respectfulness and my ability.
​2: True respect for life, not pro-life bullshit that reveres a bundle of cells, and then turns a blind-eye when a child is born, based on a criteria of skin color, sex, and privilege.
3: Chris Rock also demonstrated, unfortunately, the complexity of issues of race and sex in subsequent statements; when he hosted the Oscars, and made offensive jokes at the expense of Asian and Asian-American communities and belittled frustrations over unequal treatment of women in Hollywood. But his statements on progress nonetheless make a very important point.
4: This means you, white folks.  This means you, men. This especially means you, rich white folks. (This means you too, white women, though I would've hoped you possessed slightly more empathy). You all benefit from systematic oppression. Lots of folks would love if ya'll had an ethical awakening and committed yourself to equality and equity! I'm not holding my breath. But I would be pleased to be proven wrong in my lack of faith in you for once.
​5: For example, the Iroquois Confederacy is one of the oldest participatory democracies and the "founding fathers" and the U.S. constitution were both very clearly influenced by it and by the long traditions and existing systems of Native Nations, even though this continues to be overlooked or down-played in favor of Western (European) influences.
​6: He uses the word "men", which is often used to refer to people or humans in general. But, given the time period, most likely he is thinking of male-identified and not in terms of "human", which always pisses me off as a woman, but let's continue. 
7: The property introduction and philosophy, for me, is where things get especially frustrating with Locke because it has been used as a major legitimization for the theft of land in North America, and by Anglo- and Western colonizing forces in many parts of the world. Basically, Locke's property involves the input of "work." Because Anglo- and Western colonizers did not define Native peoples and Native Nations uses of the land as "work", this argument was used to justify that the land was up for the taking. All of which is a ridiculous and fraudulent justification on many levels.
​8: I put this test on White people because an alarming 58% of white voters voted for trump in contrast to only 21% of "non-whites" for trump, a man and campaign that explicitly used racist, sexist language and whose platform and policies explicitly jeopardize equal liberty.  There is no way you can convince me that it is ethically acceptable to have voted for trump.  Men also failed this test. 53% of men voted for trump. (Here's the breakdown) I also put this test on the approximate 45% of eligible voters who did not vote. (Among that percentage, I want to clearly exempt those who were eligible to vote but were prevented from voting by restrictive or discriminatory voting laws or whose polling places were moved without warning, for example, or other forces against their will. The test is pointedly with those who willingly did not vote)