Don't Hate Me 'Cause I'm Human

There's this disturbing trend I've observed recently - okay, the last thirty years.

It's part of what I was talking about yesterday, in a way. For a book to be considered serious, or introspective or relevant, it has to attack the past or western culture or civilization or tech or... humanity.

Not that there is anything wrong with attacking these, mind, to an extent. And they used to be shockers and a very good way to attract attention immediately. And I'm not saying the mindlessly chauvinistic "our people, right or wrong" was much better. For instance, the cowboy-and-Indian trope became really tired after a while and when my brother gave me a book called - I think - (in Portuguese translation) The Mace of War, detailing all the injustices against Native Americans it was a mind-altering experience. Literally. And very worth it.

I'm just saying that these days, by default what you hear is against-whatever-the-dominant-culture is.

I first realized this when I was studying for my final exam in American culture in college. The book changed opinions and contradicted itself but it was ALWAYS against the winners and against whatever ended up being the status quo. So, the book was against the North of the US, because the North... won. Even though it had before been against slavery. It was very much against modern US and raged against... embalming practices for three or four pages. (Because they divorce us from the Earth. Just SILLY stuff.)

And then I started noting this trend in everything, including fiction. Think about it. Who is to blame in any drama: the US; the successful; the British; the Europeans; the... humans.

Years ago when Discovery Channel put out its "future evolution" series, my kids and I were glued to the screen. We're the family for whom the Denver Museum of Nature And Science is home away from home, the place we will visit if we have an afternoon free, the place where we have watched lectures and movies. I refer to it as "molesting dinos" and it's usually my way to celebrate finishing a book.

So we were glued to the TV. Except that after the beginning, I realized the way it was going, and I started predicting it. Instead of taking a "what might humans become" the people who wrote this went down a path where first humans and then everything VAGUELY related to humans became successively extinct, till the only warm-blooded survivor was a bird, and then that too became extinct. In the end, tree-dwelling SQUIDS inherited the Earth.

Yes, you DID read that right. Tree. Dwelling. SQUIDS.

The contortions were capricious and often absurd, but you could predict where it was going.

It's been a while since we had cable, but I understand there was a very popular series called "Life After US" about what would happen to the works of humans if we were suddenly extinct. And people watched it, fascinated and - from the tones of posts about it - a little wistful.

This is when you must step back and go "What is wrong with us?" "Is this a sickness of the soul?"

The answer? Yes and no.

Part of it, of course, is wanting to shock, wanting to revolutionize, wanting to be innovative... in safe ways - in (dare we say it?) politically correct ways. It's easy and approved of to attack: males, America, western civ, humans.

People who select works at publishers and studios and all that are often liberal arts graduates and they come from this curious world where they still think the establishment is circa 1950s and that they're telling something new and wonderful.

Part of it is, of course, that we do see problems in our own culture, in our own society, in our own species. Of course we do. We are an introspective culture. We examine our consciences, we find ourselves lacking, we try to improve. This is, in general a good thing - though perhaps a little perspective is also in order.

Part of it is politeness/sensitivity to other cultures, mingled with the consciousness our ancestors were often wrong. We've been taught the crimes of colonizers in various lands and most of those colonizers (and colonized, at least for most of us) were our ancestors. We're conscious we're big and others are smaller. It's a peculiar form of noblesse oblige. We don't want to trample others by pointing out faults in other cultures or other species. I understand this, because I learned to drive in my thirties and lived in a mountain town with lots of foot traffic downtown. I was excruciatingly careful driving through there, because I could crush a pedestrian and not notice. This is why we tend to turn our flagellation upon ourselves.

And part of it is sicker/darker. I notice this tendency every time we discuss a great figure of the past, from George Washington to Heinlein - as different as they are. I call it "counting coup." George Washington? Well, he was slave owner. And he had wooden teeth. And Lincoln? Well, he was very ill, and besides, he was probably gay and in the closet. Heinlein? Despite all his efforts at including - for his time - minorities and giving women starring roles, he must have been closet racist and sexist, donchaknow? Because he doesn't fit OUR superior notions of inclusiveness.

What is going on here - besides tearing at our own past, and thereby continuing the self-flagellation - is being able to prove we are "superior" to these high achievers. We might do nothing and achieve nothing, but we are superior beings because we're more moral than they are.
Individually, none of these trends is really bad - or at least not for those of us who grew up with the opposite tradition.

Oh, the constant and predictable chest-beating becomes boring. At least it does for me. Maybe it doesn't for other people?

But think of (grin) the children. They have no perspective. All they hear is how their country, their culture, their SPECIES is evil. How things would be so much better without us... How things would - ultimately - be much better if... THEY hadn't been born.

It's not healthy. It's vaguely disgusting. And the best it can do is engender the MOTHER of all backlashes and bring about a cultural chauvinism the likes of which you've never seen. The worse... well, one of the other cultures we don't criticize because they're small and we're big becomes the norm.

And before you cheer them on, let me put this in perspective: Western civ has committed crimes. ALL human cultures throughout history have committed crimes. Slavery? Since the dawn of time. Exploitation? Since the dawn of time. Murder? War? Genocide? Yep, and yep, and yep. And many of those cultures STILL do all of those things and don't feel in the slightest bit guilty, mostly because we handily and frequently blame OURSELVES for their behavior and they get our books, our TV series and our movies.

Such as it is, the West has brought the greatest freedom, prosperity and security to the greatest population.

Yes, there were crimes committed, but a lot of them were the result of a clash of world views - tribalism met the state. Look, it's not that Native Americans or Africans lived in a state of innocence and harmony with nature. If you believe that, you need to study history and put down Jean Jacques Rosseau. And get out of your mom's basement. And take the Star Trek posters off the wall. And the Avatar poster, too, while you're at it.

To the extent the native were innocent and helpless, it was because of their mental furniture. What gave colonizers the edge was not their weapons or civilization (Oh, come on, back then, there wasn't that much of a distance.) It was their mental furniture. To wit, they had overcome tribalism and organized on a large scale. Most of the colonized (excepting some small empires) hadn't. So they would attack in ways that worked in tribal warfare: exterminate a village or an outpost. And the reaction of the colonizers (who by the way also didn't understand the difference in mental furniture and therefore thought this made the native peoples' "bestial" or "evil) was to exterminate all of a tribe or a federation of tribes. And it worked because westerners were united as a MUCH larger group. Which made them stronger. Western civilization started overcoming tribalism with the Romans. That was the real innovation.

If you think that we're rich because of those acts, you must study economics. It doesn't work that way. If anything those acts made all of us worse off. We're way past any wealth we could plunder off others. We've created wealth. The whole world lives better than it did five hundred years ago.

And if you're going to tell me the fact that all humans are flawed proves that we're a bad species, you'll have to tell me: As opposed to what? Dolphins are serial rapists. Chimps commit murder. Rats... Every species we examine has our sins, but none of our redeeming qualities.

Heinlein said it was important to be FOR humanity because we're human. Beavers might be admirable, but we're not beavers. He was right. But beyond all that, we're the only species that tries self-perfecting. We exist - as Pratchett said - at the place where rising ape meets falling angel, but as far as I know, we're the only species reaching upward. (Of course, we wouldn't know if there are others and again, we have to assume we are it. The others have flaws too.)

We are part of the world and in it. To love the other animals of the Earth - or the hypothetical alien - and hate us is strange. Are we not animals? Are we not of the Earth? And who the heck can compete with sentients who exist only in the story teller's imagination.

By all means, let's protect the weaker. Let's shelter the little. But let's not beat ourselves because we're bigger and stronger. Let's USE our powers for good instead.

Am I saying that you shouldn't tell these stories then?

No, I'm not. I would never repress anyone's right to create, or anyone's opinion. But I'm asking you to think. I'm asking you to pause and go "The west is bad... as opposed to? Humans are bad... as opposed to?" And tell your kids that, ask them those questions.

And then, perhaps, every now and then, try to imagine a story from the contrary view point. Just to wake things up. And to keep others thinking.

Crossposted @ According To Hoyt (after six thirty a.m)

posted by Sarah on 12.09.10 at 01:34 AM


Humans are human. As individuals they are generally, kind, lovable, reasonable and fair-minded; with a small, healthy, hint of paranoia and just enough self centeredness to insure survival.
The groups they form (and they always form groups) can easily become something very different and very dangerous.

Will   ·  December 9, 2010 6:18 AM

The human default is not necessarily kind and thoughtful or whatever. It is whatever it needs to be to survive. We are not always conscious of the air we breathe, so with cultural viewpoints extrapolated to human nature.

I read somewhere that the international and unrelenting vilification of Germany after WWI led quite directly to the necessity of a Hitler, one who would unite, give purpose and pride to the German volk. This is my fear with the constant haranguing of the West, and the U.S. in particular.

The more they vilify the U.S., the likelier the arrival of a leader who will "help us rediscover our true heritage." It's a siren call that's not altogether bad of itself, but so vulnerable where it seeks to inspire. The passive nature of our liberty, the self-interested nature of it-- leaves it wide open to another's more dominant and less transparent will.

Joan of Argghh!   ·  December 9, 2010 7:40 AM

Funny - halfway through the essay I was thinking "that's why I read Sci-fi". Apparently you do too.

Bram   ·  December 9, 2010 7:58 AM

Green writing is particularly outrageous in this regard. It begins with the premise that everything that exists on earth is natural and good--except for humanity.

Which poses the question: how do they know that? If the evolution of herds of gazelle is natural--you know, "good,"--then so are suburbs.

Brett   ·  December 9, 2010 8:29 AM

Bram -- I not only read it. I write it

Sarah   ·  December 9, 2010 9:12 AM



Sarah   ·  December 9, 2010 9:25 AM


EXACTLY. That is my fear too. This is why I call this a malignant trend. There are things that annoy me as much, but they're just... stupid.
THIS otoh makes me wake up screaming. And if I hear ONE MORE twit-line (or read it) in move or book saying something like "We are a plague on the Earth" I'm going to... become even more angry than I am.

Sarah   ·  December 9, 2010 9:31 AM


Not all groups are bad. And then you have to ask "bad as opposed to what?" By what standard are we judging.

One thing we can say for sure is that the more concentrated the power, the worse human treatment of the environment and even other cultures. Yeah, there are exceptions, but how many people are NATURALLY good? How many rulers?

Distributed decision making is more likely to be easier on the area you live in because SOMEONE will give a hang. It won't be perfect, but it will be easier.

Sarah   ·  December 9, 2010 9:40 AM

I agree the defaults are pure hard wired survival instinct. Group think, polarization, rejection, acceptance and many other group interactions develop them beyond survival and coexistence.

Will   ·  December 9, 2010 10:02 AM

One advantage of being a conservative writer is that your most banal ideas might come as a shocking innovation.

Now, you do have to move beyond the mental furniture that we've all been given as story material (the threadworn, bare, springs busted sofas and sagging tables that have been used ten thousand times).

Practchett's close to correct. He's an atheist, tis true, but he's a humane guy. I say: Created in perfection, but fallen, twisted, so even our best deeds are tainted, and even our worst deeds carry some of our original greatness. And yet, we are to love one another.

Hard to love one another when you're rooting for the extinction of the human race.

Tennwriter   ·  December 9, 2010 11:59 AM

There's this disturbing trend I've observed recently - okay, the last thirty years.

Revenge of the OFs. ;-)

M. Simon   ·  December 9, 2010 4:02 PM

I thought of the future evolution show as depicting what happens after all the humans got off this mudball and went to the stars ... and that the squids were on the way to becoming Humanity 2.0.

Joseph Hertzlinger   ·  December 10, 2010 11:30 AM

Western civilization started overcoming tribalism with the Romans.

The Egyptians actually. If you follow how the attributes of their gods followed the absorption of the various tribes you will find a most interesting subject.

M. Simon   ·  December 10, 2010 12:19 PM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits