fbpx

February 21, 2014

GRIEVANCE AS CRUTCH

Two events in recent days suggest that progress in the arena of race and ethnicity remains hard to secure, or even to acknowledge. Man’s capacity for being aggrieved will, seemingly, always surface and find an act or a trend to kvetch and complain about. We have written about this phenomenon before regarding a variety of religious, racial and ethnic groups (e.g.“>here and“>article that almost defies description in its effort to stir up racial “issues” where none exist. It is hard to believe that an author and an editor at a respected publication could have thought that the “news” item was worthy of dissemination; yet, there it is with a 24 point headline: “Jeopardy Contestants Painfully Avoid Black History Questions As Long As They Can.”

In an unattributed article in the Black Voices section of the Post, the author bemoans the fact that three “white college students” chose the categories of “International Cinema Showcase,” “Weather Verbs,” and “Kiwi Fauna” before they answered the questions in the “African American History” category (which they answered 60% correct).

To the folks at the Huff Post these three college kids “painfully” chose to avoid the Black history questions and the reader is, presumably, to take that decision as affirmation of the pervasive hostility (?), racism (?), or ignorance (?) of the contestants—otherwise, why the article? There are countless benign explanations as to why the contestants chose the categories they chose and in the order they chose them; it takes a real effort to conjure up a negative reason that merits “exposure.”

But the Huffington Post is not alone in recently perpetuating a notion of victimization, despite a paucity of evidence, to justify the assertion.

Last week, the Asian Pacific Coalition at UCLA and 75 other organizations nationwide issued a press release appropriately decrying a vulgar, inflammatory, racist and incoherent flyer that had been mailed to the Asian American Studies Center at UCLA. Had the authors stuck to the incendiary flyer and expressed their concerns about its message (seemingly animated by anger at Asian women’s dating practices), it would have been understandable. Had this press release simply been authored by one student group on one campus, it wouldn’t merit attention; but it is co-signed by groups ranging from students at NYU and Berkeley and Florida State to organized labor, United Auto Workers (Local 2865).

The Coalition’s release quickly devolves into hyperbolic racial grievance. The flyer incident is decried as evidence of the “toxicity present at the UCLA campus.” The evidence for the charge of a poisonous environment are isolated events (e.g. vandalism of a bulletin board, a nasty flyer affixed to a student group’s office) that may merit claims of “unpleasant” or “irritating” but hardly toxic; the exception being an incident that was noted of a viral video from early 2011 by a then UCLA student that was appropriately handled. The young woman was widely chastised, withdrew from the university and apologized for her bigoted commentary.

The release asserts as dispositive evidence of UCLA’s chilling environment, “every year, at least one discriminatory and racially biased incident occurs, and many more go unreported….” Having been in the civil rights field for decades and having handled countless incidents of hate, vandalism and insensitivity—-“one discriminatory incident”, or even a handful, per year in UCLA’s population of approximately 13,000 Asian Americans of various ethnicities hardly creates a chilling environment. Asian American students constitute approximately 35% (as of 2011) of the enrolled students on campus; people interact and tempers flare and regrettable things are said and done—one incident a year of the kind enumerated is neither catastrophic nor poisonous.

One has to wonder then, why the need for such Chicken Little-like hyperbole? Why does the Huff Post author feel compelled to complain about an act that has fifty benign explanations? Why does the Asian Pacific Coalition feel it necessary to extrapolate from one nasty flyer and argue that a campus that has embraced diversity and enrolled Asian Americans in large numbers is marginalizing them and painting them as “perpetual foreigners”? Why do human relations coalitions and the civil rights groups assert the sky is falling when a miniscule number of nasty and regrettable incidents occur in a nation of 350 million people? The test of our progress is not whether there are a handful of sociopaths who commit bad acts, but rather what the response to hate is by leaders and that the majority of the body politic.

One persuasive explanation as to why the focus on being a victim was offered by the noted pundit John McWhorter over a decade ago when he GRIEVANCE AS CRUTCH Read More »

1950s ‘Cool,’ with a side of loss

Leo Braudy is a distinguished scholar at USC whose work focuses on the entertainment industry and other artifacts of popular culture.  His previous books range from “The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History” to “The Hollywood Sign: Fantasy and Reality of an American Icon.” But now he has cast his memory back to his own adolescence in Philadelphia in the 1950s with “Trying to Be Cool: Growing Up in the 1950s (Based on a True Story)” (Asahina & Wallace, $15). It is an affecting account of one young man’s ongoing effort to invent himself in an era when being cool was “the summum bonum of teenage aspiration.”

“The problem was first deciding what was cool and then imitating it with enough nuance of your own to make it seem at least partially unique,” Braudy explains. “One day you were safely within the sphere of family, where your role, like it or not, was clear. The next day you had left the realm of blithe boyhood in some murky dawn of self-consciousness.”

Ironically, the man who deconstructs movies for a living started watching them at a neighborhood theatre that he describes as “a minor teenage war zone, where the lights were never totally dimmed so the manager and his band of ushers could patrol the aisles looking for infractions of whatever personal moral code he was enforcing that evening.” As a result, Braudy reveals, “[t]here must be at least 10 or 12 movies from that period that I never saw to the end because I was kicked out.”

Precisely because Braudy is writing about the 1950s, a period of both moral and political repression in America, adolescent excess was something quite different than it is today.  “There was certainly a lot of necking going on, and some people even claimed to have had sex,” he concedes. There was a little drinking, but no dope.  The place where the envelope was pushed, he explains, was the dance floor: “Parents might get irritated at rock ’n’ roll music,” he observes, “but dancing drove them crazy.”  And some dances were more crazy-making than others: “The Hora you danced with your grandmother and your uncle Lenny,” he explains, but a circle dance called the Bug was so provocative that it was outright banned by “many of the more strait-laced synagogues.”

Like all memoirs, the author brings a measure of sentiment to his recollections. But what I admire most about “Trying to Be Cool” is Braudy’s ability to deconstruct the common experiences of adolescence in a way that reveals their inner meanings, as in his candid discourse on the truth or falsity of the proposition that “ugly girls put out.” He concludes that there “was little chance of actual sex in these situations, just an interminable succession of power struggles worked out in miniature.  One example: “In fact, even if the girl weren’t putting up a struggle, you had to pretend she was, as a sop to her self-esteem,” he writes. “Thus, I began to school myself in something like the male version of faking an orgasm.”

Along the way, Braudy recalls some facts of life that are wholly forgotten nowadays. Margarine, he points out, used to be “dead white like lard” because the dairy industry had lobbied for laws to ban the coloring of margarine to make it look like butter. “Between 1951 and 1955, when those laws were overturned, it was sold with a plastic capsule of orange-yellow coloring inside the packaging,” he writes. “Breaking the capsule, then squeezing and kneading the package to create margarine’s now familiar look, was my job.”

He also shatters a few carefully-tended myths.  Dick Clark and the teenagers who danced on his Philly-based show may have been famously clean-cut, but the show “had begun as a much funkier radio show, then called merely Bandstand, out of a dark studio in downtown Philadelphia, emceed by a beefy guy in a sharkskin suit and a 5-o’clock shadow named Bob Horn.”  When the show went national, “the gangstery Bob Horn disappeared via what in those days was called a ‘morals charge.’ But the truth seemed to be that Horn was just too jowly and old to compete with the chipmunky Clark as the bright face of teenage America.”

But Braudy does not shy away from the most intimate of revelations and, almost inevitably, the most affecting memories focus on the author’s father. “Whatever may seem embarrassing in these memoirs — my sexual preoccupations, my naïveté about the world and its ways — to say this saddens me the most: I saw my father’s myths about himself stripped of their plea of victimization, punctured and flattened like an old tire.”

Braudy makes the significant point that he was not a baby boomer.  “We were war babies, born into a world of scrap metal and bacon-fat drives, air-raid drills and fireside chats, the offspring of furloughs or fathers too old or too young to fight,” he explains. “We weren’t the boomer generation born into the new world as its birthright but as a group with more desperate strivings and a keener sense of the world we had lost.”  For this reason, “Trying to Be Cool” is not an exercise in nostalgia; rather, it is a kind of testimony: “My purpose is to bear witness,” he concludes, “to try to recapture the experience of growing up in a particular time and place that might otherwise vanish from memory.”  And he has been wholly successful in that effort.


Jonathan Kirsch, author and publishing attorney, is the book editor of the Jewish Journal. His latest book, “The Short Strange Life of Herschel Grynszpan: A Boy Avenger, a Nazi Diplomat and a Murder in Paris.”

1950s ‘Cool,’ with a side of loss Read More »

The New Uncertainty about Mammograms

“I’d like to be tested for every kind of cancer.”

All primary care doctors have heard this request. Our answer is an explanation that we can’t. Understanding this explanation is important before we get to the most recent study about mammograms.

We don’t test for all kinds of cancers for an important reason. The outcome of most cancers don’t depend on when they are diagnosed. This may come as a surprise to many, since we’ve all heard the message of the importance of early diagnosis. But that message only applies to a handful of cancers. Diagnosing colon cancer early definitely saves lives, hence the value of screening colonoscopies. Early diagnosis of cervical cancer is also beneficial, hence Pap tests. But many cancers do not fit this pattern. Take leukemia for instance. Some leukemias are curable; others are not. When they’re diagnosed makes little difference. So testing everyone for leukemia wouldn’t save any lives.

This problem is compounded in cancers that are very-slow growing and occur mostly in older people. These cancers, if undetected, may never harm the patient, and the patient could live a normal lifespan and die of an entirely unrelated problem. Detecting these cancers early doesn’t help anyone. That’s called over-diagnosis – diagnosing a disease that would have never caused harm. (That’s a major problem with prostate cancer screening and is why ” target=”_blank”>I reviewed the evidence in a post back then.) The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) combined the data of all the randomized studies of mammograms and calculated that on average 1 life is saved from breast cancer for every 377 women in their 60s who undergo mammograms. For women in their 50s the benefit is smaller (i.e. more women must have mammograms to save one life) and for women in their 40s the benefit is smaller still. Because of the very small benefit to women in their 40s the USPSTF recommended against routine mammograms in this age range. (I disagreed in my post.) And they recommended mammograms every two years for women between the ages of 50 and 74.

This month the British Medical Journal published ” target=”_blank”>Vast Study Casts Doubts on Value of Mammograms (New York Times)
” target=”_blank”>Cancer screening expert to radiologists: Stop lying about mammograms (Los Angeles Times)
” target=”_blank”>Mammography Screening (The Medical Letter blog)
” target=”_blank”>New Mammogram Recommendations Betray Women, Doctors and Science (my post in 2009 reviewing the evidence on mammography)

“>Follow me on Twitter

Important legal mumbo jumbo:
Anything you read on the web should be used to supplement, not replace, your doctor’s advice.  Anything that I write is no exception.  I’m a doctor, but I’m not your doctor.

The New Uncertainty about Mammograms Read More »