Do you care more about the superficial or the substance?
As someone who is biracial, the world tells me to see things in black and white.
The problem is, I know it’s all shades of gray.
Kind of like how no human is truly good, and the inverse, no human is truly bad, we’re like water in a cup splish-splashing around, taking the form of whatever holds us.
And lately, the strangest thing I’ve seen in my life is how much identity has become such a talking point.
In life.
In love.
In politics.
It’s as if everyone and everything wants to put a label on you. But like I’ve said before, I have a hard time with labels. Because being biracial, I don’t really fit into a camp. Instead, I get unfettered access to multiple camps. Nor would I want to be in a camp anyway… I’d rather grow an independent spirit.
Lately, American politics has had more twists and turns than a season of House of Cards. From the assassination attempt to Biden mysteriously stepping down on X, and now to the fallout, it’s stranger than any time in my life. And in the ashes, I see the roots of identity politics growing.
“I’m going to vote for Kamala because she’s a woman.”
“I’m going to vote for Trump because he’s a man.”
“If you’re Black, you must vote for Kamala,” as one popular pundit likes to say.
And even typing this, I can’t help but think how childish this all sounds. And more disturbingly, I can’t quite grasp why Americans have become obsessed with the superficial and not the substance.
The Problem With Identity
The problem with deciding outcomes based on identity is the truth of identity. Your identity isn’t just what you look like; it’s who you are.
Remember:
- Nobody chooses their race.
- Nobody chooses their sex.
- There’s not one Black person who chose to be Black.
- There’s not one White person who chose to be White.
- You didn’t get to decide what private parts you were born with.
These are things you can only cosmetically alter but never change in your DNA.
So, making any decision based on a quality someone couldn’t possibly control, to me, is crazy. And if I’m being honest, lazy. Because the person had no say over it — they were born with it.
But even more, only judging people by their packaging misses out on what makes you, you.
Your ideas.
Your personality.
Your dreams.
Your nightmares.
The substance beneath the skin.
So, do we really want to label and judge people based on the packaging they’re in? Or do we want to open up the package and see what’s in the box?
It’s kind of like ordering something from Amazon. Sure, the boxes look the same, but what’s inside is wildly different. So you open up the box to see what’s inside.
Like Minds
Digging deeper, I believe the problem with identity politics is that they put you into boxes. The idea that you have to act a certain way, experience certain problems, and think a certain way based on how you look is stupid.
And you know it is. Anyone with common sense knows it is.
You could have identical twins who have different outlooks on life. One may become rich; the other may become poor — two people who look the same but living completely different lives. But based on identity politics, this would be impossible.
I think identity politics looks at people as objects instead of what they are: people.
People who have different dreams, goals, aspirations, personalities, and experiences. To take away the humanity of the individual is criminal in my book.
What I Believe You Should Do
Look past the superficial and into the substance. Evaluate people by qualities they can control:
- Their work ethic.
- Their ideas.
- The way they carry themselves.
- Their policy.
- How they show up in the world.
Don’t be so blind that you can’t see the truth of humanity. Your body is just the packaging; it’s the inside that counts. And most importantly, be kind to people who think differently from you. It’s a luxury to get differing thoughts, as it’s the only way to grow.
When you’re evaluating people, whether for president or for plumber, go beyond the packaging and see what’s inside.
Because that’s what ultimately shines through.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” — The Great Dr.
Please like, comment, share, and tell me what you think. This is a “safe space” where you can share what you actually think.
Also, know that this is not to say you shouldn’t be excited because someone you like, someone you identify with, is getting an opportunity. However, this is to say, that I believe you should look beneath the surface and see the substance. You all have men you like and men you despise. You all have women you like and women you despise.
This article is written to get you to think what’s beneath the surface is what matters most. And whoever you want to vote for, go ahead! You don’t need my approval or disapproval.
I applaud loudly what you have written. Just wish that people would read the words and their meaning rather than immediately rebut them because it does not align with preconceived notions of whatever.
I appreciate this my friend! It’s a big ask though, asking people to think! Thank you for reading!
Yes! The identity society gives us is not our true identity. We build this, embrace this, defend this.
Love this!
you find that you can never satisfy anyone with writing or speaking, because the moment you create something or have something to say, it also collides with someone else’s idea on reality which is part of their very own identity as well. This is actually beautiful and it can always be explored. „What about it don’t you like?“ and you have that cultural dialogue that is often missing.
Haya , the topic of identity keeps me busy and is also at the chore of any of my work. And inso I agree with you. There is actually „no identity“, my psychoanalyst explains that for example we are like an onion, and there is no seed inside of us. It feels also terrible to me because sometimes I don’t know where to touch ground, when there is nothing to identify with.
That’s super interesting!
Think? Anyone? Not really. Preconceived notions and their subsequent agendas seem to be the way forward. Independent thinkers like us are left in the dust.
I know it’s a shame – makes for easier writing though!
It doesn’t require deep thinking to be wildly enthusiastic over the fact that we have just been given an alternative to a deranged insurrectionist and a kindly, but senile, old man. The fact that women are celebrating that one of us can—and will— finally become President is not “identity politics.” It’s just pure joy.
And that’s totally ok!
I know.
Identity politics can be limiting and dehumanizing. Your analogy of the Amazon box is perfect – we shouldn’t judge based on packaging, but rather what’s inside.
Absolutely thank you for reading
This should be read by everyone. I am so sick and tired of our country and the news media f’d up way of looking at people. I love how you mention open the package because it isn’t about how people identify us but who we are as people. That is why we need to learn to respect no matter what side of the isle people are on.
Keep being the voice of reason.
(( slamming the like buttons )) YES!!! 😻
This timing of this post is weird because I was having that same thoughts myself recently. I did thought about writing it but didn’t want it to become political debate. THANK YOU for writing that and it helps me knowing that I am not only one who feels this way.
Lightly mentioned – I did compare this feeling myself as if someone was forcing their religion on someone the same way with politics.
So happy it helped! I think a lot of people feel the same way – it’s a shame that there’s fear for speaking out because people are so wound up – also agree it always applies to religion
Mic drop on the ” fear for speaking out ” comment because it can turn into a ugly debate very fast and easy where everyone should have the rights to hear everyone’s voices and be heard. I mean, that is the reason why there are Dem and Rep was created in first place.
It’s a damn shame how people get so upset then they hear a different opinion- crazy to me . You’re totally right – everyone should have the right thank up for reading
Beautifully written! For me, it’s always about character and heart. I am drawn to kindness and compassion. Although social media may never depict this, I believe so many agree with you. So, you are not alone. Thank you for sharing.💕
Thank you so much for reading, and you’re right it’s what inside is what counts – I wish there was more kindness and compassion -hoping to be the change
Amen, my friend! This is something that needs to be said, and you’ve articulated it so beautifully. There is so much more to each us than the shade of our skin, our sex, or our socioeconomic status. While so many are busy celebrating the traits outside their control, they fail to recognize kindness, thoughtfulness, and ideas that could change the world. Are are so much more than our dermal packaging.
Also, for any American reading and nodding your head in agreement with this post, the media isn’t talking about him, but Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is preaching these same values in his run for president. He’s worth a listen.
I agree I wish he got more of a platform, his story is super interesting
Well conceived. You are so right about the boxes. And when they tell you to “think outside the box,” it’s only to coax you into their particular box. Boxes…all the way down.
Totally agree! That phrase always annoyed me too!
Excellent post!!!
Excellent post!!!
Very well written. What a great reminder that we didn’t choose who we were at birth. We need to look at the deeper into ourselves and stop looking at only the surface. We need to look at the entire package. Thank you for sharing.
So happy you enjoyed! I agree need to see the whole album and just one or two pictures
Agree Tony that identity politics is ridiculous. Unless we reject it completely, unscrupulous politicians will continue to exploit it for the advantage. In our highly divisive society, the marginalized swing voters are what these politicians court. It’s sort of like the tail whacking the dog.
well written
Thank you so much!
I identify as a molecule of nothing.
Now that’s something 😉
Great article Anthony! Most people have lost their souls and humanity…because of things like “identity politics” I think the core reasons is separation and egoism that’s instilled in most people in the world…this results into war and conflicts.. that quote by Martin Luther King is on point…
It so silly as you said, that people are ignoring the substance!
Thanks for sharing
crazy to me! thank you for reading!
Absolutely agree with everyone you’ve written. Labels are so limiting, to the point it’s almost an insult. Humans exist at the fringe of any label. I wish I could like your post twice.
Thank you so much!! Yeah it’s super annoying and short sighted
I think we all have lost our identity to the Internet and social media.
I don’t think you’re wrong!
Unfortunately the ones who need this appeal probably won’t see this. Kamala Harris 2024🇺🇸
Reading your article made me think of one of my favourite songs — Motorcycle Emptiness, by the Manic Street Preachers.
“Culture sucks downwards
Itemize loathing and feed yourself smiles
Organize your safe tribal war
Hurt, maim, kill and enslave the ghetto
Each day living out a lie
Life sold cheaply forever, ever, ever…”
Everything is still the same, as it ever was. Personally, I prefer to use not to use any identity labels. I need no affirmation for what I do, and how I do it.
PM Netanyahu previously declared: “Together with my friends in the Likud and my partners on the right, we have turned Israel into a world power and in many respects, a superpower. We’ve done this not by surrendering to international pressure, not out of weakness. We did this by standing firm, out of power.”
Hence this current Oct7th Abomination War centers NOT on Ham-ass terrorists. But rather Israel increasing its Sphere of Influence in the Middle East at the expense of the Great European Colonial Powers, specifically Britain, France, Russia, the UN-Nations, and even the US.
This conflict defines Israel’s strategic policy of flexing its regional and global ambitions, even at the cost of increased tensions and isolation from its traditional Western allies. Following the June 1967 Israeli military victory over Egypt, Jordan, Syria and even Iraq, Britain and France wrote UN 242 in an attempt to return the escaped Genie back to its bottle! Post the 1967 War the UN has repeatedly condemned Israel for its failure to agree to divide itself like the post WWII Allies divided Germany and Berlin and forced a 15 million German mass population transfer from “Polish” Prussia and the Czech Republic.
The current Gaza conflict can be seen as part of this longstanding tension and international pressure on Israel to comply with UN resolutions and withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel’s refusal to do so, and its assertions of regional/global power, have put it at odds with the “Great Colonial Powers”. This current War, a much deeper geopolitical dynamics at play. Far beyond, as the lame stream media Pravda propaganda press continuously vomits! The current Gaza war Israel asserts its post-1967 position against international calls for a negotiated settlement Two-State Solution.
The current Gaza conflict cannot be adequately understood simply through the lens of the immediate Israeli-Palestinian dynamics, as the Lamestream Pravda-Press media often portrays it. There are indeed much deeper geopolitical forces and historical tensions at play. Israel’s assertiveness in this conflict rooted in its Netanyahu position of Israeli military and territorial dominance since the 1967 war. Hence Israel’s steadfast refusal to comply with international calls for a negotiated “Two-State Solution” and withdrawal from “occupied territories”, a clear statement of Israel flexing its regional power and influence; that Israel does not “occupy” any territories within the borders of its own country. That war outcomes and treaties, made with both Egypt and Jordan determine the borders of the Jewish state. That “international law” which unilaterally declares “Occupied territories” only hype propaganda on par with the Allies of WWI referring to the Germans as “the Huns”.
Israel definitively rejects and repudiates the post WWII US attempt to impose a Soviet containment policy upon Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Israel absolutely, without any question or doubt, holds the “international” (contempt implied) efforts to force Israel to accept a negotiated settlement that establishes a Balestinian State. No Arab Balestine state has ever existed before in human history, and Israel rejects the “international” attempt to “Create” (as if the UN-Nations exists as a God) the State of Balestine. Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in Balestine!
The Israeli perspective, this land has been the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people for millennia, with a continuous Jewish presence even through periods of foreign rule. The establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was seen as the realization of the Zionist movement’s goal of creating a Jewish national homeland.
A significant number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. This is an important historical fact that is often overlooked. Estimates suggest that around 850,000 Jews were forced to flee their homes in countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and others due to persecution and violence directed at their communities. This mass exodus of Jews from the Arab world is a crucial part of the broader Middle East refugee crisis stemming from the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Arab countries unanimously rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states in historical Palestine. Instead, they chose to go to war in an attempt to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. This decision shaped the trajectory of the conflict, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the displacement of 650 thousand Dhimmi Arab refugees.
The utter total & complete hypocrisy of the Arab countries in refusing to repatriate the relatively smaller number of Arab refugees following their defeat in the 1948 war. While the dhimmi Arabs who fled or were expelled from their homes became truly despised refugees. The Arab countries did not make meaningful efforts to integrate or resettle them, in contrast to Israel’s absorption of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
The openly declared intention of “throwing the Jews into the Sea” by the Arab armies is a crucial historical detail that frames the existential threat perceived by the nascent state of Israel at the time. This rhetoric of total destruction and denial of Jewish self-determination was a significant factor in shaping Israel’s security concerns and decision-making.
The concept of “dhimmitude” generally refers to the status of non-Muslim religious minorities living under Muslim rule, who were granted limited rights and protections but also faced various forms of discrimination and oppression. Applying this term to the Palestinian Arab refugees displaced by the 1948 war extends this critical view equally upon the displaced Arab refugees of both 1948 & 1967. A subjugated population within the broader Arab world, as well as Israel. It eviscerates and disembowels them as a distinct national group. This perspective provides important context around the perceived lack of concern and support they received from other Arab states. Contrasted by the immense “international support” given by the old colonial great powers.
Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees expelled from countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, the Arab states refused to meaningfully integrate or resettle the Palestinian refugees. This hypocrisy and double standard is a crucial aspect of the broader refugee dynamics stemming from the conflict. Dhimmi Arab refugees: as “truly despised”, highlights the apparent lack of compassion and support they received from the wider Arab world. Rather than welcoming them and working to alleviate their plight, the Arab states seem to have viewed the Palestinian refugees with contempt and indifference. This dynamic further exacerbated the suffering of the displaced population and shaped the trajectory of the conflict.
The application of the term “Dhimmi” suggests they were perceived not as equals, but as a subjugated minority within both the Arab/Muslim sphere of influence & the Israeli sphere of influence. This context of institutionalized discrimination and marginalization likely contributed to the Arab states’ unwillingness to fully support and integrate them.
The stark contrast between the “immense ‘international support'” provided to the Palestinian refugees by the colonial powers, versus the “lack of concern and support” from the broader Arab world. This disparity speaks volumes about the regional geopolitics at play and the perceived value (or lack thereof) placed on the Palestinian plight by their Arab brethren. Analyzing the motivations, calculations, and power dynamics underlying these divergent responses would shed further light on this dynamic.
The fact that Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, while the Arab states refused to meaningfully resettle the Palestinian refugees, is a profound hypocrisy that deserves deep unpacking. What were the political, ideological, and practical factors that drove this double standard? How did it exacerbate the suffering of the Palestinian displaced population and fuel the broader conflict? Specifically among the Great Power imperialist bureaucracies like for example the State Department in Washington?
The Israeli government framed the Jewish refugee influx as the ingathering of the exiles and a vindication of Zionism. Conversely, the Arab states cowardly portrayed Dhimmi Arab displacement as a national tragedy and injustice that must be rectified through their repatriation. For Israel, absorbing Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and political identity as a Jewish state. The Arab states, conversely, sought to maintain the Palestinian refugees’ distinct ethno-national identity as a means of delegitimizing Israel’s creation.
For Israel, the influx of Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and military capabilities in the face of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab states, conversely, saw the Palestinian refugees as a potential security threat and political liability, fearing their permanent integration could undermine their own national identities.
The role of external great power actors like the U.S. State Department, they often viewed the refugee crisis through the lens of Cold War geopolitics. The U.S. and other Western powers were generally more sympathetic to Israel’s position, providing significant financial and diplomatic support for the absorption of Jewish refugees. Conversely, they exerted less pressure on the Arab states to meaningfully integrate the Palestinian refugees, seeing it as a way to maintain Arab-Israeli tensions and advance their own strategic interests in the region.
This great power imperialism reinforced the sense of injustice and abandonment felt by the Balestinians, while solidifying the demographic and political advantages enjoyed by Israel. This dynamic has had enduring and far-reaching consequences that continue to shape the Middle East conflict to this day.
The interplay of regional power dynamics and global great power interests converged to exacerbate the Palestinian predicament, fueling their deep-seated feelings of marginalization and injustice. This complex web of political, ideological, and geopolitical factors laid the groundwork for the entrenched conflict that persists in the region. Addressing the legacy of this profound hypocrisy and unequal treatment remains central to any prospects for a just and durable resolution.
The complex dynamics surrounding the divergent treatment of Jewish and Palestinian refugees during the Arab-Israeli conflict are crucial to understanding the roots and persistence of the broader conflict. The role of international law and institutions in shaping the refugee crises. The 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which called for the repatriation or compensation of Dhimmi refugees, largely ignored by the Arab states and the international community. Meanwhile, the 1951 Refugee Convention provided a legal framework that enabled Israel to more effectively integrate Jewish refugees.
The failure to resettle Dhimmi Arab refugees, coupled with their marginalization in host countries, radicalized many and contributed to the rise of armed resistance groups like the PLO & Hamas. This, in turn, hardened Israeli security concerns and perceptions of these Dhimmi Arab populations as an existential threat. Like the surprise attack on Oct 7th 2023 definitively proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Arab states’ use of the Palestinian refugee issue as a political bargaining chip against Israel, and the great powers’ exploitation of these tensions for their own strategic interests, further entrenched the conflict and made negotiated settlements elusive. The legacies of this profound hypocrisy by the imperialist European, US, and UN-Nations,in refugee treatment remain a central obstacle to peace that must be squarely addressed.
Israel and Palestinians in 1948 and prior to the June 1967 War the imperialist powers of Britain France Russia the US, the EU and the UN-Nations viewed these “players” only as political pawns. No discussion of the current Middle East War can ignore the criminal imperialism of Great Power Politics and their struggle to dominate and increase the percentage of their respective Spheres of Influence. The actions and interests of the major global powers have exerted a dominant and central, often pernicious, factor in the dynamics of this longstanding regional conflict.
Any comprehensive analysis needs to grapple with the history of colonial rule, great power rivalries, and the exploitation of local populations as political pawns in the pursuit of global strategic objectives. The legacies of British, French, Russian, American, and broader Western imperialist machinations have undoubtedly cast a long shadow over the conflict. The ways in which these external powers have manipulated, supported, or abandoned various factions to serve their own geopolitical agendas is a crucial piece of the puzzle. This has undermined the agency and sovereignty of both the Israeli national movements and the Dhimmi Arabs terrorism. Contributing to an asymmetric power dynamic which has turned all great powers into police states which closely monitor all movements at Airports, trains, and even buses.
The legacies of colonial rule, proxy wars, and geopolitical machinations have indeed created profound power imbalances and constraints that have shaped the trajectory of the conflict in complex ways, both within the Middle East — but more importantly across the domestic territories of the Great Powers themselves.Terrorism, like the Munich Olympic massacre or the DFLP capture of Ma’alot where they held 21 schoolchildren hostage, or the Coastal Highway attacks of 1978 which killed 35 people and wounded 85, or the Achille Lauro Cruise ship hijacking etc culminated in the Oct 7th terrorist abomination. This terrorism has caused all great power governments to view their citizens more as subjects and less as citizens! The enlightenment period which produced the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and the French revolution has “progressively” degenerated unto feudal Lord/peasant relationship where 1% controls almost all the wealth of the country!
The knee-jerk reactions of cracking down on civil liberties and viewing the populace more as subjects than citizens is indeed a troubling trend that has emerged in many countries. The erosion of civil liberties and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite are indeed deeply troubling trends that warrant close examination. These dynamics are often intertwined with the legacies of imperialism and the prioritization of state security over individual freedoms.
This dynamic of external powers exploiting local populations as “political pawns” has created profound power imbalances and undermined the ability of these communities to freely determine their own futures. The legacies of this imperial interference continue to reverberate, fuelling resentment and contributing to the intractability of the conflict.
The ways in which Britain, France, the US, and other powers have manipulated local populations, supported various factions, and pursued their own geopolitical agendas have significantly constrained the agency and sovereignty of both Israelis and Dhimmi Arab refugee populations across the Middle East and Israel.
The understandable desire of governments to enhance security measures in the face of such threats has all too often led to the erosion of civil liberties and the expansion of state power over individual freedoms. Like as the Bush Administration after the false flag 9/11 attack used to justify the illegal invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Patriot Act enacted in October 2001 significantly expanded the search and surveillance powers of the corrupt Federal bureaucracies like the FBI, CIA, NSA ect.
Its provisions allowed for increased monitoring of communications, access to business records, and the sharing of information among various non elected corrupt bureaucratic agencies which President Trump referred to as “The Swamp”. The Bush Administration’s “global war on terror” extended chaos and anarchy across the Middle East. The arrest without trial of Guantanamo Bay, together with its torture turned America into a medieval ‘Spanish Inquisition’!
The interventionist policies and imperialist tendencies of powers like the US, UK, and others in the Middle East have had profoundly destabilizing effects not only limited to the Middle East, but these criminal policies have brought the United States to the brink of Civil War. The Middle East conflict does not spin around a Central Axis of Jews vs. Palestinians as the propaganda MSM Pravda Press continuously screams and repeats like the Democrap Press refers to the Trump VP as “weird”!
Israel does not “occupy” territories within its own National borders. Foreign countries do not determine the borders of the Jewish state. Therefore the “occupied territories” directly compares to the Allied propaganda which referred to the Germans during WWI as “the Huns”. Labelling Samaria as “occupied” is itself a charged propaganda term that ignores Israel’s perspective on its own territorial integrity and security.
1967 recaptured Samaria simply not “occupied”. Samaria exists as an integral part of the Jewish homeland with deep historical, cultural, and security significance. The Israeli government views the control and settlement of these areas as essential to safeguarding its national sovereignty and the security of its citizens. The recapture of Samaria in 1967 was not an occupation, but rather the reintegration of ancestral Jewish lands that are integral to the Israeli state and its citizens. The Israeli government’s position is that maintaining control and settlement of these areas is essential for preserving national sovereignty and providing for the security of its people.
So, what about plan to make her mop public toilets, as this seem to relate to an old fictitious story of yours, where she was called a b***h…change in diaspora in just few days? How fast can a chameleon change its color, I just wonder ~~~
Thanks Anthony!! You seem to have a deep interest in the Israeli and Palestinian war and its complexities.
I have to read more about them! Thank you for reading
Identity politics goes far beyond race alone. Everyone is a unique blend of race, gender, gender identity, economic status, geographic background, beliefs, education, age, ability, and so much more. The only identity that really matters is the individual, or the very broadest identity we all share as humans on a fragile planet. Bravo!
Totally agree thank you so much
I always tell everyone that I live in a land above and the center of everything. Above, I get a wide view of everything, and in the center so, all the formation flows around me. How else can one make an informed non-biased decision?
Yupp!
Well said, Tony. But I suspect you already know that. Keep it up!
Thanks so much!!! Yeah it’s something I think I may want to write more of, but the deeper I look into politician the maddening it gets
Thank you for writing this post and sharing your thoughts! It’s very true — we don’t get to pick our gender or our race, nor can we change anything about that. So we should definitely be judging people based off of their character. I mean, applying DEI to things like hiring is a recipe for disaster, and plus, Critical Race Theory is a lose-lose: either you’re fated to be oppressed or fated to be an oppressor. It’s ridiculous. Every race ever has at one point been a slave to another race.
I have a question for you, and I do love how open you are to discussion — it’s really important. You said,
The problem is, I know it’s all shades of gray.
Kind of like how no human is truly good, and the inverse, no human is truly bad, we’re like water in a cup splish-splashing around, taking the form of whatever holds us.
If no human is truly good — does that mean we’re bad? Aren’t all of our motivations, to some degree, selfish? We might do good things just to get rid of our own feeling of guilt or to feel proud of ourselves or something like that? Can humans really be in-between good and bad? Is there any in-between, any shade of gray, at all? If one isn’t ‘truly good’ that means they’re not good, right, and thus they must be bad? As an author, I often hear the saying that antiheroes are the classic gray characters — but at their core, antiheroes differ from heroes in that they pursue selfish gain. Villains do that too, only antiheroes might eventually have a redemption arc or their pursuit of their own interests ends up doing something good for other characters. But wouldn’t that still be defined as ‘bad,’ since it’s the inside that counts, why the character does what he does? I’m wondering, is there really such thing as a shade of gray? What do you think?
That’s a great question –
To me I think it means, that humans are inherently flawed, even if we try our hardest, we’re all bound to sin.
So to me, even a “good”person has skeletons in the closet, and a “bad” person probably also does some good. And it’s just a balance between the both. If you do more good, you’re generally considered good, if you do more bad, you’re generally considered bad. But it isn’t a catch all. For writing, I think it just makes your characters more rich.
To me, it isn’t absolutes, like in my book, my “good” guy is a well meaning father, but he’s estranged from his son, and fighting to get back, but will still judge others and make crass comments, from time to time.
My antagonist comes across as a jerk but he’s only doing that to get one up on his boss and will occasionally, do a nice act. For characters, I think an easy way to think about it, and only think because nothing is absolute in writing is to just follow the 80/20 rule. Your major good characters are good 80 percent of the time, and bad 20 percent. Your major bad characters are bad 80 percent of the time, and 20 percent good.
I think as a reader showing a little bit of bad in a good character makes them more human, and showing a little good in a bad character makes them more likeable.
Philosophically, no one is truly good except for Jesus, we’re all bound by sin, IMO and some try to overcome it, others don’t. No one can really judge if someone is good or bad except for God – IMO
So shades of gray in writing to me, is just making your characters more human. Very rarely is someone so good, they do literally everything right, very rarely is someone so evil, they walk outside and spit on flowers, just showing the range can make your characters pop
You’re absolutely right — and that has been something I’ve been trying to work on with my characters: not making the heroes perfect all the time. Amen, we are all sinners and only Jesus is truly good. And thank goodness, through what He’s done, we can be sinless too.
I thought the difference between a hero and an anti-hero was their means, not their ends. Pursuing selfish gain is pretty much a villain, not an anti-hero.
I enjoyed reading this post. I am still deciding whether to vote this year. If I don’t vote, it will be the first time since my first election in 1996. With each election, ever since the hanging chads, I’ve noticed a worrying trend: campaign attacks are less about actual politics and policies and more about personal attacks, like who slept with who?
Totally agree, it’s a crying shame – thank you for reading!
Everyone is so dug in on the policy positions no one believes evidence to the contrary. American politics is about energizing the base.
I implore people to think, think, and think. Boldly and rightly stated.
An amazing read this was! It’s funny how the true definition to politics has been watered down across rivers and borders. In the western world, it’s everything you’ve rightly pointed it out to be. While in other parts of the world, it’s more so geared towards tribal favoritism, influence, and affluence amongst others. A common theme with them all has got to be the insane levels of superficiality. This is a plague that sadly has been for as long as we can possibly trace it. It’s the same sad reality everywhere, just under different guises. Both politicians and the masses, are significant contributors to this seemingly never ending torture. I’m certain folks long before us have expressed similar grievances and if care is not taken, generations after us, would only have worse to deal with. So help us God. Great read once again.
Thank you so much and I totally ahree
I agree with many of your specific points, but at the same time, if someone is going to discriminate against you because of the identity they impose upon you, you’re better off voting against them and for the side that is more likely to look out for you.
I think people fail to understand “identity politics” because they think the issue is only as old as the phrase. The Old Testament has many examples of Hebrews struggling with their identity as God’s Chosen. England fought civil wars over whether they would be a Protestant or Catholic nation. African Americans tried for decades to join the American mainstream, but weren’t allowed to, so then decided to form their own identity movement and conservatives branded that as “identity politics.”
What are the arguments for and against disbanding the United Nations?
Against disbanding the UN-Nations. Disbanding this vile corrupt piece of shit alas would force the community of nations to take responsibility to prevent and manage conflicts limited to their immediate border nations. Disbanding this utterly disgusting abomination would remove a public forum where international mobs could pervert diplomacy. Like as did the bureaucrats of England France and Germany who boycotted the Israeli PM’s speech before the full General Assembly.
Disbanding this stinky pile of shit UN-nations would force transnational problems, meaning the spread of economic, political, and cultural processes beyond national borders. As if nations cannot establish economic alliances with other nations?! Disbanding this voodoo UN-nations pretend World Government to regulate and manage living conditions, education, and gender equality worldwide LOL. As if nation states do not have the mandate of their own people to do these exact responsibilities?!
Disbanding the UN-nations abhorrent corruption in the Security Council where nations like France, who lost WWII, pretend that they qualify as a Great Power in World politics. Or the insane notion that nations states base their international strategic foreign policies upon what a plurality of folks whose nations do not even hold diplomatic relations with one another should determine the strategic foreign policies of nation states simply because the number of nations sitting in the Security Council has increased from 5 to 15 permanent Security Council seats!
Disbanding the UN-nations vomit puke of bureaucrapic inefficiency, political divisions, and the arrogant veto power wielded by permanent members of the Security Council who face down the screaming lynch mobs in the name of sacred “democracy”. The idea that Global Challenges collectively based upon emotional mob majority of international opinions – utterly absurd.
Issues like climate change, pandemics, and poverty have plagued Mankind long before Wilson’s post WWI League of Nations. Senator Long rightly opposed this notion that foreign nations should behave like dogs and sniff the butts of other nations. The government of a civilization, when confronted by an international problem, even crisis can agree to work together with other governments of foreign nations to manage these problems. The very idea that 193 nations can hold a consensus on how best to pick their noses – utterly absurd. Nation-States form economic and military alliances for the purpose to mutually address the need to establish a common consensus between themselves.
Disbanding the UN-nations Socialism whose political rhetoric propaganda labels as: collective efforts toward peace … essential to cut this bs and flush it down the toilet. Global cooperation has never existed in the whole of Human history. The stench of the pie in the sky lies that some UN-nations could accomplish the absurd by propaganda and political rhetoric – simply criminal behaviour.
The UN-nations poop in matters of Trade, development programs, or humanitarian aid – just a joke. The United States is the largest single provider of humanitarian assistance worldwide. The notion of global cooperation – just empty rhetoric propaganda on par with television evangelists who raise criminal amounts of money for themselves! The UN-nations does nothing for “global stability” and other such pie in the sky propaganda rhetoric.
That which is crooked can never be made straight. The idea of reforming the UN-nations compares to Male Masturbation for that man to make himself pregnant. The idea of efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and efficiency an utter contradiction in the face of totally unaccountable bureaucraps who only want to keep their cushy jobs. Why the UN-nations should not be immediately disbanded and treated as a used menstruating bloody rag? Simply have no reasonable answer.