Guilt and grievance 

It is no secret that we live in a polarized, increasingly "tribalized" society. And most of us realize that our history has not always been admirable. Does it help us to obsessively dwell upon the shameful parts of our remote history, especially when it is then used to assign blame to some of today's people? And if we insist upon affixing blame on someone, on whom?

The column in the April 18 edition of New Times by John Ashbaugh ("Hero to whom?") examined the story of John Frémont, an American who explored much of California and who has numerous sites here bearing his name. Ashbaugh relates how troops under Frémont massacred a large number of Wintu and Klamath Indians, offering this account to somehow rebut charges that some of our schools are currently engaging in indoctrination, and arguing that the schools are actually "sanitizing" American history.

Mr. Ashbaugh is a retired teacher of California history, and is unquestionably far more informed on California history than myself. But the facts are not the issue here. Instead, the question is what do we make of them today? Should we assign guilt for the past to today's people, and if so, to which people?

Accounts of past wrongs perpetrated by members of one group against another are unavoidably accusatory, and, especially in these bitterly divided times, blame is typically directed at modern members of the guilty group. Collectively this has divided society into "victims" and "victimizers."

Obviously we must confront and acknowledge the wrongdoings in our history, and neither seek to justify nor minimize our national sins. But have we actually failed to do so, as Ashbaugh charges?

I am roughly of the same vintage as Mr. Ashbaugh and attended school during the same era. While I cannot recall specifically learning of the killing of the Wintu or Klamath, I do recall learning generally of the awful treatment of the Indians, including broken treaties, massacres, being forced onto reservations, and deliberately being infected with smallpox.

Likewise, I also learned about slavery, the KKK, lynchings, and segregation—including a description of the horrific voyage on the slave ships—and the auctioning of human beings.

Unless one is a student of history like Ashbaugh, what purpose does subjecting all students to a relentless examination of historic atrocities serve? The wrongfulness of the conduct is recognized by nearly everyone, and there is no realistic danger of it ever being repeated, despite the histrionics and hyperbole of some partisans.

And upon whom today should we place blame? The current fashion is to blame "white people" generally, regardless of their lack of personal participation, the date of their ancestors' arrival, and their ancestors' lack of participation in the wrongdoing, reckoning that melanin alone serves as a reliable badge of shame.

But while this may seem satisfying to some, is it accurate? For example, consider the famous Buffalo Soldiers, a unit of Black calvary soldiers, who participated in the Indian wars and killed Indians. Are today's African Americans both victim and victimizer due to sharing a complicit color? Aren't all Americans today of all colors heirs to both the good and the bad in our national history?

Sadly, discussion quickly devolves into racial acrimony. After one commenter to Ashbaugh's column threw out a one-liner accusing him of "white guilt," another commenter promptly labeled that commenter a "white supremacist" who believes that "all white leaders were glorious," and who wants to "censor history," reading quite a bit into the first comment. See what I mean about "polarizing"?

Some white folks eagerly embrace the guilt and engage in relentless self-flagellation for wrongs they had no part in. We see earnest white liberals paying to take seminars from 20-year-old entrepreneurial Black college kids, instructing them on their "white privilege" and imputed racism. They reckon that they must atone for such racism, much like how the wealthy in medieval times purchased indulgences from the pope to gain absolution for their sins. And liberals wonder why I make such fun of them?

My personal philosophy is that I am only chargeable for the sins that I have personally committed, just as I am only able to claim pride in accomplishments to which I have personally contributed. I only feel shame for my own transgressions, not for those of people with whom I only share a skin color.

Human history is replete with conquest and subjugation, usually brutal and sometimes genocidal, and slavery occurred in many societies. But no other societies engage in this level of social masochism and self-loathing, and most chose a more affirming narrative.

While we must acknowledge the nation's past transgressions, do we really need to keep picking at the scabs of historical guilt? We get it. It won't happen again. But wallowing in guilt and self-loathing just divides us into "victim" and "victimizer" groups, creating a society of competing and warring groups seeking villains to castigate and ready to be exploited by opportunistic politicians.

Enough already. Δ

John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach, who feels guilty about parking overtime at an expired meter. Contact him through the editor at [email protected] or send a letter for publication to [email protected].