Cultures in Collision

Strange congruencies this morning.

It all actually started off with a review at Epinions.com by Stephen Murray of Frederic Gleach's Powhatan's World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures. Stephen pointed out Gleach's portrayal of the stark incomprehension of the Powhatans and the English colonists of the overall situation, each locked in their own world view.

Then I went back to Stephen's review of Brokeback Mountain, where I checked out the comments. Stephen had included a segment on the "ex-gays" and the damage they do by convincing gay men that they can be "cured" by getting married and having sex with women. Brokeback Mountain (the movie that no one can forget) contains a devastating portrayal of the results of that kind of behavior -- which, of course, the wildmons are focusing on as an example of the destructiveness of the "homosexual lifestyle" to the traditional American family, which they invented themselves anyway. Of course, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have maintained and exacerbated the circumstances that lead to that destruction. (One of these days I may get around to dissecting the "ex-gay" phenomenon. In the meantime, here's a link to Ex-Gay Watch, which is worth keeping track of.)

My own reaction is that Ennis and Jack just don't realize that there is another option because for them there isn't. They get married because it's what everyone does, and I don't think it ever gets far enough in their minds to be considered a smoke screen or camouflage, particularly for Ennis. Jack, who is more self-aware than Ennis, makes his accommodations, all the while realizing that no one can take Ennis' place in his heart. Ennis lives his life by rote and can't even admit to himself, because of the attitudes so admirably exemplified by the wildmons that have worked their way deep into his psyche, that he loves Jack down to his very core. To Ennis it is, to quote the PR line, a "force of nature," fundamental and beyond explanation or even comprehension.

Then I ran across this story in the NYT, about a TV reality show that was pulled ten days before it was to have been premiered.

Bill Kennedy, a co-executive producer who helped develop the series with his son, Eric, suggested an alternative explanation. He said that the protests might have been most significant as a diversion that allowed the Walt Disney Company, ABC's owner, to pre-empt a show that could have interfered with a much bigger enterprise: the courting of evangelical Christian audiences for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Disney hoped that the film, widely viewed as a parable of the Resurrection, would be the first in a profitable movie franchise.

The network, of course, is denying like crazy that they're afraid of the rabids, but they can't seem to come up with a coherent reason as to why the show was cancelled. Meanwhile, reaction from the wildmons seems to support the idea that there's a real dollars-and-sense kind of paranoia going on here:

In a recent interview, Richard Land, an official with the Southern Baptist Convention involved in the negotiations with Disney last year to end the group's boycott of the company, said he did not recall any mention of "Neighborhood." He added, however, that had the show been broadcast - particularly with an ending that showed Christians literally embracing their gay neighbors - it could have scuttled the Southern Baptists' support for "Narnia."

In other words, if the network had aired a show that actually portrayed Christians acting like Christians, the "Christians" would have boycotted the film.

"I would have considered it a retrograde step," Mr. Land said of the network's plans to broadcast the reality series. "Aside from any moral considerations, it would have been a pretty stupid marketing move."

Hmm -- OK. The gloves are off.

Paul McCusker, a vice president of Focus on the Family, which had supported the Southern Baptist boycott and reaches millions of evangelical listeners through the daily radio broadcasts of Dr. James Dobson, expressed similar views.

"It would have been a huge misstep for Disney to aggressively do things that would disenfranchise the very people they wanted to go see 'Narnia,' " he said.

"Disenfranchise?" Excuse me? Because you don't get everything on your wish list, no questions asked, you're disenfranchised? It's the same thinking that leads to the shopworn mantra that Christians are discriminated against because they are sometimes restricted from harassing others with their message. Oh, well. (Quite honestly, most of the Christians I know don't feel discriminated against at all -- in fact, in one of the rare instances within memory where one had claimed to be, it was, indeed, simply because he was required to observe the same guidelines regarding soliciting that everyone else has to observe.)

Of course, given that these organizations are noted for claiming credit where none is due, I can't put that much weight behind their statements, but given the recent examples of Ford and Microsoft, it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

The show itself, "Welcome to the Neighborhood," looks as though it might have been one of the few reality shows worth watching.

Meanwhile, the neighbor who was the Wrights' earliest on-camera antagonist - Jim Stewart, 53, who is heard in an early episode saying, "I would not tolerate a homosexual couple moving into this neighborhood" - has confided to the producers that the series changed him far more than even they were aware.

No one involved in the show, Mr. Stewart said, knew he had a 25-year-old gay son. Only after participating in the series, Mr. Stewart said, was he able to broach his son's sexuality with him for the first time.

"I'd say to ABC, 'Start showing this right now,' " Mr. Stewart said in an interview at his oak kitchen table. "It has a message that needs to be heard by everyone."

The wildmons don't want that message to be heard. They only want their own message to be heard because they are, in all important respects, opposed to America's traditions and ideals, which include tolerance and the free exchange of ideas. (Actually, even in minor and unimportant respects, they're pretty much un-American.) What seems to be happening in the reality-based world, however, is that message, our message, is the one that is beginning to resonate with more and more Americans from all sectors, as witness the post I read recently from an evangelical Christian at IMDb -- he saw BBM and came away with the awareness of what he and those who subscribe to his beliefs have done to the people they have spent their lives denigrating. (Regrettably, I've lost the link, but I'll keep looking --it's a heartfelt and moving comment.) Or, check out Musings On, always a good antidote to the wildmons.

The relationship between these items is that there are elements in our society -- very vocal and seemingly very powerful elements -- who want to take away options from the rest of us. I don't know if it's that they can't comprehend the idea of a different point of view, or that anything that doesn't fit their world view, warped as it is, is a threat to their personal identity, or if they are just a group of cynical power-mongers who see a chance to strike it rich. I suspect that for all of us, we're locked into mutually incomprehensible realities and a "dialogue" in which, regrettably, good faith has become the first victim. (On one side, at least. I can't credit the good faith of those who misquote, ignore evidence, and lie about whatever they can. I'm not just calling names here -- I have lots of links and other sources.)

When it comes down to it, I don't really care. The only thing I have to say to them is "Butt out."