"Jerry Was A N-Word?"

My friend klyfix emailed me a question about a short story, and it turned into a post-length response. So here it is, rewritten and expanded.

Every time I think of "Jerry Was A Man" I always think that I should turn it into a LiveJournal post. By an odd coincidence I was telling Sebastian about that very story as we were driving home from Maine last night. Obviously, it's time to get this one written.

The story is from the Robert A. Heinlein collection Assignment In Eternity, which was one of the first science fiction books I ever read. It's also still one of my very favorite books. As Heinlein books go, it's relatively obscure; undeservedly so, I think.

Heh. There was a painting of a naked woman on the cover of my copy, so I made a book-jacket out of a brown paper bag for it. That's how much of a prude I was. Of course I was...let me see...probably twelve years old or so when I first read it.

The book contains three novellas and one short story. They're among Heinlein's best, in my opinion, classic examples of his early peak period (all of the content of AiE was written in the 1940s).

The novellas include "Gulf", which Heinlein used much later as the background for his novel Friday (which many think inspired the Jessica Alba TV show Dark Angel). It begins as a near-future spy story, and expands from there with some very interesting ideas about human potential, intelligence, and what it means to be a "superman". It includes quite a bit about the work of Samuel Renshaw, a topic which obviously interested Heinlein a lot (much as semantics did). In that regard, Heinlein was rather Campbellesque. In any case, the tale is classic Heinlein; exciting, provocative (not in the sexual sense, as this is relatively early Heinlein), and gripping. The ending isn't necessarily happy, and comes with jarring suddenness (for some reason Heinlein didn't use so much as a paragraph break to indicate a discontinuity or passage of time). But still, it's top-notch Heinlein.

Another novella is "Lost Legacy", in which a doctor, a psychologist, and one of their students at a university discover a way to unlock psychic powers in the human brain, only to find that they're not the only ones with these powers. Because it's a novella, Heinlein gets to develop the characters of the protagonists more than he would in a short story; they're quite likeable people. And because this is early Heinlein, the characters aren't constantly having sex and showing their utter moral superiority over anything non-Heinlein.

The development of those powers is extremely well written. You can really place yourself in the story; for all that it's fantastic, it's very believable. Of course, the story is based on the idea that the majority of the human brain has no known function, and my understanding is that that theory has since been disproved. But that doesn't affect the story, which is just a great read. And the end is quite touching.

"Elsewhen" is much closer to pure fantasy, but has a lovely gentle quality. A professor teaches a seminar in which he shows students how to use their minds to move through time and probability to anywhere or anywhen. Inevitably, complications lead to more probabiliy-hopping and transformations.

The professor himself is a bit unusual for a Heinlein protagonist, in that he's actually rather gentle and less, well, "Heinleinish" than most of Heinlein's later heroes. It's worth noting that both "Elsewhen" and "Lost Legacy" feature strong-willed and competent heroines, which was somewhat unusual for that time.

The end of "Elsewhen" always leaves me in a warm glow.

"Jerry Was A Man" is the short story at the end. It's about a rich, not-too-bright woman who is horrified when she learns that enhanced worker apes are being killed and made into dog food when they can no longer work. She brings Jerry, the ape that first caught her attention, home with her (she owns stock in the company that created him). To win basic civil rights for the enhanced apes she employes a legal firm and and a "shyster" (Heinlein's word, not mine). The shyster is rather reminiscient of Jubal Harshaw in Stranger In A Strange Land; in this future setting shysters are essentially smart fixers, beyond the legal pale but necessary to the system. In any case, Jerry is the test case they use to try to establish anthropoid rights.

Along the way her even-more-stupid trophy husband makes difficulties, for a while. There's also some interesting and imaginative discussion of genetic manipulation in the earlier part of the story. I've never thought of Pegasus the same way since I first read it. Neither will you.

Here's the thing that I missed about the story when I was younger, and the reason that I've thought for so long that I should write something about it. The shyster needs a hook, an angle to rouse the emotions of the public in favor of rights for Jerry (the case is, of course, being televised). He sees Jerry dressed in a kilt, and momentarily considers trying to get him to play the bagpipe; obviously he's thinking of trying to make some sort of Scottish connection.

But he discards that, and - unfortunately this is a spoiler, but it can't be helped - instead puts Jerry in jeans and a shabby leather or jean jacket. And then he gets Jerry to sing "Ol' Man River" in the courthouse, and that makes the case. The audience goes crazy.

Now, I could be wrong, but the implication that I take from that is that the shyster was tying in to African-American culture, as Heinlein saw it at the time. I'm sure that Heinlein was far less racist than most of his contemporaries, but racism was a basic part of the culture back then. A character in "Elsewhen" says that she's "free, white, and twenty-one", if I remember correctly.

And of course there is Heinlein's early novel Sixth Column, with its painful anti-Asian elements (yes, I know that John W. Campbell forced them on Heinlein, but Heinlein DID write them). "He was a yellow man, but he was white inside" still makes me cringe, which may be why it has apparently been removed from later editions of Sixth Column.

The use of the word "shyster" in the Jerry story itself is also an interesting example of the casual racism that was, I believe, quite common throughout much of the United States in the 1940s.

Anyway, I can't shake the thought that Heinlein was basically saying that African-Americans presumably responded because Jerry either looked more like them than any other racial group (in his, i.e. Heinlein's opinion), or was somehow closer to them. Perhaps that would be because Jerry's ancestors were presumably also from Africa. But given that the book was first published in 1947...well, I have to wonder. Was the whole hook of the story the idea that Africans look like monkeys, and vice-versa?

I'm honestly not sure! But if not, what could it have been?

"Jerry Was A N-Word?"

My friend klyfix emailed me a question about a short story, and it turned into a post-length response. So here it is, rewritten and expanded.

Every time I think of "Jerry Was A Man" I always think that I should turn it into a LiveJournal post. By an odd coincidence I was telling Sebastian about that very story as we were driving home from Maine last night. Obviously, it's time to get this one written.

The story is from the Robert A. Heinlein collection Assignment In Eternity, which was one of the first science fiction books I ever read. It's also still one of my very favorite books. As Heinlein books go, it's relatively obscure; undeservedly so, I think.

Heh. There was a painting of a naked woman on the cover of my copy, so I made a book-jacket out of a brown paper bag for it. That's how much of a prude I was. Of course I was...let me see...probably twelve years old or so when I first read it.

The book contains three novellas and one short story. They're among Heinlein's best, in my opinion, classic examples of his early peak period (all of the content of AiE was written in the 1940s).

The novellas include "Gulf", which Heinlein used much later as the background for his novel Friday (which many think inspired the Jessica Alba TV show Dark Angel). It begins as a near-future spy story, and expands from there with some very interesting ideas about human potential, intelligence, and what it means to be a "superman". It includes quite a bit about the work of Samuel Renshaw, a topic which obviously interested Heinlein a lot (much as semantics did). In that regard, Heinlein was rather Campbellesque. In any case, the tale is classic Heinlein; exciting, provocative (not in the sexual sense, as this is relatively early Heinlein), and gripping. The ending isn't necessarily happy, and comes with jarring suddenness (for some reason Heinlein didn't use so much as a paragraph break to indicate a discontinuity or passage of time). But still, it's top-notch Heinlein.

Another novella is "Lost Legacy", in which a doctor, a psychologist, and one of their students at a university discover a way to unlock psychic powers in the human brain, only to find that they're not the only ones with these powers. Because it's a novella, Heinlein gets to develop the characters of the protagonists more than he would in a short story; they're quite likeable people. And because this is early Heinlein, the characters aren't constantly having sex and showing their utter moral superiority over anything non-Heinlein.

The development of those powers is extremely well written. You can really place yourself in the story; for all that it's fantastic, it's very believable. Of course, the story is based on the idea that the majority of the human brain has no known function, and my understanding is that that theory has since been disproved. But that doesn't affect the story, which is just a great read. And the end is quite touching.

"Elsewhen" is much closer to pure fantasy, but has a lovely gentle quality. A professor teaches a seminar in which he shows students how to use their minds to move through time and probability to anywhere or anywhen. Inevitably, complications lead to more probabiliy-hopping and transformations.

The professor himself is a bit unusual for a Heinlein protagonist, in that he's actually rather gentle and less, well, "Heinleinish" than most of Heinlein's later heroes. It's worth noting that both "Elsewhen" and "Lost Legacy" feature strong-willed and competent heroines, which was somewhat unusual for that time.

The end of "Elsewhen" always leaves me in a warm glow.

"Jerry Was A Man" is the short story at the end. It's about a rich, not-too-bright woman who is horrified when she learns that enhanced worker apes are being killed and made into dog food when they can no longer work. She brings Jerry, the ape that first caught her attention, home with her (she owns stock in the company that created him). To win basic civil rights for the enhanced apes she employes a legal firm and and a "shyster" (Heinlein's word, not mine). The shyster is rather reminiscient of Jubal Harshaw in Stranger In A Strange Land; in this future setting shysters are essentially smart fixers, beyond the legal pale but necessary to the system. In any case, Jerry is the test case they use to try to establish anthropoid rights.

Along the way her even-more-stupid trophy husband makes difficulties, for a while. There's also some interesting and imaginative discussion of genetic manipulation in the earlier part of the story. I've never thought of Pegasus the same way since I first read it. Neither will you.

Here's the thing that I missed about the story when I was younger, and the reason that I've thought for so long that I should write something about it. The shyster needs a hook, an angle to rouse the emotions of the public in favor of rights for Jerry (the case is, of course, being televised). He sees Jerry dressed in a kilt, and momentarily considers trying to get him to play the bagpipe; obviously he's thinking of trying to make some sort of Scottish connection.

But he discards that, and - unfortunately this is a spoiler, but it can't be helped - instead puts Jerry in jeans and a shabby leather or jean jacket. And then he gets Jerry to sing "Ol' Man River" in the courthouse, and that makes the case. The audience goes crazy.

Now, I could be wrong, but the implication that I take from that is that the shyster was tying in to African-American culture, as Heinlein saw it at the time. I'm sure that Heinlein was far less racist than most of his contemporaries, but racism was a basic part of the culture back then. A character in "Elsewhen" says that she's "free, white, and twenty-one", if I remember correctly.

And of course there is Heinlein's early novel Sixth Column, with its painful anti-Asian elements (yes, I know that John W. Campbell forced them on Heinlein, but Heinlein DID write them). "He was a yellow man, but he was white inside" still makes me cringe, which may be why it has apparently been removed from later editions of Sixth Column.

The use of the word "shyster" in the Jerry story itself is also an interesting example of the casual racism that was, I believe, quite common throughout much of the United States in the 1940s.

Anyway, I can't shake the thought that Heinlein was basically saying that African-Americans presumably responded because Jerry either looked more like them than any other racial group (in his, i.e. Heinlein's opinion), or was somehow closer to them. Perhaps that would be because Jerry's ancestors were presumably also from Africa. But given that the book was first published in 1947...well, I have to wonder. Was the whole hook of the story the idea that Africans look like monkeys, and vice-versa?

I'm honestly not sure! But if not, what could it have been?

A Dream of Flying

I dreamed about flying when I was in Maine this weekend.

I dream a lot about flying anyway. I love those dreams. But this one was unusual. For one thing, I flew a lot more than I usually do. And for another, I talked about flying a lot in the dream.

You see, I dreamed that I'd been dreaming about flying, and then woke up. My first reaction was "Cool! I really flew! I can't wait to write about this in LiveJournal!".

But I remembered that it had been a dream. And then I realized (still in the dream, mind you) that although I'd just dreamed about flying, I had actually flown the day before...which, of course, I had dreamed in the same dream.

Confused? So was I. Still, it was nice believing for a few minutes that I really could fly. And I think it's amusing that my first thought was that I could write about it here. :D

A Dream of Flying

I dreamed about flying when I was in Maine this weekend.

I dream a lot about flying anyway. I love those dreams. But this one was unusual. For one thing, I flew a lot more than I usually do. And for another, I talked about flying a lot in the dream.

You see, I dreamed that I'd been dreaming about flying, and then woke up. My first reaction was "Cool! I really flew! I can't wait to write about this in LiveJournal!".

But I remembered that it had been a dream. And then I realized (still in the dream, mind you) that although I'd just dreamed about flying, I had actually flown the day before...which, of course, I had dreamed in the same dream.

Confused? So was I. Still, it was nice believing for a few minutes that I really could fly. And I think it's amusing that my first thought was that I could write about it here. :D

The ADL and Genocide

This is turning out to be harder to start than I expected. That's because it's complicated, I guess.

There has been a lot of coverage in the Boston Globe lately (and a bit in the national press, now) about recent events in Watertown, MA. An official "No Place For Hate" campaign was going on there, with the usual success, when someone noticed that the Anti-Defamation League which sponsors "No Place For Hate" was helping to deny the historicity of the Armenian Genocide.

A little background: Starting in 1915, the Turkish government methodically planned the extermination of the Armenian people within their borders (including all of my ancestors). One and a half million men, women, and children were methodically killed, under circumstances that do not easily bear talking about. This was widely recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century, although the word "genocide" itself wasn't coined until considerably later. There are photographs, written testimony from the US Ambassador at the time, newspaper accounts, and recorded testimony from survivors. There are even internal Ottoman government documents which are quite damning.

Nonetheless the Turkish government has never admitted that the Genocide occurred, and instead has spent huge amounts of money and time denying it. They've funded academic seats in prestigious Ivy League colleges and universities to give their denial added weight. One of their bought-and-paid-for professors was caught doing consulting work for the Turkish government; he ghost-wrote a letter for the Turkish ambassador to the US to send to a Holocaust scholar, and included with the letter was a memo which the professor wrote explaining how to best deny the genocide! That memo was, of course, intended only for the Turkish ambassador.

Anyway, it turns out that the ADL has been urging the US Congress to kill two bills recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Why? Apparently Abe Foxman, the head of the ADL, feels that genocide isn't any of the ADL's business - at least, not when it happens to non-Jews (although the ADL has made some pious noises about Darfur and Bosnia). So Mr. Foxman signed a letter (along with three other major Jewish organizations) urging congressional leaders to postpone considering the genocide bills. His primary reason is that there are Jews in Turkey whose safety might be threatened if the bill passes, and that Turkey is one of the few allies that Israel has in the Middle East.

But to put the reputation of the ADL, an organization which exists in large part to fight genocide, behind an active attempt to DENY genocide...well, that's just sickening. And if genocide is only wrong when it happens to your own people, than how can the ADL claim any sort of moral high ground?

The people of Watertown objected to the whole thing. After going back and forth for a little while, the head of the regional New England ADL also agreed that the Genocide should be recognized. He was promptly fired by Mr. Foxman for insubordination. The ADL has since published an open letter in the Globe and elsewhere, urging the Turkish and Armenian people to "seek reconciliation". But they "... believe that legislative efforts outside of Turkey are counterproductive to the goal of having Turkey itself come to grips with its past". The letter studiously avoids the word "genocide" - how considerate of them!

I'm tempted to work up a list of alternate words and phrases that can be used in place of "genocide". Words such as "troubles". "Misunderstandings". "Massive, wide-scale boo-boos." That sort of thing. But it's hard to maintain a sense of humor about this.

As it happens, my own workplace had a big "No Place For Hate" campaign not long ago, and the posters are still up on some walls. We were all invited to sign our names and join the campaign. Emails, voicemails, office mail, the works.

I never signed up.

Why? Well, at the time it was hard to say. I knew I didn't want to sign it, that the whole thing seemed wrong somehow, but I couldn't quite articulate why. Since this ADL genocide-denial issue has come up, though, I've been thinking about it a lot.

My first reaction was that the campaign was bullshit. Lots of people will happily sign any sort of pledge that's handed to them by someone, particularly if it's from someone who signs their paycheck. But that doesn't change their behavior. And to pretend that signing a poster or pledge will eliminate hate is as ridiculous as launching a war on terror! Hate is an emotion. You can sign a million pledges, but it won't affect how you feel. If hate is inside you, then pretending it isn't there won't make it go away.

What I'd like to see is a pledge to not discriminate. To not cover up injustice and atrocity. Hell, I'd like to see a pledge to pay a fair living wage to every worker! But this "No Place For Hate" bullshit is exactly that, a meaningless campaign to make legislators and executives feel good about themselves and - far more important - for use in public relations. As such, it's probably worse than nothing, because it allows people to think that they're morally superior without altering their actual behavior in the slightest. Given that moralistic veneer, they can smugly wallow in their worst excesses.

Look at Abe Foxman. He clearly thinks he's ready for sainthood. And there he is, helping to deny the same crimes against humanity that he decries so piteously when applied to his own people. Although I suspect that his real concern isn't his "people", but rather the small number of wealthy donors who are the primary financial backers of the ADL.

I also have a gut feeling that there is, in fact, a place for hate - that there are times when hate is appropriate and even necessary. Isn't it right to hate war crimes and genocide? Should we hate injustice and cruelty? How about hypocrisy? How about the corruption of civil liberties, or lying a country into a war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and mutilations for political gain? Yes, taken too far hate can consume a person and warp them - but in proper proportion and under some circumstances, hate is both natural and reasonable.

We don't need "No Place For Hate". We need "No Place For Evil".

---

Okay, I should note that I don't know anything about "No Place For Hate" apart from the poster thing at work and what I've read in the newspaper. Maybe they have innovative outreach and education programs to combat injustice and intolerance. If so, that just makes what Foxman and the ADL have done that much worse - having compromised a program that does good, along with their own reputations. But as I said, I don't know if that's true of NPFH.

I have read that Watertown will likely replace the NPFH campaign with a locally-developed tolerance and diversity program. I hope they do.

The ADL and Genocide

This is turning out to be harder to start than I expected. That's because it's complicated, I guess.

There has been a lot of coverage in the Boston Globe lately (and a bit in the national press, now) about recent events in Watertown, MA. An official "No Place For Hate" campaign was going on there, with the usual success, when someone noticed that the Anti-Defamation League which sponsors "No Place For Hate" was helping to deny the historicity of the Armenian Genocide.

A little background: Starting in 1915, the Turkish government methodically planned the extermination of the Armenian people within their borders (including all of my ancestors). One and a half million men, women, and children were methodically killed, under circumstances that do not easily bear talking about. This was widely recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century, although the word "genocide" itself wasn't coined until considerably later. There are photographs, written testimony from the US Ambassador at the time, newspaper accounts, and recorded testimony from survivors. There are even internal Ottoman government documents which are quite damning.

Nonetheless the Turkish government has never admitted that the Genocide occurred, and instead has spent huge amounts of money and time denying it. They've funded academic seats in prestigious Ivy League colleges and universities to give their denial added weight. One of their bought-and-paid-for professors was caught doing consulting work for the Turkish government; he ghost-wrote a letter for the Turkish ambassador to the US to send to a Holocaust scholar, and included with the letter was a memo which the professor wrote explaining how to best deny the genocide! That memo was, of course, intended only for the Turkish ambassador.

Anyway, it turns out that the ADL has been urging the US Congress to kill two bills recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Why? Apparently Abe Foxman, the head of the ADL, feels that genocide isn't any of the ADL's business - at least, not when it happens to non-Jews (although the ADL has made some pious noises about Darfur and Bosnia). So Mr. Foxman signed a letter (along with three other major Jewish organizations) urging congressional leaders to postpone considering the genocide bills. His primary reason is that there are Jews in Turkey whose safety might be threatened if the bill passes, and that Turkey is one of the few allies that Israel has in the Middle East.

But to put the reputation of the ADL, an organization which exists in large part to fight genocide, behind an active attempt to DENY genocide...well, that's just sickening. And if genocide is only wrong when it happens to your own people, than how can the ADL claim any sort of moral high ground?

The people of Watertown objected to the whole thing. After going back and forth for a little while, the head of the regional New England ADL also agreed that the Genocide should be recognized. He was promptly fired by Mr. Foxman for insubordination. The ADL has since published an open letter in the Globe and elsewhere, urging the Turkish and Armenian people to "seek reconciliation". But they "... believe that legislative efforts outside of Turkey are counterproductive to the goal of having Turkey itself come to grips with its past". The letter studiously avoids the word "genocide" - how considerate of them!

I'm tempted to work up a list of alternate words and phrases that can be used in place of "genocide". Words such as "troubles". "Misunderstandings". "Massive, wide-scale boo-boos." That sort of thing. But it's hard to maintain a sense of humor about this.

As it happens, my own workplace had a big "No Place For Hate" campaign not long ago, and the posters are still up on some walls. We were all invited to sign our names and join the campaign. Emails, voicemails, office mail, the works.

I never signed up.

Why? Well, at the time it was hard to say. I knew I didn't want to sign it, that the whole thing seemed wrong somehow, but I couldn't quite articulate why. Since this ADL genocide-denial issue has come up, though, I've been thinking about it a lot.

My first reaction was that the campaign was bullshit. Lots of people will happily sign any sort of pledge that's handed to them by someone, particularly if it's from someone who signs their paycheck. But that doesn't change their behavior. And to pretend that signing a poster or pledge will eliminate hate is as ridiculous as launching a war on terror! Hate is an emotion. You can sign a million pledges, but it won't affect how you feel. If hate is inside you, then pretending it isn't there won't make it go away.

What I'd like to see is a pledge to not discriminate. To not cover up injustice and atrocity. Hell, I'd like to see a pledge to pay a fair living wage to every worker! But this "No Place For Hate" bullshit is exactly that, a meaningless campaign to make legislators and executives feel good about themselves and - far more important - for use in public relations. As such, it's probably worse than nothing, because it allows people to think that they're morally superior without altering their actual behavior in the slightest. Given that moralistic veneer, they can smugly wallow in their worst excesses.

Look at Abe Foxman. He clearly thinks he's ready for sainthood. And there he is, helping to deny the same crimes against humanity that he decries so piteously when applied to his own people. Although I suspect that his real concern isn't his "people", but rather the small number of wealthy donors who are the primary financial backers of the ADL.

I also have a gut feeling that there is, in fact, a place for hate - that there are times when hate is appropriate and even necessary. Isn't it right to hate war crimes and genocide? Should we hate injustice and cruelty? How about hypocrisy? How about the corruption of civil liberties, or lying a country into a war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and mutilations for political gain? Yes, taken too far hate can consume a person and warp them - but in proper proportion and under some circumstances, hate is both natural and reasonable.

We don't need "No Place For Hate". We need "No Place For Evil".

---

Okay, I should note that I don't know anything about "No Place For Hate" apart from the poster thing at work and what I've read in the newspaper. Maybe they have innovative outreach and education programs to combat injustice and intolerance. If so, that just makes what Foxman and the ADL have done that much worse - having compromised a program that does good, along with their own reputations. But as I said, I don't know if that's true of NPFH.

I have read that Watertown will likely replace the NPFH campaign with a locally-developed tolerance and diversity program. I hope they do.

Sleep!

I am forcing myself to go to sleep now. I need sleep!

...jeeze, not a lot of comments any more around here, huh? Or is it just me? I think I'm actually getting more feedback over on my new Charlie On The Commuter Rail blog than I am here! I wonder why?

Sleep!

I am forcing myself to go to sleep now. I need sleep!

...jeeze, not a lot of comments any more around here, huh? Or is it just me? I think I'm actually getting more feedback over on my new Charlie On The Commuter Rail blog than I am here! I wonder why?