I’m not disputing anybody’s right to publish their books, not publish them or eat them for breakfast, of course. However, I have to say that I find the following declaration by writer Alice Walker to be nothing but a clumsy attempt at self-promotion:

Shining light human rights activist Alice Walker has refused to have her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Color Purple published in Israel. In a letter to the prospective publisher she writes:

“Israel is guilty of apartheid and persecution of the Palestinian people, both inside Israel and also in the Occupied Territories.”

If Walker were really interested in battling the alleged racist tendencies among the Israelis, one would think that she’d want her anti-racist book to become as widely known among the people of Israel as possible. I have to wonder how barring access to an anti-racist piece of fiction is supposed to stop people from racist practices.

The comparison between Israeli policies in Palestine with the Apartheid is a favorite toy of lazy minds. Instead of analyzing the complex phenomenon of Israeli-Palestinian relations, lazy people think they are being progressive by dismissing both Israel and South Africa through claiming that they are essentially the same. Who needs to look into the particularities of these boring conflicts between tedious foreign folks? It is so much easier to declare that they are all the same and the best way to deal with them is by boycotting them until they resolve their boring conflicts.

Walker claims that her novel is part of “the world-wide effort to rid humanity of its self-destructive habit of dehumanizing whole populations.” I believe, however, that dehumanization starts when you experience the need to conflate the problems of completely different societies (such as South Africa and Israel, for example) in an attempt to spare yourself time and effort by dismissing the complex and painful realities of others. I encounter this attitude only too often when  people react to my polite reminder that I’m not from Russia with an impatient gesture aimed at waving off my insignificant belief in my own difference.

“Oh, it’s the same thing,” they always say, jerking their heads impatiently, annoyed that I dare to expect a more nuanced approach to my reality than they are willing to provide.

Walker’s statement reminded me a lot of the attitude exhibited by these “you-people-are-all-the-same” folks.

A reader of this blog asked:

You list “voting is useless because all politicians lie anyway”. I’d be interested to see a post explaining why this is a misconception.

I don’t often get annoyed with my students. I know this is hard to believe if you’ve been reading my blog for a while but I’m the picture of patience and an unadulterated good mood in the classroom. I vent on the blog, which enables me to come into the classroom with no pent-up irritation. But there is a number of statements that my students make that really bug me. “Voting is useless” is one of them.

One reason I find this annoying is that my 18-year-old students who haven’t had a chance to vote for anybody yet could not have possibly arrived at this disillusionment with voting on their own. They are just repeating this boring platitude after adults who are disillusioned with life and feel powerless in their relationship with the world. It’s sad to see young kids condemn themselves to the same kind of impotence for no reason other than being surrounded by cynical adults.

The “world is big and scary and I’m little and insignificant” attitude tells us nothing about the surrounding reality. It does, however, tell us a lot about the psychological issues of the person making the statement. The childish petulance of people who believe that “all politicians lie, so how can I possibly make any sense of anything?” betrays the kind of immaturity that is frustrated by the complexity of the world.

Yes, politicians lie and political activism is hard. Transforming the world is not easy. Arriving at one’s own worldview and making sense of a multitude of political and economic issues is a pain in the lower back. It is much easier to excuse one’s apathy and ignorance by the dismissal of the entire political process as being flawed beyond redemption.

My Kindle is a total prude. Whenever I try to type the word “sex “, it tries to change it to “dex “. Seriously, what does this “dex ” even mean for the Kindle to suggest it all the time?

Blogger Fie Upon This Quiet Life made the following valuable comment:

Different stages in life will affect the way you view things politically, in my opinion. However, the core principles should stay the same.

I agree completely with Fie. My political beliefs are in constant flux. I keep learning new things and that, obviously, influences my political stance. However, my core political principles stay the same. They are central to my entire worldview, which is why I cannot imagine them ever changing. Here they are:

– the human body is inviolable. Nobody has the right to invade it. Nobody’s beliefs, opinions, religious agendas, and do-gooder concerns should trump an individual’s fundamental freedom to do what s/he wants to do with her or his body. The same goes for people’s sex lives.

– freedom of speech is more important than its capacity to hurt somebody’s feelings (including mine).

– individual responsibility. If everything I do is “conditioned by society”, if I’m nothing but a reflection of societal forces working on me, then said society should have the right to dictate my every move. Those of us who don’t enjoy this prospect, should accept responsibility for our lives.

– equality under the law. This means, among other things, that when Mr. Blankfein mismanages his huge company, he should deal with the consequences the way any owner of a tiny corner store does.

– a civilized society must ensure that nobody has to suffer without adequate medical care.

– children are human beings and their rights should be protected.

I can’t think of anything more right now. Am I forgetting anything?

Do share what your core political principles are.