Customer Reviews

Reassessing American Culture: A Rebel's Guide

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The subtitle to this book is "A Rebel's Guide." Better would be "An English Professor's Rant." Although I am in substantial agreement with much of what Shafer has to say, I do have some guidance.

The weakest chapter in the book is unfortunately the first, "Media and Men: The Making of a Jackass." Actually what the media really wants to do is turn men into compliant sheep. Jackasses are entirely too stubborn. Shafer seems to believe that the media is teaching young men to be violent, when in fact the media is merely using images of violence and machismo to get the attention of men in order to indoctrinate them into compliant consumerism. Violence is inherent in young men, media or no media. Violence sells the way sex sells.

Shafer also seems to think that the US is one of the more violent countries on earth and that our history is more violent than that of other countries. Well, if we had some objective, measurable criteria with which to gauge the violence of nations, both current and historical, I suspect the US would come in around a little more violent than average. Just a guess. We have had a recent history (relatively speaking) of a lawless frontier and we still have some of the most liberal laws regarding the toting of guns. (Notice the clever use of the word "liberal," you NRA types!) Our rate of homicides per capita is clearly in excess of that of European nations. However, if you count wars engaged in over the last 230 years or so, European nations are clearly among the most violent.

In Chapter Two "Not the Marrying Kind" Shafer takes a rather doctrinaire feminist position vis-a-vis the state of women in the Republic. He gives some history and evaluates the current situation. Unfortunately his expression is more politically correct than it is substantive. For example in writing about women taking the man's surname as their own in marriage he indicates that it is done to show that the woman is the man's property. (p. 28) Actually there are other reasons for this convention. First understand that one name or the other is handy (Mary Jones-Smith quickly becomes after some generations, Mary Jones-Smith-Anderson-Garcia-Yang, etc.). Second, while there is no doubt about the maternity of any child, the paternity may be in some doubt. Consequently it is to both the advantage of the mother and the father, and to the children to give them the father's last name. The convention is just common sense. By the way, DNA evidence now shows that a certain percentage--I think it is around ten percent--of children from a married couple are NOT the biological offspring of the father!

Shafer goes on to make it clear that he is not a big fan of marriage. He calls it "a tradition that rarely serves us." (p. 36) He seems to think that marriage is a way to control women. Actually marriage was a way to protect women. An unmarried, unattached woman alone was vulnerable to males who would take advantage of her. The world has changed, at least in most countries, and we have the rule of law and we have the kind of security not possible in tribal societies, so that this reason for marriage is antiquated.

Another reasons for marriage is to provide some security for the children. Again with welfare services and the ability of a woman to make a living on her own, this reason is also somewhat antiquated. Marriage does have a biological basis, however. Two hands are better than one when taking care of children, as anybody who's ever done it knows.

Chapter Three, "Partisan Spin and Politics of Fear" is pedestrian but correct. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration plays the fear card to increase its grip on power. Yes, Shafer does predictably recall Orwell's 1984 (1948) as prescient.

The best chapter perhaps is the fourth, "History and Culture" in which Shafer shows how the heroic and seemingly humanitarian personages in our history books like Jefferson and Lincoln are mostly fraudulent. He writes, "History is often cobbled together to fit the demands of a patriotic movie, to make the American audience feel good about itself." (p. 53)

I also like this quote from Bill Press: "only a handful of presidents have led us into war. But George W. Bush lied us into war...Think about it. Nothing could be more despicable." (p. 63) Shafer follows with a scathing denunciation of Cheney, et al., for making money on the war, adding, "Bush refused to wait for other nations to join the attack, preferring to send American men and women to die for his Vice President's company." (That would be Halliburton.) (p. 64)

On the next page Shafer cites "a report by Mickey Herskowitz...[Bush's] former ghost writer, that Bush wanted to attack Iraq as a way to boost his ratings as president....Bush knew that Americans would rally behind him if he could create a villain in the Middle East."

This has always been my belief, but I never dreamed there might be proof since Bush himself would never admit to such a thing. Too bad Shafer gives no footnote or in any way further references the "report" from Herskowitz. However I just Googled "Mickey Herskowitz" and found an article written by Russ Baker that pretty much confirms Shafer's report. Stunning, really.

In the last chapter Shafer rants against the blood sport of hunters and hunting and the indecency of the meat industry. He will find many kindred souls in the vegan and vegetarian communities.

Bottom line: as rants go, this is a little thin, a little ordinary, a little PC, but readable with some telling observations.

I read Shafer's first book, Reassessing Democracy and was both fascinated and troubled by the violations of basic rights that he delineates. His latest book is even better, mainly because it is more readable and centered on more interesting subjects.The first chapter focuses on men and media, discussing the ways media affects men's actions-- very provocative. His chapter on the use of fear in culture is also quite intriguing. Shafer does what any good writer tries to do: He makes his readers think by revealing troubling aspects of our culture that one does without reflection.