Have we saved the world yet? Intro

"The arc of history is long but bends towards justice."

What is the motivation for someone well past his prime, with no academic credentials, to presume to write something will answer the joking question of the 94 year old friend who hosts our post tennis group at McDonalds restaurant, "Have we saved the world, yet?"  
One explanation is that what I have to say has not been said, or if so very very quietly, and often in a tone that either actually, or by imputation, is seen as abnormal, meaning invidiously not of the norms of society.  Abnormal is only bad when the norms are promotive of consensually desired ends - and certainly not good when they prevent the kind of conversation that may redress the defects of any given society. 

   


I am writing this "book"  (you are reading an introduction) at a moment in history that augurs a flex-point in the "post holocaust era of redemption", a concept that hasn't become "a thing"; such as global warming that encompasses technology, demographics and politics at every level in all countries.  With global warming, there are melting glaciers and ancient temperature indications that allow objective analysis.  What I'm presenting is as real, but unlike the measure of temperature variation, the manifestations are amorphous, and have become so much part of the most rancorous aspects of the culture wars that they only exacerbate partisan antagonism, rather than advance investigation of the deeper dynamics. My task, well over my pay grade and talents, is audacious. Rightly to be left to academics if it weren't that this hallowed turf too has become part of the very phenomenon I'm articulating.  This will be the subject of its own chapter in my hypothetical book.    

This is why what I describe is not a blog article, or an essay, but structurally a "book"  or "thesis" meaning something that aspires to present a different perspective that must first describe elements that will be examined; this in order to make a case that there must be a larger conceptual context, a more useful paradigm to explain the cited phenomon. 

While the introduction to the first chapter could be entitled "when homosexuality became gay;" my "thesis" is more encompassing, as it must include the long and continuing movement to end Jim Crow domination of Blacks* in America of the mid twentieth century. The central impact to this country from the importation of African slaves is part of this thesis only because I argue, it, like the gay rights movement, although only a short half century old, are now both part of an unspoken western world mentality that fits a pattern that is perhaps as dangerous as the threat of climate change.   

 Another, is women's rights, especially the fight for access to abortions. The abortion issue is one of values, with no disagreement among advocates of the science of terminating a pregnancy, meaning the ending of life of an unborn human while still in the uterus either before or after the point of viability.  The two sides have taken agreed upon truths as their motto, as the act does entail both ending of "life" and the exercise of "choice."  The very names of the contending  political groups focus on one with the assumption that it negates the other, where it is actually the debate of which of these should gain legal-political ascendancy. 

Homosexuality and abortion, are different from race -- in the U.S. focusing around issues relating to Negros.  The very use of this "N-word" for many is the end of the conversation, as it is not consistent with the social norms that have evolved.  My contention is that these social norms obviate, make impossible, going beyond what has replaced racial, gender and sexual orientation stereotypes of the pre 1960 era-- to establishing an entire new taxonomy of terms. While replacing those terms that had the effect of insulting or denigrating people who were the object of invidious discrimination, over the decades they have elevated political discourse above scientific investigation.   .


 


 
 ---------------------------
*I will use, when plausible, the earliest term and most precise term even when archaic or seen as a slur, such as homosexual for gay, or Negro for now current words, Blacks and African American, both terms inherently loaded by political movements. The purpose of this book is to understand why our society has discarded a neutral descriptor to one that reflects a political ideology, irrespective of how universally it has been adopted.  To clarify: "abortion" is subject to extensive debate often with their own terminology (liberals will never use "abortion on demand")without changing the word of the actual procedure. This will be explored in a separate chapter.