The Old Man

Colonel Anderson PWNED by Jourdan.



Oh yes, he did.

 Jourdan Anderson was a monster. Before you shout me down, allow me to clarify- Jourdan Anderson was a literary monster, defeating his foes and bringing his pen to bear on his former master with more force than a firearm. Though a former slave, Jourdan wielded searing wit and principled deference as handily as his master must have wielded a whip.

The letter that Jourdan wrote to his former master, Colonel P. Anderson, is a veritable masterpiece, crafted by an intelligent man who had obviously retained his dignity over and above years spent in slavery under Colonel Anderson. In addition to Jourdans even tone throughout the letter, I am amazed that he even responded to Colonel Anderson at all, considering that the letter Jourdan received prior to his response was an offer to “come back to work” for Anderson, as if they had simply parted ways several years prior over a simple misunderstanding. What gall Anderson had, presuming that Jourdan would come running when he beckoned!

Jourdan is no man's fool- he know when he's being played (as the cool kids say)and crafts a document that deconstructs Andersons contrived notions to the point that I'd wager even Anderson felt guilty after reading the letter. Jourdan is deferential, though not to his detriment, expressing concern that Anderson may have been hurt, and gladness that he had not been. He offers greetings to Andersons family and prays that they have the opportunity to meet again, under more favorable circumstances. After the niceties, Jourdan stretches his literary legs and settles in to responding to “The Offer”. Tests of honesty are suggested, and assurances of safety are requested for Jourdans family. Jourdan uses his text as a two-edged sword, simultaneously addressing the stark contrast between the future, if there were to be one, and the past, invoking the authority of the Apostle Paul: “The workman is worthy of his hire”. His style of writing is very effective as he navigates the minefield of years of emotional and physical pain with the recognition that he is truly free.

Jourdan writes as one who has matured, one who has suffered pain and has not allowed the insidious cancer of bitterness or self-pity to eat away at his dignity; he is a man of independence who will not stoop to Anderson's assumption that Jourdan can do no better than indentured servitude. The discerning reader will observe that there is a plot twisting role reversal- Jourdan, though a slave for years, is the free man by virtue of his ethic of forgiveness; Anderson, though former master, is slave to the Old Ways of the South, and cannot cope without his “#1 slave”. Perhaps freedom is a concept of the mind, and not necessarily of the body; all the goods in the world cannot free one who's mind is held captive. In contrast, though the body may be shackled by force, the mind cannot be ceded to another without consent, and spiritual freedom transcends physical freedom. Anderson is to be pitied, in the end, Jourdan is the better man, and I am all the better for reading his letter.

Mala Tres Virides- "Three Green Apples"

Petulance is Alive and Well

http://www.istockphoto.com/

Since when has rude behavior and knee-jerk reactions to perceived wrongs pass for legitimate forms of protest or dissent? “Family Values” is a celebration of such behavior- physical assault replaces reasoned dialog, and generalized, ad-hominem attacks are par the course in the author's family. Selfishness and a misplaced sense of pride in being “rebellious” is somehow equated with being genuine and honest.

I found the tone of this essay to be conceited and disingenuous, as though Ehrenreich was trying to convince herself that her familial generations of “blue-eyed, Scotch-Irish Democrats” gave her the impetus to live up to their asinine social reputations that they enjoyed in their respective communities. Ehrenreich is quick to vilify “organized religion” (she never offers a decent definition of what that may be) and political organizations (“phonies”), yet her evidence consists of little more than spotlighting the transgressions of a few select individuals, then broad-brushing entire groups of people associated with those individuals. She offers no compelling analysis of the foundational ideas of certain political parties or religions to ascertain whether the actions taken by those who represent them actually reflect the teachings of such organizations. A well-thought criticism this does not make.

Fortunately for Ehrenreich- and her readers- her aim is not to dissect the failures of a particular organization, but rather to emphasize the type of values she has inherited from her ancestors. Ehrenreich takes pride that her family has always questioned the status quo and have never been afraid to “take it to the Man”, as it were. Let it be know that I agree wholeheartedly with our 1^st Amendment right to free speech, and the right of man to question authority, which I'm sure Ehrenreich would agree with. That is where the agreement would likely end between us. Ehrenreichs recollection of a physical assault of a priest over a personal slight takes on heroic proportions as her great-grandfather commits one last act of defiance before “heading West”. Regardless of whatever position an individual holds, there is no excuse in our society to “settle the score” by attacking another individual outside the legal boundaries of self-defense. Ehrenreich makes the case that such behavior is “traditional” in the American experience, as is blatant name calling and mockery; she evokes the Founding Fathers and civil-rights movement as examples of what she considers the “true duty of patriots”- “dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell raising”.

Ehrenreich's comparison is misguided, though she triumphantly equates her family's response to injustice to that of our national figures, she fails to note that in Rosa Parks act of defiance, she did not yell, name call, or assault anyone. She was confident, self-assured, and graciously firm. The same cannot be said for the Ehrenreichs. And those American revolutionaries of the Boston Tea Party? It is often overlooked, but those same revolutionaries who sparked the birth of a nation ensured that they swept the decks clean of tea leaves and refrained from damaging any property aboard the ship, save a solitary padlock, which they replaced. Respect in the face of oppression or injustice, as Rosa Parks and the Tea Party exercised, is a dying virtue; selfishness, disrespect, and impulsiveness are the new tools of the “revolution”. Ehrenreich does no favors to the image of the dissenter, or her family, by romanticizing such lack of virtue.

Rasmuson Library