I have a friend, Pam Mazanec, who serves on the state board of education here in Colorado. She wrote an inelegantly phrased post on a Facebook group called SPEAK for DCSD about how the U.S. decided to end slavery. SPEAK is decidedly against the current school board here in Douglas County. Pam supports that school board. We’re having a locally lively debate about, among other issues, the high school Advanced Placement US History curriculum, as you may have heard. Our neighboring county, Jefferson, has seen teacher and student walkouts. Pam’s post was intended to support the idea that the US History framework should analyze the factors that make us great and the factors that weaken us as a country.
She said we ended slavery voluntarily, and at great sacrifice – and that we should teach about the nobility of our country’s intrinsic willingness to endure the necessary sacrifice to end a given evil. Her phrasing was understandably objectionable to those whose ancestors had no say in the matter. However, I am increasingly appalled by the way people who disagree with her political views are treating her.
Her casual post has offended the historical scholars (and grammar Nazis) among us. I am not sure why, since she was writing a casual post on a Facebook page that was clearly not meant as an historical treatise. I’ve not seen a single post that says, “Hey, I am having trouble understanding what you mean.” “Not sure what you’re thinking.” “Let’s talk.” But I have seen her thoroughly skewered by a media outlet that disagrees with her politics, and another is now linking with ironic disbelief to the first.
(By the way, if every Facebook post I’ve ever done is going to be subjected to a scholarly review, I am in so.much.trouble. Let’s just say that now. Go find those impulsive posts, or the ones with the magnificent typos, because I’m sure they exist.)
As for Pam, though, I understand what she was trying to say. Because I know her. She is intelligent, educated, compassionate and downright nice. She was calling out the heroism of the people of all classes, races, and walks of life who helped end slavery. She was saying that our country is, at its heart, wonderful. She was saying that, when the chips are down, she believes we do what is right. In this case, ending slavery cost our country as a whole millions of lives – black, white, slave, soldier, Union, Confederate. We persevered, even then, because we do what is right. And I still understand why the way she put it was not well received.
Because, in part, we don’t. We don’t rise to our best selves when we are not inspired to be exceptional. We don’t when all we want to do is sit in the stands and throw verbal popcorn at the people trying to make meaningful change happen. Most of all, we don’t when we are focused on scoring political points and increasing our polarization. So, the question we should each ask ourselves is whether we are on the side of mediocrity and polarization or we are on the side of dialogue, consensus and progress.
Moving apart, refusing to find common ground, belittling and insulting those with whom you disagree, leads to that sobering statement that Martin Niemöller made
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
My friend Pam is being called a moron and an idiot – by other people I consider friends, or at least friendly acquaintances – on social media. Pam is not a moron. She is, however, a conservative. An increasing number of people in social media think that it is fair play – productive, even – to insult and deride conservatives. I am not a conservative. I am somewhere between a moderate and a libertarian. That means I don’t support polarization on either side. At this point, if you’re engaging in the public vitriol, if you are coming for Pam, you are inevitably, eventually, coming for me. You either don’t understand history and consider yourself as someone fighting for the vulnerable – or you do, and you’re a political opportunist. As Joan Rivers used to say, “Can we talk”? Because, if we can’t, we’re in trouble.
Well said, Sandra.
Sandra, aren’t you the one who took a screenshot of a pre-election joke off a Facebook page last year, made allegations of voter fraud, and sent it to an “investigator” from a biased “news” blog that ended up knocking on the woman’s door to harass her about it?
Why should Ms Mazanec, an elected public official speaking on exactly the subject she was elected to administer, be given a pass for “inelegant wording” when a year ago, a mom making a similarly inelegant joke about helping friends vote, was not given the same courtesy?
Hey, Connie, thank you for commenting. I don’t think Pam has gotten a pass at all. This DailyKos thread is representative of the type of profane and demeaning commentary she is facing. In order for the narrative to be correct – that Pam is “a delusional bitch” or an “f’ing moron” – she’d need to have meant something other than what she did. I don’t think that is true, so I defended her. Your description of what happened last year is also untrue. Perhaps you might consider whether you’re being truthful, wise or ethical when you have to contort your story to make Pam stupid and/or me malicious.
(ETA: edited to add links.)
Sorry Sandra, I didn’t remember last year’s events completely correctly. It was your husband that took the screen shots, and you didn’t send them directly to the “investigative reporter”, you sent them to your friend, who sent them to him, who then looked for the mom on the facebook page, before heading to her house to harass her about it. Yes, some commenters told him off on FB, probably because that publication has a history of publishing lies about, and attacks on, parents and teachers who are vocal about their disagreement with the DCSD Board of Education. Perhaps not the best way to respond, but it didn’t require escalation into harassing her at home.
I don’t condone calling Pam names like “f’ing moron”. Some commenters have gone too far in that respect, but most comments that I’ve seen have centered around her remarks themselves. That a civil war cannot be considered voluntary, and that saying “the practice continues in many countries still today!” seems to imply that it’s either legal in other countries today (it’s not), or that it doesn’t occur illegally in the U.S. today (it does). In any event, an elected public official, discussing the very government system she is elected to serve, specifically stating “Shouldn’t our students be provided that viewpoint?”, should choose her words more carefully, if she doesn’t want people to think she meant exactly what she said.
I do agree with you on the need for civil discourse. Some on-line comments have been over-the-top rude to Ms Manzanec, just as they often are with other politicians, both local and national. It’s too bad some people cannot have a conversation about the issues without hurling insults.
Hey again, Connie, thanks for a thoughtful response! Reasonable people disagree, and I respect the tone of your post. I think Pam’s comment was contorted, and the fallout has definitely been ugly. I also have a different opinion of what happened with the voter fraud comment and the ensuing fallout. Yet, in both instances, I respect your position. Since you don’t know me, you have no way of knowing whether I’ve been principled and consistent in my actions or malicious. I am just glad we can agree on keeping the dialogue civil. I’ll be happy to try to find consensus on future issues with you any time :-).