This past week, as any Rush fan knows, a rock music website published an article containing some quotes from podcaster Eddie Trunk, who asserted that Alex and Geddy would soon form a band that could possibly be called LeeLifeson. I'm still in contact with the guys in Rush, and I had heard nothing about this; but I'm also someone who does fact-checking for a living. The article contained several red flags for me-- most notably that neither Alex nor Geddy had confirmed Mr. Trunk's speculations. I was always taught during my journalism days never to assume ("When you assume, you make an Ass out of U and Me," as the old saying goes); while Mr. Trunk had every right to guess what Alex and Geddy might be doing in the future, the article gave the impression that he knew for certain. And that was enough for Rush fans, many of whom miss the band and would be delighted to see some kind of reunion.
So, I did what any fact-checker would do: I contacted Alex and asked him. (I tend to speak with him more often than I do Geddy, plus it was Alex's birthday and I wanted to get in touch anyway.) I figured if a reunion was in the offing, he might know something about it. However, as I suspected, he didn't... because there wasn't one. Nor did he think there would be one at any time in the near future, given how busy both he and Geddy are with individual projects. He and Geddy speak often, and they are often at the same events; but that doesn't mean they're auditioning drummers and preparing to go out on the road. So, with his permission, I posted to the site that first had the article, and got them to update and correct the original piece. Mr. Trunk also walked back his comments, which was greatly appreciated. I've never met him, I don't think, and I'm sure he's a good person. But he has certainly seen first-hand how easy it is for speculation to be taken as fact online.
And that is what really bothers me. While this is a post about what happened with some untrue assertions about two beloved rock stars, I can point to hundreds of claims I've read online that don't have an ounce of truth in them, yet they get forwarded, re-tweeted, re-posted, turned into memes. More troubling, they get widely believed. I see these myths and rumors a lot on internet fan sites. ("Did you know that Geddy and Alex haven't spoken to Neil in two years???" Umm, NOT TRUE. I have it on good authority that they speak to each other quite regularly. But never mind...) However, more often than that, I see these false claims on partisan political sites, where people who love Donald Trump and people who hate Donald Trump eagerly toss around unproved and unverified stories that make them feel better but do little to provide accurate information.
The internet can be a great blessing, as I've often stated. It can put you in touch with people you might never otherwise be able to talk to. It can create world-wide communities where people with shared interests can share their views. It can give you access to old newspapers and magazines and books, making historical research much easier for students, and for professors like me. But it can also spread hate and bigotry and stereotypes at lightning speed. It can be the source of misinformation and misunderstanding, and it can contribute to inaccurate perceptions of politicians, rock stars, celebrities, or ordinary people who made one foolish remark and are immediately shamed by folks who evidently have never made a mistake in their lives.
So, whether you read speculation about the members of Rush or speculation about Donald Trump or speculation about Barack Obama (please don't send me those memes about how Obama messed up Hurricane Katrina-- he wasn't president then... Bush was), consider the source. Is it a partisan site that always hates on that person? Is it a site where the writer has never really met the folks he or she is writing about? Is it a site where fact-checking never occurs but lots of conspiratorial speculation does? (I was always taught that Correlation is NOT causation: if two events happen at the same time, that doesn't mean one caused the other. But in the online world, if X goes wrong and someone I never liked was there when it happened, then that person must have caused X. It's rarely true, but in the online world, that's a frequent tactic of certain websites.)
I know I've asked this before, but it seems rather timely this week: before you forward an article from a fan site, see if it has actual quotes from the person being written about, and find out if what the author is claiming has been verified. This is true for politics too: before you send around that meme, find out if the person actually said it. You may think it's fun to spread fake quotes or fake stories, but it can have some really unfortunate consequences. Meanwhile, I am not good at predicting the future, so I don't know if Alex and Geddy will ever reunite. I love them (and Neil too), and I wish them health and happiness. But I must say that whether it's about rock and roll or whether it's about politics or whatever else, facts matter. And I wish all the folks who enjoy spreading rumors would just... stop...
Opinions and commentary about politics, the media, history, religion, and current events.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Learning the Wrong Lessons from History
As someone who is fascinated by history, I can understand why many white people in the south have felt passionate about preserving statues of Confederate figures like Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee. These are historical artifacts from a bygone time, and in their day, they were meant to honor how the south seceded from the Union and fought against what southerners called "northern aggression." Today, our views are somewhat more nuanced: the generals may still have some fans among Civil War buffs, but most of us wish the war had never happened, and most of us are glad the Union was saved. Today, the statues are a reminder of a difficult and contentious time in US history, and they reflect our changing attitudes about it.
Unfortunately, some southern cities placed the statues on the grounds of the state government or in a public park, which seemed to show support (or even nostalgia) for what the Confederate generals did. Giving the statues such a prominent location may not have been a problem in the era of segregation; but it certainly sends the wrong message in 2017. That said, it's not surprising there are traditionalists who get upset whenever there is a plan to move the statues to a museum (where they belong), or to tear them down (something that, as a historian, I oppose; I may not be fond of Confederate generals, but they were real people and we shouldn't pretend they never existed).
The people who show such reverence towards memories of the Confederacy (including the Confederate flag) often insist it has nothing to do with prejudice: they simply believe they are honoring the history and heritage of the south. But what they are honoring means something very different to black southerners, who lack that same nostalgia for the era of slavery or segregation. And in fairness, many southern whites (especially younger people) no longer feel positive about those old symbols either. Still, for a certain group of white southerners, some of whom identify as white nationalists (or white supremacists), the statues and the Confederate flag are something to celebrate. And when the city of Charlottesville VA decided to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee and rename the park where it stood, some of these folks decided to take a stand.
On Friday night, a large group of angry protesters, many aligned with the Alt-Right, came to Charlottesville to express their outrage. They carried torches (much like the Ku Klux Klan of years ago) and shouted neo-Nazi slogans. They talked about "white genocide," and painted themselves as the true victims of discrimination. (Hint: they're really not.) I believe in the First Amendment, and I do understand that even when protesters (on any side of the issues) are hostile or hateful, they have every right to express their views. But I still found it disconcerting to see images of flaming torches, and to hear rhetoric from the era of Adolph Hitler. Okay fine, it was only a few hundred white nationalists, but in my view, one is too many. My father (of blessed memory) fought the Nazis in World War II; he would not be amused to see a resurgence of Nazi views here in America.
It got worse on Saturday, as the white nationalists held a "Unite the Right" rally, with more neo-Nazi and white power chants and more outrage; accompanying them were some members of all-white militias, carrying weapons. They were met by counter-protesters, most of whom came from churches or local social service groups and held peaceful vigils; and a few of whom came from more activist groups and clashed with the white nationalists. Meanwhile, some of the white nationalists were very vocal in their praise of President Trump; some gave Nazi-like salutes and said "Heil Trump," while the ever-present David Duke, former head of the KKK, basically reminded everyone that Mr. Trump was their inspiration, and it was time for white people to take their country back (I had no idea they'd lost it). In the midst of it all, a car intentionally slammed into the counter-protesters-- the people who were hit had been peacefully expressing their opposition to what the white nationalists were saying. One person was killed and at least nineteen were seriously injured.
I had hoped President Trump would forcefully condemn the white supremacists or speak out against neo-Nazi rhetoric. He did not. He sent out a vague statement about how violence on "all sides" was wrong, as if the peaceful counter-protesters were as culpable as the folks carrying Confederate flags or banners with swastikas. He later read a statement about how we are all Americans and we should all get along. I'm glad he said that; but given how quick he has been to specifically criticize Mexicans or Muslims or undocumented immigrants, I found it disappointing that he refused to criticize white supremacists or neo-Nazis. Perhaps since they seem to be his supporters, he feels he shouldn't be too harsh. But I wish he had been.
I know what some of my conservative friends are going to say: "But what about ANTIFA? What about [pick some other example of alleged left-wing bad behavior]?" Please, let's not go there. This is not the time for "whataboutism." Some things are just wrong, no matter which side does them. And in this case, the last thing I want to hear is folks defending the white nationalists or justifying their actions. What they believe is contrary to what America is supposed to be about. And while they have a right to hold those beliefs, we do not have to agree with them. In fact, the last thing we need is tolerance for white supremacist or neo-Nazi views. We tolerated them in the past, and it did not go well for us as a nation. As I see it, Mr. Trump missed an opportunity to call these folks out, not with a vague statement, but by name and directly. He should have told them they're doing more harm than good, and that he doesn't want their support. But then again... what if he still does?
Unfortunately, some southern cities placed the statues on the grounds of the state government or in a public park, which seemed to show support (or even nostalgia) for what the Confederate generals did. Giving the statues such a prominent location may not have been a problem in the era of segregation; but it certainly sends the wrong message in 2017. That said, it's not surprising there are traditionalists who get upset whenever there is a plan to move the statues to a museum (where they belong), or to tear them down (something that, as a historian, I oppose; I may not be fond of Confederate generals, but they were real people and we shouldn't pretend they never existed).
The people who show such reverence towards memories of the Confederacy (including the Confederate flag) often insist it has nothing to do with prejudice: they simply believe they are honoring the history and heritage of the south. But what they are honoring means something very different to black southerners, who lack that same nostalgia for the era of slavery or segregation. And in fairness, many southern whites (especially younger people) no longer feel positive about those old symbols either. Still, for a certain group of white southerners, some of whom identify as white nationalists (or white supremacists), the statues and the Confederate flag are something to celebrate. And when the city of Charlottesville VA decided to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee and rename the park where it stood, some of these folks decided to take a stand.
On Friday night, a large group of angry protesters, many aligned with the Alt-Right, came to Charlottesville to express their outrage. They carried torches (much like the Ku Klux Klan of years ago) and shouted neo-Nazi slogans. They talked about "white genocide," and painted themselves as the true victims of discrimination. (Hint: they're really not.) I believe in the First Amendment, and I do understand that even when protesters (on any side of the issues) are hostile or hateful, they have every right to express their views. But I still found it disconcerting to see images of flaming torches, and to hear rhetoric from the era of Adolph Hitler. Okay fine, it was only a few hundred white nationalists, but in my view, one is too many. My father (of blessed memory) fought the Nazis in World War II; he would not be amused to see a resurgence of Nazi views here in America.
It got worse on Saturday, as the white nationalists held a "Unite the Right" rally, with more neo-Nazi and white power chants and more outrage; accompanying them were some members of all-white militias, carrying weapons. They were met by counter-protesters, most of whom came from churches or local social service groups and held peaceful vigils; and a few of whom came from more activist groups and clashed with the white nationalists. Meanwhile, some of the white nationalists were very vocal in their praise of President Trump; some gave Nazi-like salutes and said "Heil Trump," while the ever-present David Duke, former head of the KKK, basically reminded everyone that Mr. Trump was their inspiration, and it was time for white people to take their country back (I had no idea they'd lost it). In the midst of it all, a car intentionally slammed into the counter-protesters-- the people who were hit had been peacefully expressing their opposition to what the white nationalists were saying. One person was killed and at least nineteen were seriously injured.
I had hoped President Trump would forcefully condemn the white supremacists or speak out against neo-Nazi rhetoric. He did not. He sent out a vague statement about how violence on "all sides" was wrong, as if the peaceful counter-protesters were as culpable as the folks carrying Confederate flags or banners with swastikas. He later read a statement about how we are all Americans and we should all get along. I'm glad he said that; but given how quick he has been to specifically criticize Mexicans or Muslims or undocumented immigrants, I found it disappointing that he refused to criticize white supremacists or neo-Nazis. Perhaps since they seem to be his supporters, he feels he shouldn't be too harsh. But I wish he had been.
I know what some of my conservative friends are going to say: "But what about ANTIFA? What about [pick some other example of alleged left-wing bad behavior]?" Please, let's not go there. This is not the time for "whataboutism." Some things are just wrong, no matter which side does them. And in this case, the last thing I want to hear is folks defending the white nationalists or justifying their actions. What they believe is contrary to what America is supposed to be about. And while they have a right to hold those beliefs, we do not have to agree with them. In fact, the last thing we need is tolerance for white supremacist or neo-Nazi views. We tolerated them in the past, and it did not go well for us as a nation. As I see it, Mr. Trump missed an opportunity to call these folks out, not with a vague statement, but by name and directly. He should have told them they're doing more harm than good, and that he doesn't want their support. But then again... what if he still does?