Hello, World! Shut up and read very carefully!
At least for me, one of the problems with so-called blogs is deciding where to start if you’re going to publish one. I have things to say about a lot of things. Most likely, as of now, nobody has a burning desire to read or hear any of it. That’s okay–I don’t need a big audience, I just hope to attract some readers who have enough intellect to grasp the real meaning, as well as those who have a sense of humor.
Today is June 29, 2019. On this day, it has been announced that the California Legislature voted unanimously (with some abstentions) to prohibit discrimination based on “natural hair type.”
I have to admit that I have very mixed feelings about this.
First, when it comes to personal grooming, I think employers should have some latitude to project a particular kind of image where image is part of a business and therefore reasonably part of the job, and to establish dress codes that might exclude, say, dreadlocks.
To me, if this actually has the effect of “discriminating,” it only intrudes upon a personal affectation. I don’t see a statement about race or skin color.
In the same vein, I don’t regard any purely personal affectations–tattoos, jewelry, piercings, or even some kinds of makeup–as being connected to anything more than the individual’s very self-centric and consumeristic view of his or her personal identity.
Are we going to treat the phenomenon of consumerism as if it were itself a cultural outpost?
Are we going to look back from a future time and regard the instilled obsessive materialism we see today as a philosophy–or even as a religion?
Plainly, the yen for material wealth has usurped and surpassed the scope, depth, and gravity of virtually every other influence on modern human behavior.
Many people–most people–still talk about devotion to some philosophy or religious doctrine.
Claiming to be a “Christian” is a common refrain. But the chorus has dissonant voices that belie hollow rituals, incantations that are only words committed to memory, and willingness to participate in almost any kind of behavior so long as there is something to imitate and other imitators to provide moral subterfuge.
Most of all, there is no sensible connection between acquiring great wealth and upholding established “Christian” doctrine. If you assign any significance to the Ten Commandments, you can’t credibly support the pursuit of material things as a moral path for a society.
Invariably, when we encounter one of these wealthy “Christians,” we are told of good deeds and charitable donations, but we hear nothing about how the other 98% of their money is spent.
but none can reconcile how such professed beliefs lead to voracious pursuit of moneyend up colliding head-on with everything those people actually do in the course of living their lives.
These things may be a part of some culture in some way, but none of it is essential to any system of beliefs or to the conduct of business in the modern world.
More accurately, these are expressions of individual egos in a materialistic and image-driven culture which has yet to vindicate its existence or demonstrate meaningful benefits to its practitioners.
Bluntly, it is a lot of put-on, posing, and personal preening that mimics some part of a contemporary fad or pop trend, not deference to any “cultural heritage.”
Fads and fad rituals should certainly be tolerated as a form of free speech, but they should not be elevated to the status of defining individual rights.