This Week's Sneak Peek

It isn't polite to point, but characters in my cartoon do it all the time.

Q Toon: Conditional Tense

English-speaking people have been using "they, them, their" to represent singular nouns for untold eons: as in, "Anyone who brings their brother or sister on the field trip must sit next to them."

For many of those eons, schoolteachers would insist on replacing those pronouns with the sexist "Anyone who brings his brother or sister on the field trip must sit next to him." More enlightened schoolteachers insisted on the awkward "Anyone who brings his or her brother or sister on the field trip must sit next to him or her."

Or, even better, "Don't bring your siblings."

Now there are people, including schoolchildren, who identify as "non-binary" and therefore don't feel that they are either "he" or "she." The current terms of preference are "they, them, their"; and while most of us are quite used to "they, them, their" referring to a hypothetical, generic individual, talking about a specific non-binary individual presents a new challenge.

"Ashley says they are feeling better," or "Ashley says they is feeling better"?

English is not the only language confronting the issue of modern gender identity. Spanish has always used masculine nouns and adjectives for groups and generic people, but "Latino" and "Latina," for example, are getting replace by "Latinx" (pronounced la-TEE-nex). I assume any adjectives follow suit: unx niñx rubix gordx. I have no idea if they've figured out an x-substitute for la and el.

Romance language speakers ought to be used to separating the concepts of gender and sex — at least those who have watched the Muppets. In French, "frog" is a feminine noun and "pig" is a masculine noun; yet little children are still not confused by Kermit la Grenouille and Mlle. le Porc. For that matter, if Elizabeth Warren were to win our presidential election next year, Spanish-speaking people would address her as Señora el Presidente.

And if a woman ever became Pope, she'd be El Papa, because la papa is "the potato."

But to return to English and the field trip sentence above, we do have singular pronoun alternatives to "he, him, his" and "she, her, her." You wouldn't refer to a person as "it, it, its," but one could use "one, one, one's": "Anyone who brings one's brother or sister on the field trip must sit next to one."

Naaah. That doesn't work, after all.

Especially if one's sibling is two-spirited.

Without Even a Spoiler Alert

One of the papers which carries my cartoon used the punchline of last week's cartoon as the link to the entire cartoon from the front page of their website.

To put it in terms that even a web editor might understand, that's like using the solution to the crossword puzzle as the link to it.

It's like headlining your movie review "Rosebud Was His Sled," "Willis Was Dead the Whole Time," or "Poirot Lets a Trainload of Murderers Off the Hook."

Mirada Secreta d'Aquesta Setmana

For September 23

William Howard Taft Weighs In

Swingback Saturday returns to the thrilling days of yestercentury to check up on how President Woodrow Wilson's peace negotiations were going ... with the Republican Congress.

"The Champion" by Cyrus Hungerford in Pittsburgh Sun, July/Aug., 1919

At the end of the Great War, there was considerable public relief that the fighting was over, and support for Wilson's League of Nations to prevent any more wars. But Republican Senators nevertheless mounted opposition to the peace treaty. Their motives varied; isolationist Sen. William Borah of Idaho was against American involvement in any international body, whereas Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts had the more cynical aim of denying President Wilson a domestic political victory.

"Jazzing the Professor's Grand Opera Composition" by Jay N. "Ding" Darling in Des Moines Register, Aug., 1919

Between those two interests, throwing up one "reservation" to President Wilson's treaty after another, the prospects for American ratification of the Treaty of Versailles grew dimmer with each passing day.

"A Very Present Help" by Bill Sykes in Philadelphia Public Ledger, Aug., 1919

Into the fray ventured William Howard Taft, at this point the only living ex-President of the United States. Having served as Governor of Cuba and of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, and as Secretary of War under Theodore Roosevelt, he had some experience with the U.S.'s expanded role in the world. As President of the League to Enforce Peace, he had pressed for an international organization dedicated to the cause of preventing war since 1915, so it was no surprise that he should break with the then current leaders of his party.

"His Former Master's Voice" by John Knott in Dallas News, Aug., 1919

Taft contributed essays to a book the League to Enforce Peace published in the summer of 1919, The Covenanter: An American Exposition of the Covenant of the League of Nations. He addressed his fellow Republicans' charge that the League would act in violation of the Monroe Doctrine:

"The sum and substance of the Monroe Doctrine is that we do not propose in our own interest to allow European nations or Asiatic nations to acquire, beyond what they now have, through war or purchase or intrigue, territory, political power, or strategical opportunities from the countries of this hemisphere. Article X of the League is intended to secure this to all nations, except that it does not forbid purchase of territory or power.

"The White House Gardener" by Cyrus Hungerford in Pittsburgh Sun, Aug., 1919

"In some speeches in the Senate intimations have been made which enlarge this doctrine beyond what can be justified. Those who would seek to enforce a Monroe Doctrine which makes the western hemisphere our own preserve, in which we may impose our sovereign will on the will of other countries in their own interest, because, indeed, we have done that in the east, should not be sustained.

"The Butterfly" by Sidney J. Greene in New York Evening Telegram, Aug., 1919

"The European nations desire our entrance into this League not that they may control America, but to secure our aid in controlling Europe, and I venture to think that they would be relieved if the primary duty of keeping peace and policing this western hemisphere was relegated to us and our western colleagues."

"Keerful Y' Don't Make a Mess of It, Boys" by Elmer A. Bushnell  for Central Press Assn., Aug., 1919

"Will our country be forced by these covenants into a lot of little wars all over the face of the world? No. In the first place, the existence of the League and its covenants and the immediate self-acting boycotts will restrain most nations, especially small nations, from incurring the penalty of complete world ostracism. The background of possible united force will be a further restraint. It will minimize war everywhere."

As significant as Taft's book was, it was President Wilson tasked with touring the country to rally support for the League. In September, Wilson suffered a stroke that took him out of the game, leaving the field wide open for the League's opponents.

✍

I'm going to take a couple weeks off from history studies, but do keep tuning in for my regular contemporary cartoons. 

Q Toon: Non Compass Mentis

Daddy wasn't using it, anyway.

EnviroStewardship: Caring for Creation

My dad writes an environmental commentary for his church's monthly newsletter. His column for October continues a discussion begun last month.

In last month’s Environmental Stewardship article, I quoted the ELCA’s Social Statement "Caring for Creation: Vision, Hope and Justice," and specifically mentioned the principles of Solidarity, Sufficiency and Sustainability. These may not be the terms you think of first when considering environmental stewardship or your position in the church, so I hope that it is worthwhile to quote that statement and discuss them further.

“The principle of solidarity means that we stand together as God’s creation.” 

We might think this refers to other churches and organizations, but the writers of the statement call for the acknowledgement of our interdependence with all creatures in all creation. We have allowed the land and its inhabitants, human and non-human, to be disenfranchised by the rich and powerful. We have allowed the environment to be degraded by greed and the desire for profits at all cost. Since we have voices that steer decisions, we must stand in solidarity with those without such voices, again both human and non-human.

“The principle of sufficiency means meeting the basic needs of all humanity and all creation.” 

Since the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord, who are we to take such a disproportionate share of what is really a huge but finite resource? Although the statement mentions all creation, we really are talking about the earth and its natural resources. We can look at it from the position of all humanity, the country or from the position of an individual, our own self.

When we clean out our closets to donate to the rummage sale, are we primarily concerned about those who have less to wear or are we making room to go out and buy more? Are the  huge and quickly filling landfills evidence of our inability to stop at sufficient? The pressures of a consumer economy are great, but should we be seeking personal fulfillment by acquisition?

“The principle of sustainability means providing an acceptable quality of life for present generations without compromising that of future generations.” 

Our heavy use of fossil fuels is not only a threat to our and future generations due to global warming, but is an example of a resource that took millions of years to make but a few generations to deplete. The rich soils of the midwest took centuries to build up but can be washed away in decades. Likewise, the great forests of this country.

The Amazon rainforest has been called the lungs of the earth and yet we see it burned for agricultural purposes … more beef for more hamburgers. This largest of all rainforests may be reaching a tipping point which will mean no recovery in our, or our grandchildren’s, lifetime or the foreseeable future.

Native Americans have used the possible effects upon the seventh generation as a guide to their individual and collective decisions. Maybe we should adopt such a policy.

These principles should be applied to us as individuals, to the businesses and organizations in which we have influence, and to the church as a community.

At one point in the social statement, it is written, “Neither economic growth that ignores environmental cost nor conservation of nature that ignores human cost is sustainable. Both will result in injustice and, eventually, environmental degradation.”

I believe the former is the greater concern, but I am neither poor, voiceless, powerless or discriminated against.

—John Berge