Fragments, Freedom, and Fallout--Part 12

Ain't no Such Animal

Please let me know if you know the origin of the expression in the above title.  Somewhere behind a paywall on a site from Oxford, I think there might be an explanation.  I didn't pay the money so I don't have their explanation.  Elsewhere I found one reference to someone who said it upon first seeing a giraffe.  That sounds plausible to me.

Generally, the phrase is used as another way of saying "such a thing does not exist."  It's used to convey disbelief--with or without accompanying emotion.  Usually it's a comment on matters that have nothing to do with animals.  Certainly it is not typically used to label people pejoratively--as though people are less than human.

This sentiment has been directed toward me, never in these exact words, of course.  In essence though, people have responded to how I see myself and how I describe myself and said "ain't no such animal." In this post, I hope to strip away the husk of others' polite and grammatically correct words to examine the sentiment of disbelief as I've encountered it.

Since this is a post in a long series, you might have guessed by now that the identity of mine that seems to be in dispute is a political one.  The first time it happened was in a personal conversation where I was told bluntly what my proper political label was.  To reinforce the point, the person speaking told me that I was opposite from him.  His declaration was wrapped in further instructions and warnings for me.

I'm still surprised that I had the presence of  mind to say, "May I tell you how I see myself?"  I told him that I didn't see myself as fitting into either of the labels he had used and I didn't even like the labels at all because I dislike how they lump good and bad things together.  I said that I did enjoy considering political positions to see how they compared with truths that I understood from Scripture.

He didn't say "there ain't no such animal," but I don't think he knew what to make of me.  I didn't know what to make of his response either, but I've never seen such a reddening of the face, squirming, and working of the mouth as I saw then.

When Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearings were underway, a woman came forward who accused him of youthful improprieties that, if true, constituted criminal offenses.  After my sister sent me a copy of a blog post written by the aged and saintly uncle of one of my sisters-in-law, I thought it was good enough to share with others, so I did so on Facebook.

Essentially the uncle had said that Kavanaugh should have simply said one of two things, either of which he could presumably have said honestly:  1. I don't remember for sure what happened. 2.  My behavior was wrong and I'm sorry.  I agreed with Uncle Harvey, especially since there was little dispute that Kavanaugh was drunk when the alleged crime was committed.  What Kavanaugh did instead was attack the woman who accused him.  The minions in the conservative political camp rallied fiercely to Kavanaugh's defense.

On Facebook, some who commented on my original post railed against me for showing my true liberal political colors by posting a link to the blog. The Facebook thread became a mini version of the fierce rally that had occurred on a national scale among conservatives.  Some of those who commented castigated me for protesting that I hadn't posted it as an act of loyalty to a particular political persuasion.  In effect, they were saying that for me to say such a thing without a political agenda is not possible.  "Ain't no such animal." 

The reality was that I believed that Kavanaugh likely had changed from his irresponsible youth and would be able to serve faithfully as a SCOTUS judge.  Even so, I thought his way of handling the accusations was not at all reassuring. My sense was that the fastest way to win over his detractors would be to adopt a stance of humility and contrition. It was the right thing to do under any circumstance, even if the stakes were high, or perhaps especially if the stakes were high.

It happened again recently in a private Facebook message where I heard that this place I've carved out for myself is not a legitimate stance.  In other words, there is not such thing as being interested in political matters and commenting on them but rejecting political labels.  I believe the person who said this believes that I am not being honest about who I really am--definitely a liberal.  He would have liked for me to list the liberal positions I do not agree with.   I have no enthusiasm for such an endeavor.  The issues I care about are not legitimate or illegitimate based on their partisan associations.  They are based on truths that help form the foundation for a life of faith.  I consider the partisan labels a distraction from understanding their true nature.  Furthermore, no one has any right to demand my assistance in their effort to stuff me into a political box.

I don't always know what to make of being told that such a person as I am does not exist.  I sometimes have an impulse to say "I'm here.  All _______ (too many) pounds of me.  I dare you to argue that I'm not here."

Maybe the problem is that too few people have ever known someone like my mother.  She loved to read the newspaper and follow what was happening in national and world affairs.  She often mentioned  these things during the prayers she prayed in morning family devotions.  Yet she would usually  have had no idea what political party any of her observations were aligned with.  She probably would have had a hard time identifying the party of any office holder.  This was the case even though she had older brothers who were strongly Republican during her childhood. (Remember the buggy horse they named Dewey?)

Something that happened during the past week made me think of my mother.  I listened several times to the Coronavirus press conferences by Governor Cuomo of New York, and I was very favorably impressed with his forthrightness, his grasp of the situation in his state, the clarity and sobriety of his expression, and his apparent care for the citizens of New York.  I was just about to share a link on Facebook after listening to the first press conference I followed when something struck me.  I wonder if this guy might be a Democrat.  If he is, and I post this, some people will think "there she goes again, showing her true liberal colors."  

Almost right away I remembered reading somewhere else the same day that most urban areas tend to skew "Democrat" and then I was pretty sure that Cuomo was indeed a Democrat.  Having proved to myself that I really was not hearing the governor's presentation through a political filter (because I really was that ignorant as I listened) I decided to post it anyway.

Such ignorance is hard for some people to grasp.  If I don't mind admitting such ignorance, I'd like to think that others could find it in their hearts to forgive me for it--or at least to believe me when I say how it is for me.

Such an "animal" as I am does indeed exist.  Call me a rare breed if you must, but don't call me extinct.  And remember that most rare breeds were ubiquitous at one time.   I identify with many previous Anabaptist generations of my "breed."  As Mark Twain once said, "The report of my [their] death was an exaggeration."

The "standard issue" partisanship that is ubiquitous now would have been incomprehensible to many who lived only one generation ago.  That I may be just as incomprehensible to many in our  current hyper-partisan culture doesn't mean that there ain't no such animal as me. I hope we can all deal with that.