Usurpation

 

Dear friends,

While writing this article, I was debating with myself, wondering how, in a world overflowing with Political Correctness, it might be perceived. I felt, however, that my message needed to be shared.
I turned to my dear friend, Roger Froikin, who not only backed me on that but also helped by providing some historical perspective to the issue along with some facts in support of my argument.
Thank you Roger!

Those of you who know me are probably already aware of two principles or fundamentals that are the pillars of fire which guide me along my life’s path. The first, an axiom as far as I am concerned, the undeniable and innate right of Freedom of Choice be it religious, idealistic, economic, sexual or any other forasmuch as it does not encroach or infringe on that of others.

The second one, one I have voiced, on more than one occasion, is my stance against appropriation or usurpation (and thank you, Linda Olmert, for teaching me this term) of that which is unique and dear to one group or another such as flags or other distinctive emblems. I have expressed my displeasure with those who usurp symbols that define us as Jews and are ours only. I have quoted my dear friend Mohammad Kabiya, a Yisraeli Arab who expresses similar views when pro-Palestinian westerner activists, who have no personal or familial connections to the Arab world, wear a Kafiyah, a unique symbol to the Arabic culture, while advocating their cause.

Today, these two principles solidified when I realized that the LGTB flag not only uses the colours of the rainbow, but they also appear on it in the same order. I grasped it while looking at some baby outfits that had this image printed on them. While I saw the LGTB flag in that image, others perceived it as the impression of a rainbow.

On the one hand, as I stated above, under Freedom of Choice the LTGB movement has, just like any other group or faction, a right to define itself and practice its preferences. Like any other group, it has the right to select symbols or colours that it believes delineate its beliefs and are unique to it.

On the other hand, though, just as words have meaning that is best kept clear so we can better understand one another today and across generations, symbols – flags, religious items, or objects to which we have assigned meaning, need to convey that meaning clearly, to communicate their original intent for today and across time as well.

And herein is where my dilemma rests.

The Rainbow of colours, universally, across cultures and across time, has stood for hope, new beginnings, and promise. Already in the Torah, in the story of Noah, the rainbow was selected to signify a fresh start, a new era, and an optimistic outlook for a better future for humanity.

In the USA, at one point, Jesse Jackson adopted the rainbow symbol for his organization. His purpose was to indicate and convey hope in a nation of peoples of all colours and backgrounds as sort of an expression of the American “E Pluribus Unum” (one from many), the motto proposed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, for the Great American Seal of the United States by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in 1776, suggesting that everyone was equal and part of one new nation.

More recently, I feel, the image of the rainbow has been usurped, yet again, not to be that symbol of hope for all, nor that symbol of diversity in union that Jesse Jackson promoted. It has become a politicized symbol of one group’s agenda,  a tool for political propaganda to which dissent is disallowed.  

I do not mind that the LGTB movement selected the same hues as those of the rainbow. They are bright, beautiful, and cheerful.  The rainbow is a widespread symbol which belongs to each member of humanity.  It should not, in my view, be exclusively associated as the symbol of one specific group or another, and surely not used as a political statement on a child's clothing.  This, I feel, is a usurpation at its purest forms.

Unfortunately, these days, we are witnessing similar trends and efforts to wipe away history and replace it with ideology. Words are changed in meaning. Symbols are discarded or reassigned for political purposes, all in the name of dogma and creed.  Communication is hampered, not facilitated, across generations.  Lenin spoke of doing this in the interests of socialism.  Mao went further saying that the past is gone.  The Taliban blew up statues they claimed were offensive, destroying ancient artifacts, and banning history and literature and even education for girls.  

The rainbow, a universal, and Biblical symbol of hope that belongs to every one of us should not be allowed to be reduced to a political game.

What next, then?  Can or should we expect that the next fashionable movement which comes along to play on the emotions of people will, likewise, use the rainbow, a motif that is, undeniably, affiliated with and belongs to us all, for its own purposes?