I have never been a fan or follower of the British Royal family. That is not to say I dislike them. It is merely to acknowledge I am not part of the fan base the royals have maintained at home and in their former colonies for many years. One wonders, then, why I found myself watching the contentious exchange on Good Morning Britain that precipitated Piers Morgan’s exit from the set and, shortly thereafter, from employment on the show. The Internet is like a black hole, pulling us inexorably toward meaninglessness. Evidently, I had been snared.
The video may have been a waste of time, but the exchange was interesting and instructive. Morgan is a liberal who is not a leftist, a thinker whose values do not align entirely with my own but whose honesty and commitment to the open exchange of ideas I approve and appreciate. Unfortunately, for him and for the rest of us who enjoy free speech, western society has largely adopted a consensus position against both honesty and open exchange. This was illustrated in the presenters’ discussion of the second charge leveled by Meghan Markle against the royal family in her recent interview with Oprah Winfrey--a video I did not get sucked or suckered into watching. The Duchess of Sussex, who married Prince Harry and soon after led a royal Brexit, claimed in the interview that her son was discriminated against and not given the title of Prince because of his mixed ethnicity. If true this would be heinous, despicable, and roundly condemned by all persons of moral perception. Fortunately, as Piers Morgan pointed out repeatedly in the debate on Tuesday morning, this accusation is not true. It has been refuted thoroughly by almost everyone with any expertise or access to the workings of the monarchy. Hurrah for at least one instance of suspected racism that proved only to be a misunderstanding! But not so fast.
Morgan’s interlocutor, Alex Beresford, insisted that regardless of the factuality of Markle’s claim, it was to be taken seriously because it described her “lived experience.” Morgan was clearly baffled by this and repeatedly pointed out that what she claimed simply was not true. But it did not matter. Feelings don’t care about facts--to adapt a popular catchphrase--and if Markle felt this discrimination against her son was true, then it was true for her and should be accepted as true by the rest of us. Morgan’s decision to stand up and walk off the set may seem to some sensitive souls to be childish. I was only disappointed he did not pause long enough to shake the dust from his feet before he left the stage.
We have now reached the point in the decline of western civilization where facts are no longer objective, relevant, or knowable. I cannot know if you are a man or a woman unless you tell me, and even when you identify yourself, that fact is contingent and subject to change at any time. I cannot know if I am a racist or not; only you can tell me whether I am, and whether I think you correctly understand what I say, do, think, or feel is irrelevant. If you say I am a racist, liar, abuser, or fiend, then I am. The reverse is not true. If you call me a racist and I call you a liar for saying so, then I am a racist and a liar, because everyone knows you cannot trust what a racist says. The polarity only works in one direction. Markle’s lived experience trumps whatever “facts” may be offered to the contrary. Those facts are merely weapons of an implicit and oppressive hierarchy of racism and oppression. If you say otherwise, you only demonstrate that you are part of that oppressive system.
Facts cannot be known unless and until the self-identified victim tells me what they are. I might point out that such a system actually harms true victims and empowers and shields real abusers, but that would be white-man-splaining, and we are not supposed to do such things anymore. Facts are whatever the aggrieved says they are, today, but stay tuned, because facts can change. Context is irrelevant. So is tone and intent. All that matters is how a person feels. Not you, not how you feel, because you are an oppressor. What matters is how I feel, and your moral duty is to sit down, be quiet, and let me tell you what the facts actually are.
When Korah and company made serious allegations against Moses and Aaron for abuses of power, the humblest man on earth became “very angry, and said to the LORD, ‘Do not respect their offering. I have not taken one donkey from them, nor have I hurt one of them’” (Num. 16:15). In today’s society, Moses would need to make a public apology acknowledging Korah’s “lived experience” in which he felt his donkeys were threatened by Moses’ abusive leadership. In today’s Church, Moses would need to make a public apology for becoming angry and praying that God would look upon such an accusation and judge it. The Bible says Moses was a meek person, but obviously this is incorrect. Meek men don’t get angry when they are falsely accused. They acknowledge the accuser’s pain, concede their accuser’s feelings are the only relevant facts, and then roll over and play dead.
Once upon a time, not very long ago, there was a magical place where people could disagree and debate their disagreements passionately but respectfully. In this magical land there were things called facts which had actual existence. People frequently argued about where these facts might be found. They knew the facts existed. They knew they were important. They used arguments to find the relevant facts, and when they found them, the argument was over. This was a magical world, but sadly, it is only a myth. If it ever existed at all in any part of civilized society, we can be quite sure it is not the world we live in now. --JME
