Culture and Gun Violence: White Conservative Gun Culture Needs to Look in the Mirror

Disclosure: I am a gun owner, and have been around guns since I was a child. I have had a concealed carry permit, and thus have taken the classes multiple times. I have also reloaded ammunition since I was a kid, and am thus pretty familiar with both guns and ammo. 

***

One of the common arguments made by gun advocates - particularly those opposed to any sort of regulation - is that America’s problem with gun violence isn’t about the guns, but about culture. 

While this is overly simplistic and ignores the role that the easy availability of guns plays in violence, it isn’t exactly untrue. Culture does indeed play a role. 

After all, the “mass shooting” phenomenon is a modern one. For purposes of this post, I will define a “mass shooting” as follows: A shooting aimed at killing strangers, not victims known to the shooter. This means that the number of victims isn’t the defining factor, like it is in many statistical analyses. Gang shootings don’t qualify. Domestic violence murders don’t qualify, even if there are multiple victims. These other examples of violence are concerning too, of course, but they are beyond the scope of this post. 

Mass shootings ARE a modern phenomenon, having become popular (if that is the right word) during my own lifetime. Thus, it is fair to say that they are the result (in part) of cultural factors. 

But the problem is, it isn’t enough to say “culture.” The question is, exactly which culture, and what elements of that culture contribute to violence. This is the question that the anti-gun-control sorts either ignore outright, or answer using convenient scapegoats that have nothing whatsoever to do with gun violence. 

Let’s unpack this one a bit. 

***

Cultural Scapegoats

The arguments about guns have become so very predictable (on both sides, but particularly on the Right) that you can use autotext after each shooting. The arguments get trotted out faithfully every time, regardless of whether they have any basis in fact. They are intended to be and are emotionally satisfying to those who have no wish to look in the mirror or take responsibility for their own contributions to a violent culture. 

Here are the most common:

“It’s the video games.”

This is one of those untruths that many people believe, because it somehow feels true. But, it turns out, it isn’t true at all. There is no statistically significant link between video games (including violent ones) and actual violence. This has been studied over and over, and the link turns out to not exist at all. Even conservative Supreme Court justice Scalia acknowledged this in his opinion striking down a California ban on violent games. 

Likewise, even though Japan has the highest video game use rate, it doesn’t have the problem with gun violence that the United States does - and actually have a far lower overall homicide rate, which would seem to be an indication that video games aren’t the cause. 

I think there are a number of reasons why games get blamed. One is that they are convenient. The gaming industry doesn’t have a huge lobbying machine like the NRA. Games are an “outside” influence to blame that deflects attention from, say, parenting. And, I must say, there is an element of a generation gap at work here. Whatever the young people do (cell phones, video games, music, etc.) is automatically suspicious. 

Bottom line, though, video games aren’t the problem. 

“Violent movies”

Again, this isn’t supported by evidence. Research does not show a meaningful link. At all. As Scalia pointed out in the opinion mentioned above, violent fantasies are hardly a new thing. Fairytales (before being Disneyized) are horrifically violent. As is much of classical literature. (Have you read Homer? Or the Bible?) There is an interesting discussion to be had about the human propensity for violence, and for glorifying violence. But the consumption of violent media doesn’t seem to be linked to actual violence. 

These two scapegoats are the most common - and they at least make some sort of logical nexus. That nexus turns out to not exist, but it feels like it could, so they aren’t crazy. 

The next category of scapegoats, though, is totally crazy - and dishonest. I want to look at these as a group, because they are similar.

“What do you expect when you take prayer out of school?”

I heard this way too much growing up. Let’s address this. First, by “prayer in school,” we mean government sponsored prayer to a Christian god. 

“It’s the fault of atheism”

Another common one. 

“It’s the fault of gay marriage”

Yes, this has actually been said. And she also blamed Obama, pot, Colin Kaepernick, and non-white immigrants. Because of course it’s always the fault of minorities.

“It’s the fault of Feminism”

I put this one in intentionally, because it represents the exact opposite of the actual cultural problem. 

So, let’s look at what these have in common. 

These scapegoats blame gun violence on people who are not committing the violent acts.

Guess what? There is no epidemic of atheists shooting up churches. (The shootings at places of worship have overwhelmingly been committed by white supremacists for racist reasons. Although there was the one in Texas which started as domestic violence.) 

There is no epidemic of Feminist women shooting up places where men hang out. In fact, female shooters are extremely rare. (More about this later.) For that matter, we feminist men don’t seem particularly prone to go on shooting sprees either. 

There is no epidemic of LGBTQ people going on shooting sprees - even against the Westboro Baptist Church. 

There is no epidemic of minorities shooting up white people. (Gun violence of other sorts exists across the color line, but mass shooters are overwhelmingly white.) This despite centuries of abuse, enslavement, segregation, and oppression. 

Nope, you can actually predict pretty well who shooters are going to be:

Male 

White

Middle class or higher

Grew up with guns (most school shooters get the guns from a parent)

Hmm. This suggests where the REAL cultural problem lies, doesn’t it? 

***

The cultural problem is with white, conservative gun culture.

These shooters aren’t coming from everywhere, they are coming from a specific sub-culture. A white subculture. A middle class subculture. And a subculture where guns are in the home. This doesn’t sound much like those scapegoats above, does it? It sounds like the gun owner subculture is giving rise to mass shooters. 

So what IS wrong with the culture? 

I mentioned above that the shooters are nearly exclusively male. (In fact, I can’t think of one incident with a solo female shooter, unless you want to count that one workplace shooter in the Bay Area, and the case was so shocking because it was so exceptional.) So the first thing to examine about the culture is what it says to and about males. The problem apparently doesn’t lead females to take violent and deadly action with guns. 

I believe Toxic Masculinity is the central problem

There are several facets to this, and I will deal with them in turn. The central factor, though, is in a warped view of manhood and masculinity which directs emotions into violence rather than more productive channels. From my own experiences growing up in an ultra-conservative subculture, I think I can see where the problems lie. Let’s look at some of them. 

Factor #1: Misogyny

If you were to pick one single trait that most mass shooters seem to share, it is misogyny. As in hatred of and contempt for women. (The other trait is access to guns - of course.) This is a common trait in mass shooting of strangers, but it is also (naturally) a factor in domestic violence killings. 

Where does misogyny come from? From specific beliefs. Namely, that women are congenitally inferior to men...and thus should be ruled/owned by men. And the first flows from the second. In order to maintain a gender hierarchy, one has to believe in inferiority. To ease the conscience. This is why Frederick Douglass noted that slavery led to racism, not the other way around. To justify slavery, slave owners and society had to believe that it was due to the natural superiority of whites to blacks. Ditto for female subordination. To justify a system where men rule over women, you have to believe at some level that women are inferior, and thus in need of male “leadership.” 

From there, it flows naturally to go one of two directions. (Or maybe both.) The first is to put women on a pedestal, Victorian style, where they are the “good” gender (unless they are bad girls), and should be protected from contact with the messy world out there - which they clearly can’t handle. Or, to despise women as inferior creatures and feel contempt. 

From there, it isn’t a far gap to justifying violence against women who fail to be submissive or cooperative enough. In the case of many shooters, the fact that beautiful women aren’t throwing themselves at the shooter makes them furious. (See Elliot Rodger.) This is why there is such a strong correlation between domestic violence (and other threats and violence against women) and mass shootings. 

So what is it about conservative gun culture that breeds misogyny? 

Well, as someone who grew up in an ultra-conservative subculture, I would say it stems from the reactionary response to Feminism. In previous eras, the gender hierarchy wasn’t really challenged. Women had limited job opportunities outside the home, they couldn’t get loans or credit cards by themselves, they were widely considered inferior. It was just how things were, so to speak, and so being “benignly” misogynist was easy. Once Feminism started making real gains, though, this was threatened. A woman with her own job, money, and home didn’t have to take shit from dickhead men. A married woman who earned a similar amount to her husband could insist on equal power in the relationship. Women who felt they had better options didn’t have to marry Earl anymore, and the Earls of the world weren’t thrilled with this development. 

With the “traditional” hierarchy challenged, conservative subcultures reacted in a, well, reactionary manner, and started doubling down on gender hierarchy, gender roles, and gender stereotypes. 

Factor #2: Exaggerated “masculinity”

Within conservative subcultures, there has long been panic about the “feminization” of society in general, and men in particular. This has been going on at least since the start of first wave Feminism 250 years ago, but it has gone through periods of revival ever since. One of those periods was (and is) the ongoing Culture Wars™ pushed by the Religious Right. The rise of that subculture is, in my opinion, a significant factor in our current problem with mass shootings. 

The problems in the subculture stem from this fear of “feminization.” To be a “real” man, therefore, one must be defined primarily in terms of being “not a woman.” (Yes, this is related to the misogyny above.) 

Thus, boys are taught to avoid traits viewed as “female” and cultivate traits viewed as “male.” Needless to say, this causes harm to both boys and girls. For example, certain emotions are viewed as “female,” and thus not acceptable to be expressed by boys. Sadness, fear, tenderness, grief. Instead, boys are limited to “masculine” emotions: anger, aggression, competitiveness, stoicism. Having been an emotional little boy myself, and having children of both sexes, I can attest that males feel the “female” emotions too - but it isn’t socially acceptable to express them. 

While this is a problem widespread throughout our culture, it is much more of a problem in conservative circles. It isn’t universal (there are some movements within Evangelicalism, for example, aiming to encourage men to acknowledge and express emotions), but there is also a LOT of pressure in the subculture itself to be “manly” and never “effeminate.” 

The problem in the gun violence context, though, is that males continue to experience “feminine” emotions - and emotions need to be expressed - that’s being human. So, these emotions - sadness, fear, worry - are redirected into more “acceptable” male expressions. Namely, anger. And eventually violence. 

 I admire the honesty: the military-style weapon as penis extender.
And yes, this is an actual ad by Bushmaster.

Factor #3: Violence as an acceptable masculine way of solving problems

Conservatives practically worship male violence. I know that is a strong statement, but I believe it is true. Here are some examples. In conservative circles, there are no greater heroes than soldiers and cops. Go to a conservative church around Veterans Day, and you will see the pastor invite former and current military to stand for recognition. A church here in Bakersfield literally flies the “blue lives matter” flag. (That’s a whole other post…) But you see it everywhere. 

Think about it, though. Both of these professions are inherently violent. Soldiers, no matter how you sugarcoat it, kill for a living. That in a fallen world, soldiers are perhaps necessary, doesn’t change that fact. Likewise, law enforcement uses force (aka violence) to remove dangerous people from society. And that is the idealized view. The less idealized view recognizes that the United States doesn’t have the world’s highest incarceration rate by accident: our laws and enforcement are an instrument of social control, particularly against the poor and minorities.

Now sure, one factor in this is that both soldiers and cops risk their lives. Which is why firefighters are respected (on both the right and left, though.) But there is also a glorification of the violence itself, I’m afraid. In the conservative subculture, the respect for soldiers and cops often veers into idolatry, where criticism is off limits, and any criticism is viewed as “hating cops” or “hating our troops.” 

And note that both of these are stereotypically male occupations. Sure, there are female soldiers and female police (I’m related to some.) But many conservatives are deeply uncomfortable with women in these professions. 

While I have no problem with recognizing the contributions of cops and soldiers to our society, it is badly unbalanced to honor them more than we do, to use a few examples, those who educate our children, who grow cook and sell our food, or who heal our wounds and diseases. But these are more “female” occupations, and thus are taken for granted. 

This in turn leads to some troubling results. The most respected members of society are those who use violence. And violence is seen as the solution to problems. Unrest overseas? Don’t examine the role of our foreign policy in causing that unrest. Send some guys with guns! Protests here at home? Send some guys with guns! 

This then bleeds over into other problems and perceived problems. Think someone might steal your stuff? Get a gun. And be prepared to light that MFer up! Worried about a man being violent to your daughter? (see above for how men get that way…) Or have sex with her? Clean your gun when he comes over. Let that boy know you will be violent if he doesn’t behave. Anxious about immigrants after watching Tucker Carlson? Better have an arsenal to defend yourself against those “rapists and drug dealers.” 

Or how about: not getting your way? Assert yourself and make that wife of yours submit. Kids aren’t behaving? Beat them a bit. Hey, that’s how men solve problems, right? 

That some troubled and angry men in this subculture see violence as a way to solve their problems shouldn’t be a surprise. Most will go for suicide, but some will want to go out with a bang. Anger and rage feel more masculine than despair…

Factor #4: Embrace of military-style weapons

Gun sales records are notoriously difficult to obtain. Manufacturers carefully guard their numbers, and the ban on federal research into gun violence has made it more difficult to study. 

However, I can kind of use a bit of anecdotal evidence from my own experience to at least show a shift that has occurred in my lifetime. 

When I was a kid, we used to go out and shoot at a public range in the Angeles National Forest. You would see other people out there shooting, and occasionally talk to them and ask what they had. Later, in my 20s, I did some legal work for a local private range, earning a lifetime membership. Although life has been too busy to get out and shoot much these days, I have seen some shifts in gun times over the years. 

As a kid, I remember wood stocks dominating. You would also see laminate stocks on hunting rifles. But overall, there were a lot of bolt action hunting rifles out at the range. And oh so many Ruger 10-22s. (For those who aren’t gun people, this is the popular .22 caliber rifle you get either for your kids to learn on, or to practice cheaply.) 

I’m not sure what the most popular non-22 rifle was, but I would guess that it was the Savage bolt action - not as expensive as the prettier Remingtons, but a serviceable rifle. 

There is no doubt now about what the most popular rifle is. It is the AR-15-style gun. (Technically, the AR-15 is made by Armalite, but the style - essentially a semi-automatic version of the M-16 - is made by a number of companies.) And it isn’t close. 

So, what drove the change? That’s an interesting question. Hunting is on the decline, so that is probably a factor. But I think there is another one at work. As gun-rights advocates love to remind us, guns are tools. But tools for what? What is that particular tool for? 

Let’s see. If you want to hunt, you need a gun in a caliber that fits your game. Bigger for elk, smaller for deer. 

If you want to kill varmints on your farm, you need something with a small, fast bullet. Can’t have that ground squirrel duck. 

For home defense, your best bet is a short barrel shotgun. (Think granny from The Beverly Hillbillies…) Although a revolver isn’t a bad choice for a smaller space. 

What is the use of a tool like an AR-15? The bullet is too light for anything except for varmints. But it does unload a lot of bullets quickly, and it is super easy to use. (That was the point: even a young, green soldier can figure it out.) And it is cheap and modular. (Another military consideration.) In any event, even though it isn’t particularly beloved in its M-16 form by the military, it was designed for one purpose: killing other humans quickly and efficiently. 

As my dad says, “If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” And if you have a weapon designed to kill humans, well…

That, ultimately, is why I think the AR-15-style rifle has exploded in popularity. It feeds a particular fantasy in conservative gun culture. I may expand on it in a future post, but here is the gist. Since conservatives with guns generally are pro-military and pro-law enforcement - and don’t truly expect to have to fight off cops and soldiers sent by the US government. 

But at least some really expect a war of a different kind. One with definite racial overtones. (I talked about this a bit in my review of Educated.) 

Again, this isn’t everyone, but it is in conservative gun culture. And with the popularity of military-style weapons and the imagined threats and conspiracy theories, it isn’t hard to see a belief that the AR-15-style weapons will be used for their intended purpose someday. 

I think this does contribute to the development of mass shooters. 

Factor #5: Conspiracy theory thinking

This is fomented by the NRA. “The liberals are out to get your guns.” And also by the Evangelical Culture War Industrial Complex. “Christians are under attack. Better have your guns!” And by the rising white supremacist wing of the GOP. “We are being invaded by immigrants.” And the gender panic above. “Manhood is under attack!” “The gays are taking over!” “Feminists!” 

This embrace of fear and conspiratorial thinking is not healthy in any culture, but it is particularly a bad combination with embrace of violence and access to weapons. All too soon, you start thinking that someday (maybe soon), you are going to have to murder other human beings to survive. 

This combines with the idea that the “real Americans” will have to defend themselves against the “others,” and that leads to…

Factor #6: Increasing racism

While our history with guns has always had racial overtones (the NRA supported gun control preventing minorities from having guns in the past), I think this has accelerated within gun culture during my lifetime. This shift can be seen in a few incidents lately. 

First, the Trayvon Martin murder. Zimmerman was a textbook case of irresponsible gun usage. He initiated contact with a person who was not bothering him. He escalated at every opportunity. And eventually, he murdered Martin. We learned about this stuff in our CCW class - don’t escalate. Seek to escape a situation rather than confront. Don’t start fights. And yet, silence from the NRA. Actually, worse than silence. They started a “stand and fight” campaign. Seriously? That’s basically “this sidewalk isn’t big enough for the two of us. (That’s why I left.) 

Second, the Philando Castille murder. (And yes, I call it murder.) An African American man with a valid carry permit, who does everything we are taught to do in an encounter with law enforcement, yet is shot dead. And silence from the NRA. I cannot imagine that had a white CCW holder been killed in similar circumstances, the NRA would have been silent. 

Third, the god-awful NRA ad in which African American protesters are called the enemy - and it is strongly implied that they will need to be murdered. Of course, “liberals” like me (“liberal” now apparently means anyone who isn’t on the white supremacist Trump Train) are also in the crosshairs. Any of us who call out racism are the enemy now. The NRA is sounding uncomfortably similar to neo-Nazi groups like the Proud Boys. 

So yes, this is an issue in gun culture. It was no surprise to see a white guy go murder Hispanics in El Paso. Because this is IN THE CULTURE now. 

***

Bottom line here: Yes, there is a culture problem that has lead to the rise of the mass shooting. However, it isn’t a culture problem on the left, it is not an atheist culture problem, it is not a feminism culture problem, it isn’t a minority culture problem.

It is a culture problem within white, male, conservative, gun culture itself.

And, as a gun owner myself, I give this warning: guys (and it is mostly guys), you need to fix this problem. Or it will eventually be fixed for you, and you won’t like the result. Gun ownership is on the decline, even as the number of guns increases. The NRA has lost a large number of members, and revenue is down more than 20% since the election of Trump. Younger people are less likely to support the NRA, and even younger NRA members are unhappy with the NRA’s political positions. Revenue for the NRA increasingly depends on a few big donors - and perhaps not coincidentally, it has spent big money supporting Trump. My kids’ generation is tired of being murdered by shooters, and would like to feel safe at school again. And they are less likely to vote Republican - and many loathe Trump. There is a demographic shift coming, and if white, conservative, male, gun culture doesn’t clean up its act, change is coming for it, whether they like it or not. 

***

Just a note on other gun violence:

Sixty percent of gun deaths are suicides. Suicides are, sadly, on the rise. But they are increasing most dramatically in rural (and white) communities. In other words, in Donald Trump country - and gun culture country. It isn’t a stretch to say the the cultural rot I discuss above is a significant factor in suicides as well. Males who define their masculinity in terms of wealth and violence...well, that doesn’t end well under times of financial stress. 

While I didn’t include them in my discussion, the other category of killings which are often included in “mass shootings” are domestic violence murders. When you discuss mass shootings with right wingers, you often get pushback against the “it’s a white male problem” with some statistics about race in mass shootings which shows more diversity. This is a bit of a dodge, but it also contains some truth. For domestic violence killings, race isn’t a determinant. There are men (it’s almost always men) who murder their families and often themselves afterward, and they cross racial lines. Fair enough. Ditto for workplace shooters – another mostly male phenomenon. But the mass murder of random strangers is overwhelmingly a white male thing. 

But let’s talk about the domestic violence problem too. Because it shares a lot of the same factors. Toxic masculinity, where masculinity is defined in terms of violence, power, and control of women. It is the same cultural problems (minus the racism and conspiracy theories, perhaps.) And also the same truth applies: it is gun culture that is the issue. These are gun owners too. 

And one more: a third category that gets lumped with “mass shootings” is gang-related violence. I need not say more than to note that right wingers LOVE to blame the culture for gang-related violence. Which, sure. And let’s note the prevalence of toxic masculinity in that culture as well. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If culture is the problem causing gang violence, it surely is a factor for white male domestic terrorists too, right? Look in the mirror. 

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe

Source of book: Borrowed from the library

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst   

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.   

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out   

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert   

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,   

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,   

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it   

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.   

The darkness drops again; but now I know   

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,   

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,   

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The Second Coming - William Butler Yeats

Things Fall Apart is one of those classics that you know you should read, but somehow never did. It is considered the archetypal modern African novel - it was the first truly popular work to break through the monopoly of white voices talking about Africa - and give Africans themselves a voice. Since the arrival of European colonialism, novels about Africa tended to be rather in the vein of H. Rider Haggard: native Africans were “uncivilized savages,” needing to be governed by the (occasionally) benevolent white saviors. In this book, Achebe pushes back against that paternalism and condescension to portray traditional African culture as a fully realized, civilized social system. True, it had its flaws - and Achebe doesn’t sugar coat them - but so do ALL cultures, our own as much as any. (And seriously, we still have a hell of a lot of “white savior complex” in our beliefs.) 

The book follows the life of Okonkwo, a leader in his tribe. Okonkwo’s life and style are a reaction against his own father, who was a lazy no-goodnik sort, who got into debt, neglected his family, and showed cowardice. In contrast, Okonkwo is determined to be hard working and wealthy. And he does achieve wealth and status as a result of his hard work. In that sense, he is admirable. However, he has a dark side as well. He feels his father was “feminine” rather than “masculine.” Weak rather than strong. And Okonkwo views strength and masculinity as connected with violence and anger. He hates his father’s idleness - but also his father’s gentleness. A passage from early in the book is illustrative:

Okonkwo ruled his household with a heavy hand. His wives, especially the youngest, lived in perpetual fear of his fiery temper, and so did his little children. Perhaps down in his heart Okonkwo was not a cruel man. But his whole life was dominated by fear, the fear of failure and of weakness. It was deeper and more intimate than the fear of evil and capricious gods and of magic, the fear of the forest, and of the forces of nature, malevolent, red in tooth and claw. Okonkwo’s fear was greater than these. It was not external but lay deep within himself. It was the fear of himself, lest he should be found to resemble his father. 

In this, of course, is the seed of Okonkwo’s eventual destruction. (That shouldn’t be a spoiler - I mean, the book is called Things Fall Apart because things...fall apart.) His fear of appearing weak starts a sequence of bad luck or karma or whatever you want to call it. A young boy, who has been taken as payment for a murder committed by another tribe is given to Okonkwo to care for. Later, when the oracle decides that the boy should die, Okonkwo is warned by the eldest man in the tribe to avoid having anything to do with the killing. Unfortunately, Okonkwo fears being seen as weak (that is, womanly), and ends up striking the death blow. 

From there, things start to go to pieces. Okonkwo loses the respect of his eldest son, who was attached to the victim. His favorite daughter becomes gravely ill. And finally, at the funeral for the eldest man, his gun explodes during the salute, and kills the deceased’s son. By the law of the tribe, he is exiled for seven years to appease the gods. 

While Okonkwo is away, the white missionaries arrive, and proceed to set up British rule, a church, and attempt to dismantle elements of the tribal culture. The clash eventually becomes bloody, and things really go to hell from there. 

The novel is fairly short, and moves at a fast pace. Achebe does a great job of portraying the culture of a particular part of Nigeria in a way that explains things enough for an outsider to follow, while never getting bogged down in explanation. As I noted above, Achebe doesn’t use a soft focus, but strives for neutrality and accuracy. Thus, the culture is, like Okonkwo himself, complicated and nuanced. Like any culture, its best parts are admirable and serve to regulate human behavior in a way that benefits everyone. At its worst, though, it is misogynistic and obsessed with avenging insults. The missionaries are right in rescuing abandoned twins. (A practice that makes sense from a Darwinian point of view - in a situation of scarcity.) But they are all too often interested in imposing their culture rather than finding common ground. Even there, there is a contrast between the first missionary, who did a lot of listening, and the second, who was determined to win even if it took violence to “subdue the natives.” 

Similarly, though, in a clash of cultures, flexibility is needed on both sides. Okonkwo is as rigid as the British, and makes things worse rather than better. Since he cannot bend, he is broken. When he asserts his (toxic) masculinity, he alienates his family and his neighbors. As over 100 years of time has proven, the Europeans haven’t fared that much better in the long run. Colonialism has left immense damage, contributing to two world wars, enormous expenditures, and a legacy of failed states left behind and abandoned. 

I want to mention one more thing in the book that I thought was a really fantastic conversation. It takes place between Mr. Brown (the original, decent missionary) and Akunna, a leader in the tribe. Mr. Brown is trying to convert Akunna to monotheism, yet it turns out that they aren’t as far apart as Mr. Brown thinks. Akunna explains that he does indeed believe in a one god who is greater than all. However, just as Mr. Brown is a messenger from his religion, or the bureaucrats represent the queen, the lesser gods are the messengers and representatives of the high god Chukwa. In each case, the work is done through delegation. I was struck by how much this resembled the story of the centurion in the Gospel of Matthew:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. ⁶ “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”

Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”

The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.

Mr. Brown tries to argue with Akunna. But Jesus marveled at the centurion’s faith. It is a totally different response to a similar situation. I suspect Jesus would have been a heck of a lot different than the European missionaries. I also suspect that said missionaries never noticed the warning in this story: many are going to come from cultures all over the world and take their place at the great feast. But those who are so sure they alone have the truth are going to be tossed outside. 

In this way, Things Fall Apart is an excellent example of the beauty of stories that show a different point of view. As Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (one of my favorites) points out, our white, Euro-American view of Africa has been and continues to be dominated by one single story: a white European story. Achebe and his literary heirs have contributed a chorus of other voices, new stories, from new (and old) perspectives. It is a beautiful thing.