Wokeness = Kindness? Maybe in Massachusetts
Dear Editor:
I am writing in regard to Dr. Jonathan Klate’s Guest Editorial titled “Wokeness = Kindness” (March 30). My reason is to let your readers know that the editorial is a reprint of an article written by Dr. Klate for the Amherst (Massachusetts) Bulletin dated March 2, 2023.
If you take the time to read other articles penned by Klate for that publication, you quickly realize he takes joy in bashing conservative views. Although you mentioned Klate writes regularly about spirituality, political ideology and the relationship between the two, his views are totally one sided and that one side is aggressively liberal.
His bashing of Governor DeSantis was particularly disturbing. Klate obviously showed no understanding of our governor’s position on wokeness as it relates to the State of Florida. This leads me to a complaint. You printed this article verbatim from the Amherst Bulletin. That publication (at least) mentioned Klate resides in Amherst, Mass. It seems you took the liberty to omit that. This is important, because it’s one thing to take criticism of our governor from residents of the state who oppose his views and policies. It’s another thing altogether to have a non-resident, who has no vested interest in our state, do the same just for the purpose of getting his name in print outside Massachusetts.
If the News-Gazette is going to be in the habit of reprinting articles from liberal publications, I hope it provides equal space for articles from conservative publications. I am sure your editorial staff can find many with conservative views on wokeness.
JoAnn Colonna
St. Cloud
Vice Chair, Osceola County Republican Executive Committee
Editor's Note: The editorial in question was shared by PeaceVoice, a service that syndicates regional voices and authors nationwide. The News-Gazette subscribes to the free service.
Klate's error is great
Dear Editor:
In response to Jonathan Klate’s letter, his error is great. His piece attempting to equate woke ideology with kindness is typical of those who seek not to persuade, but to silence. After all, who could be against kindness? His error is ascribing kindness to that which seeks to destroy by division, and obfuscate to silence any disagreement. I will agree that “woke” has become the umbrella euphemism for the list of claimed grievances in his second paragraph, though its origin is open to disagreement.
One illustration of the error of the woke is shown in what he himself describes as a prime example in defense of the “woke”. Very tellingly, he writes that woke ideology would “emphasize” that George Washington owned slaves. Why must that be emphasized rather than just noted? The answer seems to be so that thereby Washington can be rejected as a role model, erased from any admirable consideration and, by extension, reject all of the Founders of this nation so as to reject any respect for this nation as originally constituted. As to the latter, as Edmound Burke observed, “I have never yet seen any plan which has not been mended by the observations of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead in the business.” To which I would add that the plainly evident arrogance, presumption, falsehood, and unfounded sense of superiority that lies throughout woke ideology gives a hearty affirmation to Burke’s observation.
Gone from woke version of history is instruction regarding the extensive global history of slavery, which history stretches over thousands of years, every populated continent and all peoples, which is not at all meant to condone slavery at any time. Such instruction would serve to undermine the narrative that slavery itself should condemn only this nation so that it should be fundamentally altered if not destroyed and the “woke” will not allow that.
George Washington was an exceptional man of his times with much character, attributes and achievements one would do well to emulate; not least of which was his faith and humility toward God. That he owned slaves in his time was not at all remarkable. Reasonable inquiry might include whether his integrity extended to his treatment of his slaves. But simply that he did own slaves, and emphasize this so as to minimize or ignore all his other attributes and achievements ignores so much history and context. This is not kind to Washington, but it is also cruel to those being taught with “woke” perspective because those being taught would be robbed of so much history and context. In other words, to keep them ignorant, angry, self-righteous, entitled and unthinking. This is certainly not kindness, but rather cruelty.
Space limits the length of my disagreement to all of Klate’s propositions, but I say that none of what he writes is new. History will show the failure awaiting its adoption.
“Woke” history as well as the whole “woke” ideology in general is wrong-headed, misleading and destructive. It’s myopia, error, ignorance and self-righteousness its fatal flaws, which at times includes outright fabrication in its pursuit.
People should be lifted up and encouraged to improve themselves and their estate. Humbling themselves toward God and each other. In contrast “woke” would have people dwell on grievance, condemnation, entitlement, self-righteousness and demagoguery. As written in the book of Philippians, “…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” “Woke” would have us do just the opposite. Kind it is not.
Mark Thompson
St. Cloud
