My grandfather survived three and a half years in a prison camp. I know the details because he described them himself, in his own words, in a memoir I helped him publish called Behind the Wire.
When I ask myself why I wrote this book, that memoir is part of the answer.
He would talk about what happened to him. That was not the problem. The problem was that nobody wanted to listen.
Why would a family not want to hear it?
Not because they did not care about him.
Because the subject was uncomfortable, and discomfort is a stronger force in a family than curiosity is. So the man who had survived three and a half years in a camp sat with his stories mostly in silence, in a house full of people who loved him, and I was the one who listened, and eventually I was the one who helped him get the words onto a page where they could not be ignored.
An account that is difficult to hear does not get suppressed. It simply never gets asked for, and the silence looks like nothing much until the person carrying it dies.
What did he survive for?
Something concrete instead of abstract.
He believed the country he was fighting for was worth what it was costing him. Not as a slogan and not as a thing he said at parades. As the actual reason a man endures three and a half years of that and comes out the other side.
He believed it was the best thing going on this earth, and that what it represented was worth his life if it came to that. None of that changed his conclusion about whether it was worth three and a half years in a camp. He came home, he lived his life, and he died believing the same thing he believed when he shipped out.
Any argument about how this country should be talked about has to account for him. Not because his belief settles the question, but because a way of speaking that has no room for him at all is missing something real.
What do the two sentences mean?
I grew up in California. I no longer live there.
Those two sentences tell you something about the last thirty years. The California I grew up in and the California that exists now are not the same place in any way that matters to somebody who has to live in it.
I am aware that is a contested claim and that people who still live there will disagree, some of them with good reasons. The disagreement is real. The decision to leave was not ideological. It was practical, made over a long time, and shared by a great many people who did the same arithmetic.
The book on this: The Villainization of America is the argument I could not stop thinking about after helping my grandfather get three and a half years in a camp onto a page nobody wanted to read.
What is the distinction the book turns on?
Between criticism and contempt, and they are not the same activity.
Criticism assumes the thing is worth improving. It identifies what is wrong to make it better, and it is how anything gets better. A country without vigorous criticism of itself is a country in trouble, and I would not argue otherwise for a moment.
Contempt assumes nothing worth keeping. It sounds similar, uses the same vocabulary, and produces completely different behavior, because there is no point improving something you hold in contempt. You can only manage its decline or hasten it.
My argument is that the second has quietly become the default register in a lot of places where the first is claimed, and that the substitution costs something.
Why does this connect to a memoir?
Because the two are the same problem at different scales.
A family that finds a subject uncomfortable stops asking about it, and a man’s account goes unheard in his own house. A culture that finds a subject uncomfortable does the same thing at scale, and the accounts that go unheard are the ones that do not fit the register.
My grandfather is not a rebuttal to anybody’s politics. He is a specific man who endured a specific thing for a specific reason, and he is the sort of person who disappears when a conversation gets simplified in either direction.
What am I asking for?
That criticism keeps the assumption that the thing is worth improving.
That uncomfortable accounts get asked for instead of tolerated. Nobody suppressed my grandfather. They simply never asked.
That people be allowed to be specific. He believed something concrete for concrete reasons and both directions of the current argument would flatten him.
That leaving somewhere is allowed to be practical. Not every migration is a statement.
That the argument be made at length. This does not fit in a post, which is why it is a book.
He is gone now, and so are the stories that never got written down, and the ones that did got written because a teenager sat on a folding chair and asked. That is why I care about this, and I would rather say so than pretend the argument arrived from somewhere more neutral.
The Guides That Get Your Book Written, Published, and Sold
Four short, practical guides on writing, publishing, and selling your book, plus the occasional note when there's something worth your time. No fluff, no daily inbox clutter. Drop your email and they're yours.
We use MailerLite to manage our list and send these emails. Your address is used only to send you what you signed up for. We will not sell it, share it, or use it for anything else, and you can unsubscribe anytime.