A Good Use for Artificial Intelligence?

In the 1967 film, To Sir, With Love, Sidney Poitier played Mark Thackeray, an idealistic high school teacher who guided rowdy teen-agers living in a London East end slum.

Not surprisingly, for something so experimental, Artificial Intelligence (AI) doesn’t always do a good job.
According to Google: “Food Network developed a skill for Alexa-enabled devices, providing show information, schedules, and featured recipes.”
(That sentence doesn’t even make sense!)
However, as a result of AI, the recipes (and episodes) have become much harder to locate on the Food Network.
Also, the recipe PDFs are sometimes maddeningly incomplete because of formatting problems!
AI obviously needs a lot of oversight!

In another context, could AI do a better job than human H.R. personnel, to hire skilled professionals, than it does in monitoring websites like the Food Network?

In the United States, it’s estimated that black people earn (on average) at least 16% less during their lifetimes than white people do.
All ethic varieties of women earn (on average), 18% less than all ethnic varieties of men.

During the 1960’s, Bahamian-American actor Sidney Poitier starred in films in which he portrayed a police detective (In the Heat of the Night); a physician (Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner); and an educator (To Sir, With Love).
A section in the book Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks (published in 1973), by Donald Bogle, calls Poitier a “Hero for an Integrationist Age,” and notes:

In all his films he is educated and intelligent. He spoke proper English, dressed conservatively, and had the best of table manners. For the mass white audience, Sidney Poitier was a black man who had met their standards. [Italics mine.]

Sidney Poitier films, up until the 1970’s,* were propaganda.
The studio goal was to convince Middle America to accept black men as policemen, teachers, and doctors, just as long as they weren’t too black.

In the 2006 film, The Devil Wears Prada, Meryl Streep played demanding Miranda Priestly (left), editor of one of the world’s most prestigious fashion magazines.

Stanley Tucci played Nigel (right), the magazine Art Director.

As early as the 1940s (when the majority of women still were stuck in low level jobs, or kept as “mere housewives”), movie audiences began to see movies in which actresses portrayed powerful business women.
The list includes Mildred Pierce (1945), Working Girl (1988), The Devil Wears Prada (2006), and The Proposal (2009).
In all of these films, the lead actress is a skilled female business woman.
However, these high-power women are always portrayed as far from successful in their private lives.

These films were movie studio propaganda.
The goal was to convince Middle America that it’s impossible to earn success as a business woman, and also be a successful wife and mother.

In the 2024 television comedy, St. Denis Medical, Joyce (the Executive Director of the hospital) is played by Wendi McLendon-Covy.

In the current TV comedy, St. Denis Medical, the focus is placed on female characters unable to enjoy a good life-work balance, more than on male medical professionals having this problem.
Wendi McLendon-Covey plays Joyce, the driven hospital executive director whose only female “friends” are drug company reps.
Allison Tolman plays Alex, who struggles with combining life as a workaholic supervising nurse, with being a wife and mother.
At one point in the storyline, Alex refuses her husband’s wish to have another child, and they opt for a vasectomy.

Don’t get me wrong.
I’m not judging St Denis Medical.
I love this mockumentary series, and I’m looking forward to the second season.
I’m not criticizing the show. I’m merely pointing out a viewpoint about social “norms.”

For a long time, Big Business has decreed that “alpha” men (micro-managers, screamers, attention hogs) were “ideal” managers.
Women have often imitated their alpha male mentors.
In recent years, this trend has shifted a bit.
Business books like Blind Spots, and Dare to Lead, offer the “new” theory that a “softer” form of management (empathetic, cooperative, emotionally intelligent) is a much more successful strategy in dealing with people.

I just finished Apprentice in Wonderland: How Donald Trump and Mark Burnett Took America Through the Looking Glass (2025) by Ramin Setoodeh.
It’s very clear, in this book, that the people who “won” were the candidates who pleased Donald Trump best.
It wasn’t a matter of how good their ideas were, or how skilled they were as business people.
It was just a matter of how much Mr. Trump liked them.

During the fourth season, Trump attempted to persuade the first black male winner (Randal Pinkett) to “share his victory” with a white female contestant.
To Trump’s immense surprise, the black Rhodes scholar refused to accept Mr. Trump’s “script change.” Despite winning the prize, and later working for Trump for a year, Pinkett was never wholly in Trump’s good graces again (because he had acted against the “Big Man’s” wishes).

In Buck and the Preacher, Sidney Poitier played a tough wagon master named Buck.

Poitier also directed the 1972 film.

Essentially, the theme of The Apprentice TV show (2004-2017) was that American Big Business, is a land of dominance, with people at the top lording over others, and terrorizing their subordinates.
(The Apprentice shows us the way Donald Trump wishes to run this country, not as a public servant, but as a CEO from another era.)

The goal of DEI in American business was to train employees, and encourage diversity in the workplace.
However, the dirty little secret is that this “bottom-up approach” didn’t create much real change.
Where real change is needed is top-down.
How do you convince department heads, to evaluate people based solely on their skill sets: not their skin color, not their gender, who they know, or how “well” they dress?

What would happen if we used a well-programmed AI (not Grok!) to hire employees, and to evaluate the salaries at companies?
This AI would just use information about skill sets and education levels, and not consider gender, or ethnic heritage.
Would we soon discover that some people were badly underpaid, while others were vastly over paid?
Would it quickly become apparent that giant disparities are based on gender, and whether employees are non-white?

Think of AI as a tool for improving fairness.
AI could tell the company where it had made mistakes, and then the company would make adjustments accordingly.
It might be a problem (at first) to reduce the out of whack salaries of CEOs, CFOs, Presidents, and Vice Presidents, but regular productive employees would earn a lot more.
Perhaps, if AI was allowed to make all hiring and salary decisions, companies would make less mistakes, as the years went on.

In the “The Ultimate Computer” episode of the original Star Trek, William Marshall played Daystrom, a brilliant scientist who has created a computer that can make its’ own decisions.

Of course, it all boils down to how AI is programmed.
We’ve all learned from Elon Musk’s Grok, “The Ultimate Computer” (Season 2; episode 24) episode of Star Trek, and Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970), how AI can be extremely destructive, especially when Ai is programed too closely to a human personality.

*During the 1970’s, Sidney Poitier began to branch out from playing “perfect” role models. He starred in such films as Buck and the Preacher (1972), Uptown Saturday Night (1974), and A Piece of the Action (1977).

Working for the Common Good

During Al Capone’s reign in Chicago, he was known for being generous to the poor by setting up soup kitchens.

In Chapter One of Al Capone’s Beer Wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago During Prohibition, author John J. Binder, offers the opinion that some immigrants to Chicago:

Brought with them a belief . . . that the system was there to be exploited by individuals for their personal gain as opposed to the idea that individuals worked for the common good. [Italics mine.]

Binder was trying to put the Chicago “Beer Wars” into context.
He was explaining why immigrants from the semi-feudal worlds of Italy, Ireland, Germany, and Russia, worked to exploit American society: some by building legal businesses, and others by building illegal businesses.
(Based on my own family history, I’m quite sure that many Italian-Americans were a lot more idealistic citizens than Binder imagined.)

In the conclusion of his book, Binder gives Capone an A minus, for his work as a professional gangster.
These were his reasons for this “less than perfect” grade:

He had strong business sense and excellent martial skills . . . However, his public behavior . . .put him [too much] in the spotlight” and he should have filed his income tax returns.

A portrait of Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) by George Catlin, after a painting by Thomas Sully.

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), as a thinker, was more concerned about “the Common Good” than many of the other Founding Fathers.
Jefferson was the son of a landowner, and he owned slaves throughout his life.
However, he did believe in Universal Suffrage, and in the ideals of Democracy (at least in theory).
He certainly didn’t believe in a “divine right” for English men, then only one-third of the population!
Jefferson also didn’t believe that the American system of slavery would continue many generations after his death.
(He left that disquieting problem for future generations to contend with.)

In 1813, idealist Jefferson wrote to John Adams (1735-1826) that Europe’s class system of “rank, birth, and tinsel-aristocracy will finally shrink into insignificance.”*

A few days before he died (in 1826), Jefferson wrote: 

The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately. . .*

Despite Jefferson’s materialism, he truly believed that only the American people could preserve our Democratic system.
He stipulated that our nation must become better educated, and more guided by the sciences.
(If this were not so, I think he feared that eventually we would lose our Democracy.)

A portrait of Abigail Adams by Jane Stuart (after Gilbert Stuart, circa 1800).

I just finished the biography Dearest Friend A Life of Abigail Adams (published in 1981) by Lynne Withey.
It’s about the wife of the nation’s first Vice President and second President, John Adams.
In Dearest Friend, I learned that Mr. and Mrs. John Adams (a couple who disliked the whole idea of political parties) switched from being Federalists to being Republicans, during their lifetimes.
Here’s a section:

Behind her growing conservatism was a profound distrust of the ordinary man or woman. Such people, she believed, were incapable of thinking rationally about important issues but would follow a charismatic leader blindly and could easily be duped by propaganda.

A deep materialism, and the goal of the “Common Good,” have been at war in the U.S. since its’ inception.
After the Revolutionary War, many of the elite colonialists fled to Canada.
When framing the Federal Government, the Founding Fathers bowed to the financial interests of the big plantation owners, and counted blacks as 5/8ths of a human being (for mainly financial reasons).
After the Civil War, many plantation owners received $300 payments, but only a few blacks received forty acres and a mule.
Since the beginning of this country, some Americans have considered true Democracy to be just a pipe dream, not really worth working on.

A scene from The Migrants, a 1974 TV movie about migratory farm workers, that starred Cloris Leachman (right) and Lisa Lucas (left).

When studying U.S. history, it’s evident that the English elite exploited both the non-English, and the English plebs, as North America was settled.
During the 1600s and 1700s, wild forests were farmed (and Native Americans murdered) through the use of slaves, English and Irish convicts, and the indentured servant system.
During the 1800s and 1900s, immigrants from Europe, and Asia, were used to build our cities and railroads, as well as staff our mines and factories.
A few immigrants (like Andrew Carnegie) became titans of industry, but most first-generation Americans worked long hours doing manual labor, in hopes that some of their children would eventually survive existence in the underclass.

The book Round Trip to American describes how many immigrants came to the U.S. for a while, found it not to their liking, and returned to their home countries (Europe or Asia).
Some migrants returned to Europe and Asia, and transformed their home countries into modern societies.

The massacre of the Chinese at Rock Springs, Wyoming, drawn by Lieutenant C.A. Booth. 7th U.S. Infantry. White miners slaughtered Chinese miners.

Trump talks about saving America by deporting immigrants, but his idea is not based on logic, or facts.
By deporting so many hard-working immigrants, he’s just disrupting profitable American companies.
Undocumented immigrants typically pay into the Social Security system, but then get nothing back, helping to keep the system solvent.
Throughout the history of this country, immigrants have always started more new businesses than the U.S. born.
Immigrants spend money on food and housing, increasing consumer spending.
Financially speaking, deporting immigrants by the thousands, is not a good move for the U.S. economy.

I guess that our relationship to the Constitution, and Democracy, is a bit like our relationship to marriage.
Some men (or women) vow never to commit the sin of adultery during the wedding ceremony.
A few years later, however, “the heart wants what it wants” and they are unfaithful to their wives (or husbands).

Charles H Bennett’s illustration of a coalman confronting a chimney sweep: “the pot calling the kettle black.”

I know that the folks who back Trump are hypersensitive about this idea of the Common Good.
Kevin Roberts (President of the Heritage Foundation) mischaracterizes Lefties (in Project 2025), saying that “The Left does not believe that all men are created equal. They believe they are superior.”
He mistakes idealism for self-righteousness.

Trump, and his supporters, swear that they believe in the Democratic system of government, and that the Left must “hate America.”
That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Without a concern for the Common Good, Democracy will fail.

*Both of the Jefferson quotes are taken from Thomas Jefferson on Democracy, selected and arranged by Saul K Padover, Penguin, 1939. 

An Old Joke

Vincent Van Gogh painted his vision of The Good Samaritan in 1890.

There’s an old joke about Heaven and Hell.
I’ve no idea where this joke came from, or how old it is.

Here’s the way it goes:

Heaven is where the Italians cook, the Germans organize, the French are the lovers, and the English make the rules.

Hell is where the Germans are the lovers, the English cook, the Italians organize, and the French make the rules.

The above “joke” is based on ethnic stereotypes, that were once very common.
My parents’ generation tended to think in these ways, much more than baby-boomers do.
I'm pretty sure that Millennials, GenZ, or GenXers, have never even heard of European stereotypes.
However, it seems that prejudices against people who are “different,” is a part of human nature.

Remember the parable about the “Good Samaritan?”
The reason why Jesus told the story of a Samaritan caring for a stranger left for dead, was because Samaritans were not generally viewed as “good.”
In fact, they were considered enemies* of the Jews.
That was the point!

It’s fairly good-humored to say that Hell is where the main punishments are enduring clumsy German lovers, bland English food, and a badly-run society, while Heaven is where we’d enjoy tasty Italian food, sensual French lovers, and an orderly society.
No group is pointed out as being irreparably stupid in the above joke.
Instead, each nationality is portrayed as being skilled in some ways, but not in others.

Cover of Memoires by Josephine Baker, first published in French in 1949, but not translated into English until 2025.

I recently read Fearless and Free, the “memoir” of the great entertainer Josephine Baker (1906-1975), a book that’s recently been translated into English, after being published in French just after World War II.
I put the word “memoir” into quotes, because the book was mostly written by French journalist Marcel Sauvage (1895-1988).
Sauvage began to interview Josephine Baker when she was a young performer, recently arrived in France.
Their last interviews happened when she was a famous star, nearly twenty years later.
The duo published the interviews, as Memoires, in 1949.

Let’s just be accurate, and say that Josephine Baker didn’t tell Marcel Sauvage everything, and leave it at that.
Why would you tell a journalist all your secrets?
I know that I wouldn’t.
(Actress Katharine Hepburn (1907-2003) didn’t even give journalists her correct birthday!)

Chapter Three of Fearless and Free covers the two years (from 1928 to 1930), when Baker toured in over 25 countries, in Europe and the Americas.
When Josephine Baker described the audiences, she tended to “generalize” about each nationality, just as my mom (born in the early 1920’s) often did.
Josephine found Dutch people “serious and rosy,” and Danes to be “very polite.”
She was especially interested in trying out foreign cuisines.
However, she seemed to have a sensitive stomach.

The book Fearless and Free touches on some of Josephine Baker’s World War II experiences, when she was: a decorated spy for the French resistance, nursed Allied soldiers in hospitals, and sang and danced for the troops.

A January 2025 New York Times review had some problems with this book, specifically, the section in which Josephine Baker (during a visit to Harlem, in the late 1940’s) described Jewish-American landlords mistreating their black Harlem tenants.
In the forward of the book, American author Ijeoma Oluo says that she wishes that eventually “Baker was able to find more nuanced answers as to why she witnessed what she witnessed in New York.”

Josephine Baker with some of her Rainbow Tribe.

Baker didn’t begin adopting children, and forming “The Rainbow Tribe” until 1950, a year after Memoires was published.
The purpose of her adopting more than a dozen children was to prove that all people could live together peacefully.
Despite the fact that she had become a Roman Catholic, Baker made a point of not changing the religions of any of her children.

Josephine Baker faced despair (in Memoires) when she realized how very little the U.S. had changed during the twelve years she had become an international star.
In 1948, when she and her husband (French composer, Jo Bouillon) visited New York city, they assumed that they could sleep in a high-quality hotel, and travel down to the visit Josephine Baker’s mother in a first-class train car.
Well, they were wrong!
One Manhattan hotel after another used subtle, and not so subtle, means to force them to leave.
This chapter gives is a blow-by-blow description of how even well-to-do blacks were treated in Northern cities.

Another book on my shelves is The Clumsiest People in Europe, or Mrs. Mortimer’s Bad-Tempered Guide to the Victorian World, by Todd Pruzan and Mrs. Favell Lee Mortimer.
Mrs. Mortimer (1802-1878) wrote books for children, mainly about the peoples of the world, that were published in 1849.
The Todd Pruzan book is derived from several of Mrs. Mortimer’s books; Todd Pruzan’s title is taken from Mrs. Mortimer’s view of the Portuguese in her book The Countries of Europe Described.
(An illustration from his, and her book, appears below.)

The Countries of Europe Described (1849), by Mrs. Favell Lee Mortimer, says that “No people in Europe are as clumsy . . . as the Portuguese,” pointing out Portuguese lack of skill in making boxes, carts, and keys.

Mrs. Mortimer had some appalling ideas about people in various countries and regions.
She was firmly convinced that Spaniards were cruel (mainly because of bull-fighting), and that Welsh people kept dirty houses.
However, she also decried the mistreatment of blacks in the U.S., twenty years before the Civil War:

There are no slaves in the Northern States, but there are many blacks there; and perhaps you think they are kindly treated as they are not slaves. Far from it. They are not beaten, it is true, but they are despised and insulted in every possible way. Is not this very wicked? Merely because they have a black skin.

Leonard Joseph Marx (1887-1961), one of the Marx Brothers, played “Chico,” an unscrupulous Italian immigrant from Naples. Typically, he pointed his index finger at the piano, as if shooting a gun.

Today we live in an era when we don’t hear Polish jokes.
However, joking about Italian-Americans as criminals, or as lower class, is as safe a gambit as it was in the days of the Marx Brothers.
(The Marx Brothers was a famous comedy group that performed in vaudeville, on Broadway, and in 14 films.)
I guess that it’s fine to say that you probably carry a knife if you have an Italian accent, but no longer acceptable to say that you’re stupid if you have a Polish accent.

The key words are “Americanization” and “hyphenation.”
This is why so many Italian-Americans changed their surnames (from Martino to Martin, and their first names from Giuseppe to Joe).
Do WASPs think it’s OK for immigrants to eat their own food, and enjoy their own culture, only as long as they accept that America is an Anglo-Saxon society, not a nation of equals?

*According to Wikipedia, as of 2024, there were only about 900 Samaritans left in the world. The main theological disagreement between Samaritans and Judaism, is over whether the Temple Mount, or Mount Gerizim, is the world’s holiest site.

Mudsills* vs Blue Bloods

Trump has set up an altar of sorts in the Oval Office (2025).

There is a strong class system in the United States, and a strong prejudice encouraging male Americans of Northern European descent, especially those of British descent, to be the powerful ones on top.
That’s why—when we’ve “cast” candidates for the role of U.S. President (by voting for them)—they’ve been male, and had at least one parent who was of Northern European descent.

Both the Right, and the Left, seem to be fighting against the class system.
Who knew that when Graydon Carter (and Spy Magazine) called Trump a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the 80’s they’d help to bring a crass real estate developer into the White House?
Who knew that when candidate Kamala Harris (in her run for the presidency) called for more people to obtain college degrees, less citizens would come out to vote?

Last year, I read Rotten Bodies: Class and Contagion in 18th Century Britain, by British author Kevin Siena.
This book reveals the English perspective on Britain’s colonization of North America.
The 2019 book explains how the British upper crust dealt with the British, Irish and Scottish vagrants who wandered the cities and countryside.
During the 1700s, the government essentially used vagrants to populate the 13 colonies, and thereby reduce the prison population.
(It wasn’t until the 1840s that British intellectuals began to deal seriously with the British class system. Let’s just say real social change is taking a while.)

Tattooed Barbie (2011). Today, around 33% of US adults are inked.

I just finished White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, by Nancy Isenberg.
This 2016 book describes how the class structure in the U.S. has kept its’ Anglo-Saxon plebs under control, from colonial times through this century.

I learned from these two books that it wasn’t just prejudice against black and brown people, that fed the class system in Europe.
For centuries, the European elite believed that there were two types of people—the people of “good blood,” and the people of “bad blood”—and sometimes people with “bad blood” could look similar to you.
Giving alms boxes to the poor at Christmas was one thing.
Associating with them, was quite another.
Obviously, this attitude toward people who didn’t own property carried over to the New World.

Trump being interviewed while sitting in a garbage truck (2024).

Class-conscious Republicans have elevated Trump, possibly because they identify with him?
In the last days of the 2024 campaign, this all became clearer when it seemed each side was talking about the opposing side as “garbage.”
MAGA has chosen Trump to fight against “educated elitists” who they assume look down on them.
The Left dislikes Trump because he’s acting against their cherished fantasy that America is a classless melting pot.
It’s a big mess of people—sometimes ones who are essentially in agreement—fighting each other over scraps.

Some Right-wing pundits have acknowledged that Donald J. Trump isn’t a particularly good representative for the Anglo-Saxon “cause.”
Trump is one of our very few Presidents to be the child of immigrants.
(Andrew Jackson’s parents immigrated from Ireland in 1765.)
Trump’s mother was a servant girl, who immigrated as a teenager from Scotland.
His father was a first generation American.
Both of Fred Trump’s parents were born and raised in Germany.
When Trump chose to marry, his first, and his third, wives were both Slavic adult immigrants.
Only his middle wife (Marla Maples) was born in this country (the state of Georgia), and that was his shortest marriage.
(Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would have been aghast! Is Donald Trump afraid of American DNA?)

Babs Johnson’s trailer in 1972’s Pink Flamingos. Middle-class couples sometimes drive their children past trailer parks, and tell them: “This is NOT where we want you to live. 

Unlike other “developed” nations, the citizens of the U.S. live in a country without a safety net.
It’s estimated that around 26 million Americans have experienced homelessness.
Since the 1970s, we’ve lived in a country in which it takes two salaries to buy a house and/or raise a family. 

In The Hidden History of the American Dream: The Demise of the Middle Class—and How to Rescue Our Future, by Thom Hartmann, Hartmann describes how the 40th President, Ronald Reagan, began to destroy the middle class, from 1981-1989.
Back in the early 1980’s, the middle class controlled almost 22% of the nation’s wealth. Today, it controls under 5% of the wealth.

Since the late 1770’s, the United States has lied to the rest of the world, and portrayed itself as a classless society.
However, America has never been that.
The Englishmen who planned the colonization of North America saw this land as one giant workhouse where they could send their orphans, debtors, vagabonds, and convicts.
In Nancy Isenberg’s book White Trash, she mentions how the third US President Thomas Jefferson (in one of his public education proposals) planned that a few lucky scholars be “raked from the rubbish,” and be educated above grade school level.
(Jefferson used the word “rubbish” to describe poor men who didn’t own property.)

Urbanites confront hostile locals in 1972’s Deliverance.

When Jefferson spoke of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” he wasn’t speaking about everyone.
He was only referring to white property-owning males, preferably, Englishmen.
It’s a certainty that many of our Founding Fathers thought of poorer communities as “waste people.”
It wasn’t until 1830 that all states dropped owning property, as being necessary in order to vote.

The Civil War was about class, in addition to being about slaves.
Confederate leaders argued that the planter class was born to rule, and that Northerners were degenerates for not believing in their Southern “utopia.”
Southern plantation owners, newspaper editors, and politicians argued against the education of “offscourings,” “mudsills,” crackers, hillbillies, and swamp people.

The 36th President, Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908-1973), explained the Southern Dixiecrat mentality to his White House staff:

If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell. Give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

Americans seem angry at the class system, but the Right, and the Left, are in conflict over solutions.
Right-wingers believe they are fighting the educated elite; they want white, property-owning Northern Europeans to be honored as those with the “best blood.”
Left-wingers are sick of the empty promises of DEI departments, and the Democratic Party; they want real change, not just adherence to slogans and political correctness.

*The term “mudsill” was coined by US Senator James Henry Hammond (according to Nancy Isenberg, on page 157 of White Trash) to describe the innate inferiority of Northerners, to the plantation elite of the South. According to Hammond (1807-1864), “mudsills” were the “urban roughs, prairie dirt farmers, greasy mechanics, and unwashed immigrants” who infested Northern cities. 

Pre-cancelled?

Maya Hawke, as Flannery O’Connor, in a scene from the 2023 film Wildcat.

I recently discovered Flannery O’Connor’s Why Do the Heathen Rage by Jessica Hooten Wilson.
Wilson’s work is comprised of bits and pieces of an unfinished novel by Flannery O’Connor.
It’s a special treat for O’Connor fans, and I was thrilled to discover it.
Flannery O’Connor’s proposed third novel had the working title: “Why Do the Heathen Rage?”
In a 1962 letter* to her friend Editor Robert Giroux, O’Connor said: “It’s been inevitable that I get to that title sooner or later.”

The words “Why do the heathen rage?” are taken from a psalm in the Bible, 2:1.
(In some versions of the Bible the word “heathen” is translated as “nations,” not “heathen.”)
The King James version of 2:1 reads: 

Why do the heathen rage, And the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, And cast away their cords from us.

This particular psalm was a common theme in the sermons of Protestant Southern ministers, in the 1950’s and 60’s.
Flannery O’Connor was a devout Roman Catholic.
However, as she wrote* to Sister Mariella Sable, in May of 1963: “I can write about Protestant believers better than Catholic believers . . . I can’t write about anything subtle.”

Cover of Flannery O’Connor’s 1960 novel The Violent Bear It Away, the story of a feral child, raised to be a prophet.

Essentially, Flannery O’Connor’s Why Do the Heathen Rage is made up of pieces of O’Connor’s lost beginnings of a novel presented in conjunction with explanatory essays by Wilson.
It also contains some beautiful linoleum cut illustrations by Steve Prince.
The subtitle of the book is: “A behind-the-scenes look at a work in progress.” In addition to commenting on and offering background to the fragments, Jessica Hooten Wilson placed the fragments in an order that she felt was helpful to understanding them.

Flannery O’Connor died (at age 39, in 1964) after completing two novels, and thirty-some short stories.
Scholars began to study her papers in the early 1970’s.
However, Wilson’s work was published in 2024.

First-edition cover of Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood.

Besides the fact that “Why Do the Heathen Rage?” was not close to being a finished work, another reason for the fragments not being published until 2024, was likely the subject matter.
O’Connor was writing about a 20-something white man (variously called Walter or Asbury) dealing with his own racism, and complicated emotions toward an idealistic Northern woman who’s trying (in today’s parlance) to become an “anti-racist.”
Even though Walter is “more or less” on the woman’s side,” she still fills him with “a particular fury.” 

The female character is variously named “Oona Gibbs,” and “Sarah.”
By the end of the fragments, the two characters are heading toward an in-person meeting, but have only communicated through letters.
(Walter had lied to Oona, and told her he was black.)

O’Connor was still developing the characters when she died.
Oona/Sara is (mostly) a 20-something woman.
The character either lives on her own in New York, or she lives with her mother.
(O’Connor hadn’t quite decided.)
In one of her letters to Walter, Oona says:

I’ve broken through the ceiling of everything that suffocated me—conventions, manners, religion—and have suddenly like breaking into outer space, understood that nothing matters but that you be open to everything and everybody.

Scene from 1979’s Wise Blood, with blind preacher Asa Hawkes (Harry Dean Stanton) and beginning preacher Hazel Motes (Brad Dourif).

In reference to the title “Why Do the Heathen Rage,” Jessica Hooten Wilson proposes that Flannery O’Connor would say that both Walter and Oona are the “heathen,” as are we all.
As Flannery O’Connor expressed in a 1963 letter* to Sister Mariella Sable (same letter as mentioned above): 

Ideal Christianity doesn’t exist, because anything that the human being touches, even Christian truth, he deforms slightly in his own image.

Flannery O’Conner with her pet peacocks.

Another problem with this beginning of a third novel is its’ use of the N-word, particularly in the conversations with Walter’s father, “old-man Tilman.”
As I read Jessica Hooten Wilson’s work, I wondered if these O’Connor fragments would have been published earlier if they hadn’t involved racism.
(I also wonder whether Wilson’s book would have been given more publicity.)
This book was published by a small Christian press: Baker Publishing Group.

Wilson was fully aware that some readers might find Flannery O’Connor’s Why Do the Heathen Rage a problematic enterprise. She writes: 

In these unfinished pages, characters speak offensively, and I hope we cringe to see the N-word on the page (even the elided version, as we have chosen to present it) and refuse to read it aloud. Yet, rather than judge these characters haughtily—“oh, that we’ve come so far!”—we should register the short distance between us and them.

Hazel Motes (Brad Dourif) attempts to start the Church Without Christ in the Walter Houston-directed film Wise Blood.

One topic touched upon in Jessica Hooten Wilson’s book, is Alice Walker, and her affection for Flannery O’Connor’s work.
(Both Alice Walker, and Flannery O’Connor, had ancestral ties to Milledgeville, Georgia.)
In a biography on Walker (Alice Walker: A Life), by Evelyn Corliss White (2004), White quotes Walker saying that she would always love the “magic, the wit, and the mystery of Flannery O’Connor.”
White also quotes Walker as saying that O’Connor “destroyed the last vestiges of sentimentality in white Southern writing.”

*The two letters, mentioned in this memorandum, are found in Letters of Flannery O’Connor: The Habit of Being, selected and edited by Sally Fitzgerald (1979).