The Difference Between Arrogance and Ego

This will be relatively short by my standards, methinks. It's an idea that just popped into my head a few days ago and I wanted to get it down while it was still fresh. I've wondered a lot over the years about where the fine line is between arrogance and ego. I believe in my skills, so does that make me arrogant? I used to think so, but then I watched all of those superstars accepting awards and adding the obligatory words of self deprecation, and found myself thinking, "what, did you just win the cosmic lottery? Did you not work extemely hard to hone those skills? Did you not make great sacrifices and slave away at crap jopbs, paying your dues along the way, all in effort to make it to that podium? Take some credit for it! Don't pretend you just got lucky, you liar!" False humility is so annoying to me, because it not only denies the speaker the credit he/she is due, but it creates an erroneous belief that the best among us just got lucky breaks, or that God loves them more than the rest of us, or that excellence is in no way connected to effort. So, I wanted to reject false humility, but not cross the line into outright arrogance. So where is that line? This is why I have pondered it, and this is what suddenly occurred to me the other day.

The whole consideration is moot, because there is no line.

Follow: to say there is a line between X and Y is to imply that X and Y are very similar, and that the gradation between them is hard to spot. The difference between arrogance and ego, however, is not fine. They are not even remotely similar. They only look somewhat similar on the surface, at least to a simple-minded observer. At their core, they are as different as night and day. In a nutshell, here is why: arrogance is bred out of insecurity, ego grows out of confidence. When you remember the source, suddenly they don't seem very similar at all. Arrogance is someone who doesn't believe in their worth pretending that they do, trying to fool the rest of the world into thinking they are better than they really are. Ego is someone who is utterly convinced of their worth, at least in some area or skillset, and who is operating out of that confidence. Arrogance is pointed outwards and is a mask; ego is pointed inwards and is a spotlight.

I came up with this analogy, and I like it. Arrogance is like someone who paints the outside of their house to look like a mansion. They go to such great lengths to perfect the illusion that they completely neglect the interior of their house, allowing it to fall into disrepair and ruin. Ego is like someone who forgets to mow their lawn or weed the flowerbeds because they are too busy renovating the inside of their house, strengthening it, painting and refurbishing, decorating and cleaning, making it exactly the sort of house they want to live in, and knowing they have the skills to do it. The arrogant homeowner only cares what the neighbors think. The confident homeowner, secure in his ego, only cares about what he or she thinks.

It's probably not a perfect analogy, but I'm working on it. I guess the most important thing to remember is that both the arrogant and the ego fail out of pride-- the arrogant out of its lack, and the ego out of its excess. Fair enough?

Maybe the Best White Can Hope For is a Presidential Pardon...

I, like most of the rest of planet earth, watched a good bit of the coverage of Barack Obama's inauguration this last Tuesday. As always, I marvel with pride at the fact that we are able to achieve "regime change" every four years in this great country, and that we do it seamlessly, civilly and with great pomp and circumstance, notwithstanding the few-- but vocal-- moonbats who actually booed President Bush when he appeared on the dais.

I watched Obama's speech, and listened to the poem that followed, at least as much as my attention span allowed (which, in the case of the poem, was about as long as the third word) but what struck me most was the benediction, given by Reverend Joseph Lowery. I bet a lot of us remember that, and for many of us, it is possibly the most notable moment (other than the unfortunate flub during the actual swearing in). The reverend's benediction got some of the most noticeable applause lines and laughter from the millions there on the mall. And it was, in many ways, sort of cute. The Reverend seems like a very likable guy, with his affable demeanor and gravelly voice. And yet it left me feeling sort of dirty and unsettled.

I just have to ask a few questions about it, for clarification's sake. Maybe someone out there can help me out.

First, where, exactly, as the Reverend declaimed, does "black" have to "get in back"? I mean, I really must be missing something. Are there still buses rolling the streets with "whites only" sections in the front? I am being just a bit facetious, of course, because I know this is not the case. Forced segregation has been outlawed for decades. So what is the reverend referring to? Who is telling black to get in back anymore? I know I'm not, and I can honestly say I don't know anyone who would. If anyone I knew attempted to force an African American individual into any sort of subservient position based on their skin color, I-- and everyone I know-- would speak out loudly against it, decrying such stupidity. And I may be wrong, but my attitude toward such intolerance seems to be mirrored everywhere I look. Thus, Reverend Lowery's comment leaves me a little confused.

Second, where is "yellow" not "mellow"? I assume "yellow" means Chinese, or maybe anyone of Asian descent. And I assume "mellow" means relaxed and at ease, mainly because (I am inferring this from context) the yellow person in question feels loved and respected, with no correlation to the color of their skin. Again, forgive me, but where are Asian Americans judged poorly for being "yellow"? Where are they not allowed to be "mellow"? Granted, not many of the Asian Americans I know are particularly laid back and relaxed, but that isn't because they are reviled for their skin color-- it's because they are very smart and have a remarkable work ethic. But surely, obviously, I am missing something.

Third (and not in any particular order), can someone tell me where "brown" can't stick around and the "red man" can't "get ahead, man?" I mean, again, I might be wrong, but my guess is that "brown" means Hispanics, and are they not now the largest minority group in the country? That fact doesn't seem to make any sense if "brown" ain't allowed to "stick around". And what about the red man? I really don't want to sound nit-picky, but aren't Native American offered exclusive rights to open multimillion-dollar-earning gambling casinos all across the country? Moral conflicts aside, no one can argue that that's a pretty damn good way to "get ahead", at least financially.

Again, certainly and obviously, I am missing something.

And, finally, what about the white man? Regarding them, Reverend Lowery asked this: when will white embrace what is right? Hmmm. That one I think I might be able to answer: The white man will embrace right when he arises en-mass to confront the stench of slavery, many of them giving up their homes and lives in an effort to abolish its abominable practice and save its victims. White will embace right when they legislate equality for minorities under the law and when they vigorously oppose any official segregation of different races. Furthermore, white will embrace right when they elect a man of a different skin color to the White House. When those things happen, maybe then Reverend Lowery will be able to say "Glory, hallelujah, we have at last evolved into a people of respect and equality. Congratulations to all races. We have overcome."

One hopes to live to see the day when all those things come to pass. I wonder when it will happen?

I wonder if Reverend Lowery will notice when it does?