The Beginnings of the End

I don't think there'd be anywhere better than this blog to post our assignment for Monday!

I think a theme running through all my blogs is pretty obvious. I love talking about social injustices. I suppose it's a Debbie-Downer sort of attitude. But I think it's important to point out where American society is inadequate; truly it's looking towards a more positive future. I believe we can make the changes to become a more equal nation.

As for conversations, I think I'll (ironically) reference my great con essay. "The missing piece in most conversations is listening, and through my experience it is the fertilizer that makes any budding conversation grow. With it, ideas may morph, change, and evolve to become something more cohesive than before." Within the context of any conversation there must be active listening; to respond to the opinions around you as well as to let yours change.

As for ideas of freedom, Zinn actually has an opinion extremely close to mine. our vision of society should be from the perspective of the oppressed. It is this bottom-up view that I really do appreciate. Freedom should start from the bottom... hmm, just like Rawls, am I right? It's always important to view that perspective.

The freedom that should be fulfilled is the freedom to achieve the true best of your being. It's the ability to be who you are truly meant to be. It's a similar theological idea to Anne Hutchinson. Through a personal relationship with God you were able to discern His path, in a way. It's this sort of ideology that I really find enjoyable.

Thanksgiving Discourse

I was eating dinner with my family and a close family friends. It's really simple this year, we just smoked a turkey on the grill had some instant stuffing and potatoes with cranberry sauce and called it a day. It was nice just to be home (even with the incessant nagging to set the table) and with family. Eventually we reached the "after dinner discussion" portion of the meal. My parents asked me what I thought about my new major. I told them something about how I'd want to go into social justice work with my religion major, or work at a theology or ministry department in a high school similar to the one I went to.

Then the conversation lept into a different category.

As some background, I'm going to say that both of my parents are republicans (but I still love them :D) and if you could tell from my tea party editorial, I am not. We jumped into a conversation about America. I talked a lot about my usual opinions about how there isn't equal access to opportunities. I don't remember the details closely. But I remember two points.

One was when I told my mother that our family was extremely privileged, simply by being able to eat a thanksgiving meal and for me to be able to go to college. She seemed really shocked. She mentioned how hard she works, and in a way I thought "Hey, that's kind of a privilege." because she works hard doing something she loves. Many people also have to work hard, but simply to scrape by a living something they detest doing. She also had the same privileges I do (such as colleges), while many do not.

Also our family friend who stopped by is from the Philippines. She moved here after getting some basic education done back home and became a nurse. She's extremely successful now. She said something that struck me: "I think the American dream is still real.".  Now it is true, she moved up, and it reminded me that there are still success stories here and that fundamentally the values exist. Even if I don't, people still do believe in the American dream. But at the same time, how much did her previous education and family status in Asia effect her success story here? Maybe that's something I'll explore more elsewhere.

Slave Justification

I had a discover in class on Friday when we were discussing the development of slavery. I suppose I never really thought about how it had to... develop. It didn't just snap into existence out of nowhere. People had to make the conscience choice to increase the trade and hold more people captive. The issue then becomes "Why did they do it?". I find it hard to believe that those people could initially justify their beliefs by saying whites just had to be supreme or some other ideology. Then again, I come at it with quite a different perspective than those people in early America did. But wouldn't some little voice in your head say "Hey, they're humans too... and I would never like to personally be enslaved."
If this little voice is true, then what reasoning did these people use for justification. Well, one is obviously financial. It costs much less to keep a slave in awful conditions without proper wages than it does to pay for an actually servant who would probably demand the equalities the owner had. As it became a cultural phenomenon people probably justified it by saying "Everyone else is doing it, so might as well too."Individuals probably convinced themselves that the whites managed to win the social survival of the fittest.
What scares me is the dark side of people that probably enjoyed ruling over someone. Slave owners became addicted to that position of power and didn't want to part with it easily. All the other reasons still held true, but were they really just a facade for this darker, more macabre motivation? I sure hope not. Because that implies some scary things about human nature.

I was talking to Athena and I asked her if China ever really had the similar with slavery that America did. She said no, though there might have been something more similar to indentured servitude; in China it was never really centered around race. Perhaps slavery was more of an addiction, and once America started it was hard for Her to stop cold turkey. I suppose that's true of any social standard. Once it becomes the norm it's hard to change again; that requires altering the thoughts of an entire society of people.

Liberalism

Ok, let's talk a bit about this chart to the left of me. It's a political ideology graph, depicting many famous political and social leaders. The y axis reflects social opinions and the x axis is economic policy. Positive y is authoritarian, where the government has complete control and the negative y is libertarian, or complete social freedom. Negative x is communism, or complete economic equality and positive x is neoliberalism, or typical laisez-faire economic policy where there should be no interference in the economic private sphere.

Now that that's explained, hopefully you can understand why some of these figures are placed where they are. I brought this up to explain where I fell on the chart. I wish I could remember my exact numeric position, but basically I placed a little left of Nelson Mandela and slightly more positive than the Dalai Lama. I thought I was relatively close to Gandhi, but this portion of a different chart makes me think otherwise...

Anyway, this places me in quite an idealistic position. You may have been able to tell I'm obsessed with issues of social justice and believe in the idea that all people should have equal opportunity, and at least be able to live in comfortable circumstances as well as have the chance to move up in socioeconomic status. As I've said, this is the American Dream. A good way to sum up my opinions would be with John Rawl's Ethics, like "...the liberty principle, which advocates that each person should have an equal right to as many basic liberties as possible and still allow a similar system of liberty for all (Munson 2004)." and "...the difference principle [which] requires that social and economic inequalities be arranged so that they benefit those who are least advantaged."

These quiz results were the result of me staying up with two people until 5 in the morning Saturday night discussing American politics and the ideal American system. I just thought this would give you insight to my thinking strategy when it comes to some aspects of this class. I know not everyone will think the same way as me, but I want to strongly accent that I am extremely welcome to discussion of ideals. I do not want to be considered a close minded extremist; that's how America became as convoluted as it is today.

PS- The website is here!

Dear Mr. Teapartier

(I say Mr. because a New York Times survey suggests that most Tea Party supporters are male. This letter could just as easily be addressed to a Mrs.)
    Mr. Teapartier, I’m a little upset, and I’m sure you are too. Our country’s in a bit of a pickle if you ask me, though I’m guessing we think so for different reasons. You think the government is overstepping its boundaries. I think you lack the perspective to make such a claim. The government needs to take a more active role in assessing the problems of the poor and marginalized in our society. The poverty gap widens every year and those at bottom are stuck. You need to realize that you can’t be a grassroots movement because are actually in the wealthy, educated upper class. You need to stop focusing on your wants and pay attention to the needs of the lowliest.
    I hope I don’t come off too strong, but take a good look at yourself; according to CBS as well as the New York Times you’re wealthier and better educated than most of the country. It is well cited by Raymond Johansen as well as NPR that your movement is funded by corporate billionaires to serve their personal political agenda. On your website you claim to be “the voice of the true owners of the United States, we the people.” but by definition a grassroots movement starts from the bottom of the community: the poor, marginalized, working class Americans struggling in a system built against their favor. You represent the well off. Mr. Tea party, you are the high stem or even flowers of the American prairie grass, not the root.
    NPR’s Michel Mitchel does a good job of addressing your paradox. You are upset with the American political system, and you have every right to be. But instead of solving problems, you imply that the marginalized should be grateful they’re lives aren’t worse. I don’t think you have the perspective to suggest you know what’s best when it comes to social change. In the American system, you are extremely well off. As according to Mitchel, change should start from a vision for how the world ought to be, not simply gratitude for our current system. Especially when our current system is flawed.
    I don’t mean to assume, but statistically you just don’t have the same background as American poor. Without this you can’t realize those people stuck within the bottom socioeconomic rung of the ladder have little chance of moving up.  Public schools in troubled areas barely graduate their students, let alone prepare them for continued education. Drop outs struggle at a barely livable minimum wage job hardly earning enough to live, let alone move up in social class. One way this system could be fixed is taxes, which could go towards making a more effective education system, or increase welfare for those with minimum wage jobs so they may have a chance of escaping their chains of poverty.
    We can’t cut taxes when so much more money is necessary to support our fellow Americans. There are people who make nine digit salaries while there are those who barely make five, and those are lucky to have a job. I challenge you to look beyond your current perspective and regard your moral obligation to those people. You did work for the money you earned, but should feel a pride in knowing you are helping those who are struggling by paying taxes. Step outside your current opinions and look at the other side. Be aware of the implications of your actions for everyone, beyond your own personal wants to those all around.
Hope you take this well. I mean the best, really.
                                   
Most Sincerely, Michael Enich

MORE Design!?

So after working on my intro to theater design project until pub safe kicked me out of the theater at 1, and then waking up at 9 and heading straight over there and working until class' beginning at 12:45 I think it's fair to say that I've had more than enough aspects of deisgn for one day.

Buuut of course, we just happen to start our section on architecture.
It's ok, I'll make the best of it. I can cross reference information from both sources!

In design we talked a lot about the visual aspects of architectural time periods so if I were to create a set for, let's say, a play set in rococo period I would be able to capture the essense of that imagery. There's an intersting contast between only capturing the visual information and incorporating that art form into functionality. An arch may look great on stage, but in real life it also is fantastic at supporting weight.

I was intrigued by the description of Holland Hall. All the terms I read in my design book came to life. It is a real piece that does more than just symbolize something, it serves as a functional space. The details add nuances that reflect the educational atmosphere while still standing up, letting in loads of light and displaying the nature of the college. It's real life!

Swirling Thoughts

I just want to say I totally called the reference Zinn made to Locke philosophy, particularly on its dis concern for those who didn't have property to begin with.

Considering the hour, (which is punny because I'm up late after working on The Houre Which We Knew Nothing of Eachother) my thoughts are all over the place. But I'm going to try and pull something together, particularly in refference to a point brought up in class on Friday. We spent a lot of time talking about the dual nature of the declaration of independence as a list of grievences against a figurehead king as well as a list of reminders to those already living in America. I support this idea and it makes sense, but there is some subtle contrast and support between our Amcon opinion, that of Williams and that of Zinn.

First off, William emphasizes the use of pronouns in the declaration. Jefferson begins by speaking in broad humanistic truths of freedom and shifts into "He" attacking the King and "We" to speak to the responsibilities of Americans. Jefferson is approaching all the angles; he wants to appeal to a general philosophical audience, wants to eloquently list the grievances to the king and wants to rally Americans to a cause. His pronoun usage supports this, so I suppose there is less contrast between his rhetoric and our general opinion than I thought.

Zinn has a slightly different opinion. He seems to suggest that the early Americans were already itchin' for a revolution. They needed no reminding, and this document was only an official display from the aristocracy to the Royal Government as a list of grievances and really nothing else. It's debatable whether or not they actually expected to go toward after this or if they just expected to be comfortably reinstated as full English citizens. A full independence in the hands of an angry people lead to democracy, a scary thought to those holding power in an area full of uneducated fools.

Importance of Words

I know this is a commonly approached topic, but I'm going to bring it up anyway. Within the context of the declaration of Independence the early Americans assert their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.", an interesting contrast to the philosophy of Locke that it's based off of, "Life liberty and the pursuit of property.". From what I can recall life believed that a government's role was to do nothing but assure these rights and to keep a military to protect against violence. First off, it's interesting the founding fathers used this philosophy to start a country with an extremely complex governmental system reaching far beyond what Locke believed was necessary. What I wish to focus on is the change in words from property to happiness. There's a fundamental truth our founding fathers are getting at. I don't know if I fully understand the nuances of the change, but this alteration suggests that even those who aren't wealthy should have access to the same rights and freedoms those who aren't do. It's not about aquiring more valuables, but having the necessary freedom to discover who you are, be content and fearless in your life and to have access to what you need.

It's a constant challenge to make sure we are true to what our country's founding ideals are.

Motivationless

This week has been a constant struggle to gather the motivation to do absolutely anything. Which is pretty bad, considering it's the most difficult part of the semester. It doesn't help that next week I'll have at least two days a week that begin at 10:45 and go until 9, then I start homework. That'll be interesting. I've just reached a point in my life where everything is so up in the air and I'm just so confused about what's going on for the future, though this it's not necessary to know at this time.

I'm just going to sit down with my copy of Harry Potter and let my mind rest a little bit. Then I think I'll be ok.

"I never worked harder in my life."

"I never worked harder in my life." said Joshua Wyeth, who published one of the first participant accounts of the Boston Tea Party. "I never worked harder in my life." This phrase really stuck out to me. Out of the entire article, this is what I pulled out.

Revolution's not easy, and it's execution laid in the hands of the people who dumped that tea. It's people that make change, not figureheads or ideas existing on their own. Holton goes through the details of the individual people and how they made their impact. Every action in moving towards the goal of revolution is important. If the populous as a whole wasn't totally engaged in freedom, the revolution would not have happened.

The first example that comes into my head is the argument against vegetarianism. I'm not a vegetarian, but a common argument against it is "Well they're still going to kill the cows even if you don't eat them." That's true, but if more and more people become vegetarian the demmand for cow will go down, and thus less cows will be killed.

See the parallels? Not quite? Let me explain.

One person stands up for a certain cause. Bystander says "You're crazy, you don't have enough followers to do what you're trying to do!". But how will one get followers without speaking out?