Dear Mr. Douglass,

Dear Mr. Douglass,

            Mr. Douglass, I’m not quite sure where to begin. I’m honored that you may be in correspondence with you. I, coming from the year 2010, am very aware of the impact your autobiography and general rhetoric has had on America, specifically on the issue of slavery. I would like to congratulate you on your freedom, and praise your honorable willpower and strength.

            Given this occasion, sir, it is your freedom that I wish to discuss with you. While I believe everyone has a general understanding of what “freedom” is, I fear not much time is spent intricately analyzing the its subtle nuances. If we only consider it to be the absence of forced bondage, than technically indentured servants are free. There is a deeper meaning necessary to understand before we participate in any great undertakings. Knowing this meaning will allow us to be accurate in our actions ensuring freedom for all.

            To me, freedom can be simply stated (though that does not make it simple to understand). Freedom is the ability to be who you believe you are intended to be. In essence, every person should be able to mold themselves into the best version of themselves. This broad definition isn’t of much use in your current context though. Technically, by my definition, you were “free” as a slave because you were able to free yourself. Therefore, I have a qualifier for my definition. Government’s role is to promote self-actualization; it not to enslave people by any means, whether it be literally, financially or socially. The government should provide ample opportunities for self-discovery.

            I am aware that the Emancipation Proclamation was recently created. It’s an important step in the right direction, but we both are aware that it is hardly adequate in ensuring freedom. The great irony is that Lincoln has no power to physically free the slaves it refers to. It also has no impact on slaves in the Border States.

            It is easy to view this as a failure simply because it is not the all-encompassing bill ensuring freedom for your people. But it is still a step in the right direction! Now the US is expected to ensure freedom for all people. This represents Lincoln’s devotion to freedom. With him in office there will be more steps in the right direction, and presidents after him will continue walking down that path. But even by my time I’m sorry to say we are far from perfect equality in liberty. But I digress…

            There have been people in our country’s history who have accurately represented my image of freedom. For example, Anne Hutchinson, who advocated for female religious freedom in her Puritan community. In exercising her freedom she chose to be in communication with God. According to Marilyn Westerkamp (a modern scholar), there were two apposing religious ideologies: the covenant of works, supported by the governor John Winthrop, and the covenant of Grace, which she supported. The covenant of works suggested that based on a person’s actions, they could tell whether they were predestined for heaven or hell. The Covenant of grace believed one would know based on personal interactions with God. She saw herself just as much in communication with the divine as any man, and taught other women to be just as open. The patriarchal society did not support this, however. John Winthrop brought her to trial and had her exiled for her beliefs, because they ran contrary to his and because she was a woman. Her society did not allow her to exercise her freedom and to pursue what she believed was her best self- a woman in relationship with God. This an example of a government not fulfilling it’s role in ensuring freedom.

            Later on in history, another tried to better himself. Benjamin Franklin is known, among other things, for his obsessive attention to his virtues. Pages 63-67 of his autobiography detail the virtues he deemed important, while also explaining how he would “… mark, by a little black spot, every fault [he] found upon examination to have been committed respecting that virtue upon that day.”. He was exercising his freedom to become a perfect individual. He was choosing to be the most virtuous person, attempting to be the best individual he could be. However, because he was a white male society was built in his favor, and he had enough material goods to ensure the time philosophize about being a virtuous person.

            A fellow student of mine named Athena took a better look at Benjamin Franklin’s life. In her thoughts she referenced the fact that he did not do a very good job of living the values he claimed to follow. In his autobiography there is a conflicting tone of arrogance against his aspiration to be humble. Perhaps he is not the figure we all thought he was. But he still exercised his freedom, even if he was not perfect in his attempts. And Athena was right to say he symbolizes “Americanism” though success and self worth. In exercising his freedom he created a life for himself. He became his best person; because of his success he was able to pursue loftier ideals.

            To a certain extent, material goods are necessary to pursue freedom. You must have food, water, shelter and clothing. Your possessions should be enough to satisfy your basic needs. Excess is unnecessary and dearth is demeaning. In your narrative you talk about clothing, and how humiliating only have one set of clothes is. There is a modern philosopher of sorts named Abraham Maslow who asserts that there is a greater pyramid of needs. At the bottom are physiological and safety needs, both of which are tightly linked with material goods. At the top is self-actualization, which is what freedom should be used to pursue. Beyond basic comfort and safety needs, I believe material goods are irrelevant to one’s ability to pursue freedom. I’ve already discussed how Franklin was economically comfortable enough to do so. Anne Hutchinson lived in a stark, minimalist Puritan society and was able to pursue it. Even you, sir, were able to move up with the extremely minimal comforts you possessed. Beyond basic safety and physiological needs I will stress again; materials are irrelevant!

            If I may speak to my own personal life for a moment, sir. I’m attending a college called St. Olaf. Its mission statement says the college, “In the conviction that life is more than a livelihood, it focuses on what is ultimately worthwhile and fosters the development of the whole person in mind, body, and spirit.” It’s this attitude toward the development of the whole person that allows me to pursue self-actualization. In specific, I appreciate Hoyme Hall, where I currently reside. In this environment students foster a sense of independence, build relationships with a diverse population and simply exist in the context of others. I learn about myself and make decisions that I believe will allow me to grow into the person I want to become in the future; here I am choosing who I want to be.

            Thank you once again for you time Mr. Douglass. I truly do appreciate you listening to any input I have in the matter. Though I may know the outcome of your future, don’t let it bother you. You have done wonderful work already and are bound to do more.  I hope the best for you and your goals.

Most Sincerely,  

Michael Enich

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!