The Power of Speech

Speech contains a great deal of power. It can be intelligent and informative, but more often then not it takes on an unavoidably emotional connotation. From the kind words of a lover, to the honoring of the departed at their funeral, and to the demagogue who whips up his people into a fervor, and even to the speech teacher who makes his students fall asleep from boredom: speech is a powerful thing. After all, speech is one of the reasons why humans have come to dominate the globe. Effective communication is necessary, and so far we are the only species that is capable of more than just simple vocalizations. Through the complexities of speech, we are able to attach so many more meanings to our words, and communicate more than just basic emotions. We are unique for this ability (that we know of, but I think those damn dolphins are plotting something!)

While I have witnessed many instances of the power of speech before, none stick out in my mind so much as the time I went to the choir regional competition. Early in the morning -on a weekend no less- I had to drag myself out of bed and drive through a torrent of snow and ice. Somehow avoiding death, I managed to make it to the neighboring school district where the competition was being held. Now, I can’t say I was nervous at first. In fact, I was too tired to be. However, as the moments ticked down I realized how woefully little time to get oriented I really had. Before I knew it, I was shoved into a room. One short practice session later, and it was time for the real deal. This was to be my first solo performance in front of an actual judge.

In stepped an elderly man. His eyes held scrutiny. His face war a scowl. It was the stuff of nightmares for me. Although I was already apprehensive, somehow the presence of the judge made this all the more difficult.

Now, here’s how I know I’d be dead in a dangerous situation. When that man walked in, I was paralyzed. Somehow, my natural fight or flight response had simply failed me. All simple decision making evaporated from my brain. I was like a stale coke that had been out in the sun all day. Even my breathing lapsed, as though I had forgotten how. For what felt like an eternity I waited while the judge sifted through papers, eyeglasses gently resting on the tip of his nose.

I don’t think I had ever known pressure before. I always coasted through school with good grades. I always matched expectations. I had set very low standards for myself in many ways. I have come to realize that I was shaken not because of what the judge might think, or what my instructor might think, or what my mother might think. It was myself that I was afraid to fail. For the first time that I can genuinely think of, I had a goal for myself. I wanted something from myself. I knew that I had to do this. I was not going to mess it up.

Normally this is the part in the movie where the protagonist goes all Whiplash on you and gives an amazing performance. Unfortunately, I lack the good fortune to be Miles Teller. I stumbled over my words. I had the stop the performance once or twice to catch my bearings. I couldn’t remember the lyrics, yet they spewed forth from my mouth like some kind of glossolalia. By its end, I didn’t know what to feel.

The old man looked up from his paper. He had been scribbling things throughout the whole performance with hardly an utterance. I expected the worst.

“That was excellent.”

I was honestly taken aback by the compliment. I thought I had done horribly and that this was some kind of screwed up joke at my expense. Yet the old judge was sincere in his word.

“I know how it is. I stood where you are now. I was also nervous and tripping over my words, but after the first time, it gets easier. You learn to be confident in your abilities.”

The judge began to impart words of wisdom to me. He told me that I had an amazing voice and that I was quite talented, and that if I put in the effort I could really excel. He said he saw so much of himself in I, a nervous young boy on his first performance. Ultimately, he told me to stick with it, to keep trying, and each time I tried I would get better.

And then he gave me a gold pin.

Now, I’m not trying to sound like a superstar. This was Northwest Indiana High School Choir Regionals, not The Voice. There was no record deal at the end of things and not much prestige beyond the minor praise I received from my peers. And honestly, looking back on it, the judge’s revelation doesn’t seem so astonishing. He basically told me what I had been hearing for years about success. I needed to try, and keep trying despite failures or hang-ups. I needed to believe in myself. All of these things are said to us countless times as children, to the point where they lose their effect. We honestly learn to tune them out, I think. But this time, I listened to the judge. I finally understood what people meant when they said try.

That judge held power in those words. While I may have disappointed the old man by not pursuing choir further, I don’t think his words reflected such a narrow scope. This wasn’t about singing well, this was about believing in myself. This was about giving myself value. For most of my life, I had berated myself and expected so little from myself. I hadn’t ever respected myself; not once in my life. That day, I learned how to respect who I am, and that has improved my life immensely.

That judge had powerful words.

The Future

For context, this unit asked me to write a graduation speech.

“The future is scary.

I see a room full of emotion on this day. A room full of elation, full of anxiety, and full of fear. Like the arrival of Ulysses on Ithaca, we have arrived at the end of a great journey. For some, it was a tribulation of great difficulty, while for others it was a time of joy and discovery, but for all, it was a time of introspection. Through these halls have passed many a student, young, bright, and turning their heads towards the future. Yet there is also a necessity to look back. You see, college is not a reshaping of the person, but an unlocking of the door. Here in these halls, you finally see what your purpose is. You find out who you are, who you want to be, and who you must be. For some, that path is obvious, and for others it is hazy and vague, but it is the path that we must travel, and on it we must use the insight we gained here.

Even for the most assured in this room, there is a great deal of worry. Even when the path is clear, you can never be sure that you won’t stray from it. Today you might have plans. Today you might have dreams. Today, the future is sprawled out before you. But tomorrow, that may all change. Tomorrow, that job you had lined up might not fall through, or that roommate you might move in with suddenly calls it all off.

Tomorrow is scary.

And that is why you are here.

Those of you that sit in this room have demonstrated one thing about yourselves; fear only has as much meaning as you give it. In your time here you learned things about the world and yourself, but most importantly, you recognized one thing that deep down, you always knew; there really isn’t anything to be afraid of. When challenge arises, you can’t balk in fear. Instead, you confront it, and you beat it. You tackle it head on. You will surmount tomorrow.

So now I say, to the graduating class of 2020, that truly the only thing you have to fear is fear itself, for there is no challenge you cannot complete. You survived four years of this, that much is true. You will never be more prepared for tomorrow, not in your entire life. So go out there and seize tomorrow! Challenge it! Beat it! The future is yours to make.”

The Windy City

Chicago is not an esteemed city, but a spirited one. It lacks the grand history of Boston, the pure symbolism of New York, the cosmopolitan heart of Los Angeles, for it is not a clean city, nor a proud city, but a city of grit, of ingenuity, and of perseverance. From its very inception as a mere village in a swamp, Chicago has demonstrated how great feats rise from nothing. On this ground was built a city, a city not of pure gleaming spires and high ideals, but of men and women whose beliefs were held close to the muddy earth. On this ground dwells toil, and sweat, and tears, and blood, and violence, and love, and honesty, and treachery. A place that embraces all and rejects none. A place without pretense.

Chicago is a city of character, built by characters and for characters. From hard working immigrants, to slick mobsters, to tycoons and sportsmen, artists and performers; Chicago is home to all. On its streets man has walked not as an idealized form, but as a pure form. While it may seem an odd sort of reverence to hold a city high by its lack of prestige, it is this defining trait by which Chicagoans live. It will never be a city of natural beauty, nor a city of cosmopolitan ideals. It will never be renowned, but for its practicality. Chicago is known by its hardship, and it is a testament to how hardship creates character. It is a city without entitlement, born only of toil in an unforgiving land.

And above all, Chicago is a city of success. From that land sprang up her towers upon the shores of Lake Michigan. To that land moved many immigrants seeking fortunes. In that land dwells the true spirit of America. It does not reside on the idyllic coasts of California, nor in the streets of New York. It resides within the city that does not balk at challenge and does not accept defeat. It resides in the city of triumph.

“Don’t Tread On Me”

Being a Hoosier, I have become acquainted with the backsides of numerous automobiles driving across the state. In our rural environment there is quite a bit of driving, and naturally people feel the need to express themselves through their automobiles, with which they will spend a great deal of time. While some folks are satisfied with just the look of their car, others must be more… communicative of their beliefs. Enter the bumper sticker.

The most common bumper sticker that I have run across outside of college campuses (which have their own variety of bumper stickers) is the famous “Don’t Tread on Me”. This ancient colonial symbol held a very specific meaning when it was first envisioned. Benjamin Franklin had published the famous political cartoon “Join, or Die” which depicted a snake separated into segments, which each segment representing one of the states. Therefore, the wholly assembled snake was sending a message to the British; while the individual states may be weak, together they were strong.

This deliberate meaning has since been supplanted by a new one. The snake is now a representation of the American right, objecting to control and overreach by the federal government. The irony of this is how it disregards the original message of the snake. Franklin’s “Join, or Die” depicted America as fractured and needing some manner of cooperation and centralization to oppose the British. Now that centralized system is challenged with the very icon that spawned it.

The basic concept of this 180 was simple: the American right viewed the snake as a symbol of freedom resisting tyranny. In some cases, it espouses libertarian beliefs in a small government that stays out of the affairs of the people. In other instances, it is used as a symbol for gun owners, who will “rise up and strike” like a rattlesnake if prodded. However, without this is without the context of the original picture, which contradicts those ideas.

And that is pretty funny to me.

This I Believe

One set of convictions that I ascribe to dearly is that of egalitarianism. I strongly believe in the right of all human beings to live a life of equal opportunity, and that this should be the end goal of humanity’s progress. While many pay lip service to the idea of egalitarianism, there are a frightening number of people in this country with an “I’ve got mine” attitude, who are simply unafraid to allow others to suffer for their own gain. I have dwelled on this topic a lot as of late, especially as I picked up Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle for the first time.

As an egalitarian, the first and strongest conviction I hold is that everybody should be entitled to the same opportunities. Whether or not they take these opportunities is entirely up to them, but it is the duty of the collective to provide said opportunities for every one of its members. While this can be difficult to achieve, and it may require some sacrifice on the part of the individual, it is ultimately the end goal -the sort of stasis- that egalitarianism is marching towards.

The second tenant of this belief is altruism, which is the necessity to do right by others for no gain (or perhaps even some loss) of your own. Altruism has been espoused throughout history by many major figures, and is a core component of most major religions, yet how it is practiced, and to what degree, is often up for debate. I believe that any action that can be taken to benefit somebody else with no expense to the self should be taken in every instance, and that actions in which someone else benefits while the self suffers can be taken, but only to a certain degree. To donate $5 to a homeless individual is a good act of altruism, but to donate your entire house goes above and beyond and can even be harmful, because it impedes the ability of the self to practice altruism in the future. It is hard to give when you have nothing, so therefore you cannot give everything, or you will not longer have anything to give.

That brings me to my next tenant: liberty. Many people believe liberty and egalitarianism to be mutually exclusive, but this is not the case. Even the motto of the French Republic, “Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood”, disregards that exclusivity. In truth, liberty is a basic part of egalitarianism. The goal of egalitarianism is to improve conditions for the entire collective. Liberty is one way of doing this. By insuring certain rights to all individuals, you can strengthen the collective. Things such as free speech are beneficial to the collective as a whole, and so they can be practiced alongside egalitarianism.

Another tenant that is often viewed as contradictory is freedom. Many believe that egalitarianism, and the political models that follow it, require the relinquishment of certain rights to benefit the collective, but the simple truth is, that which harms the individual often harms the collective, and that which benefits the individual often benefits the collective. Freedom of choice, when extended to all parties, is almost essential to a proper understanding of egalitarianism. A good example of this is with universities. As an egalitarian, I believe higher education should be a choice made by the individual, not forced upon them. It is a choice that will be provided to every single individual, but going back to tenant #1, it is still up to the individual to choose to take that opportunity. It should never be out of reach for the individual, nor do I believe it should cost one individual more than another. Only then can we consider the choice to be truly free.

The driving force of egalitarianism is empathy, which is the central emotion of the belief. I always found it strange that being called a “bleeding heart” was an insult in America. How dare somebody care about the lives of others! It seems entirely irrational to eschew empathy from one’s life. After all, it is the main emotion that separates human beings from mere beasts. A lion feels no remorse for its prey, and generally only thinks about itself and its own survival. Empathy seeks to rectify this by allowing us to understand the plight of others.

The final tenant is that of tolerance. Quite simply, egalitarianism cannot co-exist with bigotry and prejudice. One must learn to be tolerant of others, and to be understanding of their position. If a man commits a heinous act, the primary response should not be vengeance, but understanding. One must find out what drove the man to such an act, what qualities in life and what position preceded such an event, and then seek to resolve them and improve upon them. Human beings, at their core, are selfish. It is an innate survival technique. Things such as altruism only harm the individual’s chances of survival in the natural environment, so instead nature makes man inclined to selfishness. This must be remembered, always, if one wants to understand how to move beyond it. Egalitarianism is about moving beyond our innate desire for selfishness and learning to see others are human beings who are equally deserving of a good life.

This I believe.

A History of Violence

The subject of violence in media has been a troubling one for many decades (or possibly centuries). Many have argued that violence in the media influences violent tendencies in individuals and encourages this kind of behavior in real life. It makes sense, right? Whatever the media portrays as “cool” has a tendency to manifest itself in reality as well. Just look how prolific smoking became in the early 1900s.

Except, as with the smoking argument, the problems arise when you examine this topic in detail. The moral guardians have been trying for decades to regulate the debauchery of movies and games. One piece of media that drew the ire of the public was Grand Theft Auto, which was attacked for its graphic depictions of unwarranted violence and sexuality. Grand Theft Auto is actually a pertinent example of why this argument is flawed, because moral guardians like Jack Thompson (perhaps the most outspoken critic of the series) fail to realize that Grand Theft Auto is not the cause of the debauchery, but merely the effect.

To put it in different terms, Grand Theft Auto is a satire of our own world, and its depictions of violence, sex, drugs, and other illicit activities are not meant to inspire them in real life, but to mimic the problems already present in our world in a twisted satire of it. Grand Theft Auto takes our world’s problems to the extreme to show the audience the absurdity of reality, not to inspire its players to change reality.

It’s similar to, say, trying to censor sexual acts in film. Blaming the films is a terrible way to go about it, because sex doesn’t simply end up in a movie for no reason. It is there to satisfy a demand from the audience. It is simple economics, really. If there is a want for sex, then people will put sex in their movies to make them sell more. Censoring it won’t quell that desire; in fact, it might simply increase it due to the “forbidden fruit” aspect adding allure. The problem therein lies with the audience, not with the medium, so if there is a problem with violence in video games and movies, one shouldn’t blame the games and movies for satisfying the  desires of the audience, but instead look at the audience and question why these things are desired in the first place.

Furthermore, the other obvious conclusion is that, while movies and video games might depict realistic violence, even in a positive light, there is still a dissociation with it because the audience knows that it is fake and consequence free. The audience needn’t feel empathy for the pixels on their screen because they aren’t real people really suffering. However, in real life, with flesh-and-blood organic people, humans tend to have this curious expression called “empathy” that might dumbfound folks like Jack Thompson. It is simply far more difficult to kill somebody in real life than it is in a video game, because empathy stops it from happening. And since, as I already established, violence in video games is merely the end-result of satisfying an audience’s desires, we can then conclude that the fault for violence that is committed in real life lies solely with the individual who perpetrated it. In this scenario, the disturbed individual who was capable of overriding their empathy and committing a violent act without inhibition was likely to do so without the input of a video game or movie, as this is a sign of far deeper psychological troubles.

So, in short, the idea that video games and movies cause violence by portraying it is, as the old saying goes, putting the cart before the horse. It is shooting the messenger in a way, as video games and movies are only satisfying desires that already exist in the audience, and censoring them or blaming them won’t make those desires disappear.

A Sign of the Times

2016 has been a crazy year. Between the election, the celebrity deaths, and the Cubs going to the World series, it wouldn’t be surprised if tomorrow’s headline read “Cats and Dogs Living Together”. It really has been quite a year, but nothing exemplifies this craziness as much as Brexit.

Look, I’m an American, so I can’t say for sure what the motivations behind Brexit were. What I can tell you, however, is that those reasons were pretty meaningless. What matters is that the repercussions of Brexit have been measurably bad.

So I’m going to extrapolate from Brexit to show just how the world has changed this year, and in my argument, it hasn’t changed for the better.

The first crack Brexit shows in the rise of nationalism. No matter what the intentions of “Leave” voters, most of them do find some reason in nationalism. Whether it was a memory of a bygone era where Britain mastered her own destiny, a desire to pursue independent policy without the shackles of a foreign power on Britain, or good old-fashioned anti-immigrant scares, all of them are rooted in nationalism to some degree. We can see this trend advancing in other countries, with the nationalist parties governing Poland, Macedonia, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Latvia, Norway, and Slovakia, as well as gaining power in France, the UK, Sweden, Austria, and Hungary (with nationalists movements in Germany, Italy, and Spain being pretty stagnant for obvious reasons *cough* World War Two *cough*). I consider this trend very alarming, considering the bloody and brutal history that nationalism has as a movement. Let us remember that the two largest wars in history, World War One and World War Two, were both caused by nationalism. The movements are gaining for the same reason “Leave” was gaining: the refugee crisis in Europe is pushing many countries to the brink. The fear, partly of Eastern European immigrants but mostly of Muslim refugees, is really taking hold. Even in America we can see it, with anti-immigrant and decidedly anti-Muslim rhetoric being tossed around this election cycle. It is pretty evident that nationalism is going through a rebirth in the West. If we look at the historical trends, this tends to happen. Nationalism flares up, a big war starts, then nationalism is derided for a few decades before people forget the horrors of war and fall back on it.

Secondly, Brexit implies a great economic uncertainty in the population. Both Leave and Remain voters were worried about the economy, but they sought different ways to protect it. Remain voters desired the free trade agreements that come with being an EU member, while Leave voters saw the restrictions and regulations imposed by the EU as unfair and driving away potential business. However, judging by the economic downturn caused by Brexit, it is likely that the Remain voters were right in this case, but we will see. It does point to lingering worries from the Great Recession, in any case. Those worries haven’t manifested in the US as hard as in Britain just yet, but other European countries are definitely feeling the heat ever since the debacle in Greece. The problems in Greece no doubt worried the Brits, as they worried all Europeans. It demonstrated for the first time that the European Union was not infallible, and it also demonstrated just how dependent on Germany most of it is.

Finally, Brexit demonstrates that people are upset with the status quo. I believe this comes from a long period of relative peace. Sure, older people love to prattle on about how scary the Cold War was, but outside of Vietnam and Korea, there was very little actual war going on. Compared to the first half of the 20th century, the Cold War was nothing. Furthermore, we live in an age of such excess and technological advancement that few people in Western countries are left wanting for anything. Most people argue that when times are good, it encourages complacency, but I believe it has little bearing on how people view the status quo. You see, before the Nazis took over in 1933, Germany was actually recovering economically from its massive post-war downturn. Things were getting better, yet the people believed things were getting worse. Ultimately, that belief led to the meteoric rise of the Nazis. I’m not saying those discontented with the status quo are Nazis, mind you, I am merely stating that belief can and will override reality, especially in a time like this where we can lock ourselves inside and operate mostly on the computer or watching TV.

So yes, Brexit is a sign of the times. I believe it represents a massive, sweeping change that is going to occur in the next few years. Whatever happens, I don’t think the status quo shall remain the status quo much longer.

 

Why Family Get Togethers Can Be Tough

So my family is rather unique in a few ways, but perhaps the one that differentiates us most from other families I’ve met is our use of language. You see, most families don’t really use “foul-mouthed” language, nor do they discuss topics like sexuality outside of a really serious tone. I find this to be quite disheartening really. I believe you should speak to your parents in much the same way that you speak to your friends (unless you treat your friends like dirt, in which case, don’t). After all, the mark of good parenting is, in my opinion, when you can consider your parents friends instead of just authority figures. Ultimately, there is no such thing as “dinner table language” at my house. My family talks about everything. We discuss politics and often make raunchy jokes (my dad gets a real hoot out of this). To me, that is normal. To many others, that is, well, creepy. It is no surprise then that when we have other families over, the discussions change.

Every year, we have a family reunion for my paternal aunts and uncles. It is a very different atmosphere. Sure, it is quite jovial, but in a more “family friendly” way. Barring just the fact that younger kids are present, there’s also the fact that a good deal of my father’s side is very religious and conservative, where as my family is not. (As an aside, it is funny because my paternal grandfather is actually very liberal, so I guess the apple catapulted away from the tree in this case). I am especially unfaithful. I don’t believe in any particular “higher power” and I don’t really care to believe in any either. Often times, then, my language contains very un-Christian elements. I no doubt upset some of my family members when I threw out even a simple “God dang it”, let alone a classic “Jesus Fucking Christ!”. I felt particularly bad once though when my Aunt Jill had been talking to my grandpa about how she was tired of people saying “God dang it”, and the very next time we were together it slipped out. Back then, before I started using expletives as commonly as I do now, “God dang it” was my most frequently used expression. My Aunt Jill was, of course, a very devout woman, but she was also very polite. She never did correct me on that behavior, but I doubt she approved.

On my mother’s side, things are a bit different. We don’t have routine get togethers, but I do visit my aunts and uncles. Some of her brothers are very devout, like my Uncle Gary. Her parents were both pretty strict Christians, so one would expect their children to share some of those sensibilities, but really my Uncle Gary (and yes, Uncle is capitalized. It’s basically a part of his name now.) was the only sibling who followed the same path. The others vary, but almost all of them go to church and such. The most free-speaking of her brothers is probably my uncle Jeff or my uncle Tim. Uncle Tim definitely has a sailor’s mouth, but he was always more strict on what his children could or couldn’t say, where as my uncle Jeff basically gave up trying to regulate those notions (similarly to my parents; I couldn’t swear when I was little but now I do pretty casually, and they just accept it, probably out of fatigue). My uncle Neil and my uncle Jimmy don’t really talk like that, however, unless they are around their other brothers. Since my mother was the little sister to all five boys, most of them became accustomed to talking in more Christian tones around her, lest Grandma Robbie Jean give them a whooping (truly different times, those were). Needless to say, getting that eclectic bunch together can result in all sorts of hay-wire. It’s always a good time though.

However, my biggest “oh shit” moment was probably younger into my youth. We had all of my mom’s side over for a picnic of their own, which we didn’t do often. Anyways, when I was younger, the insult/expletive “retarded” was making rounds through middle schools across America. It became a very common phrase to be heard in the hallways, and of course it really stuck with me. Something about the word just sounded, I dunno, funny? I ended up using it pretty often, but my mother always reminded me not to say it around my aunts and uncles because one of my cousins, Josh, is mentally handicapped.

Now I never meant any ill-will to him in the first place by saying it. It was just a catchy term for people you disliked. However, at the picnic, I called something “retarded” and a hush fell over the table. I awkwardly apologized, but by that point most people were just trying to ignore it. I didn’t have a feeling of guilt necessarily. To me, it was just a word and not worthy of being deemed so painful. I did have guilt, perhaps, on an interpersonal level. I was more worried about what the rest of my family thought about me after saying that comment than I was about the feelings of others, which is selfish, but also what you’d expect from a middle school-aged boy.

In general, I am socially awkward. I tend to say inappropriate things that to me are funny, but to others are offensive. I don’t mean any harm with my words, but I often forget the environment I am in or I misjudge the character of whom I am speaking too. Sometimes I say things that are meant to be funny, and they come out hurtful. I just lack that level of intuition to know what to say and whom to say it to.

The Fortress of the Mind

2016 has brought out the ugly side of America in many ways, but perhaps the most telling is in divisiveness. It is hardly a new trend; our ancestors were at each others throats not long after the founding of the nation, and later during the build-up to the American Civil War. However, knowing what events occurred afterwards does make this divisiveness a bad portend of things to come.

I wrote an earlier post on the values of compromise, and in some ways it is relevant here. Ultimately, the division in the electorate has a few sources. Namely, the borderline monopolization of the media (especially on the political right, in which you basically just have Breitbart and Fox News) has left the American voters uninformed. Politicians use and abuse this ignorance on both sides, having little reason to push beyond the status quo and fight for an educated populace.

The greatest cause of this divisiveness, though, cannot be blamed on the media, but squarely on the parties themselves. Namely, the idea that society and culture should be government issues. Both parties have campaigned on a mostly social platform, where as before the divisions in the government mainly pertained to policy making and economic intervention (or a lack thereof). Social behaviors and ideals are very, very well ingrained into a person though, so naturally a focus on such issues would cause division in the electorate.

That’s mainly what I want to talk about though; how social issues are so ingrained in people.

First off, let me say this: nostalgia is a very powerful thing. It goes hand in hand with tradition of being a hallmark of ignorance. People yearn for the past, which they always exemplify as a time in which all their problems were solved. Few people rarely look at their current standing in the world and decide they’d rather leave the past behind, and fewer still embrace the future.

I still believe the best way to know if someone is close-minded or ignorant is to ask them existential questions. Contemplate unknowns, such as the vastness of the universe, the concept of alternate dimensions or other universes, without straying too much towards things like religion. If the person in question reacts positively, then they are open-minded. If they react negatively, then they are close-minded.

What separates people like academics, philosophers, and intellectuals from the rest is a desire to understand the unknown. The common person, as H.P. Lovecraft once said, deeply fears the unknown. What cannot be easily understood is therefore threatening. It is an innate social behavior activated in us, as our very ancient ancestors couldn’t possibly know what was beyond the next hill or what the properties of a new rock or plant were. However, those who led the charge over the next hill were the outliers, not the commoners. Such people saw opportunity in the unknown and desired to explore. These early adventurers are the primary reason that we, as a species, cover all 7 continents (if you count our Antarctic bases) and are the most successful species on the planet. These brave intellectuals didn’t fear the unknown, but looked on it with excitement. They wanted to make the unknown… known.

Another angle to look at it with is religion vs. science. Despite the attempts of, say, the Catholic Church to mend the two, to any casual observer it is clear that there is a conflict between science and religion/belief/superstition. Religion was the common man’s way of “filling in the gaps” so to speak. It helped our ancestors understand and grasp the unknown, as at the time science was in its infancy. Now, however, science is started to outpace religion, and it is providing us with answers. Religion still plays a role, especially in more philosophic questions that cannot be answered through the methodical march of science. Things like “why are we here?” or “why does the universe exist?” are in part still addressed by religion when science fails to provide an adequate answer. After all, science is great at displaying what, but not always why. However, on many issues religion and science have squared off. Creationism vs. evolution, natural behaviors vs. religious doctrine, e.t.c. In this case -dare I say it- it becomes easy to measure a mind based on their preferred side. Intellectuals almost always favor science (to disregard science is to not be an intellectual, really), where as the ignorant find refuge in religion, superstition, or tradition.

The reason why these unshaken beliefs are bad, in my opinion, is that it locks people out of very important skills. Critical thinking requires an open-mind to truly be effective. For someone to religiously follow the dogma of a church or political party unquestioningly means that said person is not being critical, and thus is not thinking to the best of their capacity. In some cases, this can lead to disaster. Climate change is having a measurable effect on our world today, yet many people are still denying anthropological climate change because it violates their firmly held beliefs and convictions. Another example is crime. It is the belief  of many Americans that crime rates are increasing, yet the FBI has shown that they are steadily decreasing since the 90s. This paints a false image of the world, and thus it is erroneous to make decisions based on a false narrative.

To bring this back to the politics I started with, it is clear that the two parties have different worldviews. This has come up because of these artificial barriers people place on their knowledge capacity. They don’t want to learn, because learning information shatters their worldview and their narrative. It is an old tactic, but one that has been endemic to the species. It is only the explorers, visionaries, inventors, and thinkers who truly prosper. They are the folks who reject the notion of a scary monster being over the next hill. They lead the charge into new lands. In many ways, I believe the open-minded are the guiding hand of civilization, while ignorance represents the complacency of anarchy.

In essence, ignorance is bad, being open-minded is good. Keep yourself informed, and don’t block out information because it doesn’t suit your narrative. Remember; you do not control the world. You are merely an actor on a stage, as Shakespeare said. You have a part to play, but you can’t write the whole damn show.

Why are Videogame Movies Bad?

It’s no secret that videogame movies are generally terrible. From the painful Wing Commander, to the laughable Resident Evil, to the straight up bizarre Super Mario Bros. Movie, videogame movies have quite a reputation. Even the decent ones end up being forgettable, such as this year’s Warcraft and Ratchet & Clank movies. So, why is it that these movies are so poorly received? Are all movie critics just stuck up snobs with no respect for other mediums? Are gamers drooling Mongoloids who accept stupid plots in their games? Are my un-nuanced strawman sentences starting to bug you yet? Yes? Okay, then let’s get into it.

The problem is quite simple; games don’t translate well into film because the mediums are very different. Games are classified as active entertainment, meaning the audience has to directly participate not just to influence the game, but to continue it. Movies, meanwhile, are considered passive entertainment. They don’t require any input from the audience. So then, what makes this transition from one form of entertainment to another so troublesome? Quite simply, a videogame plot has to be balanced so that it can accept some degree of player input, and videogames also tend to be much longer than movies. Movies, however, tend to have a tighter, more focused plot because they don’t have to account for any variables like play style or open-ended stories.

Let’s get a bit more detailed, though. I always like to ask my friends what game should be made into a movie, and then I also tag on the question of what game should not be made into a movie. The responses I get are definitely diverse for the second option, but most people usually answer the first with something like The Last of Us or Uncharted. Why? Well, those games already have a fairly cinematic design. In both cases, the games are punctuated with quiet, dialogue heavy moments or action setpieces that don’t require too much input from the player. It is easy to see why they spring to mind; they are halfway to being movies already.

I have to concur that Naughty Dog’s games would likely be some of the easiest to adapt to the screen, but just because they are easy to adapt doesn’t mean that they should be adapted. One has to question what movie versions of these titles would bring to the table. Is The Last of Us really special enough to warrant a movie when there are already quite a few good, emotional post-apocalyptic movies like The Road? What can Nathan Drake possibly do better than Indiana Jones? Those games are unique in the videogame medium because of how cinematic they are, but in the movie medium they would be pretty dime-a-dozen. The truth is, most games simply don’t have enough plot weight to hold up a movie. RPGs like Fallout, Mass Effect, or World of Warcraft make terrible movies because they have too much story. You can’t hope to fit in every sidequest, every character, and every location into one and a half hours. Those games often take days of accumulated play time to see everything. Meanwhile, their main plots revolve very heavily around the world they set up. All those frivolous sidequest, easter eggs, side locations, and characters all serve to enhance and build the world that the main quest needs to stay strong. If you cut those away, you are left with a weak film that has to jam as much of that worldbuilding as it can into a limited time frame. Movies like Star Wars succeeded at worldbuilding because they were written with the big screen in mind, while the plots of those games were written with your living room television in mind.

Let’s also answer the second half of the question above; what games should not be made into movies? Well, quite a few of the ones that shouldn’t have been made, have already been made. The aforementioned Super Mario Bros. Movie was a disaster because it tried to adapt a game with no plot and no substance into a feature length film. Some games, like Super Mario Bros. or Angry Birds simply cannot be made into satisfying movies, because the core concept of those games is the gameplay. Nobody -and I do mean nobody- plays Angry Birds for the plot. Movies, meanwhile, are watched almost exclusively for the plot and characters. If your movie lacks these things, well, it sucks. Hollywood continues to see green however, as now we have such astonishing feats of cinema coming out as Minecraft: The Movie and Five Nights at Freddy’s: The Movie, the announcement of which has made me envy the people in The Road. At least Vigo Mortensen never had to put up with a shitty FNAF movie. Any amount of cannibalism is an acceptable alternative to that.

Even games with strong plots… don’t have strong plots. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the praise “It has good plot, for a videogame”. The standards are obscenely low for videogame plots because we are so used to games having little to none. John Carmack, one of the granddaddies of the modern videogame industry, said “Plot in a game is like plot in porn; it’s expected to be there, but nobody really cares about it”. His words still ring true. Many people usually tell me that Halo would make a good movie. Are you smoking crack? The game with a silent protagonist space marine who fights aliens would bore audiences to tears. There is nothing original enough about the Halo universe to justify a movie. Even Peter Jackson knew this, and that motherfucker made three Hobbit movies. Sure, Halo has good plot, for a videogame, but that is like being the tallest man in a midget commune.

Games do not have a narrative structure. Well, most games don’t anyways. There are some exceptions to the rule, the biggest of which is Metro 2033. This is the one game I believe should be made into a movie. It checks all of the boxes. The plot is great, as it is already based on a book (if a game has good storytelling, chances are it is based on a book) so it translates well to the screen. It has enough action setpieces and emotional scenes to make a strong movie. The central plot is fairly tight and focused, as it simply concerns one man’s journey through the Moscow underground. Finally, the game is unique. We are drowning in post-apocalyptic movies from the western perspective. Movies like Mad Max depict a brutal world, yet in the west we highly idealize liberty and individuality, so these wastelands are often viewed with an almost Wild West lens. Our apocalypse is one of liberation from the jaws of society, pure freedom, danger, and daring. Meanwhile, the Russian apocalypse is filtered through the same horrible, despair-and-vodka fueled lens that the Russians use for everything. Metro 2033 is not at all a nice apocalypse, even as far as apocalypses are concerned. The few survivors of the entire human race are huddled in the Moscow metro. Rather than celebrating the collapse of society, the Russians fear it. In many ways, Metro 2033 hearkens back to the post-USSR days in Russia, where the entire structure of Russian society that had existed for almost a hundred years came crashing down overnight. It was a brave new capitalist world, and people quickly grew to resent it despite our celebrations in the west. Russians lost jobs, healthcare, food, welfare, and subsidies during the economic turmoil following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Metro 2033 shows us a society that has also collapsed, and like post-Soviet Russia, it desperately tries to restore an old society in a completely new world. People retreat into Communist and Fascist blocs to fight over the underground. What few humans remain are slowly killing each other, if the horrible mutants and anomalies don’t kill them first. Even if they survive and one faction wins, it is only a matter of time until the gene pool dries up and makes humanity extinct. While Mad Max and the thousands of movies it inspired are by no means optimistic, Metro 2033 is downright sadistic and mournful. Even The Road has some sense of liberty in all its misery, with the Man and the Boy traveling the ruined world on one last great journey. Metro 2033 doesn’t even have that, not in the cramped tunnels under Moscow.

Speaking of the grim darkness of the far future, I am really sick of having to tell Warhammer fanboys that a Warhammer movie would suck a thousand dicks. Warhammer fits one criteria above; it is unique. Other than that, there is no way it could make a strong film. Nobody can be invested in a story that we know ends badly. The grimdark nature of that universe means we have no cause to be invested in. Even in Metro 2033 there is the slim possibility of things getting better (nuclear winter ends and we resettle the surface, or the folks under Moscow find out another enclave survived) where as Warhammer has no such chance. It is also on far too large a scale for any meaningful story. Who gives a shit about one Imperial Guardsmen’s tragic story of life and death? Literally billions of Imperial Guardsmen die every week in the Warhammer universe. Plus, it is not at all a literary based franchise. And yes, I am aware of the Horus Heresy, Guant’s Ghosts, and the other countless fanwank novels that exist over it. They suck too. Once again, they fall victim to the grimdark syndrome. You have no reason to care about characters, and it’s not like they even try to make you care anyways. In the Warhammer universe, humans have no character. Freedom of expression is deeply frowned on by the Imperium. Instead, you are indoctrinated and turned into an overly-masculine Marty Stu power fantasy killing machine that does little more than grunt, talk about “honor” and “glory” and other manly things, and scowl.

There is one way you might be able to adapt a large, open-ended game into a good movie though. If you make it a spin-off, you have a chance. Set it in the much larger universe of the game, but keep the story small and personal in scale. Even Warhammer could be capable of this if it wasn’t for the author’s constant grimdark wankery and overly masculine bravado. Even this path is risky though, because you will still be losing a lot of what makes the games special. A Fallout spin-off movie could be good, but would it ever give you the same sense of exploration and liberation that a Fallout game makes you feel? No, it wouldn’t, so why bother? Once again, it boils down to the argument of why. We could make a Fallout movie, but why? We could make a Minecraft movie, but why? (Well, the answer is usually “money”, but successful =/= good. Look at DC Comic’s recent movies as an example of this)

In summary, games don’t often make good movies because their structure is too different. Even if a game could make a decent movie, would it be better than what we already have in that genre? Why should I ever watch the new Warcraft movie when I can just rewatch The Lord of the Rings instead? If you actually do find a game that warrants and adaptation, then maybe it might be worth it. Sadly, such games typically don’t attract a large enough fanbase to be used for marquee value, so Hollywood will never adapt them. So I look forward to the future, which will probably include Candy Crush: The Movie or Rust: The Movie, which would probably just been an endless procession of shooting the audience in the kneecaps and teabagging them to death.

 

Why World War One is More Important Than World War Two

In America, little is known about World War One. Most people would probably tell you it was a war concerning Germany and Italy versus the Allies. Obviously, most people get it mixed up with World War Two, as it was actually a war concerning Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire versus the Entente (technically calling them the “Allies” is correct though, as by the end of the war the number of combatants on that side had gone far above the original Entente Cordiale between France, Britain, and Russia). The reason so little is known about the war in the States is the fact that we were only involved for a year, and lost less men then our intervention in Vietnam, which by some metrics was a smaller war (although we actually expended far more ammunition and bombs in ‘Nam than all the countries did in World War One, but that was mostly due to technological advancement).

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of explaining the title above, let’s recap a bit about the war. World War One was a Monday Night Raw performance between the tag team of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire with Bulgaria providing their plucky, Hornswoggle-like mascot. On the other side of the conflict was Serbia, Russia, France, Britain, Canada, South Africa, India, Japan, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Romania, Belgium, Greece, Siam, the Emirate of Nejd, Italy, Liberia, China, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, the United States, and Montenegro. The former was called the Central Powers and the latter became known as the Allies (but we shall call them the Entente because it sounds cooler)

As you may have guessed, the Central Powers lost.

The war itself began on the 28th of July, 1914 when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Serbia had been implicated in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Hapsburg crown. They were charged of conspiring and aiding a Serbian nationalist group named, quite awesomely, the Black Hand. If that name didn’t immediately make you shit your pants, then you probably aren’t wearing any. Anyways, the Austrians sent an ultimatum to the Serbs listing all kinds of harsh demands. The Serbs rejected the ultimatum not only because it was entirely ridiculous, but because they didn’t want Austrian troops and officials on their territory “investigating” connections to the Black Hand. Serbia was allied with Russia. Russia was allied with France. Russia is also very big and scary, since it can mobilize 12 million men and had a surprisingly well-equipped army (in contrast to their army in World War Two, which was piss poor at the start of the conflict). Because of this, Austria-Hungary called Germany, its ally, to honor their alliance. The Kaiser, Wilhelm II, backed Austria-Hungary, thinking they would never be so stupid to piss off Russia. Unfortunately, due to all the inbreeding in the Hapsburg line (probably), Emperor Franz Joseph was just that stupid. Austria-Hungary -which had its fingers crossed that the Serbs would refuse so they could conquer them the old fashioned way- went to war with Serbia. Then Russia went to war with Austria-Hungary. Then Germany went to war with Russia. Then France went to war with Germany. Then Germany went to war with Belgium so they could get past the French defenses on the border. Then the U.K. went to war with Germany, along with its entire empire. Then the Japanese jumped in and went to war with Germany because why the fuck not? Meanwhile, to make matters even more confusing, Italy was allied with Austria-Hungary and Germany, but they refused to go to war because they not-so-secretly despised Austria and also said their agreement only pertained to defensive wars. Italy then went to war with Austria-Hungary in 1915.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what historians call a “clusterfuck”.

Now, with all that aside, I’m going to tell you why that crap is more important than World War Two.

First off, what I listed up their was only the direct cause of the war. However, the roots of World War One were centuries old. There were a few trends in the 20th century that made the war practically inevitable. (By the way, calling the war inevitable usually gets you chastised in historical circles now because it was “perfectly avoidable”. And yes, every war is perfectly avoidable. The point is that the people orchestrating this one, good old Kaiser Willy, Emperor Franz, Czar Nicky, and King Georgy all wanted this war and were not going to be dissuaded from having it) The first stems from nationalism. The idea of the nation state is actually pretty new. Referring to Medieval France or the Roman Empire as nation states is actually false, because nation states weren’t invented yet. The right of national self-determination was firmly established by the Treaty of Westphalia at the end of the Thirty Year’s War in 1648. The treaty outlined a simple idea; that nations were created and governed by people, to serve the people. This idea may seem like a no-brainer to us today, but back then it was revolutionary. Previously, governments had little interaction with their citizens beyond law enforcement and tax collection, and almost all of them were monarchies or oligarchies that served the self-interest of their rulers instead of their people. The idea of anyone even thinking of themselves as a unified people simply didn’t occur in the way it does today. People identify as Chinese, French, American, British, German, e.t.c. today, but back then, your identity ended at your village borders. The Treaty of Westphalia meant that nations actually represented their people in some way now, and that people had a higher identity to aspire to beyond ethnicity or religion.

By the 20th century, this concept had gotten a little out of hand. People began to espouse their nation on international levels. If you were French, that meant you had to support the French is their endeavors, because what was best for the nation was therefore best for you. The same went for virtually every nation state at the time. Nationalism, the belief in the advancement of one’s nation even at the expense of others, was really taking off. It had been inspiring groups across Europe to come together and either form new countries, or revolt against old ones. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars had left a wave of nationalism rippling throughout Europe that resulted in the formation of new nations, the biggest being Germany.

Germany is actually an incredibly young nation. While the German people have existed for thousands of years, as mentioned above they would not have identified as German, but as Bavarian, Hanoverian, or Prussian. In fact, for most of Germany’s history it was a loose collection of principalities and duchies that could hardly be considered a nation at all. However, the Napoleonic Wars had inspired the German people. Their common resentment towards the French had surpassed their resentment towards the other German states, so under the leadership of the largest state, Prussia, they went and kicked France’s ass in 1871. After that decisive victory, the German people unified for the first time in their history under the German Empire. This caused a wave of nationalism in France, which was thoroughly pissed at the thrashing they got and they wanted back the territory the Germans had annexed. Thus, the bitter German-French rivalry was cemented in time, only to be surpassed by their mutual resentment for the Russians during the Cold War. The British also had some nationalism going down, though not to the extent of the Continent. Still, after years of riding high as the world’s largest and richest empire, it made sense that many Brits were quite proud of their nation.

Another problem that contributed to the war was militarism. Europe had been no stranger to war. In fact, that is an understatement. Europe was so war-torn that the Arabs often referred to it as the Abode of War. That’s coming from the dudes who conquered the entire Middle East and practically breathed lightening and crapped thunder. War was seen in a glorious light, which contrasts the often negative viewpoints we have of it today (largely due to World War One). It was quick, decisive battlefield action that won territory and prestige for nations and glory and honor for their soldiers. Young men were practically required to go to war, as it was a way of testing one’s mettle and seen as a sort of right of passage. Despite some particularly brutal wars (like the aforementioned Thirty Years War, or the Seven Years War, or the Napoleonic Wars) most people still held a positive view of war and the military by 1914. It was the subject of plays and books about heroism and valor on the battlefield, and of course nations still liked it because it meant they could gobble up more land. And gobble it up they did. By 1914, nearly every scrap of land had a flag planted in one orifice or another. The Russians had the largest empire by size, but most of it was barren Siberian wasteland. They did, however, control major agricultural centers in Poland and Ukraine, as well as controlling modern day Finland, the Baltic States, and Central Asia. The Germans had one of the smaller colonial empires. They had taken what territory was left in Poland, as well as modern day Tanzania and Namibia and many small colonies in East Asia, such as the Chinese port city of Qingdao. The French had a bit more territory abroad, controlling virtually all of Northwest Africa and modern day Vietnam. The British had by far the largest empire, controlling Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand… fuck it, we’ll just say they controlled just about everything else. Italy and Austria-Hungary didn’t own shit because they sucked. The entire Western Hemisphere was considered de facto U.S. territory, or at least under U.S. protection, so intervening there was a big no-no unless you wanted a whooping. Oh, and Japan was also conquering some stuff at the time, having taken Korea and Manchuria from the Ruskies back in 1905. Japan was going through its own wave of nationalism after it was quickly westernized in the 19th century, and now they had dreams of building a Pan-Asian Empire which promised to unite the Asian race and keep away western aggression (in reality, they proved to be just as brutal as the Western Powers). In most cases, the military had been used to secure that territory and expand those empires, so of course the governments had great admiration for the armed forces. They made it evident that in 1914, they were ready to use force of arms to accomplish their desires, just as they had done for the past two centuries.

That is why I argue the war was inevitable, really. While it could have been avoided momentarily, the Western powers were all itching to destroy each other and perform a Risk-like takeover of their opponent’s territories. They couldn’t do this alone, though, so they formed large power blocs motivated by common interests. The French and British had been bitter enemies, but they were now terrified of Germany, so they allied. The Russians, or more specifically Czar Nicholas II, wanted to build a pan-Slavic empire, but Germany got in the way of that by having the indecency to own parts of Poland that were rightfully Russian, (Poor little Poland is always getting picked on in history) so he allied with France. The Austro-Hungarians were terrified of losing their empire, and the ruling aristocracy in the Hapsburg empire was German, so they found Germany a natural ally. Italy had made its alliance with Germany back in the 19th century because they, like Germany, were a newly formed nation that had been habitually picked on during the Napoleonic Wars. However, they had also been picked on by Austria after the Napoleonic Wars, causing a lot of resentment and ultimately driving them towards the Entente.

With such a crazy set-up, its a wonder that the world didn’t implode before 1914. Actually, it very nearly had back in 1912. You see, Morocco was one of the last scraps of African territory not devoured by the ever-expanding and morbidly obese Western powers. France desperately wanted it, so they submitted a list of government “reforms” to Morocco’s sultan that would basically make him a protectorate (a vassal state) of France. The Kaiser didn’t like this at all, so he went to Fez, the capital of Morocco, to assure the sultan that he had his back. France threw a shitfit and Britain was obliged to join them (despite warning them that this whole “colonize Morocco” thing was a stupid idea). The Kaiser, in a rare moment of humility, backed down. Later, a revolt occurred against the sultan, who was now a French puppet. France stepped in to try and crush the revolt, but Germany stopped them by sending its navy to Morocco. Once again, France got mad, Britain begrudgingly intervened, and the world almost blew up. However, the situation was once again diffused when France gave Germany control of its portion of Cameroon, resulting the Kaiser giving the French carte blanche in Morocco. These incidences often get overlooked, despite nearly starting the First World War two years early. They strengthened the bond beyond France and Britain, thus solidifying their position in the war to come. It is important to note that before the Moroccan Crises, Anglo-French relations were still lukewarm and there was definitely a possibility of the British supporting Germany in a future war.

However, the real question is why did all this crap happen? What caused all these countries to hate each other? Well, it boils down mostly to greed and a desire for power, but it also gets a bit more nuanced then that. Every nation involved in World War One did so with selfish intentions (except maybe Belgium, which kind of had the whole invasion thing going on). Let’s break it down.

Germany wanted a war because the Kaiser felt a little miffed at his global position. He was really envious of the British Empire’s huge tracts of land. He felt as though Germany had lost its chance at gaining a “place in the sun” because it had been oppressed and divided for so many years. A united Germany proved to be immensely powerful, perhaps even moreso than a united Britain. In the short time of the German Empire’s existence (1871-1918), it won more Nobel Prizes then Britain, France, the USA, and Russia combined. It had amazing thinkers, musicians, artists, writers, and scientists. It boasted an incredibly strong and proud military based on classic Prussian militarism. It also had a massive amount of industry and infrastructure, since all of its once-independent states had to build themselves up to be self reliant. The Germans also despised the French because of the whole Napoleon thing. Wilhelm also proved to be an aggressive, belligerent leader who consistently overestimated himself. He fancied himself a great negotiator and public speaker, but in reality he was offensive, loud, and lacking in nuance. While the German people respected him for his philanthropy, healthcare and economic reforms, and assertiveness, the rest of the world hated him. He alienated most other countries with his rhetoric and undid all the careful planning of Otto von Bismarck, the architect of a united Germany and the guy who had propelled the country into prominence.

France, for its part, was not innocent. When they lost the war in 1871, they lost the balance of power in Continental Europe. Even after the Revolution and Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, the French still held considerable sway over the continent. They were still its cosmopolitan heartland, where its culture and philosophy all originated. While the British had international superiority, nobody could doubt that the continent was suitably French, at least until those pesky Germans went and took that title of hegemon from them. Ever since, the French had been bitter.

Russia was desperate for some attention. They had been one of the first European powers to lose a major war against a non-European nation back in 1905. Their lose to Japan was utterly humiliating, and now they needed to recoup their prestige and show the world they were still the Big Bad Bear that brought Napoleon to his knees. Furthermore, Russia had failed to properly industrialize during the 19th century. Sure, they had no shortage of factories and workers, but they lacked the bureaucratic reforms to properly back it up. The Russian populace felt exploited. Factory workers labored under intense conditions for the benefit of a bourgeoisie aristocracy that never seemed to repay them in any way. Meanwhile, many land owners were angered by the Czar’s reforms, which deeply upset the status quo held in Russia for centuries. Czar Nicholas II was also a weak and indecisive ruler. He flip-flopped on policies at the slightest hint of contention and never followed through far enough on his reforms. He saw the war as a way of uniting the Russian people towards a common foe, and that foe just so happened to be his cousin’s country. Yes, his cousin’s country. Most of the royalty in Europe at the time was related due to centuries of political marriages, and oddly enough Wilhelm and Nicholas had a very friendly relationship, at least on the surface. Both had attended each other’s weddings, although supposedly Nicholas secretly resented the Kaiser. Nicholas always referred to his cousin as “Willy”, while Wilhelm always called his cousin “Nicky”. Within a year, they would be sending millions of their own people to die in abysmal conditions. What a world.

Speaking of cousins, there was one more member of History’s Most Fucked Up Family, King George V. His relationship with Wilhelm was never good though. The two personally did not dislike each other, but George’s family outright despised Wilhelm. The British people did as well, although to be fair they despised virtually everyone who wasn’t British, and sometimes people who were (the Irish and Catholics were a scapegoat for virtually every wrong in most of British history). The British were none to happy with Germany’s rise to power, though, because Germany was actively terrifying. It was an incredibly powerful nation with a large population, industry that would grow to almost surpass the British home islands, and a large navy. The navy bit was a particular source of contention between the powers. Britain had dominated the globe based on its ludicrously powerful navy, and now the Germans were challenging that authority. The British were concerned about what Germany could do if it successfully knocked out France and Russia. Moreover, they wanted to maintain their vast empire and suppress any nation that got too envious of it.

Then there is Austria-Hungary, arguably one of the greatest perpetrators of the conflict. Austria-Hungary had been fighting to subjugate the Balkans ever since they won the Siege of Vienna against the Ottoman Empire back in the 17th century. Every time the Ottomans lost a country to a nationalist revolt, the Austrians stepped into gobble it up. By 1914, the Austrians were in control of modern day Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Bohemia (Czech Republic), Slovakia, parts of Poland, and parts of Ukraine. Oh, and parts of Romania, which was the reason the Romanians jumped in later in the war (and got annihilated). This empire was impressive in size, but it was basically on the brink of collapse. The Hapsburgs were not exceptionally good rulers in their later generations, so Austria fell behind militarily and industrially compared to its contemporaries. Meanwhile, it also ruled over a multi-ethnic empire. Those same nationalist revolts that had caused the Ottomans to lose the region were now causing Austria-Hungary to lose it as well. This is evidenced even by the name. For years, the nation was just called Austria, but a Hungarian revolt resulted in a reform of the system. Now, Austria and Hungary were technically independent, but they shared a common emperor under Franz Joseph. Franz Joseph was a decent ruler, but like the former emperors he was a staunch Austrian supremacist who often didn’t take the threat of nationalists seriously. In the end, his ambition to conquer Serbia cost him his whole empire.

Serbia itself was actually not innocent either. The Serbs had recently gained their independence from the Ottoman Empire, and they dreamed of uniting the Slavic people’s of the Balkans. That meant throwing off the shackles of Austrian rule. They had already waged numerous wars to control the Balkans and were slyly eyeing up Bulgaria as well (which in turn had ambitions on the Serbs). Truly an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force.

Finally, there was the Ottoman Empire, the last major player in the game. Although, in this case, calling them major is pretty laughable. The Ottomans were in really rough shape by 1914. Most of their empire had been lost to nationalist revolutionaries. The parts that did remain were rife with ethnic and religious tension. The Ottoman Empire had suffered a near-complete failure to industrialize and modernize. Its administration was old and crumbling. The rest of Europe called them the “Sick Man of Europe” and consistently beat the snot out of them when they wanted more land. Even Italy -which was by no means a military power- won a war against them and took over Libya. In 1908, a military coup called the Young Turks movement stepped in to stymie the loss, but the Pashas that took over proved to be even more incompetent then the monarchy before them. By 1914, everyone expected the empire to keel over dead any day, and by 1918 the Ottoman Empire had done just that, but not before committing mass genocide and other atrocities against its ethnic minorities, such as the Armenians. Quite frankly, I don’t think anyone misses it, not even the Turks.

With all of that said, we can finally get to the reason why World War One is more important than World War Two. Think about World War Two for a moment. It was a war where there was a clear “good” side (barring the Soviets, who were pretty brutal) and very clear bad guys (the ones committing invasions, mass slaughter, and genocide). It was when the heroic US, UK, and USSR got to step in and stomp the shit out of some evil dudes just as things were looking bleak. It was a massive triumph over evil that is still celebrated today.

World War One is nothing like that. World War One was the culmination of centuries of greed and bitterness finally boiling over. There were no “good guys”, only bad guys who forced their men to die in the hellish trenches of Flanders. All the empires involved, including the US, were involved for selfish reasons. World War One is not a typical heroic fantasy, but a powerful warning about what occurs when we allow self interest to govern our countries. For all the stuff listed above, it should be apparent why the First World War is more important then the second. It shows an extreme failure of cooperation, foresight, and diplomacy. It shows the inevitable clash that occurs when self interest leads countries to do such horrible things against each other. It shows how unbridled nationalism can lead to a blinding hatred for one another, and how it can be used to so easily manipulate millions into doing the bidding of uncaring generals, politicians, and businessmen. It is a cautionary tale so tremendous in scope that it should never be forgotten.

World War Two is a tale of heroism and triumph. World War One is a tale of tragedy and despair.