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.

Futility: The Art of Compromise

Compromise. It is an oft forgotten thing in our world today. From the most meaningless fights between spouses, to the grandest of political debates, it seem that word has no place left in modern society. What happened to compromise? Well, the death of an idea never occurs quickly, nor is it always for obvious reasons. While compromise certainly must exist in some capacity -and indeed always will- it does seem to be less relevant in this day and age.

First, we must turn to history. America is filled with ridiculous time periods and events such as “the Era of Good Feelings” and “the Great Compromise” (yeah, apparently historians outsource their naming committees to kindergartners). The latter was a particular event that created our current bicameral legislature, which is a great twist of irony seeing as our Congress cannot seem to compromise on anything in this day and age. Compromise continued to play an active role in politics for a while, but I think we can witness its death, at least in America, during the years leading to the Civil War. Attempts were made by either side of the aisle to appease the other. A good example occurred with the rights to own slaves in newly admitted states. Debates raged on whether new states should be automatically added to either the “free” or “slave” categories. Many proposed geographical divide (and indeed that occurred with the creation of the Mason Dixon Line) but the compromise eventually proposed was to allow states to decide themselves via a vote of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is a fairly novel thing in America. It is where the population directly casts a vote on a particular issue. It is still used today when the electorate votes on “issues on the ballot”, such as a recent Amendment to “protect the rights to hunt and fish” in Indiana (I bet you didn’t even know such a thing was taking place this year, did you?)

Needless to say, this became a clusterfuck. And as an aside, yes, I do think it is acceptable to put foul language in academics, and I think most historians would agree with me. There are just some things in history that can only be truly described with swear words, and the vote of popular sovereignty over slaves was indeed a clusterfuck. Anyways, the state of Kansas was up for initiation in the 1850s, and abolitionists and slavery supporters alike traveled to the state to insure it would join there side.

Now, to explain what happened next requires a bit of background. Slavery was the single most contentious issue in United States history. Period. Never before or since has there ever been an issue so divisive to the people. I mean, it did lead to a war, so this should be obvious. So of course you have all these politically charged individuals flooding into Kansas to decide the future of the state. The most famous individual was John Brown, an abolitionist preacher who advocated for violence against slave holders if necessary. Brown would later lead an attack on the federal armory at Harper’s Ferry in 1859, in an attempt to start a general uprising against the slave holders. Anyways, John Brown’s flock often came to blows with the supporters of slavery. Over an estimated one-hundred people died in Kansas in the following unrest, which makes the 1968 Democratic Convention look like an act of teenage rebelliousness. The abolitionists won out though, as in 1861 the Free State of Kansas was admitted into the Union with the state constitution already prohibiting the ownership of other human beings.

And then the war started.

“Bleeding Kansas” was just one such event leading up the Civil War that demonstrates a lack of compromise and civility (heh) over the issue of slavery. Senator Charles Sumner advocated against the vote of popular sovereignty, believing Kansas should be a free state outright, and for this another senator beat him with a cane right on the Senate floor (so if you think Trump is bad, you should see what we were doing the 1850s). Some attempts at compromise were made, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise that declared that when delegating Congressional seats to states based on population, slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a free person. Most of the time, these attempts at compromise only served the further the divide between pro- and anti-slavery groups, with both sides viewing the compromises as unfair.

The art of compromise died with the attack of Fort Sumter. From that moment on, pro-slavery forces and anti-slavery forces had only one course of action: fight and win. We all know who won in the end, but it wasn’t the end of Americas battle with compromise. Not more than 10 years after the end of the Civil War, another war started, one that most Americans have no knowledge of. These were the Mining Wars, part of a greater conflict between the working class of America, the large corporations and businesses, and the government. Despite their only claim to fame being a song by Tennessee Ernie Ford, the Mining Wars actually claimed the lives of hundreds of Americans. Most of them evolved from general strikes and labor disputes. The largest, both of the Mining Wars themselves and of labor disputes in American history, was the Battle of Blair Mountain. The miners in Matewan, West Virginia occupied their mines in 1921 and refused to work until they were given the right to unionize, which was at the time not guaranteed by the government. Rather than settle down and negotiate with the strikers, the Stone Mountain Coal Company hired a private agency to send in their men and evict the strikers from the mountain. They promptly found themselves at odds with the local sheriff and some deputized miners. The two ended up shooting at each other with losses on both sides. In another instance, agents assassinated (or, rather they murdered) some coal miners who were about to stand trial for a work accident.

The agents escaped without persecution and this led to a militarization among the strikers. The strikers planned to march on Charleston, but they ended up occuppying Blair Mountain in Logan County. Unlike Matewan, which was friendly to the strikers, Logan County was openly hostile. The sheriff mustered a force of deputies, nearly 1,000 in total, and more agents were hired to assist them. Facing down a force of 10,000 lightly armed miners, and prepared for action. However, the local government eventually stepped in and forced the hand of both the miners and the company. It finally looked like a compromise would be reached, and indeed and agreement was decided upon. The miners prepared to return home, but rumors circulated that a group of miners had been fired on by the sheriff’s army, and that civilians had been caught in the crossfire. The miners returned, and on August 29th, battle was met. At first, the miners had some success, using their overwhelming numbers to offset the better equipment of the sheriff’s private army. However, things began to shift as the private army hired literal bombers to drop their load on the miners. Up to one hundred miners died, with the sheriff losing 30 men. Ultimately, the federal government also chose to oppose the miners, and they deployed the National Guard to meet them in battle. The miners promptly surrender, realizing that a fight with the military itself would be disastrous.

In the end, the battle proved for naught, as private companies exerted more and more power against the people. It wouldn’t be until FDR’s administration that change occurred, and by that point there was little sense of compromise left. Many businesses became heavily regulated, especially in regards to the treatment of workers. What we would identify as socialist policies today were put in place. If the Stone Mountain Mining Company had reached a settlement with the miners, they may have actually faced better treatment under the FDR administration, but they chose short-term gains and suffered for it.

My point of all this is simple; if we continue to be divisive, there is a good chance neither side will get what they want, at least not without violence. American history is pock-marked with stories of violence. If the founders of our country truly did show us anything, it was that compromise was key to maintaining a successful democracy. We can see this occur in other countries as well. The Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh reparations on Germany with little input or negotiation with the German Republic, eventually culminating in the rise of the Nazis and the start of the Second World War. A failure to reach a compromise between two systems of governance has been the cause of many civil wars in recently freed countries, such as in Korea, Vietnam, or the many post-colonial African states. A failure to cooperate and compromise led the downfall of the Yugoslav Republic, as well as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, instances of compromise have worked well. Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms put China at a halfway point between Stalinism and Market Capitalism, eventually resulting in the growth of the Chinese market into the economic powerhouse it is today.

I suppose, in some ways, I am worried about how the future will look if people continue to neglect compromise. Just recently, Britain’s vote to leave the European Union demonstrated perfectly where divisiveness gets us. Rather than work through their issues with the Union and try to find a third option, Britain wholeheartedly left and suffered economically while also endangering the future of the European Union, and therefore Europe as a whole. The steadfast refusal of either party to accept compromise over things like immigration reform, the refugee crisis, or even a simple appointment to the Supreme Court has left our government paralyzed. Compromise rests at the heart of diplomacy. Without it, violence becomes the only option.

 

 

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.