The ivory tower is a place where my generation and the one before it have gathered desensitized to the tragedy of our world. They try to act as though they are separate and even superior to the entertainment side of our culture when in fact they are part of the same problem. That of apathy, and defeat. The generation or two before mine may have actually physically felt that defeat, but my generation is desensitized. This new generation of scholars have even less of an urgency to solve the worlds pressing problems. The great minds of the last twenty years have gone into finance, manipulating numbers in order to make more money for themselves and those who are already rich. They are complemented by those who enter the academic world within a specific area of study. They look at their discipline as separate from the outside world. As if their ideas and sphere of influence dies once it hits reality, yet they want to distinguish themselves in front of their family and peers with titles and awards. Like the entertainment business and finance industry, these professional academics are just as selfish. The point of our existence should be to enlighten the others, to expose them to the truth: that there is no self, inasmuch as the self being the center of any one's existence. We are a collective bunch and we cannot allow human body's separate us from the fact that every human being shares the same molecules. What we study at universities is all very important and I respect many fields of scholarly research, but if we cannot feed every human in the world, I see no need for further research in theoretical physics, in mathematics, in history, in sociology, in any of those fields unless they are aiming to fix the biggest tragedy of our known existence: That most people in the world do not have sufficient access to food, water, shelter, and medicine, and that the earth is perpetually being polluted by corporate interests who exacerbate the human problems at every chance of making a profit. Until that problem is solved I see no need for an ivory tower just for the sake of an ivory tower.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
My Tax Compromise
I don't understand people who trust corporations over government. Government as it is in the US certainly should not be trusted, but even when people talk about the idea of a corporation and the idea of a government they seem to have more faith in corporations. The corporation is not elected by people, it is not concerned about the welfare of society; it is simply concerned with maximizing profits. The notion that we should trust our health, education, and general well-being to those that ferociously seek a profit is absurd, and the flaws in that trust should easily be recognized. Perhaps at one point, in an ideal world where everyone is born on the same level playing field this anarcho-capitalism idea that's been going around is a lovely thought. But, once a gap develops and you have winners and losers the gap only widens, and it is much harder for the losers to get enough leverage to make up for lost ground. In that scenario the government should act as the equalizer. The world is not black and white, there is no good and evil, and idealism in the sense that there is a pure economic structure that will save the world does not exist. That is why we need to view taxes in a different way. We need to look at taxation, not solely just as a way for government to pay for "entitlements" or public projects, but as a way to create economic equality.
It absolutely should be the job of government and taxation to be the great equalizer, but this also needs to collaborate with what we spend our tax dollars on. We need to cut military spending AT LEAST in half and end imperialism for good. We need to feed people and seriously push to educate them on eating healthy and making those healthy options available, while at the same time sanctioning instead of rewarding corporations that load their food with harmful amounts of fat, chemicals, salt, and other cancer and obesity inducing ingredients. We need health care. That is, free health care for every person. It's being done in several countries. The fact that those countries have flaws in their system should not render the idea defeated. Instead, we need to build upon that idea and perfect a system where no one has to choose between health and bankruptcy. If the Obama health care plan was what we all wanted to begin with (a single payer system, or at least a public option) republican judges would not have as much momentum with declaring Obama's plan as unconstitutional. We also need homes for people. There should not be one homeless person alive that wants a home. Keep in mind, if we have this capitalist system the way we can compromise is to provide healthy food and comfortable shelter to every human being. It is not socialist, but it is compromising with those ideologically opposite.
On top of that, we need education. Our descendents will not forgive us if we do not start investing in education for all aspects of intellectual capacity. We need smart critical thinkers, and no person should be left behind, not one race, not one gender, not one person who is neurologically different. Every single person deserves a college education, and it is in our interests as a society to have the next generation be smart critical thinkers. On my list of needs that a functioning and sophisticated society should provide for its people the top four are food, health care, shelter, and education. That is in no particular order. Obviously, we need food to survive, and shelter and health care also often precedes education for survival, but I believe a society in this modern world should have by now worked out a system that grants these rights to every single human. These are not handouts. This is human beings, perhaps the most capably beautiful creatures to ever roam this earth, coming together as one and creating a brotherhood of people. This should start here, in the US, or heck anywhere. I only say the US because I live here and it has the most power globally at the moment. But these are not handouts, far from it. It is a compromise. For those of you who see the world in a Social Darwin way and think that dog eat dog should apply to every aspect of life, and that we are nothing but animals trying to have as much power and wealth as possible and that should be celebrated, my plea is to compromise. I contest that ignoring our social problems and thinking some invisible hand will solve everything is pure laziness, but I am here to compromise. I am willing to keep this capitalist system for most things, but not when it comes to people's well being and education. The gap is too wide now and the invisible hand on its own has been proven to be quite ineffective for getting people out of poverty, and creating a society of intelligent human beings. But again I am willing to compromise.
President Obama did not compromise this last weekend with the tax deal; he gave in to Republican demands that the wealthy hoard more for themselves. We need to make them compromise with us, we are already a far right country. We are practically an oligarchy, some may even call the US fascist. And even if Obama didn’t compromise this weekend, it would only be a start in making the right compromise to our political ideas, (As I mentioned earlier we don’t only need higher taxes on the super rich, but we need to spend our taxes in a better way). I do not suggest we revolt and take all of your wealth. I only suggest we tax a portion of it, so instead of you making 30 million dollars a year, you make 10 million. So, instead of you buying 5 cars and 2 yachts and 2 mansions, you buy 3 cars, a yacht and a mansion, and allow the rest of us to eat, be healthy, experience the beauty of widening our intellectual capabilities, and collectively do something amazing. Instead of you 1% owning 90% of everything, you share some of it, not ALL, not even most! But some of it so we can end hunger, prevent people from dying of curable illnesses, and become educated. And yes we need a government to regulate and administer this task because they are not for profit, they are inherently for the people. Yes, some lovely billionaires are sharing their wealth now, but those are the limelight wealthy, the super rich of finances and corporate multinationals are not giving up their wealth or even creating jobs, they are hoarding it. On top of that we cannot rely on private charities to always do what is right. Private organizations often discriminate. The Salvation Army does great work, but they also do not give to homosexuals, or allow Harry Potter books to be donated. Government should and could have no restrictions on who they serve, because they are made up of all people. There is no way to make private charities give to everyone equally, but we can do that to a government because we should be the government. We the people need to start this, the government as we have it will not do this unless we get money out of elections. The people need to see that my idea is a compromise and not communism. It is taking a country that is far right and bringing it to the center of the true political spectrum.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Answer to the World's Problems
My last post focused on what I believe to be the cause of the world’s disruption. I attribute the lack of education, and a culture of apathy, greed, and idolatry of the materialistic to be the foundation of our modern troubles, or at least that is what is hindering any real change in our world’s economic political and social woes. At the request of my wonderful and eloquent girlfriend I am going to attempt to explain my solution to the identified problem. She may very well be the only person that reads this, which is fine for now.
I look at the world through a harsh critical lens. I examine the perfidy in our world affairs and I see the feckless public too drugged to care. Yet, I am truly an optimist and I believe that there is a solution. That solution is not easy. If you think it is easy to change the world then you are sadly mistaken. If you think you can sporadically make attempts that you feel can make a difference and it will one day lead to bigger things, I’m not sure I agree with you. I believe that the greatest power human beings have is our ability to come together and organize ourselves for the good of others. Now, there is a plethora of organizations nationwide that strive for helping others and bringing necessities to those less fortunate. The West can have all of these humanitarian efforts they want, but as long as billions of dollars a year are spent to fight wars of conquest, these efforts are merely cheap band-aids for a gunshot wound to our world.
I am no messiah, and I cannot fathom the “perfect world” but what I do know is that education is the key. Education does not have to come from public funds, expensive technology, or professional teachers, it can come from parents, public forums, engaging with people, and demonstrating on the streets. My solution is this: To have those that are enlightened to the worlds troubles to engage with someone in a serious discussion, particularly someone who does not have a deep ideological stance already. Those who are set in their ways are not worth trying to change, but those who may have not thought about political, economic, and social issues can be reached. It must start small, but over time after networking, organizations can form. Organizations that should be aimed to educate, petition, whistleblow, and practice what they preach in terms of volunteering their time for the greater good. There are already organizations out there with great ideas for our future, and work to educate, like the Venus Project, but groups like that are still too ideological and are reaching too far too quickly. The website Wikileaks, that has been in the news so much for its tremendous leak of the Afghanistan War documents should be looked at as a model for those who wish to expose and challenge the status quo. This leak is a great first step, to show the public how our military carries out secret operations with zero concern for civilian lives. I might add, that this is the real war. Our military endeavors are being run by profit seeking corporations that sometimes show allegiances to other countries, and sometimes even our “enemies.” Unfortunately the mainstream media has neglected to focus on what these leaks mean in terms of how we structure our world, and instead have wondered if the leaks “put American soldiers and Afghani’s at risk.” The utter idiocy of that is beyond me, when the civilians that are dying are being killed by our secret operatives, and our soldiers are put in to harms way to make the wealthy more money.
Now, what does this mean for our solution? I hope we will see a resurgence in the anti-war movement. I for one will be working on that. A new poll showed that the wars popularity has fallen nearly 20% since the beginning of the year, so that could lead to some action. But again, this should go beyond US involvement in the middle east, Palestinian injustice, immigration, and gay rights.
All of these progressive issues are important, but without some sort of education movement they will just be scattered causes that are only focused on by those that are most deeply affected by them. I know this all still sounds vague and may be difficult to imagine in a concrete way, but as a student of history I have studied the incredible things that people have done to make change in this world. There was a time in this country when the majority of people thought the enslavement of black people would last forever. The abolitionist movement started off small, but became so relentless that it led to the unthinkable for the American economy and society. All around the world throughout history the people have stood up to the rich and powerful and ended useless wars, freed slaves, defeated colonialism, won rights for women, rights for minorities, rights for workers, ended child labor, and overcome fear. Certainly these are not ubiquitous around the world, but in many places these victories were won, and they were not granted to the people by those in charge, they were demanded and fought for by the people. So, I do not see any reason why our generation, and generations to come cannot work to end our political and economic captivity, and put an end to the culture of apathy, and the culture of greed. Of course, it begins with education. It will take teachers, and parents who dissent from the status quo, and who are unafraid of the consequences of teaching without censorship, and giving our children the gift of critical thinking in order to build a future of socially minded people capable of transforming the world for the better. What does this future world look like? I do not think I am ready to completely envision that world as of yet (believe me I do envision it, but that vision is a rampant oscillation in my mind). What I promise myself at this point in time is to engage with others, build small movements of people, and connect to larger calls for justice and peace in our world. Taking one issue at a time for now, but teaching and acknowledging the fact that there IS an underlying problem, and that all of the injustice and horror in our world is related. That is my solution right now, as I approach twenty three, and I look forward to my contributions.
I look at the world through a harsh critical lens. I examine the perfidy in our world affairs and I see the feckless public too drugged to care. Yet, I am truly an optimist and I believe that there is a solution. That solution is not easy. If you think it is easy to change the world then you are sadly mistaken. If you think you can sporadically make attempts that you feel can make a difference and it will one day lead to bigger things, I’m not sure I agree with you. I believe that the greatest power human beings have is our ability to come together and organize ourselves for the good of others. Now, there is a plethora of organizations nationwide that strive for helping others and bringing necessities to those less fortunate. The West can have all of these humanitarian efforts they want, but as long as billions of dollars a year are spent to fight wars of conquest, these efforts are merely cheap band-aids for a gunshot wound to our world.
I am no messiah, and I cannot fathom the “perfect world” but what I do know is that education is the key. Education does not have to come from public funds, expensive technology, or professional teachers, it can come from parents, public forums, engaging with people, and demonstrating on the streets. My solution is this: To have those that are enlightened to the worlds troubles to engage with someone in a serious discussion, particularly someone who does not have a deep ideological stance already. Those who are set in their ways are not worth trying to change, but those who may have not thought about political, economic, and social issues can be reached. It must start small, but over time after networking, organizations can form. Organizations that should be aimed to educate, petition, whistleblow, and practice what they preach in terms of volunteering their time for the greater good. There are already organizations out there with great ideas for our future, and work to educate, like the Venus Project, but groups like that are still too ideological and are reaching too far too quickly. The website Wikileaks, that has been in the news so much for its tremendous leak of the Afghanistan War documents should be looked at as a model for those who wish to expose and challenge the status quo. This leak is a great first step, to show the public how our military carries out secret operations with zero concern for civilian lives. I might add, that this is the real war. Our military endeavors are being run by profit seeking corporations that sometimes show allegiances to other countries, and sometimes even our “enemies.” Unfortunately the mainstream media has neglected to focus on what these leaks mean in terms of how we structure our world, and instead have wondered if the leaks “put American soldiers and Afghani’s at risk.” The utter idiocy of that is beyond me, when the civilians that are dying are being killed by our secret operatives, and our soldiers are put in to harms way to make the wealthy more money.
Now, what does this mean for our solution? I hope we will see a resurgence in the anti-war movement. I for one will be working on that. A new poll showed that the wars popularity has fallen nearly 20% since the beginning of the year, so that could lead to some action. But again, this should go beyond US involvement in the middle east, Palestinian injustice, immigration, and gay rights.
All of these progressive issues are important, but without some sort of education movement they will just be scattered causes that are only focused on by those that are most deeply affected by them. I know this all still sounds vague and may be difficult to imagine in a concrete way, but as a student of history I have studied the incredible things that people have done to make change in this world. There was a time in this country when the majority of people thought the enslavement of black people would last forever. The abolitionist movement started off small, but became so relentless that it led to the unthinkable for the American economy and society. All around the world throughout history the people have stood up to the rich and powerful and ended useless wars, freed slaves, defeated colonialism, won rights for women, rights for minorities, rights for workers, ended child labor, and overcome fear. Certainly these are not ubiquitous around the world, but in many places these victories were won, and they were not granted to the people by those in charge, they were demanded and fought for by the people. So, I do not see any reason why our generation, and generations to come cannot work to end our political and economic captivity, and put an end to the culture of apathy, and the culture of greed. Of course, it begins with education. It will take teachers, and parents who dissent from the status quo, and who are unafraid of the consequences of teaching without censorship, and giving our children the gift of critical thinking in order to build a future of socially minded people capable of transforming the world for the better. What does this future world look like? I do not think I am ready to completely envision that world as of yet (believe me I do envision it, but that vision is a rampant oscillation in my mind). What I promise myself at this point in time is to engage with others, build small movements of people, and connect to larger calls for justice and peace in our world. Taking one issue at a time for now, but teaching and acknowledging the fact that there IS an underlying problem, and that all of the injustice and horror in our world is related. That is my solution right now, as I approach twenty three, and I look forward to my contributions.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
What is wrong with the world?
What is wrong with the world? I feel that in the deepest areas of my heart I know the answer to that question. From my empirical view of the world and careful consideration of multiple ideologies compounded with economic, social, and cultural facts, I can begin to at least write a scattered response to the question of what has been so baleful to this world. Our political economic discourse revolves around two ideological camps: those who want the “free market” to have control of the economy, and those who want a sizable amount of government intervention and regulation. This is at least the discourse of the western world, most notably contentious in the USA.
It is estimated that by 2015 the USA will be in $18 trillion of debt. When looking at the view of conservatives and government overspending, that estimate can easily be manipulated for their cause. But if we examine the root of that deficit, it stems from our days of living beyond our means that began in the early 1970s, when the “free market” was in full swing. Compared to our tea-baggers of today Richard Nixon would have been considered a Commi, but his economic policies were rather centered on small government and free market capitalism, straying away from the Keynesian approach begun by FDR. It was thought, and still is, that our excessive debt would be corrected in the world economy through the free market. What happened? We just sunk in to more and more debt. The free market made it much more profitable for American corporations to use cheap labor in other countries to make their products. The result: Americans don’t make anything anymore… that is, except debt. Consumer culture under free market ideologies made it not only tempting to live beyond your means, but practically impossible to live otherwise. As corporate profits rose, the wages for an American worker stagnated. Corporations found a way to save on labor, meanwhile financial institutions found ways to milk as much as possible out of the American that needed to borrow money in order to live up to the culture of consumption.
Can we blame the consumers? Many will say yes. Corporations certainly try to push some of the blame away from themselves and on to the consumer. But when the American Dream is pounded in to your head, and you work hard but do not reap from the benefits of your labor because of that wage stagnation (even though the overall economy is growing) the only sensible thing to do for a person who strives to meet that middle class American dream is to borrow and live that life with the belief that your hard work will pay off. The hard work seldom paid off, and now those Americans who created what they thought would be only a temporary artificial version of the middle class dream, never brought the dream in to reality. Instead, their picket fence dreams turned in to a homeless nightmare.
Will this teach people to live frugally? It seems to have taught some, but the majority of people are still obsessed with accruing material wealth. That is a cultural facet that has been rooted in us since the end of World War II and the rise of the Disneyland dreamworld. It has carried in to 2010 as Americans watch and invest their time thinking about rich housewives on TV bicker about petty nonsense. Our obsession with rich celebrities, including these useless people on sickening reality TV, grossly overpaid athletes, and greedy CEO’s who have no regard for human welfare and the environment, may just overshadow the lessons we should learn from the economic crisis, and the problem of living beyond your means.
So, what is wrong with the world? Well I answer this rather superficially and of course with an Americentric attitude, but I believe that the American culture, economy, and political system is so pervasive in the world that it is difficult not to focus on the west when answering such a vague and interpretive question. When it comes down to it, the problem facing the world is that the vast majority of the people are uneducated, and those that are partially educated through western school systems are not taught to think critically about the world. They are not taught that every component of their life has been molded by political and economic policies of the past and how they interact with popular culture. It is no wonder that most Americans would rather watch what I consider pornography (a word that is defined as obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit), than watch or read anything that has to do with complex ideological debate.
We can go even further and say that this lack of education is caused by the out of wack system of profits and unregulated global capitalism protected with guns and nuclear weapons. However, there are people, many people, who can see the world critically and attempt to develop solutions to our problems. Complaining about the fundamental issue of the entire social system is useless. It’s too big to change immediately. In fact, I’m not even sure a ubiquitous social system even exists. But there are many macro and micro systems that are in dire need of reform. It is up to those that have been blessed with the education in not only knowledge but in critical thinking as well to teach the broader public. The internet has been a great tool for this, but it is often countered with backwards, ignorant, and racist ideology as well. I may have defined what I think is wrong with the world, but I can merely come up with possible answers. But I don’t think the answer is going off the grid as some of my friends have insisted. That will not solve anything. Part of the answer is to confront these demons that have ruled this world for far too long. These demons are fear, ignorance, apathy, and greed. We can fight those demons with unsullied education, exposure through non-profit journalism, and care for all forms of life. It is not one person or group of people we need to confront, it is a culture that rewards greed, stupidity, and glorifies apathy, and edaciousness. I believe it can be done, and I will work for my entire life to find others who feel the same way, and to teach others that accepting the world as it is, is the greatest demon we face as a species.
It is estimated that by 2015 the USA will be in $18 trillion of debt. When looking at the view of conservatives and government overspending, that estimate can easily be manipulated for their cause. But if we examine the root of that deficit, it stems from our days of living beyond our means that began in the early 1970s, when the “free market” was in full swing. Compared to our tea-baggers of today Richard Nixon would have been considered a Commi, but his economic policies were rather centered on small government and free market capitalism, straying away from the Keynesian approach begun by FDR. It was thought, and still is, that our excessive debt would be corrected in the world economy through the free market. What happened? We just sunk in to more and more debt. The free market made it much more profitable for American corporations to use cheap labor in other countries to make their products. The result: Americans don’t make anything anymore… that is, except debt. Consumer culture under free market ideologies made it not only tempting to live beyond your means, but practically impossible to live otherwise. As corporate profits rose, the wages for an American worker stagnated. Corporations found a way to save on labor, meanwhile financial institutions found ways to milk as much as possible out of the American that needed to borrow money in order to live up to the culture of consumption.
Can we blame the consumers? Many will say yes. Corporations certainly try to push some of the blame away from themselves and on to the consumer. But when the American Dream is pounded in to your head, and you work hard but do not reap from the benefits of your labor because of that wage stagnation (even though the overall economy is growing) the only sensible thing to do for a person who strives to meet that middle class American dream is to borrow and live that life with the belief that your hard work will pay off. The hard work seldom paid off, and now those Americans who created what they thought would be only a temporary artificial version of the middle class dream, never brought the dream in to reality. Instead, their picket fence dreams turned in to a homeless nightmare.
Will this teach people to live frugally? It seems to have taught some, but the majority of people are still obsessed with accruing material wealth. That is a cultural facet that has been rooted in us since the end of World War II and the rise of the Disneyland dreamworld. It has carried in to 2010 as Americans watch and invest their time thinking about rich housewives on TV bicker about petty nonsense. Our obsession with rich celebrities, including these useless people on sickening reality TV, grossly overpaid athletes, and greedy CEO’s who have no regard for human welfare and the environment, may just overshadow the lessons we should learn from the economic crisis, and the problem of living beyond your means.
So, what is wrong with the world? Well I answer this rather superficially and of course with an Americentric attitude, but I believe that the American culture, economy, and political system is so pervasive in the world that it is difficult not to focus on the west when answering such a vague and interpretive question. When it comes down to it, the problem facing the world is that the vast majority of the people are uneducated, and those that are partially educated through western school systems are not taught to think critically about the world. They are not taught that every component of their life has been molded by political and economic policies of the past and how they interact with popular culture. It is no wonder that most Americans would rather watch what I consider pornography (a word that is defined as obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit), than watch or read anything that has to do with complex ideological debate.
We can go even further and say that this lack of education is caused by the out of wack system of profits and unregulated global capitalism protected with guns and nuclear weapons. However, there are people, many people, who can see the world critically and attempt to develop solutions to our problems. Complaining about the fundamental issue of the entire social system is useless. It’s too big to change immediately. In fact, I’m not even sure a ubiquitous social system even exists. But there are many macro and micro systems that are in dire need of reform. It is up to those that have been blessed with the education in not only knowledge but in critical thinking as well to teach the broader public. The internet has been a great tool for this, but it is often countered with backwards, ignorant, and racist ideology as well. I may have defined what I think is wrong with the world, but I can merely come up with possible answers. But I don’t think the answer is going off the grid as some of my friends have insisted. That will not solve anything. Part of the answer is to confront these demons that have ruled this world for far too long. These demons are fear, ignorance, apathy, and greed. We can fight those demons with unsullied education, exposure through non-profit journalism, and care for all forms of life. It is not one person or group of people we need to confront, it is a culture that rewards greed, stupidity, and glorifies apathy, and edaciousness. I believe it can be done, and I will work for my entire life to find others who feel the same way, and to teach others that accepting the world as it is, is the greatest demon we face as a species.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Valens
"His father had bought a hundredweight of books from a trader. When Valens was fifteen, he'd told him he could choose five books for his own; the rest would be burned. Valens had read them all, desperately, in a hurry, and made his choice. Varro's "On Statecraft," Yonec's "Art of War," the Sude "Encyclopedia," Statianus on revenues and currency, and the "Standard Digest of Laws & Statutes;" five books, Valens reckoned, that between them contained the bare minimum of knowledge and wisdom a prince needed in order to do his job properly. When he announced that he'd made his choice, his father had had the five books burned and spared the rest; books should be a man's servant, he declared, not his master. Valens wasn't quite sure he saw the point, but he'd learned the lesson, though not perhaps the one his father had intended to convey: that to value anything is to give it an unacceptable degree of power over you, and to choose a thing is to lose it."
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Endless Fruits of Development
I was reading a book called "Deep Economy" and I came across a quote by FDR while he was running for president in 1932 and it relates perfectly to some of the debates going on today:
"Our industrial plant is built... our last frontier has long since been reached...our task now is not discovery, or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand... of adapting economic organizations to the service of the people."
I think this shows so many lessons that we can take from the Great Depression, the end of World War II and the rise of mass consumer culture at the start of the Cold War. Interestingly enough, during that campaign Hoover argued just the opposite of FDR: "we are yet on the frontiers of development, a thousand inventions in the lockers of science... which have not yet come to light."
As we all know FDR won the election by a commanding margin. To me, this points to the mentality of the Great Depression American who was fearful of overproduction and consumption. It also drastically differs from what political leaders were telling the public during the Cold War. Cold War era politicians were telling people, like Hoover did in 1932, to consume more and more and that the fruits of capitalism were endless.
Further, I think it shows how when the system is shown to be vulnerable, as it was from the Great Depression, a culture of saving is generated and even sold to the public. In contrast, during times of economic prosperity culture is shaped by consumption. The boom of the 1990s created a culture of Americans that were so caught up in spending money, which also spilled over into the early 2000s. Buying bigger and bigger houses while the size of families decreased, buying all the new expensive digital technology, Iphones, LCD TV's, bigger gas guzzling cars all defined the middle class American of the last twenty years. Once the economic crisis hit, the government started telling the people to be more careful with their money and getting into debt. This is typical of our country and its history. Most social and economic problems are not addressed until it becomes a huge problem. During times of prosperity the leaders who get elected are those who want to expand that prosperity by deregulating and ignoring any future consequences (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush). In 2008, Obama was elected on a similar platform that FDR ran on in 1932. As a country, we need to be educated about the past and learn about the cycle of the economy, and how to assuage recessions. We also need to know how politicians of the past responded and understand that what we do in the present can have an incredible impact on the future. Jimmy Carter, although had several of his own failures, did warn the country about its excessive spending. He was really the first president since FDR to depart from encouraging mass consumption... and lost reelection to someone who supported complete unregulated capitalism and "advancement." The first president since low and behold Herbert Hoover to be defeated after one term.
Total growth and technological advancements are not always signs of progress. In fact, they often lead to distracted individuals, greater divisions and gaps between classes. It may provide better lives for the 1% on top, but that kind of thoughtless growth can ultimately depreciate the masses and causes the so-called middle class to be pushed out on to the streets.
"Our industrial plant is built... our last frontier has long since been reached...our task now is not discovery, or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand... of adapting economic organizations to the service of the people."
I think this shows so many lessons that we can take from the Great Depression, the end of World War II and the rise of mass consumer culture at the start of the Cold War. Interestingly enough, during that campaign Hoover argued just the opposite of FDR: "we are yet on the frontiers of development, a thousand inventions in the lockers of science... which have not yet come to light."
As we all know FDR won the election by a commanding margin. To me, this points to the mentality of the Great Depression American who was fearful of overproduction and consumption. It also drastically differs from what political leaders were telling the public during the Cold War. Cold War era politicians were telling people, like Hoover did in 1932, to consume more and more and that the fruits of capitalism were endless.
Further, I think it shows how when the system is shown to be vulnerable, as it was from the Great Depression, a culture of saving is generated and even sold to the public. In contrast, during times of economic prosperity culture is shaped by consumption. The boom of the 1990s created a culture of Americans that were so caught up in spending money, which also spilled over into the early 2000s. Buying bigger and bigger houses while the size of families decreased, buying all the new expensive digital technology, Iphones, LCD TV's, bigger gas guzzling cars all defined the middle class American of the last twenty years. Once the economic crisis hit, the government started telling the people to be more careful with their money and getting into debt. This is typical of our country and its history. Most social and economic problems are not addressed until it becomes a huge problem. During times of prosperity the leaders who get elected are those who want to expand that prosperity by deregulating and ignoring any future consequences (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush). In 2008, Obama was elected on a similar platform that FDR ran on in 1932. As a country, we need to be educated about the past and learn about the cycle of the economy, and how to assuage recessions. We also need to know how politicians of the past responded and understand that what we do in the present can have an incredible impact on the future. Jimmy Carter, although had several of his own failures, did warn the country about its excessive spending. He was really the first president since FDR to depart from encouraging mass consumption... and lost reelection to someone who supported complete unregulated capitalism and "advancement." The first president since low and behold Herbert Hoover to be defeated after one term.
Total growth and technological advancements are not always signs of progress. In fact, they often lead to distracted individuals, greater divisions and gaps between classes. It may provide better lives for the 1% on top, but that kind of thoughtless growth can ultimately depreciate the masses and causes the so-called middle class to be pushed out on to the streets.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Are We Just Stupid?
I was reading an article called "Blame Americans First," about how liberals are losing ground because people at the NYT and WashPO have been unable to note any of "Obama's achievements" and are worried about Conservative dissent. Matthew Continetti claims that liberals are blaming Americans for being stupid and voting against their interests. He writes, "Just because the public says the economy is important does not necessarily mean it has to support a stimulus measure that has added massively to the debt without much benefit."
I agree with this... somewhat. If the peoples main priority is the economy they should challenge what their government is putting out there. We have every right to be weary of any government plans, especially when most are in the pockets of wealthy corporations. Some Americans do have these concerns and are educated about the policies and theories of economic models, but most are not. It seems most people are completely misinformed about the current debates on health care and the economy. This is due to the mainstream corporate media, along with the so-called "Tea Party Movement." Claiming such extremes like the President aims to turn the US into a socialist society accomplishes nothing but putting fear in to people's minds. So instead of looking in to the benefits of a health care option run by the government, they cower out of a fear of a word that carries a lot of emotional baggage. The economy is much deeper than this, and I'm afraid that people are not being informed about just how complex these issues are. The only way to do it is to dig through the nonsense, which is hard for our fast paced, disinterested society. Articles like the one by Matthew Continetti reflects the dumbing down of information that exists to create fear among an already panicky nation.
I agree with this... somewhat. If the peoples main priority is the economy they should challenge what their government is putting out there. We have every right to be weary of any government plans, especially when most are in the pockets of wealthy corporations. Some Americans do have these concerns and are educated about the policies and theories of economic models, but most are not. It seems most people are completely misinformed about the current debates on health care and the economy. This is due to the mainstream corporate media, along with the so-called "Tea Party Movement." Claiming such extremes like the President aims to turn the US into a socialist society accomplishes nothing but putting fear in to people's minds. So instead of looking in to the benefits of a health care option run by the government, they cower out of a fear of a word that carries a lot of emotional baggage. The economy is much deeper than this, and I'm afraid that people are not being informed about just how complex these issues are. The only way to do it is to dig through the nonsense, which is hard for our fast paced, disinterested society. Articles like the one by Matthew Continetti reflects the dumbing down of information that exists to create fear among an already panicky nation.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
No Chivalry in Drone Bombs
When someone asks me what time period I would like to have lived in, I always claim I would have liked to live in Medieval Europe. I love the style of clothing, I love castles, the notion of chivalry is fascinating, but what I always say mostly in jest is that the warfare was so much more personal. Especially in the early Middle Ages before the longbow, knights and infantrymen would have fierce battles face to face fighting for their lords. I guess these fantasies I had of being a knight came from my love of playing Age of Empires 2 while growing up (and still today!). The reason I bring this up is because of a fairly new modern warfare tactic used by the US: Drone bombs.
If you watch Democracy Now, or read other independent media you see almost on a weekly basis that numbers of innocent civilians are being killed by drone bombs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Well what are these? They are basically bombs piloted by Americans stationed in Nevada and California killing people 7,500 miles away from the people doing the killing. This always makes me think of my fantasies of Knights, and how sad we have become as a species. The ability to kill other human beings 7,500 miles away, get out of work and then go play with the kids at home while you may have killed other peoples kids on the other side of the world is astonishing, and despicable. Not that my beloved Knights were justified in the killings they did, but when they killed they were right up front putting their own lives on the line, seeing the brutality of war. Our current warfare and where it seems to be headed detaches humanity from killing more and more.
There's a great article on this on the LA times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-drone-crews21-2010feb21,0,5789185,full.story
The article notes that more pilots are being trained for drones, than for real aircraft. These people are usually quite young as well most are around 19 or 20 operating these drones. So people who grow up killing in video games, have the opportunity to do the same thing, only with real lives at stake. The thing that gives me a sense of hope is that so many people have suffered psychologically from operating these drones. That says to me that even though they aren't up close doing the killing like the Knights did, they still feel for humanity and perhaps understand that this new form of warfare is so detaching. My fear is that future generations will be so used to this that they will loose all sense of compassion and think it to be acceptable to kill people that live 7,500 miles away and call it something so heartless like "collateral damage."
If you watch Democracy Now, or read other independent media you see almost on a weekly basis that numbers of innocent civilians are being killed by drone bombs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Well what are these? They are basically bombs piloted by Americans stationed in Nevada and California killing people 7,500 miles away from the people doing the killing. This always makes me think of my fantasies of Knights, and how sad we have become as a species. The ability to kill other human beings 7,500 miles away, get out of work and then go play with the kids at home while you may have killed other peoples kids on the other side of the world is astonishing, and despicable. Not that my beloved Knights were justified in the killings they did, but when they killed they were right up front putting their own lives on the line, seeing the brutality of war. Our current warfare and where it seems to be headed detaches humanity from killing more and more.
There's a great article on this on the LA times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-drone-crews21-2010feb21,0,5789185,full.story
The article notes that more pilots are being trained for drones, than for real aircraft. These people are usually quite young as well most are around 19 or 20 operating these drones. So people who grow up killing in video games, have the opportunity to do the same thing, only with real lives at stake. The thing that gives me a sense of hope is that so many people have suffered psychologically from operating these drones. That says to me that even though they aren't up close doing the killing like the Knights did, they still feel for humanity and perhaps understand that this new form of warfare is so detaching. My fear is that future generations will be so used to this that they will loose all sense of compassion and think it to be acceptable to kill people that live 7,500 miles away and call it something so heartless like "collateral damage."
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Credit Card Crisis
http://www.cracked.com/funny-4179-credit-cards/
Now, I thought this was a really funny and sad graph of American debt, but the article that follows puts all the blame on banks. I certainly am no fan of banks, but how can you blame them for wanting to make as much money as possible? That is the game. Our current system is one that embellishes greed. Both the banks and the consumer are victims of this.
It's totally irresponsible for anyone to only pay the minimum balance, but people are not educated on this matter. Anyone can get a credit card. We also have to think about how our education system works. Our students are not taught about responsible consumerism in high school, and in order to get a college education most people need to take out loans!
Credit cards are one thing, probably more of the blame does go to the consumer. As for student loans and mortgages how can you blame someone for wanting an education and a home? So many people are screwed because of college loans. I think as a country we are irresponsible for not providing affordable, if not free higher education in the 21st century, as well as shelter for poor people. But I guess the problem is that those who own everything do not want educated peasants who could rebel against a system that is geared to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Public Dissent on Campaign Finance Rule
Post from Gary Langer blog at ABC News
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html
My question is: Why the hell don't we do something about it!
Here's a repost of the article:
In Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance, the Public Dissents
February 17, 2010 7:00 AM
Memo to the Supreme Court: President Obama isn’t the only one who’s annoyed.
Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.
Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.
The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.
Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party’s positions on the issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling Jan. 21, said federal restrictions on corporate spending in elections constituted a violation of free speech. Critics called it wrong to equate corporate "speech" with individual speech and said the ruling would allow special-interest money to flood election campaigns. The ruling did not explicitly include spending by unions, which also was restricted in the law, but is expected to apply to them as well.
In addition to overwhelming opposition to the decision, there’s also bipartisan support for Congress to try to reinstate restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions. Seventy-one to 77 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike favor the idea. Ideologically, support for a legislative workaround ranges from 63 percent among conservatives to more than three-quarters of moderates and liberals.
One response to the ruling was proposed by Congressional Democrats last week – a measure that would, among other elements, bar campaign spending by companies with substantial foreign ownership or control, or by government contractors or bailout recipients; and require chief executive officers of companies that pay for campaign ads to appear on camera saying they “approve of this message.”
Click here for the poll questions and results.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html
My question is: Why the hell don't we do something about it!
Here's a repost of the article:
In Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance, the Public Dissents
February 17, 2010 7:00 AM
Memo to the Supreme Court: President Obama isn’t the only one who’s annoyed.
Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.
Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.
The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.
Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party’s positions on the issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling Jan. 21, said federal restrictions on corporate spending in elections constituted a violation of free speech. Critics called it wrong to equate corporate "speech" with individual speech and said the ruling would allow special-interest money to flood election campaigns. The ruling did not explicitly include spending by unions, which also was restricted in the law, but is expected to apply to them as well.
In addition to overwhelming opposition to the decision, there’s also bipartisan support for Congress to try to reinstate restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions. Seventy-one to 77 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike favor the idea. Ideologically, support for a legislative workaround ranges from 63 percent among conservatives to more than three-quarters of moderates and liberals.
One response to the ruling was proposed by Congressional Democrats last week – a measure that would, among other elements, bar campaign spending by companies with substantial foreign ownership or control, or by government contractors or bailout recipients; and require chief executive officers of companies that pay for campaign ads to appear on camera saying they “approve of this message.”
Click here for the poll questions and results.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Middle Class Facade
American politicians always talk about the Middle Class. "We need to create jobs for the middle class" they will claim, talking as if their duty revolves around a middle class without acknowledging any class warfare. I believe our economic crisis is highlighting that the idea of a middle class is false. The Middle Class does not exist.
There was a report on the BBC about homelessness in the US having a new personality. These new homeless are people who lived in suburbia, what we'd all consider the middle class average American family. This is the new homeless. In a year people who we thought of as Middle Class are out on the streets. That is how volatile the economy is for the so called middle class. In reality, there is no such thing as a middle class. There are two classes, the owner class, and the worker class, akin to the Patricians and Plebeians of ancient Rome. The worker class, of all walks of life, work more and more and get less and less for their labor. This is a pattern across the country.
Class seems to be based on how much a person has, right? Wealth. But what is wealth? Wealth is based on labor. Labor is the only way to create real wealth. The so-called middle class had to labor at an obscene rate to be able to afford what we consider a "comfortable life." But a white collar worker, who works 80+ hours a week, maybe multiple jobs, is just as much in the lower class as a Taxi driver in Thailand working the same amount of time. This is a comfortable life? The white collar American and the taxi driver both do not have control over their own created wealth, their own labor. The only way to really get out of the working or lower class is to own your own land, or business. According to the American Chronicle, 80 percent of new businesses in the US fail. That was a report from 2006, I bet that number is much higher now. Since land is scarce and very expensive it would take many years of hard labor and frugal living to be able to become a significant landowner. This is no different from ancient Rome, or any other ancient civilizations that made it extremely difficult for the lower class to have any "real" wealth. Yet, we claim to be so much more advanced than any of these people because of our "middle class."
We tend to think we have a middle class because we have a lot of people that can afford I-phones, and computers, and cars. But the only reason that these things are affordable are so those on the top can profit. The people have to labor longer and harder in order to buy these things, and if they still cannot they go into what we call debt. The so-called Middle Class is the Debt Class. Most of this debt is not from frivolous spending as those with all of the wealth would like us to think. It's for things like a home, a car (with the main purpose of commuting to work!), education, health costs, things that should be considered necessities for all people of our society. That is why people are in debt, because they can't afford those necessities, despite all of their labor. This is pure economic slavery, and to think otherwise denies the true nature of credit. Credit and loans are ways for banks to make money without contributing anything to society. In fact, what they do is take those necessities away from people. It is a facade to say we have a middle class, when the gap between the "poor" and the "middle" is like the difference between a D- and a D in school, while the gap between the "middle" and the "upper" class is like the difference between a D and an A+.
There was a report on the BBC about homelessness in the US having a new personality. These new homeless are people who lived in suburbia, what we'd all consider the middle class average American family. This is the new homeless. In a year people who we thought of as Middle Class are out on the streets. That is how volatile the economy is for the so called middle class. In reality, there is no such thing as a middle class. There are two classes, the owner class, and the worker class, akin to the Patricians and Plebeians of ancient Rome. The worker class, of all walks of life, work more and more and get less and less for their labor. This is a pattern across the country.
Class seems to be based on how much a person has, right? Wealth. But what is wealth? Wealth is based on labor. Labor is the only way to create real wealth. The so-called middle class had to labor at an obscene rate to be able to afford what we consider a "comfortable life." But a white collar worker, who works 80+ hours a week, maybe multiple jobs, is just as much in the lower class as a Taxi driver in Thailand working the same amount of time. This is a comfortable life? The white collar American and the taxi driver both do not have control over their own created wealth, their own labor. The only way to really get out of the working or lower class is to own your own land, or business. According to the American Chronicle, 80 percent of new businesses in the US fail. That was a report from 2006, I bet that number is much higher now. Since land is scarce and very expensive it would take many years of hard labor and frugal living to be able to become a significant landowner. This is no different from ancient Rome, or any other ancient civilizations that made it extremely difficult for the lower class to have any "real" wealth. Yet, we claim to be so much more advanced than any of these people because of our "middle class."
We tend to think we have a middle class because we have a lot of people that can afford I-phones, and computers, and cars. But the only reason that these things are affordable are so those on the top can profit. The people have to labor longer and harder in order to buy these things, and if they still cannot they go into what we call debt. The so-called Middle Class is the Debt Class. Most of this debt is not from frivolous spending as those with all of the wealth would like us to think. It's for things like a home, a car (with the main purpose of commuting to work!), education, health costs, things that should be considered necessities for all people of our society. That is why people are in debt, because they can't afford those necessities, despite all of their labor. This is pure economic slavery, and to think otherwise denies the true nature of credit. Credit and loans are ways for banks to make money without contributing anything to society. In fact, what they do is take those necessities away from people. It is a facade to say we have a middle class, when the gap between the "poor" and the "middle" is like the difference between a D- and a D in school, while the gap between the "middle" and the "upper" class is like the difference between a D and an A+.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Random Thoughts: On Youthful Rebellion
I have not wrote anything about my Thailand adventure yet, I think that is a result of laziness and a reluctance to blog about anything specific until I am done with the experience of student teaching in Bangkok. However, one thing occurred to me today. I noticed as soon as I arrived in this school that the students were considerably more "well-behaved" than students in the US. An immediate presumption was the varying cultures of respect for adults, a type of filial piety that seems to have spread through Asia and still has an impact on the youth.
Some of the things we do with the 6th graders here at the International school would never be able to happen with American kids (letting the roam wherever they'd like for lunch, giving them free time during the day, various activities that involve going around the school and giving them so many general freedoms.) If these occurred in the US we would think all hell would break loose.
So I had a thought on all of this today. Perhaps this difference is a result of how both cultures convey the obedience issue. I thought a little about where ideas of obeying your parents and other authority figures came from in a concrete way for both cultures. For the west it seems to be from religion, mostly the Judea-Christian tradition of honoring thy mother and father. In the East it seems to be more from a philosophical form. Where Confucius came up with filial piety, and legalism taught about strict adherence to laws. I find that these philosophies in itself are more powerful than a religion in terms of obedience to your parents. It's easier I think for the youth of today to reject religious beliefs and in doing so perhaps they also reject the dogma. In the philosophies of the east, there is nothing based on faith. It is really all logical conclusions made by ancient philosophers. What I find by living in Thailand for the last two months, is that people still speak of these philosophies and act on them in their every day lives, and the students are very respectful to authority. The same can obviously not be said about Western students.
This is not necessarily to portray the west in a negative light. Obedience to authority has its pluses, especially if you're a teacher! But the rebelliousness of the west can lead to important skills in questioning authority. Now, the west seems to question smaller levels authorities, like parent's rules, or doing homework. But I am disappointed to see that it does not transfer to the larger society. We obey what the people in power tell us and do to us, mostly because we are told we can obtain the same wealth and power. Youthful rebellion seems to die in the west by the time we get to college age. This part I can barely make sense of.
Some of the things we do with the 6th graders here at the International school would never be able to happen with American kids (letting the roam wherever they'd like for lunch, giving them free time during the day, various activities that involve going around the school and giving them so many general freedoms.) If these occurred in the US we would think all hell would break loose.
So I had a thought on all of this today. Perhaps this difference is a result of how both cultures convey the obedience issue. I thought a little about where ideas of obeying your parents and other authority figures came from in a concrete way for both cultures. For the west it seems to be from religion, mostly the Judea-Christian tradition of honoring thy mother and father. In the East it seems to be more from a philosophical form. Where Confucius came up with filial piety, and legalism taught about strict adherence to laws. I find that these philosophies in itself are more powerful than a religion in terms of obedience to your parents. It's easier I think for the youth of today to reject religious beliefs and in doing so perhaps they also reject the dogma. In the philosophies of the east, there is nothing based on faith. It is really all logical conclusions made by ancient philosophers. What I find by living in Thailand for the last two months, is that people still speak of these philosophies and act on them in their every day lives, and the students are very respectful to authority. The same can obviously not be said about Western students.
This is not necessarily to portray the west in a negative light. Obedience to authority has its pluses, especially if you're a teacher! But the rebelliousness of the west can lead to important skills in questioning authority. Now, the west seems to question smaller levels authorities, like parent's rules, or doing homework. But I am disappointed to see that it does not transfer to the larger society. We obey what the people in power tell us and do to us, mostly because we are told we can obtain the same wealth and power. Youthful rebellion seems to die in the west by the time we get to college age. This part I can barely make sense of.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Howard Zinn: Historical balance
It has been about a week since I heard the news that Howard Zinn passed away of a heart attack at 87. Although Zinn had a long and fulfilling life it was a bit shocking to me as I found him to be someone who would live forever. For the next two hours I searched the web for any material, articles, news stories, anything relating to the late historian. I found some heart-felt reflections by many people, historians and other s who felt the world’s moral spirit got lighter as Zinn left our world. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly his name was not mentioned on any mainstream media outlet. Some op-ed pieces in a few major newspapers, but that was about it. Along with the praise for ZInn, came a flood of people taking the opportunity to bash the historian for his biases and his “abuse” of a scholarly field. I found this to be especially disturbing. Not only because the man had just died, but because they were full of such contempt for a man who has changed an entire generation’s view of American history.
Anyone who knows me well enough knows that Zinn is the reason I want to teach history. I am not unique in this story. I have met many people at school and elsewhere that have had their entire minds changed by Zinn’s famous book, “A People’s History of the United States.” I’ve also met many people, including myself who have been led to become activists based on Zinn’s work and inspiration. For those who don’t know much about Zinn, his message was clear: Throughout US history there was a whole ton of racism, class warfare, sexism, and other forms of oppression. People often fought these obstacles and sometimes they won. Without radicals in our history we would not have had abolition when we did, women would not have had the right to vote, black people would still be segregated, we would have stayed in Vietnam much longer ect ect. To me, that is the most important thing to take from Zinn.
Yet, as the week went on I found just as many Zinn bashings as I did Zinn accolades. The most alarming of the bunch was an article called “America the Awful,” by a historian named Ron Radosh. His premise was that Zinn was not a historian at all, he was a “propagandist.” He says this due to the fact that Zinn claims to serve a higher purpose with his writing. Rather than presenting some analysis of the past that only scholars are going to read, Zinn uses the past to urge people to solve the problems of the present. He does not do this in a way that distorts history, nor lacks evidence, or anything else that he is accused of by the intellectual right. Zinn presents this like any historian would. Those who disparage Zinn act like the left historians are the only ones to use their craft for some political purpose. I also find it obnoxious that there is this idea that because someone lets their bias be known in historical writing that they are writing "bad" history. That's nonsense. Every piece of writing has a bias and I commend Zinn for having been up front about it.
He never once said this is the be all end all of American history. The title of the book is "A People's History of the United States" not "A Complete History of the United States from Everyone's Perspective" It's also a fleeting history, and intended for non scholars, so he inevitably is going to have to leave stuff out and make it accessible to the public. Any mainstream history does the same thing. It does not make him a "propagandist.” Zinn used history for something much greater and more meaningful than most "scholars” and that is the most courageous thing I find anyone in academia has done.
Every historian interprets history differently, something you learn in your intro classes. Zinn's work shows the voices of the past that are usually left out of our historical memory. Radosh says he presents the people as weak and always succumbing to the will of those in power. To me that says he has not read anything written by Zinn, and it suggests that his view of Zinn is solely based on Zinn’s reputation.
Our textbooks and most other mainstream history present our leaders and powerful businessmen as heroes and idols. Zinn brings them back to earth and shows that, like those in power today, they were often not willing to give up their power and wealth for the sake of the people. Howard Zinn brought balance to mainstream American history. His work indeed needs to be complemented with other works. It should not be taken as the definite history, but there is no history that should be taken as a complete history. Unfortunately, not everyone is a scholar, and they indeed do take certain books as the only historical reality, but there is no reason to bash Howard Zinn for this reality.
Howard Zinn will always be in my heart, not just as an aspiring historian, but as an activist and an intellectual who had the courage to practice what he wrote about. His legacy is comprehensive, his spirit will be with an entire generation of activists and writers. Howard Zinn’s death not only shocked me as I thought he could live forever, but it also put two contrasting emotions in my heart: fear that there wouldn’t be anyone to take the torch, but also hope. His death has given me hope that people will start talking about him again and will pick up his book and read his message. It gives me hope that they will see the wretched position of our ancestors and see that they often responded by breaking unjust laws, and fighting back in the masses. We need that today as much as we needed it in any other period of history. Our politicians are bought off by corporations, we continue to wage war for resources and markets, we have something called drone bombs where people in the US control remote bombs that indiscriminately kill innocent people on the other side of the world. We lose aspects of our democracy daily and it seems like most people don’t care. They don’t care because they flood their brains with mindless entertainment, and are misinformed about their own society.
I had the pleasure of being able to see Howard Zinn speak at The College of New Jersey in 2007. I wasn’t even officially enrolled in the school yet, but I snuck in to the lecture room to hear the man speak in person. His lecture was entitled “Bringing Democracy Alive.” His idea was that those who organize and break unjust laws are the most patriotic of all. We don’t currently have a true democracy. We have a corportocracy. My hope is that we use Zinn to look in the past at those who were fed up with their oppressive situation and rebelled. As Zinn put it, when people without any guns, power, or wealth organize and get together for a certain cause they can create a movement that no government can suppress.
-Greg
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
David Brooks' idea of Populism in the US
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26brooks.html?hp
This is a very interesting assessment of populism, but my issue is that as long as corporations are given more and more power over politics (ie the recent supreme court decision) then none of this will matter. The more closely a corporation is thought of as a person in te...rms of the constitution, the more freedom they really have in our political system. They inherently have more money than the individual citizen, so even though they don't have voting power, it doesn't matter because they now have more power to get politicians elected than any individual or groups people with limited funds.
In a perfect fair system it is not right to wage a war on the M.B.A's, but that's not the system that is in place. That sort of populism does exist because corporations have the economic power over policy-making. Our voting power is very limited to what candidates corporations will allow to be exposed on a mass scale.
This is a very interesting assessment of populism, but my issue is that as long as corporations are given more and more power over politics (ie the recent supreme court decision) then none of this will matter. The more closely a corporation is thought of as a person in te...rms of the constitution, the more freedom they really have in our political system. They inherently have more money than the individual citizen, so even though they don't have voting power, it doesn't matter because they now have more power to get politicians elected than any individual or groups people with limited funds.
In a perfect fair system it is not right to wage a war on the M.B.A's, but that's not the system that is in place. That sort of populism does exist because corporations have the economic power over policy-making. Our voting power is very limited to what candidates corporations will allow to be exposed on a mass scale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)