The Solution?

How I miss the days of Kindergarten, where we would sit and do simple math problems like 2+2. Those problems always had a simple solution. Unfortunately, as I grew older, this ceased to be the case. Now I see problems to which I do not think there are any solutions, or if there are, they aren't very practical. One example would be the "anti-police issue". People often become corrupt when handed power. The police are no exception. So there are many cases of police brutality occurring, and these cases are sometimes reported on the internet. Now the problem arises when there has become so many instances like this that the internet in general seems to be conjuring up this sense of anti-police or police hate. Now of course, this is not something we want, because the police are there to protect us and there are plenty of good cops out there. But when this feeling finds its way into the people, a barrier or wedge is set between the people and the enforcement. And as history has shown us, this never turns out good. So we need a solution that still allows people to complain about police brutality without promoting a sense of anti-police. In class, we came up the idea that every officer should have a morals check before being enlisted. This would result in a drastic decrease of police brutality. So there would be a decrease in the overall hate as well. It may not be the perfect solution, but it's as close as we can hope to get.

The Truth

Once upon a time, the truth was simple. It was clear what was true and what was false. Now, in the 21st century, I'm not so sure we can say the same about truth anymore. I'm not sure we can say it's as simple and clear as it was before. This week in class we discussed the attack of 9/11 in detail. We also discussed the long lasting impacts it left on the country that still effect us today. On 9/11, two sad things happened: 1) 3,000 Americans died, and 2) 1.8 billion Muslims were labeled as "terrorists". There is no doubt that the attack was truly devastating, and it fueled an immense amount of grief in all the people. But unfortunately, it seems like the people chose to convert all this grief into anger, and searched for something to direct all this anger at. And they chose the religion of Islam. Now airport security has been extremely heightened, and there are "random" checks performed on people that all happen to have Arab names. A general sense of hate has been conjured for Muslims in America, and is promoted massively by the media.

Now all negative actions of Muslims are highlighted, and are all tied back to the "violent" religion of Islam. I find this particularly ironic because the word Islam is the Arabic word for "peace", and so associating things like terrorism and violence with the religion of peace just shows us that people really need to look into what they are saying, instead of just "going with the flow". Groups like Al-Qaida and ISIS commit actions that go against the teachings of Islam, and so therefore cannot call themselves true Muslims. They are no more Muslim than the Ku Klux Klan were Christians. They simply borrowed the symbol for its power, but twist it to satisfy their own needs. That, my friends, is the truth. 

Connection of Discrimination

I've noticed a rather interesting similarity between American Studies and American Literature. In American Studies, we learn about how different groups like African Americans and women were discriminated against. They were treated poorly and unfairly. In American Literature, we learn in Maus about how the Jews were discriminated against, and how they were treated poorly and unfairly by the Nazis. So in both situations some sort of discrimination takes place. This got me to thinking the big question, "why?". Why is discrimination a common pattern throughout history? I compared this to a school system, and how there are kids who bully other kids based on things like the clothes they wear and the food they eat. These kids bully those kids to cover up their own insecurities within. They make fun of the flaws in others so no one will notice the flaws in them. They also believe that due to this, they are more superior than the others. This has led me to believe that these groups such as the Nazis have the same concept. They pick on those who they believe are flawed in order to protect their own image. This is quite a significant problem, because not only does it hurt others, but it causes disunity among the whole. The solution to this is to establish a system where no one feels insecure, but rather, they feel safe, so that everyone can work together with no barriers coming between them. 

The Importance of Trust

The New Deal was a way to rebuild America, both economically and politically. This happened through many phases. The first phase consisted of getting banks back up on their feet. One might wonder, why was the government so interested in helping banks this way? Well, the answer became pretty apparent as time passed by. It was to build a trust between the government and the people. Often times we witness a government doing so much, but forgetting that it is there to serve the people. If the people, or citizens, of the country are not satisfied, then every action of the government becomes a selfish one, or one with no purpose. It is the people that decide the fate of the country. The government can only guide and discipline, but it cannot control. The government of United States finally realized this, and made immediate effort to fix these ties. They understood that the key to a healthy relationship is trust. When both sides have faith that the other will live up to expectations, they become a lot more comfortable with them, which improves their bond. Also, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed, which prevented banks from investing in the stock market. This was because the stock market was a risk, and banks were taking this risk with money that was not even theirs. How can one trust a bank like that to safely hold their money? The government realized this and decided to take action in order to ensure trust between them and the citizens.

Survival of the Fittest

"Survival of the fittest" is a commonly used phrase, but do we really understand what it means? Maybe an example can clear things up. The 2nd Industrial Revolution took place in the 19th century. During the revolution, there were some highly successful men whose businesses were doing very well. These men came to be known as the "Captains of Industry". These captains used wit and experience to get ahead of the competition, which resulted in their positions at the time. For example, Carnegie made sure he owned a part of the entire system (mining, shipping, refining, steel, products, sold) so he could effectively control the entire system. Then there was Rockefeller. Rockefeller would make deals with the Pennsylvania Rail Road that if he got a few pennies less of a charge, he would keep a steady business intact with them. This deal gave him the ability to sell for less, which ensured that he steal all the business. This eventually inevitably crippled all the other businesses. Now in this given scenario, Rockefeller certainly seems to be the "fittest" because out of all his competitors, he was the one who came up with this ingenious idea that resulted in his dominating success. So it can be argued that he rightfully deserves the opportunity to gain all the business for himself and cripple his competition. However, the thing with "survival of the fittest" is, what happens to the ones that aren't fit? Being successful to the point of domination has the inevitable consequence of having others suffer a great deal. Is this really the right thing to do? I believe that it is not, because that's not who we are. We are not people who feast on the weak. We are people that help each other out, and the ones that still follow survival of the fittest are in for a hard time when they're suddenly not the "fittest" anymore, because anyone's luck can turn. 

Teaching or Transforming

This week one of our journal entries was "Should American Values be taught in all public schools", and the class resulted in holding a QARE discussion on the topic. In the beginning, the majority of the class said that it is acceptable to teach the values so that students understand what it means to be American. However, that was before we read personal narratives from two different American Indians that attended "American Indian" Schools. The narratives re account how these children were taken from these families and sent to a foreign place. They were made to transform, by being forced to wear white people's clothes, eat white people's food, and speak the white people's language. This was not just normal "teaching". This was taking away everything these children knew and had, and replacing them with completely foreign things and slowly instilling these things into them. This was a transformation. After reading these narratives, many students changed their views. The overall confusion was caused by misunderstanding the exact meaning of the word "teach"

So what is the exact meaning of "teach"? The dictionary definition is "to impart knowledge or give instruction". This meaning may seem simple enough, but one has to remember that imparting something as emotional and meaningful as values may not be as simple as "giving instructions". So where is the line between teaching and transformation? I believe what differentiates them is that teaching still allows for other values and ideas, while transformation has no room for anything but the designated topic.

Forgive or Punish?

On April 9th, 1865, America's bloodiest war finally came to its conclusion. The period that came after was known as the Reconstruction Era. One of the most prominent problems was "what to do with the South?". Many people from the Congress were completely agreeable with punishing the Southerners for seceding and for their crime of Slavery. However, President Andrew Johnson had quite a different plan of action in mind. He wanted to continue Lincoln's intention of forgiving the South and reuniting the Union. Johnson was well aware that this may have not been the most popular mindset, but he implemented what was known as "Executive Reconstruction" to force the South to endorse the 13th amendment and rejoin the Union. Throughout history many people have questioned if Johnson made the right decision, or if he should have listened to the Congress. It is time to dive deeper into this conflict of "forgive or punish?".

It is not acceptable to at any time forget that the South had thrived off Slavery; the practice of imprisoning human beings and forcing them to work for no pay. All the income the slave owners received was earned from the back-breaking work and sweat of hundreds of other human beings. Slavery itself should be a crime with a severe punishment, but the South didn't stop there. When faced with the conflicting views of the North, the decided to secede from the Union, another punishable act. These were the thoughts running through the minds of the Congress members that opposed Johnson. They wanted the South to get what they deserved. They wanted to see heads roll. However, upon further reflection, it is easy to realize that had the South been punished or even executed for their crimes, the body count would pile up even higher; the body count left behind by the Civil War. I believe that Johnson and Lincoln were right to forgive, because it benefited America overall, the fruits of which are still seen today. Revenge was not the answer then, and it is still not the answer for anything, because "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Let us all learn to forgive and forget, and move on with our life.