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.

Civil War: Right or Wrong?

In our class we have just about wrapped up speaking about the bloodiest war in US history, the Civil War. There were more deaths in this war than all the other wars US has participated in combined. These insane figures often prompt many people to think, "was it all necessary? Did this all really have to happen?" Well, it is clear after diving further in history that plenty of people including Abraham Lincoln tried many different approaches before resorting to war, for he was completely against the idea of fighting his own citizens. Ironically, it was his winning the election that proved to be the final straw for many slave states, which led to their secession. So in a way, it can be said that Lincoln lit the sparks of the very war he was so against and horrified by. However, Lincoln still agreed that the Civil War was necessary, because it fulfilled its purpose of keeping the Union together. Had there been no Civil War, and a more peaceful solution had been decided upon, then the outcomes of this nation would have been extremely different. For one thing, the "United" States of America would be anything but "united" as the Union and Confederates would be two separate nations. Also, slavery would still exist in the Confederate States, and the Southerners would continue to prosper off this unjust labor. But it doesn't stop there. With the US divided, its power is split, and the overall power of each separate nation would be greatly reduced. As a result, other nations would not have a hard time taking over or defeating either nation. The situation without a Civil War looks like a disaster, so I believe it is safe to say that although the war was not the prettiest option, it was still necessary and had positive outcomes, so it was indeed the right choice.

The Power Of Perspective

" All men are equal" say our Founding Fathers, written down in the Declaration of Independence. But did the actions of the United States stay consistent with these bold and noble words? One of the biggest counterarguments to this is the practice of slavery. Americans, especially southerners, owned and oppressed slaves despite what it said in the Declaration. The Dred Scott case, however, shed some light onto why people still believed slavery to be acceptable. The judge of the case quite clearly declared that although the Declaration did say that all men were equal, the Founding Fathers meant all men of property and honor, and that the Africans clearly did not fit this description so they were not even considered men. Now, this all comes down to perspective, because it is probably true that when the Founding Fathers wrote down "all men" they considered men to be honorable whites owning property and wealth. However, when other people view this statement, they consider the phrase "all men"to literally mean every sing man and women on earth, because that's the way they understand it. That is their perspective. All this confusion and chaos that eventually led to states seceding and the Civil War can all be traced back to this one misunderstanding, which is due to different perspectives being involved. 

For the Sake of Justice...

Abraham Lincoln mentions in his speech that it is now time to free all the salves, because it is morally the correct thing to do. He even goes as far as to pull out verses from the Bible that prove his stand on the argument to be the correct one, the one that God himself stands with. The only problem with this noble stand is that it came too late. Abraham Lincoln went public with this viewpoint when the Civil War was nearing an end, and it was obvious that the Union would win. Speaking up for the slaves may seem like a noble and brave thing to do, but well, by that time there wasn't really anyone to oppose him. Abraham Lincoln neglected to take this stand at the beginning, because he feared opposition from the southern states. But was it not the right thing to do even then? Why didn't Lincoln go public then? It was because he was willing to do the "right" thing only if it was the "best" thing, according to the situation. Unfortunately, this is a human trait that lasts even now, with many people inheriting the attitude that the right thing is only done in specific situations. This is not how humans should be. History is there for us to reflect on it, so that we don't repeat the same mistakes that we learn about. This also connects to the topic of slavery because it has been accepted as a huge mistake on the Americans' part, so we should be careful to never replicate those circumstances by having pride and thinking we are better than anyone else, because God created all men equal.

The True Meaning of United

What makes a nation united? This is a question that several people have pondered over in the past, and history shows us many examples and scenarios as the answer to this question. In American Studies we discussed the United States, and if we really were as united as we think. I believe that the United States are indeed a united nation because we all abide under the same federal government and laws, and we all elect candidates for the same office. This shows that all the states follow the same overall power, while having a say in who runs that power. Furthermore, we all answer to the same final justice of the United States, which is the Supreme Court. This court represents the Judicial branch of the United States, and has the final word on all issues presented to it. Based on these observations from American Studies, I conclude that if everyone in a nation answers to the same final power, then they are by definition united. However, some observations from American Literature prove otherwise. When the colonists settled down in the colonies and began to form production of their own, Britain seized control of all imports and trades. Even though all the colonists answered to the king, they began to realize that they deserved to be their own nation, despite who they answered to. So even before the revolutionary war took place, Britain was not really a united nation because of the colonies who refused to cooperate with their demands. Upon further reflection, I arrived at the conclusion that a united nation is one whose citizens answer to the same power while having some contribution to that power, because citizens of United States all have some contribution, while the colonists clearly did not.

"All men are equal"

There are plenty of incidents observed in history where someone says a bold statement, but doesn't actually mean it, or means something a little different. Thomas Jefferson was no exception when he said "All men are created equal". Hearing this statement would lead one to believe that Thomas Jefferson was referring to literally all living men and women at the time. However, as we dive deeper into the story, we can see that this was clearly not the case. It wasn't that Jefferson's lied when he made his statement, it was that his classification of the word "men" was indeed quite different from others classification. Thomas Jefferson considered "men" to be based on things like being white, European, owing property, being male, following a certain religion, and being educated. These requirements obviously mean that the people Jefferson considers "men" is definitely a lot less than all of mankind, in fact, it is more like a few specific groups of people.

Upon reflection, modern readers may accuse Jefferson for hypocrisy through his statement, However, did Jefferson really do anything wrong? He used words in his statement that held a specifically different meaning for him. How many times might have we done the same thing? When we use idioms and figures of speech, do we stop and consider if our audience completely understands us, or whether they misunderstand and assume something else? The world today is extremely diverse, with many barriers, such as language, culture, and religion, so it is no surprise if someone from a different background understands your words or actions as something different, Jefferson's statement actually teaches us that we should be careful of what we say, especially when addressing an audience. But it also teaches us to take some time to study other people's cultures and religion, so that we can understand and have better communication with them, for communication is what truly unites the world.

This connects to world lit because Jon Winthrop also spoke of liberty for all men, however he took a different approach by describing the different types of liberty, and yet, he sincerely meant "for all men" when delivering this speech.