Now for something totally different...
This is my 100th post. Definitely a milestone. Whoo-hoo!!
Social and political philosophy has always been an intriguing subject to me. In my college years I was identified by some sort of test to have a higher literary aptitude and there fore was chosen to take part in higher level literature courses rather than rudimentary “English” courses. This distinction may seem a bit of a stretch for any normal college or university, but one must consider that I attended a purely engineering oriented institution. Usually in such institutions not much weight is given to literary thought, but commonly weight is given to only scientific principles and bringing a student’s English competency to that of basic college levels. I have always had the proclivity for idealistic thought, or at least the interest in thinking about the underlying principles that affect us all in society.
I did some data mining last weekend after posting which proved to be worthwhile endeavor in the end because I ended up finding some thought provoking material. I started looking for information to explain the current events in the US as of late. The particular issues that drove me were the US/Mexican border/immigration issue, the neo-conservative religious right and their disappointment with dubya, and my bible thumping friend and colleague who wrote to me saying that he would have to think about my “lifestyle change” and whether or not he would be able to correspond with me anymore.
First off, I have to mention my distaste with the so called “minutemen” from the southwestern states that have taken it upon themselves to patrol the US/Mexican border. This group, in my New England opinion, is inappropriately using the term minutemen to label their group which I find very offensive. The real minutemen were named such because they were prepared to defend the colonists’ wish for independence from the oppressive rule of the English, men ready to take up arms in a minute. A bunch of yahoos from the southwest who feel it is their duty to defend our borders from the evil Mexicans because our government has failed them I find terribly absurd.
One must ask the question, how did their ancestors cross the border? One of the founding principles of the US is that it is a country founded on free immigration, and that anyone from anywhere has the right to come and seek citizenship. Their ancestors were obviously not denied this right, so have they simply forgotten this fact? And this inclination to take up arms at the drop of a hat couldn’t be more antiquated. I do understand where it comes from; dubya has done a very good job with fostering such thought with all the needless conflicts he has started during his reign as dictator. It really bothers me that unarmed illegal aliens are being greeted by armed hillbillies supposedly defending our borders. They should have instead applications for citizenship or work visas in hand, and if the immigrant refuses to fill it out, only then they should be turned away. I am all for controlled immigration, which obviously needs to be revisited because the current system is not working. To simply selectively decide who can enter the country based on a personal bias is dangerously wrong.
I do stand very firmly on the language issue. I believe English as the national language must be upheld. My grandmother emigrated from Canada in the early part of the last century as a French speaker from Quebec who accepted English as the national language and therefore learned and spoke it. She didn’t question this as it was a fact that to become an American was to be able write and speak English. I stand by this because I have also practiced this principle in my life. When I moved to Germany, it was very important to me to learn the language, even though I do not plan on becoming a citizen. I feel it is only fair that if I have chosen to live here, that I must learn the national language. There are certain responsibilities that come along with being allowed to move around at will. Preserving one’s ancestral heritage is also very important, but language is just a small part of that.
Now on to the neo-conservative religious right (ncrr) and their disappointment with dubya. It was almost totally predictable that he would lose favor when his platform that lured the ncrr didn’t pan out. I think the one issue that lies at the heart of it all is the oil issue. I saw oil security as a thinly veiled objective that everyone dismissed as not a valid issue. Now that the ncrr cannot afford to drive their V10 super sport utility vehicle to the next anti-abortion rally or to the spaceship church on Sunday they find dubya unacceptable. The blind deference to his policies I also find very disturbing. The policies that set in motion after 9/11 designed and propagated to preserve our security couldn’t be any more contrary to what the country was founded on. I am glad that people are starting to wake up to the absurdity of it all. When one allows oppression of a certain group they don’t agree with, they open themselves up to being oppressed as well. It goes both ways.
I guess what lies at the heart of all these problems is that many people have relinquished their ability to think and make their own decisions to someone else who supposedly knows better what is good for them. I have been recently confronted with this because of my friend and colleague has told me in response to my change that he must think about whether or not he can accept me. He has called my life change a “lifestyle” change. This classification I know well. It is a typical classification from the ncrr of such issues as homosexuality and the like, because it is easier to trivialize such issues as a mere “choice” rather than recognize the issue as an innate characteristic. I suspect that he will make his decision based on what the man banging his fist on the pulpit says, or what the good book tells him, instead of deciding for himself. The higher being gave us a mind and free will for a reason. I believe that religious teachings are just a reference to help us decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, and not an absolute plan for life. He is a very intelligent person and I hope that he will allow me to continue to be his friend. If not, oh well.
During my surfing I found everything from hardcore Nazis to thought provoking social commentary. The sites that I enjoy reading and find thought provoking are the ones that ask tough questions and attempt to rationalize them through discussion. The one-sided totalitarian sites I can do without. Discussion is good, blind deference to extreme views is bad. I happened upon the concept of archaism. As I understand it, it means basically that the world will return to a more primitive form of order eventually through the passing of a cataclysm. This line of thought would return us to countries or groups based on a unifying factor such as ethnicity for example. The argument is based on the idea that unification and peace comes from a common underlying factor that a particular group possesses as an innate trait, such as race. This should not be interpreted as a form of racism as many groups have extremetized. I realize that extremetized is not a word, but you get my drift. Early societies were based on ethnicity (e.g. the Celts, Romans, Greeks, etc.) and for the most part were peaceful within themselves as an entity. Within this construct as it is presented, it is conceivable to have a nation of transsexuals for instance. I found the principles that were discussed interesting to consider at the very least. You can read them for yourself here. It is difficult, if not impossible, to subvert human nature, even though it is constantly attempted.
Social and political philosophy has always been an intriguing subject to me. In my college years I was identified by some sort of test to have a higher literary aptitude and there fore was chosen to take part in higher level literature courses rather than rudimentary “English” courses. This distinction may seem a bit of a stretch for any normal college or university, but one must consider that I attended a purely engineering oriented institution. Usually in such institutions not much weight is given to literary thought, but commonly weight is given to only scientific principles and bringing a student’s English competency to that of basic college levels. I have always had the proclivity for idealistic thought, or at least the interest in thinking about the underlying principles that affect us all in society.
I did some data mining last weekend after posting which proved to be worthwhile endeavor in the end because I ended up finding some thought provoking material. I started looking for information to explain the current events in the US as of late. The particular issues that drove me were the US/Mexican border/immigration issue, the neo-conservative religious right and their disappointment with dubya, and my bible thumping friend and colleague who wrote to me saying that he would have to think about my “lifestyle change” and whether or not he would be able to correspond with me anymore.
First off, I have to mention my distaste with the so called “minutemen” from the southwestern states that have taken it upon themselves to patrol the US/Mexican border. This group, in my New England opinion, is inappropriately using the term minutemen to label their group which I find very offensive. The real minutemen were named such because they were prepared to defend the colonists’ wish for independence from the oppressive rule of the English, men ready to take up arms in a minute. A bunch of yahoos from the southwest who feel it is their duty to defend our borders from the evil Mexicans because our government has failed them I find terribly absurd.
One must ask the question, how did their ancestors cross the border? One of the founding principles of the US is that it is a country founded on free immigration, and that anyone from anywhere has the right to come and seek citizenship. Their ancestors were obviously not denied this right, so have they simply forgotten this fact? And this inclination to take up arms at the drop of a hat couldn’t be more antiquated. I do understand where it comes from; dubya has done a very good job with fostering such thought with all the needless conflicts he has started during his reign as dictator. It really bothers me that unarmed illegal aliens are being greeted by armed hillbillies supposedly defending our borders. They should have instead applications for citizenship or work visas in hand, and if the immigrant refuses to fill it out, only then they should be turned away. I am all for controlled immigration, which obviously needs to be revisited because the current system is not working. To simply selectively decide who can enter the country based on a personal bias is dangerously wrong.
I do stand very firmly on the language issue. I believe English as the national language must be upheld. My grandmother emigrated from Canada in the early part of the last century as a French speaker from Quebec who accepted English as the national language and therefore learned and spoke it. She didn’t question this as it was a fact that to become an American was to be able write and speak English. I stand by this because I have also practiced this principle in my life. When I moved to Germany, it was very important to me to learn the language, even though I do not plan on becoming a citizen. I feel it is only fair that if I have chosen to live here, that I must learn the national language. There are certain responsibilities that come along with being allowed to move around at will. Preserving one’s ancestral heritage is also very important, but language is just a small part of that.
Now on to the neo-conservative religious right (ncrr) and their disappointment with dubya. It was almost totally predictable that he would lose favor when his platform that lured the ncrr didn’t pan out. I think the one issue that lies at the heart of it all is the oil issue. I saw oil security as a thinly veiled objective that everyone dismissed as not a valid issue. Now that the ncrr cannot afford to drive their V10 super sport utility vehicle to the next anti-abortion rally or to the spaceship church on Sunday they find dubya unacceptable. The blind deference to his policies I also find very disturbing. The policies that set in motion after 9/11 designed and propagated to preserve our security couldn’t be any more contrary to what the country was founded on. I am glad that people are starting to wake up to the absurdity of it all. When one allows oppression of a certain group they don’t agree with, they open themselves up to being oppressed as well. It goes both ways.
I guess what lies at the heart of all these problems is that many people have relinquished their ability to think and make their own decisions to someone else who supposedly knows better what is good for them. I have been recently confronted with this because of my friend and colleague has told me in response to my change that he must think about whether or not he can accept me. He has called my life change a “lifestyle” change. This classification I know well. It is a typical classification from the ncrr of such issues as homosexuality and the like, because it is easier to trivialize such issues as a mere “choice” rather than recognize the issue as an innate characteristic. I suspect that he will make his decision based on what the man banging his fist on the pulpit says, or what the good book tells him, instead of deciding for himself. The higher being gave us a mind and free will for a reason. I believe that religious teachings are just a reference to help us decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, and not an absolute plan for life. He is a very intelligent person and I hope that he will allow me to continue to be his friend. If not, oh well.
During my surfing I found everything from hardcore Nazis to thought provoking social commentary. The sites that I enjoy reading and find thought provoking are the ones that ask tough questions and attempt to rationalize them through discussion. The one-sided totalitarian sites I can do without. Discussion is good, blind deference to extreme views is bad. I happened upon the concept of archaism. As I understand it, it means basically that the world will return to a more primitive form of order eventually through the passing of a cataclysm. This line of thought would return us to countries or groups based on a unifying factor such as ethnicity for example. The argument is based on the idea that unification and peace comes from a common underlying factor that a particular group possesses as an innate trait, such as race. This should not be interpreted as a form of racism as many groups have extremetized. I realize that extremetized is not a word, but you get my drift. Early societies were based on ethnicity (e.g. the Celts, Romans, Greeks, etc.) and for the most part were peaceful within themselves as an entity. Within this construct as it is presented, it is conceivable to have a nation of transsexuals for instance. I found the principles that were discussed interesting to consider at the very least. You can read them for yourself here. It is difficult, if not impossible, to subvert human nature, even though it is constantly attempted.
posted by Christine Cormier @ 1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home