Leading Collaborators.

What was required of leadership to guide the colonies through a revolution, war, and working constitution of laws was less about personal power and more about working together. The United States of America was a collaboration in itself, and can't be credited to one person, like a monarch, but must be credited to all of those in the front lines of the political revolution. Many colonists can be thanked for what is now the world's superpower nation, but there were certain men in particular who should share most of the glory: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and most importantly George Washington. Each attributed their own contribution to the America of today, and it was both unity and leadership that helped insure that America was forever a democracy.

Though there was collaboration in establishing their government (the goal was to have a free, self sufficient country), the founding fathers weren't united on how that goal would be accomplished; they all clearly had a different opinion of what leadership meant. Adams felt completely comfortable referring to the president (Washington at the time) as "his highness" or "his majesty", which clearly pointed to him belonging to the federalists' party. Jefferson, on the other hand, leaned toward the republican/democratic party, and thought this was ridiculous and reminiscent of monarchy, even mocking him in interviews, ruining their fifteen year friendship. The fight got brutal, and federalists spread word that republicans were "radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country" This caused acrimony between the political parties, casing republicans to retaliate by saying that federalists "promote[d] aristocratic, anti-republican values" [1]. Washington, a true leader liked and respected by [almost] everyone, though a federalist himself, unified the parties enough to focus on the main goal - shaping the American government. He lead them from fighting to collaborating.

When Adams became president in 1796, this helped put a block on the collaboration process. Until the twelfth amendment was passed, the presidential candidate with the second most electoral votes was named vice president, enabling the executive branch to be comprised of two political parties. This made decision-making (a majority of the decisions about foreign policy) more difficult, each one wanting to back their own party with their decision. At the time, it was ultimately left up to the federalists, backed by Washington and the president himself. Whatever political disagreements the parties had, it didn't stop the Adams administration from making political progress. In the years between '96 and 1800, Adams built up the U.S. Navy, fought the Quasi War with France, signed Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, and ended war with France through diplomacy [2]. When Jefferson was elected president four years later, (Washington had died the previous year, taking the strongest ally to the federalist party from the race) he used his experience in the previous multi-partied presidency to make this system more effective. There was less conflict between both parties, and thus unity was restored.

It's obvious that the personalities and even political views of these men didn't match, but they collaborated to make something that was never made before: a true democratic republic. Leadership was needed, but it wasn't leadership meaning one person who takes control. Leadership among the founding fathers meant not necessarily being the smartest, being the best writer, or even being the best speaker, but being able to encourage his peers to move in the direction of collaboration. Leadership meant moving them away from the disagreements that a group of differing ideas can cause and towards making something together that would last on this earth longer than any of it's founders - a free government. Both Adams and Jefferson showed some of these qualities, but George Washington showed all of these qualities all the time. Because of his indispensable leadership and true collaboration of all, The United States of America fulfilled the goals of the founders. America is, and always will be, a free, self sufficient country.

Meet Jane

Life, Liberty, and the right to Question.

The ideas articulated in the Declaration of Independence are the foundation of a particularly American perplexity which defines both our triumphs and our failures even today. The Declaration says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and on these words alone, the very ideals of the United States were formed. Based from these few words, the current superpower nation was beginning to shape into what it is today.

A very controversial issue arises from the line "all men are created equal". The first point to mention is that all men (and women) weren't created equal, and, based on these differences, they were treated differently in rights. The goal of the declaration was equality for all, and setting that goal was a triumph in itself, particularly American because never before had this been attempted in any country. There was no precedent set that they could look to or nation in a similar situation that they could borrow laws from. This was a new country that said it was going to accept people from around the world and they would be given the same rights as the men who'd fought on the soil for a century. Without this statement, maybe slavery wouldn't have been abolished. Sure, everyone can talk about it being amoral, but when "all men are created equal" is put in a governmental document, it gets cogs moving in the brains of the people in charge. There had to be an idea before anything could happen.

What makes it a particularly American failure is almost the same reason; no country had ever declared that their government advocated equal rights for all, so when Thomas Jefferson wrote those famous words, it was an embarrassment to know that America proclaimed their equality but hadn't put it into practice. Jefferson, known notoriously for his opinions on the immorality of slavery, owned many slaves throughout his lifetime. The most perplexing part of this issue is what to remember it as: the first big success, or the first big failure; whether to feel proud about that statement or to be ashamed by that statement. Was it the biggest mistake America ever made, or the greatest accomplishment.

It's common knowledge that the Declaration is said to give us the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". How can Americans say we have the right to live when breaking the law means that the government can kill you. If it is the right of an American to live, why should the government be able to decide when to take their life. This is a particularly American perplexity because never had a country formally given its citizen the "unalienable right" to life. That was American, and no place else has ever wrestled with that concept before. Granted, the Declaration of Independence isn't a legally binding or law-making document, but the principals of this country, basic rights down to something as simple as life, come from this document. Was the statement meant figuratively? No, the statement is as clear and concise as the sentence before it, and invokes the same American perplexity. Does breaking the law take away your "creator given" right to live?

All people struggle with perplexity. Often events both past and present that Americans face are reminiscent of those few simple lines that begin the Declaration of Independence. The bottom line is that there is no other country like the United States, and there probably never will be. There are things in the American government and its history that are perplexing, but it's the rights set up by the Declaration of Independence that allow one to even think about wrongs its government may be committing, and that is something that isn't perplexing. The Declaration helped bring up the freedom to question the way our country is run, and that in itself is an American triumph.

I am an American.

Patriotism is a very ambiguous word; Patrick Henry, in his famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech opened with the line "No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House". The question is, patriotism to what? to whom? To pinpoint the exact definition of patriotism would be impossible. Looking at Patrick Henry, it's easier to make a connection between the patriotism shown to England, the patriotism shown to each individual colony (his being Virginia), and American patriotism.

Patrick Henry was more than a well-spoken scofflaw. He spoke up when changes needed to be made. In 1763, while arguing the Parson's Cause (a price raise in tobacco due to the shortage in 1758) Henry was quoted saying that a king who would veto a good and necessary law decided on by a local voting body was not a king at all, but "a tyrant who forfeits the allegiance of his subjects (Colonial Williamsburg 1)." When arguing against the stamp act on May 30, 1765, he went as far as to call what the king was doing treason. It was actions of the king that motivated Henry, among other colonists along the coast, to turn against him. It was not a undying need to cause trouble.

During this stir, Patrick Henry still considered himself, first and foremost, a Virginian. His obvious rebellion against the king left him no longer an Englishmen, and it was in Virgina that he shared the closest connections with like-minded people. However, there were pressing problems that all colonies had, and in 1774 he represented Virginia in the first continental congress to discuss the Intolerable Acts. What came out this meeting are some of the most famous words spoken in American history: I am not a Virginian, but an American. "By 1772, he'd already realized that there was a unique, special, distinct American Identity, that we were somehow different all of a sudden from our English cousins overseas" (Shumon). Patrick Henry was the first to think of such a thing as an American, but he certainly wasn't the last.

In March of 1775, Henry encouraged his fellow Virginians to prepare to defend themselves for war. He said himself that "the war is inevitable--and let it come!" He said, "there is no retreat but submission in slavery", and he decided that he would rather make the sacrifice of war than know surely that Virginians and Americans alike were under the rule of an unjust king overseas. He organized the militia and obtained the gunpowder stores which stirring some trouble with the King-appointed governor of Virginia. His restitution of the gunpowder is considered by many to be the start if the American Revolution. Never was there a Virginia Revolution, but a revolt of Americans together for the first time as patriots fighting for their country. "This Democratic Republic of Virginia, and eventually America, had never been attempted before, and it worked. I think the forefather would be proud and amazed" (Shumon).

He closes his speech for the war saying, "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." In quoting Richard Shumon, it'd be more than fair to say that Patrick Henry "was the chief advocate if Independence". He wanted freedom, as a country, from oppressive England, and he was willing to fight for it using both weapons and words. However ambiguous the word, there's is no doubt that Patrick Henry showed patriotism when building the "America" lived in today, even if it took a whole new kind of patriotism to do so. He may have been born a Virginian under British rule, but he died an American.

Works Cited
"American Revolution." 9 May 2007 .
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death." LibertyOnline. 9 May 2007 .
"Patrick Henry." Colonial Williamsburg. 9 May 2007 .
Shumon, Richard. Interview with Lloyd Dobbins. Colonial Williamsburg. 9 May 2007
.

More than a Feeling.

While I was in New York, I missed a video on advertising. From what I was told later, it compared older advertising campaignes that talked about the product to newer campaignes that talk about the feeling you will get from using the product.

While watching TV last night, I saw a commercial for a perticular brand of alcohol. It's slogan said something similar to "Feel like the life of the party!" It didn't say "This alcohol will make you the drunkest!" or "This alcohol tastes the best!" because that's not why people want to drink; they drink to be the life of the party. They drink to be accepted. If this alcohol promises popularity, why not drink it? Doesn't everyone want to be accepted? Advertiments play on what you want to get out of life, not what you need from a particular product.

When white is alright.

Weapons of privilege are armor in both a figurative and literal sense. For one, Europeans had literal weapons that gave them privilege; they had guns, while Native Americans didn't. More recently, this phrase has been used to describe the privilege there is to being male, white, and/or heterosexual, These are qualities you're born with, and they arm you for life with something that is just as important as guns in a war.

It is statistically proven that two people with almost identical resumes will be looked at for something more: their color, sex, or sexual orientation. It is more likely that a white man will get the job over an equally qualified man of of a different ethnicity. It is more likely that a man will get the job over an equally qualified woman. Since there was a law voted on last year on whether it's okay to not hire a gay person because they're gay, I'd say that sexual orientation is also a factor.

What does this all mean to me? I know it makes me sick to think about thinking about whether it's more beneficial to be white. IT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE A THOUGHT IN MY HEAD! I don't want to be thankful I'm white because I can't morally do so, but I think I am on a subconscious level. It's disgusting.

What makes me feel a little better is knowing that there may be something I can do. If I use my white benefit to be a voice for the less privileged, I might be able to be something besides sickening. I want to do something, an dyet here I am sitting on my butt doing nothing but worrying about the quarter closing. I am worried about a C in math when there's so much more important things, bigger things, life changing things to do.

I too have a dream, but right now it's only a dream. I will make it reality.

Just a little too politically correct?

I competed for drama this weekend, and the competition was held in Skowhegan Area High School. Their mascot is the Indians. No, they don't mean people from India. Okay, I didn't like it. But hey, I am always too PC, right? That's what I get told, so that's what I was thinking. I guess it shouldn't have bothered me.

At the end of day two, we went to the gym for some "fun" games. They were pretty lame, so I walked across the gym to talk to some of my friends. Then I saw the mascot painted on the wall: there was a Native American man in a loincloth with a spear. Like, are you kidding me? Cavemen wear loincloths. White men killed more people than any Native American people ever did. So why, then, was this picture of the INDIANS a simple, half naked, belligerent fool?

You tell me.

White America? II

I felt that I needed to write this post not to recant what I said in the last one, but to modify it slightly.

In class, we talked about the "privilege" of being white. I didn't understand this, though; I mean, I had been in situations where white was what you'd call the "minority", but I never felt better in life about being white. I thought everyone was just a person. If everyone thought like that, maybe this would be alright to think...

I didn't understand the "privilege" of being a certain race until I could put myself in the "unprivileged"'s shoes. I, as a female, feel that there is a certain privilege to be male. When I think about that, I can easily see the same privilege of being white. I had a discussion recently with a white male, and he didn't think the white/male privilege existed. It's so much harder, I realize, to notice the wrong that goes on until it is you that is wronged.

I am still not sure where I stand on scholarships only for certain races. As a competitor in the flat world, I would prefer that I had a better chance of getting into the program I wanted. Even so, the moral battle is more important. I don't know what's okay in this situation. It is important to know someone's history. Maybe greatness means not relying on your history to get what you want out of life. Maybe it means embracing it. What I know for certain is that I simply don't know.

White America?

Mr. Viles made a point: your history does make whom you become. There's no way anyone can disagree with that. Where we disagree is on is whether your history is you.

Take Oprah, for example. To know how great her success is, you have to realize that it was exceptionally difficult to be African American and be successful in her field. You have to realize that she came from poverty, and that part of her success is her ability to empathize with those in that situation. The fact of the matter is, Oprah's former situation is less common today. You don't have to be a minority to be poor and you don't have to be poor to be a minority. There are those who aren't necessarily a minority, but are in poverty. There are minorities who are middle class or wealthy. There is a more level playing field. There should be no credit given to a certain race. Last time I checked, that was prejudicial.

I thought the goal of our country was equality, not apologies by those who've done nothing for something that happened in the past. How are we, as a nation, supposed to find equality if there are distinct separations between races. Our system isn't a melting pot; it's too divided to be considered as such. I don't want to lose a spot that I am more qualified for so that a college can get it's quota of minorities. If that's selfish, I'm sorry. Not too sound too white America, but it's not my fault that I was born white, just as it's not someone else's fault that they were born into the race they are. I can't stop racism. There are some minorities who are turned down for a job or scholarship I'm sure, but it's hidden because it's a crime to discriminate against someone for their race. What isn't a crime is to have a scholarship for only blacks. Is that fair?

All in all, I think for equality's sake that people shouldn't take advantage of the fact that some races have had a harder history. It's true. It's terrible. It can't be erased. I'm sorry it happened. I shouldn't be paying for what my awful ancestors did with my education. Others shouldn't be benefiting from what happened to their ancestors. People should realize it's not what's on the outside that counts, and even if your outside reveals that your history has been harder for you than mine was for me, it's time to think in the now and not rely on the past to get what you want.

On another note, this conversation wouldn't be happening if we lived almost anywhere else. I think the fact that our school is 99% Caucasian makes this discussion much easier to have. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Oppression + Singing = Disney

-Part 1-
[Ratcliffe]
What can you expect

From filthy little heathens?
Their whole disgusting race is like a curse
Their skin's a hellish red
They're only good when dead
They're vermin, as I said
And worse

[English Settlers]
They're savages! Savages!

[Ratcliffe]
Barely even human

[English Settlers]
Savages! Savages!

[Ratcliffe]
Drive them from our shore!
They're not like you and me
Which means they must be evil
We must sound the drums of war!

[Ratcliffe+English Settlers]
They're savages! Savages!
Dirty redskin devils!
Now we sound the drums of war!

[Powhatan]
This is what we feared
The paleface is a demon
The only thing they feel at all is greed

[Kekata]
Beneath that milky hide
There's emptiness inside

[Native American]
I wonder if they even bleed

[Native Americans]
They're savages! Savages!
Barely even human
Savages! Savages!

[Powhatan]
Killers at the core

[Kekata]
They're different from us
Which means they can't be trusted

[Powhatan]
We must sound the drums of war

[Native Americans]
They're savages! Savages!
First we deal with this one
Then we sound the drums of war

[English Settlers]
Savages! Savages!

[Ben]
Let's go kill a few, men!

[Native Americans]
Savages! Savages!

[Ratcliffe]
Now it's up to you, men!

[All]
Savages! Savages!
Barely even human!
Now we sound the drums of war!

-Part 2-
[Pocahontas]
Is there nothing I can do?
Will this really be the end?
Is it only death that waits
Just around the riverbend?

[Ratcliffe]
This will be the day ...
(Let's go men!)

[Powhatan]
This will be the morning ...
(Bring out the prisoner)

[English Settlers and Native Americans]
We will see them dying in the dust

[Pocahontas]
I don't know what I can do
Still, I know I've got to try

[English Settlers]
Now we make 'em pay

[Pocahontas]
Eagle, help my feet to fly

[Native Americans]
Now without a warning ...

[Pocahontas]
Mountain, help my heart be great

[English Settlers and Native Americans]
Now we leave 'em blood and bone and rust

[Pocahontas]
Spirits of the earth and sky ...

[English Settlers and Native Americans]
It's them or us

[Pocahontas]
Please don't let it be to late ...

[English Settlers and Native Americans]
They're just a bunch of
Filthy, stinking

[English Settlers]
Savages!

[Native Americans]
Savages!

[English Settlers]
Demons!

[Native Americans]
Devils!

[Ratcliffe]
Kill them!

[Native Americans]
Savages!

[English Settlers]
Savages!

[Ratcliffe+English Settlers]
What are we waiting for?

[All]
Destroy their evil race
Until there's not a trace left

[Pocahontas]
How loud are the drums of war

[English Settlers and Native Americans]
We will sound the drums of war
(Savages! Savages!)
Now, we sound the drums of war
(Savages! Savages!)

[Ratcliffe]
Now we see what comes
Of trying to be chums

[Native Americans]
Now we sound the drums ... of ... war!

[English Settlers]
Of course it means the drums ... of ... war!

[Pocahontas]
Is the death of all I love
Carried in the drumming of war?

Kaylee, Hannah, and I were listening to the Pocahontas soundtrack. The song listed above is called "Savages", and for good reason. The things we heard in the song are appalling, and reading the lyrics is even worse.

At first, I was thinking about how hard it was to "Disney-fy" the movie, but even with the modifications it is still awful. The most terrible thing is that, as a six year old, all of the unethical behavior completely passed me by. I had the Pocahontas barbie that braided your hair, but while using it, the oppression of the Native Americans didn't one cross my mind. It kind of bothers me now that I didn't know or care what was really going on.

The worst thing is that there was a lyrics change. The line that says "the whole disgusting race is like a curse" was changed, either from or to (it's confusing as to which) "That's what you get when races are diverse". I can't even tell which one is worse.

I was just wondering if I was the only one who cares.

An Age-Old Hate Crime

Many would say that a myth set or religion is essential to growing up with a strong set of values. How else can a child learn how to live without examples of what is right and wrong? A religion is what defines a person, cultural group, or country, so how can one be defined if they don't have one? The United States gets a lot of abuse from people thinking that with no specific religion, there are too many valueless Atheists. Maybe with a common myth set, this country would be better off. The more similarities within a nation, the more a people will unite. It is differences that cause violence.

The common myth set first known to be prevalent in the region now referred to as the United States was the Native American religion. Joseph Campbell states that there are four functions to religion, and Native Americans' religion was no exception. Campbell's first function was the "Mystical Function", seeing the wonder of the universe and to feel awe before this mystery. Native Americans definitely saw the wonder of the universe, and thus treated it with great respect. They, as a culture, were careful with their land. they took only what they needed and nothing more, for they knew that there would not be supplied another Earth and they would be living on it forever, along with their children and grandchildren. They knew that the mystery of their lives and homes could be gone if abused, so they treated the earth well.

The Scientific Function, the one which shows the shape of the universe and reveals the names and purposes of things in such a way that the mystery of the Mystical Function is preserved, is the second aspect of religion according to Campbell. I think the concept of cyclical time is one of the most detailed explanation of how the world works. Native Americans realize that when they die, they will live again with those who came both before and after them. The shape of the their lives was a circle, and they would be joined in that circle by those born to it afterward.

The third function is the Sociological Function which validates the social order within the religion. In The Earth Shall Weep, it was made clear that in Native American culture women have their place and men have theirs. It is commonly referred to as Matriarchal, but roles in the "tribes" were often equally important and relied upon tasks of the other gender. For instance, it was common practice to the Iroquois for the women to make weapons and tools which the men would use for hunting. Both sexes had very important, yet distinct, roles in society.

The last function, according to Campbell, is the teaching function. This function shows how to live a human life under any circumstances and how to be a "great" human under stress, fear, illness, power, etc. In Black Elk Speaks, Black Elk's role in his "tribe" was to retell his visions so that they could be used to aid his people. When under stress, illness, fear, and power struggle, the Native Americans' lives had to go on. People were dying, but others were left to live with that. There were still people who needed to stand up and, maybe not be successful, but great for their nation. It was more than lives that were at stake, so it was important that both people and their culture was saved. When there was no one to turn to, and nothing but lies coming from the opposition, they turned to their gods for guidance so they could get through the circumstances blocking their path. They lived their lives for their religion.

All of these functions help explain the Native American Religion, but they also define the European beliefs during that time period. Europeans were much less careful with their land, probably because they believed that they were never going to see it again after death. Christianity and science were at two completely separate ends of the spectrum; many scientists were thought to be anti-religious, and there was no common agreement between culture and religion about all of the facts of life. Similarly to Native Americans, there were gender roles in European culture as well. The similarities end there, though, because the role of women were very diminished in society and it was clear that European government and culture was Patriarchal. Concerning being great under difficult situations, European Christians turned to God to guide them through their troubles. Corrupted as the church was, it gave people hope.

Through the extremely one-sided comparison given, one can see that there aren't many likenesses between he two religions. With so many differences, is it really possible that these two peoples could livecopacetically on the same land without conflict? Their whole lives were different. They did not share religion, diet, immunities, or appearance. Though you could call all of these differences superficial, when there are differences, conflict in inevitable. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious prejudice cause conflict because there are differences in people, superficial or not. Accordingly, where there is conflict, there is violence. There is an entire crime for people who commit prejudicial acts of violence, known as hate crimes. If there is violence in the "civilized" world that we live in because of these differences, it's more than certain that violence was bound to happen in the "uncivilized" time surrounding the colonization of this country.

Looking back, Americans talk about how poorly the "Indians" were treated. What they don't see is how it is mimicked in their own society. There is so much general hate and misconception in the world based on stories, myths, and war tales about people who are different. Kids are growing up thinking that being from Iraq makes people terrorists, being Hispanic means they must have "hopped the border", and being Native American makes a person noble for no reason at all. Differences will always lead to conflict, and conflict will always lead to violence. Like it or not, it's the way it is and always has been. Maybe "civilization" will change things.

What do Primative and Articulate have in common?

Though it's been said before, words aren't just words. They are what defines everything in any society, including people. What's really important is to notice how the way words adapt change everything about its meaning. After that, it's hard to describe something accurately without wondering whether it means what you think it mean, or something else entirely.

One example of this change is how the word queer went from meaning odd to homosexual or effeminate. Now, if someone my age hears someone say queer, they think that it must be a wimpy boy it is referring to. A teacher can't call something queer, meaning strange, without the students, and even some of the teachers, snickering as if someone said a swear word.

Another example is the way dumb is now used. The word went from meaning mute to meaning stupid, or unintelligent. I didn't learn what the word dumb actually meant until I read Helen Keller in 7th grade. Now, if a mute person was called dumb, there would be confusion as to whether it was meant to mean that they can't speak or that they are stupid.

This relates to what was discussed in class because it is all about what we call Native Americans that help define them to those who don't know. The word primitive used to simply mean that there was a lack of technology. The meaning it has adopted recently makes it mean something closer to stupid or simple. Cave people are often described as primitive. Monkeys are often described as primitive. A group of people should never be described as primitive.

All of this ties into political correctness. I heard on CNN (as background noise; I didn't pay full attention to the broadcast) that it was being questioned as to whether it was okay to say articulate. To my knowledge, that means you can speak well, but it was being questioned because it should be assumed that someone in power would obviously be articulate so it wouldn't be a big deal. I don't know if they've spoken with our president recently, but I know that it is untrue. Ones ability to speak isn't the only factor in ones ability to lead.

Either way, if it offends someone to call them articulate because it makes them feel insecure and uncomfortable, then don't say it. I'm not saying anyone should be able to stomp on your first amendment right, but you shouldn't not say it because you're forbidden to do so. Don't do it because it hurts other people. It's not a huge inconvenience to me, and I don't think it would hurt anyone else either to watch what they say.

Acceptance is more Easily Said than Done.

Though I am always first to stand up for what I believe in, it is a great deal harder to stand up and speak about what you're not sure you believe or don't believe. Most of the class can speak from a religious standpoint when we discuss religion, but here, I can only use logic, what knowledge I have, and a lot of [educated] guessing.

I can see how it is impossible to accept another religion when your own tells you that those belonging to that faith will meet a tragic fate. In class, I heard this compared to tolerence for other races, but this I completely disagree with. Christianity says that those of other religions are wrong. There is nothing about being Caucasion that says you must hate Hispanic people, or something about being Asian that says you must hate African American people. When dealing with religion, it is a disagreement about the facts of life and death; when dealing with race, it is solely about hating someone for their appearence.

Then again, there is a difference between disagreement and hatred.

Mythbuster: Success is more important than Greatness.

I think the term "myth" is often misinterpreted. It is always referred to as something that is false or lees important. People refer to many religion stories as myths, but it's not often a term used to describe the bible. Myths are something that people look to to help make decisions in their own lives. To say a myth is an untrue story wouldn't necessarily be correct either. The things written in the bible may have happened. They may not have. I wasn't there, so I don't know. I don't think it's whether it happened that's important. I think it's where the story leads you in life is much more important.

These stories are supposed to tell you how to have a successful life. I don't think that's true. The bible never says to go to college or do drugs, but it teaches you to do the right thing. It's not always obvious what the right thing is. If a man is unhappy with life and he does drugs, he would be looked at as a selfish loser. Why? It's his life, and he can live it in whatever way makes him happy or the closest thing to happy. How can you call this man any less great than the man who works hard in school, makes perfect grades (by, perhaps, any means necessary), gets the perfect, most high paying job, and lives his life that way. They, in my opinion, are both selfish losers. I was taught to never judge a book by it's cover. Just because the more "successful" man has stuff, it doesn't mean he's happy either, and he doesn't think about the people around him any more than the drug user. On the "greatness" scale, they're both equally not at the bottom of it.

The myth about success overpowering greatness: busted.

Is PC the way to be?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion; a phrase that's so often heard but followed through much less. It seems like it's impossible to say anything without it being considered offensive, derrogatory, or "politically incorrect". Does the thought occur to no one that it's not the sensativity of some, but the ignorance of others, that keep everyone questioning whether what they're saying is "PC" enough for the setting they're in?

A person many would consider to be respectable once told me something: to be politically correct is to lack in character. I was insulted, for I had never been told by a caucasion, heterosexual male living in the good ol' US of A that I should, in essence, hurt people with my words to have a laugh or prove something to other people. Though he may be "respectable", I certainly didn't respect his at that moment. It would be accurate to say that I took little if what I heard him later say seriously.

Under our government (in which all men are created equal), everyone is given the freedom to say and publish what they want. I think the rights permitted by our government are essential, and people should be able to say what they want. Does that mean it's approprite to harrass somone based on the color of their skin, cultural background, religion, sexual orientation, or gender? Morally, no. Legally, sure! As long as you be sure to commit no crimes, it is okay to attack people with the power of words. Someone has to be harmed or property has to be damaged before someone will call it a "hate crime".

Parents today are either so intent on going against politically correctness or don't care enough to teach kids that just because something is not the F-word doesn't mean it isn't as bad, or worse, to say. Kids grow up thinking it's okay to call something 'gay', 'jewish', or 'girly' and because they aren't the four letter words that good kids don't say, it's accepted or even encouraged. You don't have to be a female, Jewish homosexual to be offended by that sort of talk. The only thing is that you have to think about someone other than yourself.

With this comes the dispute about what to call Native American peoples. It's more than offensve to call them Indian tribes for two reasons. One: Indians live in India. The man who brought troops to a land that didn't belong to his people to kill millions named them that. I don't want a race of people named by the people who slaughtered them in unfair fights. Two: A tribe is savage. You separate animals into tribes. You separate primitigve caveman people into tribes. You don't separate civilized human beings into tribes.

An issue that hits close to home is the number of people upset with the representation of Nokomis being changed from an angry Native American to that of an ancient Trojan warrior. Trojan warriors do not exist anymore. All literature and history books describe them as being belligerent. The Iliad was based on a war the trojans fought Trojans are depicted as big and scary. On the other hand, Native Americans are not big and scary. The are still alive, and I'm sure don't want to be remembered by their children as a people who did nothing but fight. I don't care if the Native American costume was cooler looking. It was morally wrong.

What I'm saying is that it isn't always hippie, tree-hugging fools who are politically correct. The term in itself is wrong, since it's your moral standing rather than your political standing that will determine what you say and how. Forget about sensative people being offended and think about whether you'd want to be remembered as less and or about negatively because of things you can't help or have the right to believe. Then think about whether it would make much of a difference whether the person through "I was just kidding" or "don't be so sensative" after it. You learned as a kid to treat others as you want to be treated. Maybe it's time for another lesson.

Nationalism v. Worldism

Citizenship is a big issue with the world we live in today. In countries all over the world, there are holidays to celebrate nothing but citizenship to one's country and the history behind it. In the United States, American flags fly outside all public buildings and students stand every morning to pledge allegiance to everything this country stands for. Around the world, there is the same sense of national pride, and it's for no reason except living in a certain region. Government and citizenship is important in the world we live in today. This is completely different than Europe in the past.

To even use the term "national pride" to describe Western Europe in the middle ages would be incorrect. It was originally set up as a feudal system of government where there were many small kings who were in charge of the small region that they privately owned and controlled. In ancient Grecian times, nationalism began because wars were won and territory had to go to the victor. It was given to a certain region, thus city-states were born. Within these city-states, strong governments were forming. Then in the late BCs, Rome was the main conqueror, and, with every place they conquered, its territory went back to Rome. Not only were Romans defined by military protection, but by culture that they maybe didn't have before. Their system of government was as complex as the one Americans live under today. Romans were happy to call themselves Romans and know they were the best.

When Rome fell, all nationalism fell with it. People referred to as barbarians literally came to Rome with bigger sticks and took over. Religion was gone, the arts were gone, and the Roman title was gone. No one belonged to anything resembling a nation. There were constant mini-wars sprouting for a short turn at leadership, now remembered as the dark ages. They were eventually settled with lasting kings; there was one for every tiny "town". As mentioned earlier, these feudal kings governed their own territory. People did work and farmed for their feudal kings, otherwise known as lords, and got protection from them in return. Many kings adopted Christianity (after receiving money from the church to do so) and forced their subjects to do the same. Soon, the church held most of the power in Europe. Just as on Roman times, the majority of Europe was Roman, the majority was now Christian.

As time went on, the kings faded into monarchism. King Louis XIV became the first monarch, and it really developed the true Nation state. There's no way you could be closer together as a country than having a single governor. It unified France because the French now shared a language, a religion, and a ruler. The church was suddenly less powerful, so they upped the ante.Not long after, it became even more apparent that the church's main objective was to gain money. Many people were uneasy with paying for things God would be in charge of doing, but with the threat of Hell, people kept their mouths shut. When Reverend Martin Luther posted his 95 Thesis on why the church was corrupt, many saw it, identified with it, and took a stand. It wasn't long til people started thinking about themselves as much as they thought about God and, since there was less of a threat of Hell, that they could start pursuing things like art, literature, and science. It was then that certain places, like Italy and later France, that would take pride in sharing their nationality because they could brag about what accomplishments had been made in their country.

Nationalism returned because people were no longer living in "dark ages".Then, in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people truly defined themselves as citizens of a country because of the rise of technology that came with the industrial revolution. Countries were fighting over who could invent what, when, and whether it was better than what other countries were inventing. England, who was furthest along in technology, actually kept people from leaving the country to insure they were the most advanced. English could truthfully say they were better than other nations as a whole, and they were proud to say that they were from England for that very reason. When good things happen in a country, few from that country hesitate to share that they are part of that success.

More recently, nationalism is a big part of everyday life. As time goes on, it seems that nationalism means less and less. Sure, it still means something to be an American. What's also important to know in the flat world is that there isn't just competition for jobs and schools with Americans. There is also competition with young men and women from India, China, Columbia, and France. It's not good enough to be a big fish in the small pond the United States has become. One needs to be a big fish in the worldwide pond. Nationalism peeked, and it is steadily fading as quickly as it came about. What's interesting is that nationalism didn't exist in the first place because there were nothing that countries could take pride in, but nationalism is leaving as the world gets flatter because it's the world that now has things it can be proud of, not just individual countries. Nationalism is obsolete; worldism is the new and improved version.

After all of this, there is one thing left unasked: is worldism better? Many think think that the flat world is diminishing the Home-Sweet-Home, God Bless America attitude. Is this such a bad thing? Yes, it may be, in some situations, a social advantage to say "I am an American". As the flat worlds flattens even more, it seems it could be detrimental to attempt to use American nationality as a ticket to get a job. There are tons of other applicants that, though aren't necessarily American, are willing to work as hard as anyone. If an application screams "I'm American", it may seem like they're trying to use it to their advantage. It's not being American that will hurt someone. It's thinking that being American is makes them better that's going to hurt U.S. citizens in the long run. With that said, what can Americans be defined by. If it's not language, religion, or nationalism, then what is it? Who says Americans need to be defined? It's what a person is good at, their likes and dislikes, their passions that make them who they are. They don't need to be themselves in a group to be themselves. On with worldism.