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.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)