I have to apologize for my absence. My summer was a bit tumultuous and I got off my writing schedule. I'm sure everyone out there can appreciate what happens when schedule patterns are broken. It's usually bad. So, I just help to prove that point. I have not stopped having writing ideas, though, so there are good blog posts in the works! I wanted to be sure that the four people who check this blog regularly know I'm alive and, more importantly, that my mind is still alive.
Come back again soon!
Monday, November 26, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Jazz Hands (and Spirit Fingers)
Before I quit teaching, I was lucky enough to be able to teach a class that I feel truly passionate about -- American Literature. One piece of American literature that really moves me is the Declaration of Independence. I used to tell the kiddos in my class that it was probably one of my top ten favorite pieces of literature to teach because once everyone understands what is being said, the brilliance and beauty of the document starts to emerge more clearly. I had a student tell me last year that he learned more about American history from my forty-five minute Declaration of Independence lecture than he did in his history class. Always a good day when you hear that. Anyways, in honor of America's birthday, I figured what better way to celebrate than to re-visit this magical piece of Americana. Hopefully it gives you jazz hands (and spirit fingers) the way it does me. My teachable moments (and helpful definitions) are in [brackets]. Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel [push] them to the separation.
[Right off the bat, notice that the Founding Fathers (from here on out: FF) didn't beat around the bush. They say that this separation is necessary, not just desired. This is not just a political temper tantrum. (More about that later.) They also clarify that by getting rid of these political ties, they are taking on a new role as a group of people -- a separate but equal role. This suggests they were under England before this Declaration was declared.]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they they are endowed by their Creator [the Christian God] with certain unalienable Rights [that is, they can't be taken away], that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving [obtaining] their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter [change] or abolish [get rid of] it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect [achieve] their Safety and Happiness.
[A couple meaty sentences, for sure. First of all, notice that the FF clearly stated that the Rights which make us equal were given to us by our Creator. Government is not the last word on Rights; God is. Now, in order for those Rights to be protected, governments are put into place and the powers (even more, the "just powers") of those governments come directly from the people. I can remember a student asked me once if what the Colonists did was actually wrong since they weren't respecting and fearing the government, like the Bible says we should. I told him that part of what makes the Declaration of Independence so brilliant is that it was the last resort for the Colonies. They did what they could to try to change how they were being treated in the form of petitions, letters, boycotts, and peaceful demonstrations. After they were rebuffed enough times, it was time to take action since the Rights they knew were given to them by God were being violated. However, instead of just saying, "Screw it, let's just shoot some guns," the Colonies decided to let King George know exactly why they were doing what they were doing. They had tried to "alter" the government before they chose to "abolish" it. And their central goal was simply to be protected! It wasn't just that they didn't feel like following the rules. The king was not holding up his end of the government bargain by treating them unfairly.]
Prudence [caution], indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient [fleeting] causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn [has shown] that mankind are more disposed [apt] to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations [seizures of power], pursuing invariably [always] the same Object evinces [reveals] a design [plan] to reduce them under absolute Despotism [tyranny], it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains [forces] them to alter their former Systems of Government.
[Just a side note: every time I read "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security"...I get chills. Nerdy teacher, I know. But think about how this document changed the course of history! It's incredible when you really stop to contemplate it.]
[In this section, I so appreciate that the FF noted that most people are willing to put up with being treated badly as long as being treated badly is bearable. They were using a basic understanding of human nature to strengthen their cause. People will often complain about things, but they, more often than not, won't attempt to make a change for the better. So, in essence, the FF are saying, "Even we--with our human tendency to 'put up' with abuse--can't take this anymore and demand to be treated more justly." The Declaration says here that the FF believed King George's eventual goal was Absolutism. Obviously, that was (and is) a conflict with the Rights they believed God had given every person, and, thus, they were declaring it their "right" and "duty" to create a new government that would protect them from tyranny.]
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [you already know what this means!], all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
[In the following section, the FF literally make a list of all the ways King George has violated them and their freedom. I am going to summarize in my own words to make it go a little faster. I usually skipped this part when I was teaching it...But what makes it important is that, again, the FF wanted to make it clear that they weren't just throwing a political temper tantrum. They had very specific reasons for declaring a separation from England. You could probably skim it and still get the major gist of why America did what she did.]
1. He won't approve laws that would uphold the public good.
2. He won't allow his governors (in the Colonies) to pass important laws because he wants to approve them himself, except he ignores the laws once he receives them.
3. He won't pass laws to help large districts unless they agree to no longer be represented in the legislature.
4. He has made legislation difficult in an attempt to bully people into doing what he wants.
5. He has gotten rid of representative houses who oppose his invasions on the rights of the people.
6. He has stalled elections and left states without anyone in charge.
7. He has tried to keep people from migrating to America through unfair laws.
8. He has obstructed justice by not passing laws to create judiciary powers in the Colonies.
9. He has made it so judges' length of tenure and payment of salary depend on him.
10. He has created offices (and sent officers) to harass the people and cause them problems.
11. He has kept standing armies in times of peace.
12. He has made it so the military is independent of (and superior to) the civil powers in the Colonies.
13. He's tried to force his legislation on the states, even legislation that contradicts state constitutions.
14. He is housing large groups of soldiers in our midst.
15. He's protecting those soldiers from being prosecuted for murdering colonists.
16. He has cut off our trade from the rest of the world.
17. He has taxed us without consent.
18. He has deprived us of trials by jury.
19. He has taken people away from the Colonies to be tried for fake crimes.
20. He has established an arbitrary government by getting rid of English law in a nearby Province and then has used this Province as an example of what will happen to the Colonies after he takes over completely.
21. He has taken away our charters and laws and has changed our forms of government.
22. He has suspended our legislatures and used them to his own ends.
23. He has said we are no longer under his protection and has waged war against us.
24. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." [I didn't feel I could summarize that any better...]
25. He is sending large armies and mercenaries to carry out his acts of death, destruction, tyranny, and cruelty which don't line up with his station as the head of a modern nation.
26. He has taken captives on the sea and forced them to fight in his army against their own countrymen.
27. He has caused uprisings among us and has incited the "merciless Indian Savages" against us. [What's in quotes is a direct quote from the Declaration.]
[I think most of these are pretty self-explanatory. Like I said, they are summaries, so if you want to read the real wording, check out the Declaration yourself!]
In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress [remedy] in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
[Again, we see that the FF wanted to confirm the fact that they weren't just kicking and screaming about having a ruler over them. They had tried the calm approach through their "petitions", but those had been completely disregarded. Not only was it disregarded, but the problems they were trying to deal with in the first place actually got worse. They were fighting against oppression and tyranny in its most palpable form.]
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren [brothers]. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction [unfounded power] over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity [generosity], and we have conjured [influenced] them by ties of our common kindred to disavow [reject] these usurpations [they really liked this word], which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity [common ancestry]. We must, therefore, acquiesce [give in] in the necessity, which denounces [speaks out against] our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
[Part of what I think is so smart about this Declaration is how all-encompassing the FF were. They covered all their bases, including how to deal with the people in their midst who certainly wouldn't be okay with separating from Britain. And they even have the beginnings of a foreign policy here: "we...hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends." Nice work, FF.]
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world [the Christian God] for the rectitude [right-ness] of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; they they are Absolved [freed] from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy [start] War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence [the Christian God], we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
[I love that the FF came full circle with their Declaration. They acknowledge at the beginning of it that God is one Who gave them their rights. So, it's only fitting that here at the end, they also check in with Him to be sure that what they're doing has a moral basis. Furthermore, they ask for His protection as they send this little mail-bomb. However, they don't take themselves out of the equation and just hope that God will protect them. They pledge each other their lives, knowing that some of them would likely lose their lives in the conflict that was to come. For them, it was an all-or-nothing kind of thing. But so were their Rights!]
I am reading Democracy in America with a couple friends of mine, and one point Alexis de Tocqueville makes in his intro is that you can see what a nation will become by going back to see how it started. I've thought a lot about that this past week for a variety of reasons. There are times where I fear that our country has strayed so far from the place it started that it will eventually become unrecognizable. Perhaps that will happen. But I find a great amount of comfort when I read documents like the Declaration of Independence because I know that this nation started as a place where an Idea can triumph over tyranny. Might does not make right. No matter what happens, where we come from is solid. Buildings can crumble but still stand the test of time when they have strong foundations. You've just read one small part of ours.
For more pieces of the foundation (or just good stuff to know), I challenge you to read some of the following:
The United States Constitution
Daniel Hannan, The New Road to Serfdom
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay, The Federalist Papers
Thomas Paine, Common Sense
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government
Happy Fourth of July!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel [push] them to the separation.
[Right off the bat, notice that the Founding Fathers (from here on out: FF) didn't beat around the bush. They say that this separation is necessary, not just desired. This is not just a political temper tantrum. (More about that later.) They also clarify that by getting rid of these political ties, they are taking on a new role as a group of people -- a separate but equal role. This suggests they were under England before this Declaration was declared.]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they they are endowed by their Creator [the Christian God] with certain unalienable Rights [that is, they can't be taken away], that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving [obtaining] their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter [change] or abolish [get rid of] it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect [achieve] their Safety and Happiness.
[A couple meaty sentences, for sure. First of all, notice that the FF clearly stated that the Rights which make us equal were given to us by our Creator. Government is not the last word on Rights; God is. Now, in order for those Rights to be protected, governments are put into place and the powers (even more, the "just powers") of those governments come directly from the people. I can remember a student asked me once if what the Colonists did was actually wrong since they weren't respecting and fearing the government, like the Bible says we should. I told him that part of what makes the Declaration of Independence so brilliant is that it was the last resort for the Colonies. They did what they could to try to change how they were being treated in the form of petitions, letters, boycotts, and peaceful demonstrations. After they were rebuffed enough times, it was time to take action since the Rights they knew were given to them by God were being violated. However, instead of just saying, "Screw it, let's just shoot some guns," the Colonies decided to let King George know exactly why they were doing what they were doing. They had tried to "alter" the government before they chose to "abolish" it. And their central goal was simply to be protected! It wasn't just that they didn't feel like following the rules. The king was not holding up his end of the government bargain by treating them unfairly.]
Prudence [caution], indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient [fleeting] causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn [has shown] that mankind are more disposed [apt] to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations [seizures of power], pursuing invariably [always] the same Object evinces [reveals] a design [plan] to reduce them under absolute Despotism [tyranny], it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains [forces] them to alter their former Systems of Government.
[Just a side note: every time I read "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security"...I get chills. Nerdy teacher, I know. But think about how this document changed the course of history! It's incredible when you really stop to contemplate it.]
[In this section, I so appreciate that the FF noted that most people are willing to put up with being treated badly as long as being treated badly is bearable. They were using a basic understanding of human nature to strengthen their cause. People will often complain about things, but they, more often than not, won't attempt to make a change for the better. So, in essence, the FF are saying, "Even we--with our human tendency to 'put up' with abuse--can't take this anymore and demand to be treated more justly." The Declaration says here that the FF believed King George's eventual goal was Absolutism. Obviously, that was (and is) a conflict with the Rights they believed God had given every person, and, thus, they were declaring it their "right" and "duty" to create a new government that would protect them from tyranny.]
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [you already know what this means!], all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
[In the following section, the FF literally make a list of all the ways King George has violated them and their freedom. I am going to summarize in my own words to make it go a little faster. I usually skipped this part when I was teaching it...But what makes it important is that, again, the FF wanted to make it clear that they weren't just throwing a political temper tantrum. They had very specific reasons for declaring a separation from England. You could probably skim it and still get the major gist of why America did what she did.]
1. He won't approve laws that would uphold the public good.
2. He won't allow his governors (in the Colonies) to pass important laws because he wants to approve them himself, except he ignores the laws once he receives them.
3. He won't pass laws to help large districts unless they agree to no longer be represented in the legislature.
4. He has made legislation difficult in an attempt to bully people into doing what he wants.
5. He has gotten rid of representative houses who oppose his invasions on the rights of the people.
6. He has stalled elections and left states without anyone in charge.
7. He has tried to keep people from migrating to America through unfair laws.
8. He has obstructed justice by not passing laws to create judiciary powers in the Colonies.
9. He has made it so judges' length of tenure and payment of salary depend on him.
10. He has created offices (and sent officers) to harass the people and cause them problems.
11. He has kept standing armies in times of peace.
12. He has made it so the military is independent of (and superior to) the civil powers in the Colonies.
13. He's tried to force his legislation on the states, even legislation that contradicts state constitutions.
14. He is housing large groups of soldiers in our midst.
15. He's protecting those soldiers from being prosecuted for murdering colonists.
16. He has cut off our trade from the rest of the world.
17. He has taxed us without consent.
18. He has deprived us of trials by jury.
19. He has taken people away from the Colonies to be tried for fake crimes.
20. He has established an arbitrary government by getting rid of English law in a nearby Province and then has used this Province as an example of what will happen to the Colonies after he takes over completely.
21. He has taken away our charters and laws and has changed our forms of government.
22. He has suspended our legislatures and used them to his own ends.
23. He has said we are no longer under his protection and has waged war against us.
24. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." [I didn't feel I could summarize that any better...]
25. He is sending large armies and mercenaries to carry out his acts of death, destruction, tyranny, and cruelty which don't line up with his station as the head of a modern nation.
26. He has taken captives on the sea and forced them to fight in his army against their own countrymen.
27. He has caused uprisings among us and has incited the "merciless Indian Savages" against us. [What's in quotes is a direct quote from the Declaration.]
[I think most of these are pretty self-explanatory. Like I said, they are summaries, so if you want to read the real wording, check out the Declaration yourself!]
In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress [remedy] in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
[Again, we see that the FF wanted to confirm the fact that they weren't just kicking and screaming about having a ruler over them. They had tried the calm approach through their "petitions", but those had been completely disregarded. Not only was it disregarded, but the problems they were trying to deal with in the first place actually got worse. They were fighting against oppression and tyranny in its most palpable form.]
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren [brothers]. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction [unfounded power] over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity [generosity], and we have conjured [influenced] them by ties of our common kindred to disavow [reject] these usurpations [they really liked this word], which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity [common ancestry]. We must, therefore, acquiesce [give in] in the necessity, which denounces [speaks out against] our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
[Part of what I think is so smart about this Declaration is how all-encompassing the FF were. They covered all their bases, including how to deal with the people in their midst who certainly wouldn't be okay with separating from Britain. And they even have the beginnings of a foreign policy here: "we...hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends." Nice work, FF.]
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world [the Christian God] for the rectitude [right-ness] of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; they they are Absolved [freed] from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy [start] War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence [the Christian God], we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
[I love that the FF came full circle with their Declaration. They acknowledge at the beginning of it that God is one Who gave them their rights. So, it's only fitting that here at the end, they also check in with Him to be sure that what they're doing has a moral basis. Furthermore, they ask for His protection as they send this little mail-bomb. However, they don't take themselves out of the equation and just hope that God will protect them. They pledge each other their lives, knowing that some of them would likely lose their lives in the conflict that was to come. For them, it was an all-or-nothing kind of thing. But so were their Rights!]
I am reading Democracy in America with a couple friends of mine, and one point Alexis de Tocqueville makes in his intro is that you can see what a nation will become by going back to see how it started. I've thought a lot about that this past week for a variety of reasons. There are times where I fear that our country has strayed so far from the place it started that it will eventually become unrecognizable. Perhaps that will happen. But I find a great amount of comfort when I read documents like the Declaration of Independence because I know that this nation started as a place where an Idea can triumph over tyranny. Might does not make right. No matter what happens, where we come from is solid. Buildings can crumble but still stand the test of time when they have strong foundations. You've just read one small part of ours.
For more pieces of the foundation (or just good stuff to know), I challenge you to read some of the following:
The United States Constitution
Daniel Hannan, The New Road to Serfdom
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay, The Federalist Papers
Thomas Paine, Common Sense
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government
Happy Fourth of July!
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Tonight, Part 2
“Now therefore, while
the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like
morning dew,
And while thy willing
soul transpires
At every pore with
instant fires,
Now let us sport us
while we may,
And now, like amorous
birds of prey,
Rather at once our
time devour
Than languish in his
slow-chapped power.”
“To His Coy Mistress”
– poem by Andrew Marvell, 1681
tonight (n): the
present or coming night
Okay, so a quick review of the last post (the teacher in me
cannot be suppressed…review is necessary!) before we move on to this new
one. So far, tonight has been split into
two categories: tonight as possibility
and tonight as an end unto itself. Both views
of tonight are motivated by fear of what might happen tomorrow and, therefore,
those who see tonight this way are banking on the fact that the benefits of
tonight will provide something solid that will help to quell their fear.
Got it? Good. J Then we move on.
#3 – Tonight as contradiction
This is the category that I went back and forth on in terms
of how to label it. I’m still not sure
“contradiction” is the right name, so if you think of a better one while
reading the lyrics and explanations I provide, please leave a comment with your
idea. Part of my dilemma stemmed from
the fact that some of the contradictory lyrical ideas in these songs lead the
singers into category #2 (tonight as an end in and of itself). I believe categories #2 and #3 go
hand-in-hand because contradictions tend to lead to quick solutions. We are rational human beings and people
(often? usually?) know when they are
being inconsistent. Once we become aware
of that contradiction we either (A) want to avert attention away from it as
soon as possible or (B) want to use that contradiction to achieve a desired
outcome. In the case of tonight, I think
(B) is the more popular choice. Take a
look at what I mean.
“We’ve Got Tonight” by Bob Seger
I actually laughed out loud while I was reading these lyrics
(despite the fact that they are pretty pathetic-sounding) because of the
blatant flaw in the singer’s argument to his lady friend:
“Deep in my soul, I’ve
been so lonely / All of my hopes fading away / I’ve longed for love, like
everyone else does / I know I’ll keep searching, even after today / So there it
is, girl, I’ve said it all now / And here we are, babe, what do you say? / We’ve
got tonight, who needs tomorrow? / We’ve got tonight, babe, / Why don’t you
stay?”
First, the singer claims, “I know I’ll keep searching [for
love], even after today.” Then he asks, “We’ve
got tonight, who needs tomorrow?” Um…hate
to break it to you, dude, but as a matter of fact YOU need tomorrow. You’ve just shared that you’re going to keep
looking for love “after today”! But, the
contradiction is necessary in order to get what he wants right now – the girl
to stay. His desire is to push the
loneliness aside for a night so he can pretend to forget about it, and if he
has to be illogical to get that, by golly, he’s going to be. This is where category #3 meshes with
category #2. In order to create the
pathway to treating tonight as an end in and of itself, the singer presents a
contradiction about tonight that helps pave the way.
Just as a side note, I don’t know about you ladies out there,
but if I was hearing this presentation about why I should stay, the most
offensive part would probably be the fact that this guy is basically saying, “Well,
you seem great and all, so you can help me with my loneliness problem tonight, but
clearly you aren’t future love material, so I’m going to keep searching after our
adult sleepover. Thanks!” Nothing like a boost of confidence to make
you want to stay the night.
“Will You Love Me Tomorrow” by The Shirelles
I am glad that I was able to find a song from a little while
back to draw into this conversation. This
song by The Shirelles presents a similar contradiction that Bob Seger’s song
does, but I think it’s a little sneakier.
Here’s what the ladies have to say:
“Tonight you’re mine
completely / You give your love so sweetly / Tonight the light of love is in
your eyes / But will you love me tomorrow? / … / I’d like to know that your
love / Is love I can be sure of / So tell me now, and I won’t ask again / Will
you still love me tomorrow?”
I think that in the first part of the lyrics, the question makes
the singer seem unsure of the situation (and herself in the situation), so the question
makes her appear to be cautious and smart.
She seems to realize that in “tonight land” love is easy to give. However, as the song continues, it turns out
she is asking the question for the same reason Bob Seger was: she wants to be
able to justify later what it is she wants to do now. If she isn’t sure her man will love her
tomorrow, maybe she should think twice about what she’s doing now. I give the lady some credit for even thinking
about tomorrow, but she wants an answer about tomorrow right now so that what’s
happening right now can continue.
Tonight is still the ultimate goal.
#4 – Tonight as respite and strength for what’s coming
tomorrow.
This was the category that surprised me. I didn’t go into this expecting to find songs
with a positive view of tonight, but it happened anyways. I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised
since not everyone is obsessed with the right-now-in-the-moment lifestyle. And therefore it’s possible to find healthy
views of life in songs, as I did with these two. In both cases, tonight is presented as a sort
of hideaway. It’s that place that we can
always go when things are bad to be rejuvenated. This makes a ton of sense since night time is
when we sleep (usually), and sleep is such a renewing activity for human
beings. These singers see the positive
function of night time, too.
“The Way You Look Tonight” by Frank Sinatra (and about a
bajillion other great singers)
I’ve always wanted to dance to this song at my wedding. It’s such a beautiful commentary on how a
moment can last for much longer than a moment.
Furthermore, it is one of the first songs I found that suggests tonight
has a function beyond just pleasure or killing loneliness:
“Someday when I’m
awfully low / When the world is cold / I will feel a glow just thinking of you
/ And the way you look tonight.”
So many other artists seem to want to bask in the quick solution
that tonight can provide. They encourage
listeners to snatch the moment and enjoy it while it lasts, but they forget to
consider the fact that life goes on after tonight. Even the singers who do recognize that
tomorrow will eventually arrive seem to deal with it in unrealistic ways. West
Side Story suggests that tonight’s love can change tomorrow into a “star”
of a world and that the “just an address” world of today will be gone. Bob Seger doesn’t even really want to
acknowledge tomorrow – he pretends like it’s not necessary! The Shirelles use tomorrow as a tool to get
what they want tonight and avoid really considering what tomorrow might
bring if tonight happens the way they want it to.
For the singer of “The Way You Look Tonight”, it’s about
embracing a moment while recognizing that he cannot live in it. He knows life goes on – and it’s going
to be hard – but tonight helps. Tonight is worth enjoying even if it is a moment that will pass. The awareness of that fact is part of what
gives this song a healthier view of tonight.
“Can You Feel the Love Tonight?” by Elton John
One of my favorite things about music is the marriage of
words and sounds. A songwriter can take
the most calming and serene words in the world and completely change their
meaning by introducing high-energy music to go along with them. This Elton John song, however, creates a
whole picture of peace with words and music.
If you’ve never heard this song (because you live in a box), check it
out. I think you’ll see what I
mean. For now, here are the important lyrics:
“There’s a calm
surrender to the rush of day / When the heat of the rolling wind can be turned
away / An enchanted moment and it sees me through / It’s enough for this restless
warrior just to be with you / And can you feel the love tonight / It is where
we are / It’s enough for this wide-eyed wanderer that we’ve got this far / … /
There’s a rhyme and reason to the wild outdoors / When the heart of this
star-crossed voyager beats in time with yours.”
Much like “The Way You Look Tonight”, the singer here sees
tonight as an escape. Unlike the
previous singer, who is seeing tonight for its future escapism, this singer
sees tonight as a way to escape the day that has just occurred. Tonight is a respite from the “heat of the
rolling wind” and the “rush of day.” This
is the first song I have examined that really sees tonight as a small part of a
big today. So many other singers have
seen tonight as the biggest, most important part of a day. Here, there is an acknowledgement that
tonight is part of it, but not all of it.
Furthermore, what happens tonight helps to make sense of the bigger
world (“There’s a rhyme and reason to the wild outdoors / When the heart of
this star-crossed voyager beats in time with yours”). I appreciate that this song recognizes there
is a bigger world and that tomorrow is coming.
Tonight gives this singer strength for tomorrow because tonight is not
the end – it’s simply the end before the start.
So, you may be asking yourself, “What about the Fun
song? That’s how this whole post
started.” I’ve thought a lot about “We
Are Young” and where it might fit in.
The problem I’ve encountered with this song (besides the disgusting
number of times it is still being played) is that the song can’t make up its
mind. Let’s pick this last set of lyrics
apart.
Exhibit A:
“Give me a second I /
I need to get my story straight / My friends are in the bathroom / Getting
higher than the Empire State/ My lover she’s waiting for me / Just across the
bar / My seat’s been taken by some sunglasses / Asking ‘bout a scar / And I
know I gave it to you months ago / I know you’re trying to forget / But between
the drinks and subtle things / The holes in my apologies / You know I’m trying
hard to take it back / So if by the time the bar closes / And you feel like
falling down / I’ll carry you home / Tonight / We are young / So let’s set this
world on fire / We can burn brighter than the sun.”
Here, we have two types of “tonight as possibility”, a
smaller version and a more grandiose version: (1) perhaps his offer to carry
her home when she feels like falling down will do something to fix their
relationship or (2) because we’re young, we have the ability to change the
world (at least that’s what it sounds like…). So far, not so bad. In fact, for the 2.2 seconds I liked this song, I totally appreciated the "set the world on fire" concept.
We continue…
Exhibit B:
“Now I know that I’m
not / All that you got / I guess that I / I just thought maybe we could find
new ways to fall apart / But our friends are back / So let’s raise a cup /
Cause I found someone to carry me home / Tonight / We are young / So let’s set
the world on fire / We can burn brighter than the sun.”
Here come the problems. All of a sudden, tonight is “a contradiction” and it’s
also “an end in and of itself.” The
previous set of lyrics suggested that one of the benefits of tonight would be
that it might fix the future of this couple's relationship (no matter how unrealistic that might be). Except now he’s saying that they could find “new
ways to fall apart.” Oh, and now wait…the
friends are back! So forget all the
stuff he just said about apologizing and fixing things because he really just wants to
drink. And in the midst of all of that,
apparently he’s found someone to carry HIM home. What happened to carrying your lady friend
home? And is it your lady friend carrying you home or someone we haven't met yet?
(Don’t forget that somehow the possibility still stands that
they will set the world on fire simply because they are young.)
It gets worse…
Exhibit C:
“The world is on my
side / I have no reason to run / So will someone come and carry me home tonight
/ The angels never arrived / But I can hear the choir / So will someone come
and carry me home / Tonight we are young / So let’s set the world on fire / We
can burn brighter than the sun / So if by the time the bar closes and you feel
like falling down / I’ll carry you home tonight.”
More of “tonight as an end in itself”, more phony “possibility”,
and even more “contradiction.” This is what I mean about the song not being able to make up its mind. I know that many songs could be placed into multiple categories, but I think that this particular song’s schizophrenia is a current reflection of the average person’s attitude toward the “tonight” of life. My guess is that most people see tonight a variety of different ways depending on how it benefits them the most.
I really think people want to believe that what happens
tonight will help them “set the world on fire,” and the possibility of that
sounds wonderful. (And that imagery can mean many things to many people.) But when you actually read the lyrics, this singer isn’t
setting the world on fire because he is young enough to make positive change in
the world. He’s setting it on fire so
that he and his friends can be seen more clearly (“We can burn brighter than
the sun”). It’s a scorched earth policy
when you look at it that way. It’s pure
selfishness.
Here’s what I want to know.
How many people are embracing what tonight has to offer because they believe
that tonight will help them to ignite something warm, bright, and powerful in
their lives without realizing that keeping that fire going takes work, sacrifice,
and fuel? And how many other people are
getting a fire going for a night but letting it die out by the time morning rolls around? These are the questions
that “We Are Young” leaves knocking around my brain (which might, in fact,
suggest that I’m not very young...ha!). I can't really say that I know the answer to those questions, either. It's just something to think about, I suppose.
You can see up above that I included the definition of “tonight.” What struck me most about this dictionary
entry was that tonight can only be defined in terms of today. There is no tomorrow in the definition of
tonight. However, that doesn’t mean that
tomorrow doesn’t exist. It’s still there…waiting
to arrive. And while it’s a separate
entity from “tonight”, it cannot be ignored. So, in the end, while we can always find benefits in living a "Carpe Diem" sort of lifestyle, it's pretty short-sighted. Much like I said in the last post, living only for tonight makes us unable to see the wonderful possibilities that tomorrow might bring. I believe we have to find the middle ground between embracing the now in case we don't get tomorrow and expecting that tomorrow will always bring better things that what we see now.
For me, tomorrow will bring a new topic! I've had a request from my friend Noah to discuss traffic. He and I have already hashed it out a bit, and I'm excited about it.
Until then!
Friday, June 8, 2012
Tonight, Part 1
“Gather ye rosebuds
while ye may,
Old time is still a-flying;
And this same flower that smiles
today,
Tomorrow will be dying.
The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,
The
higher he’s a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
And nearer he’s to
setting.”
“To
the Virgins to Make Much of Time” -- poem by Robert Herrick, 1599
“Tonight, we are
young.”
“We Are Young” -- song by Fun, 2011
One of the things I always loved (and now miss) about being
a high school English teacher was having the daily opportunity to show high
schoolers that no matter what weird order the words are in or what ancient type
of vocabulary is being used, the messages in literature have remained (largely)
the same throughout time. Another lesson
that I emphasized in my classroom was that literature is all around us. Sure, it’s usually found in books, poems,
short stories, and essays; however, it can also be found in music. Music was often a central part of my lesson
plans, and I still find myself listening to songs muttering, “How can I apply
that?” (Just as an example, I once used a 50 Cent song to help teach the pastoral poem “The Passionate
Shepherd to His Love”. J)
So, after hearing the song “We Are Young” by Fun adnauseam
on just about every genre of radio station here in the Metro Detroit area, I
started to think about the concept of “tonight”. Fun says that word a whole lot of times in
their song, but I learned a long time ago that just because someone says
something a few times doesn’t mean they always know what it means. I looked up the lyrics, and then started to think
about other songs that use the word “tonight”.
Here are the song lyrics I read for this series of posts
(besides the Fun lyrics):
(F.Y.I…I’ll not be including the lyrics in their entirety
during my discussion, so if you’d like to see the full lyrics, just click on
each song name. If you’d like to see the
video, click on the artist’s name.) (F.Y.I. #2...the Elton John video is so cheesy that it's fantastic. And The Shirelles video is a live performance from 1964! Check it out!)
After reading all these songs and mulling over it for a bit,
I decided that the idea of "tonight" is presented in four different ways. I’ll deal with two in this
post and two in the next. Let’s go!
#1 – Tonight as possibility.
To me, this is the romantic version of “tonight.” Possibility is a cloudy concept, and that
leaves room for the anticipation of what’s to come. The night is full of questions – What’s going
to happen? Where will I go? Who will I meet? – and, as such, it’s a time
of day that’s riddled with uncertainty.
Instead of that uncertainty bringing these singers to their knees,
it brings them to a place where they grab onto the possibility of the night and
use that as their certainty. Tonight is
exciting and it brings exciting things along with it.
“Tonight” – West Side Story
For those who have never seen the
musical (and, I must confess, I’ve only seen parts of it), this is an updated
version of Romeo and Juliet, set in
New York and centering around two young people whose association with rival
gangs makes their love seem impossible.
Not long after they see each other for the first time (and immediately
fall in love), they sing “Tonight” to one another. Neither one knows how they will make this
love they’ve found work out. But here
are a few things they do know:
“Today
the world was just an address / A place for me to live in / No better than all
right / But here you are / And what was just a world is a star / Tonight.”
However it will all come together, Tony and Maria realize that the world before they
met each other was ordinary. Now that
they have seen what the world could be, they want that world all the time. The potential for more seems to become a
reality in the middle of a tonight that is not a reflection of normal life. Tony and Maria believe in the possibility of
getting more than what they have already, and tonight’s new love is how they’ll
achieve those bigger things, no matter how unrealistic it might be.
“Tonight, Tonight” by The
Smashing Pumpkins
Apparently, this song has been
compared to Robert Herrick’s poem “To the Virgins to Make Much of Time” (quoted way up top). The part of the song that stuck
out to me includes:
“Tonight,
so bright / Tonight / And you know you’re never sure / But you’re sure you
could be right / If you held yourself up to the light / … / We’ll crucify the
insincere tonight, / We’ll make things right, we’ll feel it all tonight, /
We’ll find a way to offer up the night tonight, / The indescribable moments of
your life tonight, / The impossible is possible tonight, / Believe in me as I
believe in you, tonight.”
This one might seem obvious since the lyrics
mention possibility, but look around that mention at what exactly is possible:
getting rid of insincerity, making things right, offering up the night,
believing in “me”. These things are
labeled impossible, but yet The Smashing Pumpkins suggest they are
possible because of what tonight means: a beginning. It is a
launching point for what’s going to happen in the future, and that future
includes achieving the impossible. Even
amidst uncertainty (“You know you’re never sure / But you’re sure you could be
right”), there's a chance for something great to happen.
#2 – Tonight as an
end in and of itself.
I’m pretty sure this type of
tonight centers around casual sex and/or partying. It’s sort of an “eat, drink, and be merry
for tomorrow we die” attitude. And it’s
pretty dangerous! I think of all the
types, this tonight is the one that can cause the most regret and destruction
because it’s completely focused on wanting a specific thing – healthy or not –
without stopping to consider the fallout or the consequences. In order to think of tonight as an end in and
of itself, the idea that there might be some kind of
negative result from living for the now cannot even be brought to the table. Now is all there is, so who cares what the result might be?
“Give Me Everything” by Pitbull
I have to be honest: this song was not
on my original list. However, as I was
cruising north on I-75 going 80 mph today, my radio flipping brought me to this
song. I felt like it was a sign since
the lyrics fit perfectly with this category.
The lyrics that made me think that?
Here:
“Tonight,
I will love, love you tonight / Give me everything tonight / For all we know,
we might not get tomorrow / Let’s do it tonight / … / I want you tonight / I
want you to stay / I want you tonight.”
Part of the big problem with this “tonight
as an end in itself” thinking is that it doesn’t take into consideration what
happens if you DO get tomorrow. If you’ve
used up all the good stuff tonight, what will you have left over for
tomorrow? I think this ties in with the
current acronym of choice with the young folks: “YOLO” (which means “you only
live once”). I just read an article that
talked about how this little abbreviation is being used to sanction all kinds
of stupidity. I don’t have a problem
with taking risks or living on the edge of glory. But I do have a problem with the idea that
whatever happens in the now can’t possibly be better than what might happen
tomorrow so grab all the good stuff you can in the moment. Pitbull really isn’t helping the little ankle biters
of the world make better choices.
“Take Me Home Tonight” by Eddie
Money
I have to be honest…again: I love
this song. While I totally and
completely disagree with Mr. Money’s ideology, I cannot help but blare the song
every time it comes on the radio. (Plus,
it makes a great karaoke tune to “sing” with my pals Natalie and Greg!) But I’m not here to spout my particular loves
for a particular song. I’m here to pick
it apart! The lyrics’ greatest offenders
include:
“I
get frightened in all this darkness / I get nightmares, I hate to sleep alone /
I need some company / A guardian angel to keep me warm when the cold winds blow
/ Take me home tonight / I don’t want to let you go till you see the light /
Take me home tonight.”
For this singer, tonight is about
getting what he needs. The goal is to
avoid being alone. Since darkness is
coming no matter what happens, the tonight he is personally seeking is an end in itself. However, seeing tonight this way is
completely subjective, and I think it leads to framing everything that happens
in terms of how it well it satisfies (or doesn’t satisfy) a person's need for what tonight might have to offer. Just count how many times he says “I” or “me”. It's clear that this singer's desires are front and center, but once the night is over, he puts those away until they rear their ugly heads. On to the next night.
So those are the first two categories. I guess what strikes me the most
about these two is how alike they are. In both scenarios, the person who is
embracing tonight is unsure of what tomorrow might bring. Therefore, tonight seems like a pretty solid
rock. Fear is really the motivator for
these tonights, and the people populating them are going to do whatever it
takes to overcome that fear. I think
what sets these two categories apart is that in the first, the fear of the
future never completely negates the future, it just looks at it unrealistically. (So, I suppose you could argue that fear, in fact, does negate any future because it creates a false tomorrow rather than accepting what's real.) In the second, the future doesn't matter
because the only thing that could possibly matter is what goes on tonight.
Either way you slice it, both tonights carry with them the possibility of something happening. But the darkness that comes with night also makes people myopic. There's a sense of people working hard to get what they need (to believe the impossible, to avoid being alone) or want (a less ordinary world, a lover for the night) because nighttime is dark, quiet, and lonely. The world is smaller at night (which sort of contradicts the idea of possibility...but onto contradiction with the next post). Smaller is more manageable and it's easier to predict what might happen. If you know you're going home with someone tonight, you can at least feel sure about what's going on in your love life right now even if you have no idea what's going on in your love life in the future.
But the question I ask is this: are we short-changing ourselves into believing that the possibility of tonight is more satisfying than the possibility of tomorrow? Things seen in dim light are more attractive, but it's an illusion. Have we welcomed nighttime possibility and convinced ourselves that it's just as good as big, morning, bright light possibility?
I'll work through this more in the next post, but I really wanted to get that question out there for people to think about.
More tonights soon…
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Not a Friend to the Animals, Part 2
“Hi, so this is another random thought...I’m behind this
Jeep that has those little…stick figure… things about the people in
their family. And this one happens to
have some pets, and there was someone earlier today that also had pets…I think
it was cats. Um...and I was
thinking…what do you do when your pet dies and you no longer have the four cats that you have on the back of your
Jeep? Do you get up there with like a razor blade…and scrape them
out? Do you feel compelled to get
another cat just so that your Jeep isn’t lying about all the quote “members of
your family”? I was just thinking this and I want to know…that is all. This message is ridiculous...I’m kind of going to apologize for it.”
My best friend, Marianne – message left on my
voicemail
“Kindness to animals builds a better world for all of
us.”
--Bumper sticker I saw while driving--
It has been far too long since I started this topic, but
life has happened between February and now when I began thinking about
animals. I suppose it means I’ve had
more time to process the different books and ideas that I’ve read? In reality, I think it helped me narrow down
my topic quite a bit. Whereas this was
at one time going to be a two or three-parter, I think I’m going to just write
it and be done. I may return to this
topic at some point in the future, but I sort of just want it to be over so I
can move on to a new idea. The animal
topic is a little stale in my brain. My
old computer did break and I have been in the process of getting my new one set
up, which has brought about a writing delay.
But I think that over-thinking about pets has contributed to my sloooow
writing speed. Let’s get started. Then we can be done. :)
Of the books I got out of the library, the one I read in its
entirety was called Pets in America by Katherine C. Grier. I was dubious of it at first (refer back to
my attitude toward pets displayed in the post from February 29 and you will see
why), but as I got reading, I really found her research and thoughts to be an
interesting commentary on people and on American progress. I was especially interested by Grier’s ideas
about the relationship between human choice and pets. (“Choice” is a word that gets thrown around
quite a bit these days, so why not associate it with animals, too?) She also discussed how the roles of
domesticated animals have changed throughout history (obviously, in America specifically)
and how animals going from being workers to being commodities has majorly
changed the concept of what it means to have animals around the house. Before we can jump into a specific discussion
of what this all means, a little background might help. (And please know that this entire discussion
of animals deals specifically with domesticated animals, not wild animals.)
There are many ideas about what makes an animal a
“pet.” Keith Thomas, who was one of the
first people to author a pet-keeping history book, said that the way to
determine if an animal is a pet is (1) it’s allowed in the house, (2) it’s
given a name, and (3) it’s never eaten.
On the other hand, Grier’s definition of a pet is simply that it’s an
animal a human being chooses as special or set apart. It’s an unequal relationship between the
human and the animal that is completely dependent on human beings. If there are no people, there are no
pets. I tend to find this definition a
little broader and more inclusive. People create pets, and
those pets can be a friendly squirrel you feed nuts to outside your doorwall
or it can be a loyal dog you’ve had for years and years. Grier’s definition also allows for the
sometimes-contradictory role of animals that can be seen throughout history.
In early America, long before the settlers arrived, animals
were pets, but they were also workers, hunters, sacrifices, and
companions. Sometimes, they were even
food. This is an excellent example of
how human choice places labels on animals – one day, your dog could be your pet
and companion, but if you run out of food and you’re going to starve, your
choice to make your dog into dinner is one that is entirely up to you. To the pre-settler Americans, animals’ roles
were decided entirely by necessity.
As society grew and changed in America, necessity was still
the foremost way animals were defined. A
variety of animals played a variety of roles on the farms of early
America. Dogs were often hunters,
protectors, and herders. Cats were a
crucial part of every home as they helped control the mouse and rat
population. Pigs also ate scraps and
garbage in this time before dumpsters and garbage bags. Horses and oxen worked in the fields, pulling plows and helping to haul down trees to clear the land. Chickens, sheep, and cows provided needed
items – milk, wool, and eggs – but then they often became food for the family. Each animal had a job to do, and human life
and growth depended on them. Besides
these obvious ways that animals served on farms, they also were excellent
sources of revenue. Whether it was an
animal’s product that was on the market (eggs, wool, etc.) or the animal
itself, at this time, animals were considered pieces of property.
However, a whole different side of animals’ usefulness had
to do with issues outside of food, money, and work. Because of the enormous amount of work they
did, animals needed to be taken care of, and they were unable to take care of
themselves. So, parents had the ability
to teach their kids about kindness and charity to animals, which Grier suggests
taught them how to help people in society who might fall into the same camp –
dependent on the help of others to survive.
Animals also helped with a much more…delicate, shall we say?...situation
in families: explaining the birds and the bees.
Children were privy to the facts of life from an early age when the
animals on their farms procreated, and it helped Ma and Pa avoid that
sometimes-awkward discussion of how we get more animals and people in this
world. They could even help children
experience death in a real way that prepared them for the inevitable death of a
sibling or family member, suddenly or otherwise. However, no matter what role they played,
overall, during the 18th century, animals were animals. Discussion over. A farm animal might become a family favorite,
but it was usually understood that an animal had an animal job to do first.
The 19th century is when things began to change regarding
animals. As people moved from the
country to the city, they also began to view animals in a different light. Obviously, animals were still needed for
food. They also were used for vermin
control and garbage duty. (In fact, in
the 1840s, pigs and hogs were helpful street cleaners. Butchers let them loose in burgeoning cities,
and the creatures would eat garbage, manure, discarded scraps, and dead
animals. Not only would the streets be
clean, but the butchers wouldn’t have to pay to fatten the animals up before
they were butchered.) Animals still
played an important role as workers. However,
this was when pet culture really began to take off. People kept birds to quell the silences in
their homes. Breeding dogs became an
activity that upper class people enjoyed, and the rise of pure-bred dogs helped
turn dogs into pets rather than just sheep herders. Societies and statutes to protect animals
from cruelty popped up during this time.
Pet stores also became more popular, and the idea of having an animal
solely as a pet changed America’s view on animals. No longer were animals workers first, cuddly
creatures second. The chance for an
animal’s entire role to be that of companion was truly possible for the first
time in history.
1840 to 1940 saw the rise of the modern pet industry. It was during this time that animals became
commodities more than anything else.
Animals were being reared with the express purpose of becoming a pet,
and people were willing to spend disposable income on bringing an animal into
the family. The fact that people even
had disposable income to spend on something as frivolous as a pet tells you
something about where America was in her development as a nation. No longer were animals strictly necessities,
but instead were something kept around for pure enjoyment.
Now, 60% of American homes include a pet and 34.4 billion
dollars was spent on the pet industry in 2004.
Depending on the part of the country, animals can still be found that
are workers, but in most cities and suburbs, animals are America’s furry
friends. Something like 64.2 million
people own pets, and I find that people think you’re strange if you don’t like
animals or want one around. As I said
back in February, my students I used to teach thought I was weird that I didn’t
want a pet around, especially since I live alone. In relationships, getting a pet is seen as
one of those steps you take before you really commit to having kids. I know people who say they have a “grand-dog”
since their children haven’t provided them with grandkids. Overall, the role that pets play in our lives
today is drastically different than the one they played 200 years ago. It is this major difference that got me
thinking.
(Obviously, this is just a quick overview. But, I think this whirlwind history lesson
provides the necessary foundation for understanding how America’s attitude
toward animals has changed and, therefore, to understand the following
discussion.)
As I said up above, Grier’s suggestion that human choice is
what makes an animal into a pet really fascinated me. The most poignant realization that I had while
reading this book was that until the 19th century (when pet culture took off),
animals were always animals first and pets second. As animals, they played a specific role in
people’s homes and on their farms, and while people recognized their cuddly
potential, they kept animals in what they believed to be their place – outside,
producing their animal products, and following their animal instincts. Once people (in the cities and suburbs, at
least) stopped needing animals as workers, that label of “animal” became less
important. Animals chosen as pets could
be defined as their owners wanted them to be defined, and this change in
definition has brought about some interesting ramifications for animals. Cats get declawed because they might tear the
sofa; some dogs are muzzled or “debarked” because their barking bothers people;
other animals are dressed in sweaters or shoes simply because their owners
think it’s cute. Even the idea of
spaying or neutering pets (thanks for the reminder, Bob Barker) can be seen as
a form of owners attempting to define their pets as they want them to be
defined. The animal’s definition as
“animal” takes a back seat to its definition as “so-and-so’s pet.”
By re-defining an animal as a pet and reducing the
importance of its “animal” definition, it makes the animal 100% dependent on
its “chooser.” In many ways, I see it as
evidence of the narcissism that has steadily grown and now pervades our society. Maybe that seems like a huge jump, but if
animals’ central role is to provide their owners with love, companionship, and
entertainment (and not to bark too loud or mess up the sofa), that role is
focused on the owner and what he or she needs from the animal. I recognize that I am sort of focusing on the
extreme here, and in no way am I suggesting that people don’t treat their pets
well and provide them with love and companionship, as well. But, since animals are now commodities to be
bought and sold, that relationship between a pet and its owner is one that is
being forced on the animal (and the owner, if you want to get technical). The pet-owner is the dominant party in the
situation – they are doing the choosing, the buying, and the providing – and
therefore the pet is subject to the owner.
In any situation where one party is dominant and one is less so, the
question has to be asked how the needs of the less-dominant are being taken
into consideration. I thought about this
a lot while Grier was discussing birds as pets, actually. How often is the image of the “caged bird”
used to describe a person who wants to fly and be free but cannot because of
his or her life “cage”? With that in
mind, I wonder how birds feel about being pets.
If a bird was made to fly and it can’t because it is being kept as a
pet, I think there’s a pretty good argument somewhere in there that perhaps the
dominant owner isn’t really considering the needs of the less-dominant pet.
Now, all that being said, I don’t want anyone out there
thinking that I’m anti-pet and that everyone should just let animals run and be
free in our society. Neither am I
suggesting that everyone who owns pets is selfish and narcissistic. I have plenty of friends and family members
who are excellent pet owners and who do everything in their power to give their
pets what they need in order to live happy, healthy lives. I am not going to start picketing outside of
animal adoption events or fire-bombing the Humane Society. In fact, just seeing articles about the wild
dog problem in downtown Detroit or reading that the current population of feral
cats is somewhere in the ballpark of 40 million is enough for me to see why
it’s great that people have domesticated dogs and cats and keep them as pets. :) I
think that pet-keeping can be wonderful, fulfilling, and humane for all parties
involved. What I am trying to highlight
is the fact that how our country has changed has also brought about some
critical changes in animal-ownership. We
have come to a place in our history where we don’t need animals the way our
forefathers did. Outside of animals
eaten as food, many people in America never consider animals as anything other
than companions. But because of this
change (whether people like this idea or not), owning a pet is forcing a
relationship between an animal and a person.
Generations past had animals that worked on their farms that eventually
might became a part of the family. Those
animals had the luxury of being animals first and kept pets second.
In this day and age, most pet-owners don’t gradually create a relationship
with an animal, but instead say, “Let’s get a pet!” and go to the Humane
Society or Pet Smart or some adoption event and buy a pet. Because of that human choice, the animal
magically becomes a pet. Then once the
animal’s designation is as a pet, a role has been created for that animal to
fill based on its owner’s needs or capabilities. By creating a role or identity for that
animal, it is, in essence, turned into a dependent because without the animal
being identified as a pet, it is still just an animal. Anything that is 100% dependent on someone
else is no longer an independent being.
So, for example, if a cat gets declawed because then it won’t rip up the
sofa, that cat can no longer survive in the wild. That cat is totally screwed if it ever had to
defend itself. The owner of the cat has
defined its role based on his or her needs (and the sofa’s needs) but has
created a situation where the cat can no longer survive without the owner. It is this idea – that by turning animals
into dependent beings we remove their ability to function independently – that
takes me to my final point.
One of Grier’s ideas that really struck me was that
pet-keeping is a reflection of how we treat all the dependents in our
society. This got me thinking about the
government, actually, and welfare.
People living on welfare in this country are considered dependents. They need help from someone in order
to make ends meet, or at least that’s how they represent themselves. The current definition of “dependent” is “one
relying on another for support.”
However, notice that the definition says “support” not “survival”. “Support” suggests that a more capable force
provides assistance so the needy party can continue functioning as
normal. That is not the same thing as
total reliance. It’s the difference
between a rolling oxygen tank and a respirator.
I would argue that most people in the 21st century who hear the word
“dependent” think “respirator” and reject the idea that a person can be dependent
on another for help and still function independently, as well. (For a society that is increasingly relative, I find myself, at times, amazed at how cut and dried people can be.) If this is the prevailing attitude, it
creates a situation where those who are dependent on welfare for help become
re-defined as “those who must rely on another for survival.” With this new definition comes a new identity
for the poor. They aren’t identified as
independent human beings (who need a little help) but instead are thrust into
the role of completely dependent human beings.
The poor are expected to depend on the government for what they
need. The government has chosen to deal
with this by creating a system that identifies those in need, labels them as
dependent, and then systematically removes their belief that they can survive
without the government’s help.
Americans, I would argue, struggle with seeing domesticated
animals as animals first (with an independent role to play), but instead tend
to make them pets first. Likewise, I
believe we also struggle with seeing the poor as independent human beings
first. We forget sometimes that no
matter how poor people are, they are still human beings who are able to make
choices. Now, by no means do I suggest
we just leave the poor to fend for themselves.
I believe help is necessary for some people. But when that assistance creates a role for
the poor that supersedes their identity as independent human beings, it is no
longer healthy help. In America, I worry
that the relationship between the poor and the government is such that the poor
rely completely on the government for everything – survival, identity, and a
future. And if our treatment of animals
is any indication of how we treat dependents in our country, then I also worry
that the narcissism that is so blatantly obvious in how some pet-owners treat
their pets will bleed over into how the government treats (is treating?) the
poor. When animals live an entirely
domesticated and dependent life, they eventually lose their ability to fend for
themselves. Sending them out into the
world would kill them, and they require the protection of their more powerful
owner in order to survive from day to day.
Well, the same thing can happen with people.
Monday, May 21, 2012
I'm Back!
I am so sorry it has taken me forever to jump back on here. I've not been without a computer this whole time, but I have been trying to get everything on it in order. Being technologically challenged = computer stuff takes a while. Anyways, look for a post today or tomorrow! You all are wonderful to stick with me as I attempt to get into a writing schedule. :)
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Broken
My computer is broken. Thankfully, I have a removable hard-drive and did NOT lose all of my files. That would have been a real disaster. However, until my new computer arrives, I'm thinking blogging is taking a back seat. I'll be back, though!
Until then.
Until then.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Green and Orange, Part 2
"We should regret our mistakes and learn from them, but never carry them forward into the future with us."
L.M. Montogmery
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man,
I put childish ways behind me. Not we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
1 Corinthians 13:11-12
We left our story somewhere in the mid to late fifth century. Jump forward in history about 1200 years to the 1640s. The English Civil War was a hot mess of King Charles I being beheaded, Oliver Cromwell ruling with an iron fist, Protestant and Catholic tension, and conflict with King Louis XIV of France Ireland was a part of Britain , but existed as the red-headed stepchild of the British Empire – it hadn’t been treated equally during the period of history we skipped. The Irish people had liked Charles I because he was very pro-Ireland. After Charles was beheaded in 1649, the fact that it was populated by mostly Catholics worked against Ireland Ireland
Charles II took the throne in 1660 after people had had their fill of Cromwell’s way of doing things. Irish Catholics were hopeful that he would be like his father. Under Cromwell, Catholic landowners had lost huge chunks of their land in Ireland Ireland Ireland and England England in November 1688, and December saw James take off for France
Once in France England Ireland Derry Ireland Belfast in June 1690 and the famous Battle of the Boyne took place on July 1, 1690. (This date is according to the pre-Gregorian calendar. It is now recorded as July 12, 1690.) William was victorious there, although his war with Ireland
What exactly happened at The Battle of the Boyne
A result of this victory was the Penal Laws. These were harsh laws that were put in place to keep Catholics from being able to rile everyone up again in the future. They were decidedly anti-Catholic and they reminded me of Jim Crow laws, to be honest. Catholic priests and bishops were banished from Ireland Ireland Ireland
To commemorate William of Orange, Northern Irish Protestants celebrate William of Orange Day with parades and general celebrations on July 12. He was a hero to Protestants because of his bravery, but he also represented something bigger to the Protestants who started these celebrations: the defeat of the uncertainty of the seventeenth century. I think it’s obvious that Protestants see him as a bit of a “liberator.” He gave them a clear path to power, and that’s valuable to just about any group of people. Plus, he was able to preserve Protestant land holdings—strengthen them, even. He provided the Protestant people with what they needed to remain strong, and they were grateful. It was something to celebrate…for Protestants.
This is the point where the two holidays converged for me. St. Patrick’s Day is really about a man who gave his life to bring Christianity to Ireland Ireland
Good ol' St. Pat, giving marching orders to those snakes
Pair that line of thinking with the fact that William of Orange Day is really about a man who helped bring some stability to the life of Protestants in Ireland and England England
I wonder if he fought The Battle of the Boyne with that wig on
But is it really that simple?
I couldn’t help thinking about all of these things as I stood in a tent at the Old Shillelagh on March 17 and observed people’s behavior. (Which is part of why I’m glad to be writing this after the fact.) At one point, I thought to myself (slightly horrified by what I was seeing), “What would St. Patrick think if he could come down and hang out in this tent today? What would his reaction be?” As I’ve already said, I love St. Pat’s. It’s one of my favorite holidays. But how is it that I am celebrating what amounts to a sacred holiday with beer, Shamrock Shakes, more beer, and corned beef sandwiches?
On the other hand, as I read more and more about William of Orange, I sort of felt bad for insisting I wear orange on St. Patrick’s Day. Catholics don’t like William of Orange. In fact, I think he’s probably viewed as a conqueror or destroyer. Wearing orange on St. Patrick’s Day (considering that it’s technically a Catholic holiday) is a bit of a slap in the face. Inappropriate, even. I would have fit right in during the 1600s.
The two-sided nature of history fascinates me. With St. Patrick, he’s a holy man who is celebrated in unholy ways; his story is both myth and truth; and to teach the “Irish heathens” (his words, not mine), he had to find a mix of sacred and secular. With William of Orange, he’s a hero to some and a subjugator to others; his actions were helpful to the English, the Protestants, and the Dutch but harmful to the Irish, the Catholics, and the French. I believe that any historical happening can be viewed this way. There are always winners and losers…never one without the other. I had always viewed William of Orange as a “good guy” because I only heard part of his story. Now, having pulled back and read the whole account, I’m not so sure. At the same time, is he automatically a “bad guy” because he was doing what he thought was best for the people he represented? I don’t think so either. I’ve left out whole sections of Irish history leading up to the cruel reign of Cromwell when the Catholics had been fighting tooth and nail (literally) for power. Maybe because of the circumstances, William of Orange was justified in his actions. Even in the case of St. Patrick, I’m sure some of those Druid priests he unseated were pretty angry at the loss of their former lives because of the dawn of Christianity in Ireland
I think we’re very quick to label history as “bad” or “good.” Don’t get me wrong. There are some u-g-l-y-you-ain’t-got-no-alibi parts of human history. We can all name them. I'm not interested in trying to turn instances of hardship, war, or conflict into a garden party. However, let’s consider this issue on a smaller scale for a moment. I would venture to guess that most people have similar "good"/"bad" labels for the things that have happened in their own personal histories. Ask any therapist how to get over the past and I think you’ll hear them say, “Start dealing with it and getting over it.” A therapist once told me: “If you’re sitting in a room with a dead horse, you take the horse out. You don’t continue to sit there with the dead horse.” Let’s return to the bigger picture. In human history, as in personal history, what happened in the past is something that is. It cannot be changed or erased, and yet some people insist on opening old wounds again and again. Or some people insist on continuing to pour salt into that old wound. Groups who have been wronged by some of the greatest atrocities and injustices can choose to sit with their dead horse or they can pick up that carcass piece by piece and take it to the garbage, vowing to learn from the experience. While some might argue that the victims in a situation shouldn't have to do the work to take the dead horse out, I disagree. Whether a person has been wronged or has done the wronging, work must be done in order to move on. That rotting carcass isn't going to move itself.
In my own life, some of the worst things that have happened to me have also helped me get to a better place. I’m appreciative to those “bad” things for the role they played in helping me navigate my way. Even the ones I don’t completely understand, I take great comfort in the fact that they are over and (hopefully) won’t be repeated. Every so often, I do take a trip down memory lane, and it can be hard. It sometimes makes me angry. But I usually end up back at that place of acceptance – “It happened, it’s over, keep walking.” I've learned that once that carcass is in the garbage, it's gone. The smell may linger. There may be stains on the carpet. I'll deal with those problems as they arise, but no reminder or provocation can make that dead horse come back. After reading about William of Orange (and feeling a little bad for wearing orange), I can see why Catholics despised (and may still despise) him. But I also see that it happened 400 years ago and it’s done. It’s a part of the bigger picture of history at this point. I think these are risky questions, but I’m going to ask them anyways: If Catholics and Protestants, hundreds of years ago, had made a conscious effort to put away their past and find common bridges toward the future, would “The Troubles” have wreaked as much havoc as they have? Because there are always winners and losers in history, what would have happened if the Irish Catholics and Protestants had accepted both defeat and victory, knowing that at some point their fate would change? I don't ask these questions to be insensitive to the Irish people and their history. It's part of my family's history. I ask them because I honestly want to know if we as a people can move past some of those ugly history stains.
Sometimes that process of moving forward means re-naming the past rather than dealing with it outright. This is where St. Patrick's Day reconnects with this topic. Maybe I’m naïve, but I’d like to think that if you asked an average bar-goer on St. Pat’s how they’d celebrate a hero of the Christian church, most of them would not respond with: “Booze and sex!” In order to sleep at night after partying all day in the name of a Christian saint, society has just re-named what the holiday is about. Now, it’s more about celebrating Irish heritage or culture than it is about St. Patrick himself. The more I thought about this, the more I realized how many people celebrating St. Patrick’s Day have NO CLUE who he was or what he stood for. By re-naming a sacred historical day, we’re slowly losing the true story of the holiday.
This leads me to my final point, and in many ways, it’s the most crucial step in accepting the past. No one can deal with their past until they know exactly what happened. Ignorance of history leads to the destruction of truth. In this politically-correct-history obsessed world, I have to believe that some of the truth about what really happened in the past is being lost. While I’d be the first in line to encourage people to move on, I would not even be close to the line that encourages people to pretend it never happened. For example, history book writers are so concerned about making sure that students know the “real” story of Columbus as a culture-ruiner and disease-bringer that they down-play his tremendous discovery of the New World which changed the course of history. It must have been truly awful for the Native Americans who died from exposure to new diseases and I know the loss of loved ones negatively impacted the families who were left behind. But I’m also thankful Columbus
In closing, I think about the clash of past and present like a big painting. While examining one small part of the painting, you might see a person who is sleeping, an animal in a corner, or an object on a table. It’s easy to consider one thing at a time. Once you take a few steps back, though, and start to see all the other facets of the painting, it takes on new meaning. You know from looking at the big picture that the person is actually dead. The animal is being beaten. The object is about to be broken. You then have two choices. Choice one is to see the painting in its entirety, to study how it all works together, and to acknowledge that your understanding as a viewer (and not the artist) is possible only once you’ve analyzed the painting as a whole. Choice two is to return to looking at one piece of the painting at a time, to avoid the truth in the whole painting (except your own), and to purposely reject a geniune understanding of the painting’s meaning by thinking about the author's intent. Does looking at the whole painting mean the person is dead? It sure does. But it also means that you start to see why, you start to see how, and you start to understand.
It means there is truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to the following authors for helping me write both this post and the last one:
Philip Freeman, St. Patrick of Ireland, A Biography
Maymie Richardson Krythe, All About American Holidays
Robert J. Myers, A Complete Book of American Holidays
Sonja Massie, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Irish History
Ann Tompert, Saint Patrick
Lelia Ruckenstein & James O'Malley, Everything Irish
Madden Finbar, Teach Yourself the History of Ireland
Mike Cronin, Irish History for Dummies
Sean Duffy, The Macmillan Atlas of Irish History
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)