A Strange, Undeveloped Theory About Racism

Why are we racist?

This is a question for all of us. When I first learned about racism, I heard it as an identifier. That boy was called a racist by another boy. Now when I had heard the word, I was confused. Did you just call him races? Someone explained it to me. “A racist is a person that makes fun of other people because they are different.” Well, I thought that wasn’t very nice. Racists are bad then. My mom told me not to be mean. Then again, maybe things were just easy for me and I had no need to be mean. I was a spoiled child and my mother went to great measures to keep me pure and cherubic. In fact, I rather christianized myself because I took pride in being a good kid. But this isn’t about me. Let’s talk about the racists. So back to the kid that called the other kid a racist. Looking back to that time, I realized something peculiar. Strangely, I didn’t learn about the word racism until I had heard the word racist being used on numerous occasions. Sure, kids were fond of labelling other kids with new, unfamiliar words. But why didn’t the word racist come before the word racism? There can be several explanations. Maybe this occurred because it was easier for kids (5th graders) to see the embodiment of a supposed racist (that was more likely an unfiltered kid), and to just identify this person as being that. Or maybe the word racism was too conceptual for young kids, right? They don’t have time to deal with ideas and the intangibles, they need to see an actual racist. Or maybe, what I just said is a terrible way of stating how it is for all kids based on my experience. Well, that’s true. Not all kids are going to hear the word racist before racism. And how does someone remember? Why is this even important?

Well, for the sake of my argument, maybe it’s because we, as in everybody, are already racists. Somehow, in whatever shape or form, we possess a bit of racism, which in this case would be some form of prejudice towards other people because of the color of their skin or something they did, or better yet, just feeling different when seeing a person of a different race for the first time. It’s easy to attribute certain things that someone does to the color of the person’s skin, or simply generalizing what can be understood. However, maybe some people can’t recall ever being racist, or maybe some people have always loved everyone without a drop of prejudice, and that might be true. But maybe that’s only true because, like me, you had no reason to be racist because you weren’t threatened. You work to be pure and all-loving, but really, you’ve never felt lost, or angry, or negative. Well then, that’s just the thing. Maybe if you’ve never been a racist, you’ve already put on security blankets that keep you from being racist. However, that doesn’t mean that you’re not a racist deep within, when you’re stripped down to your core. Because when things aren’t going so well and you don’t understand the situation, will you be racist then? Maybe. There’s also a connection between understanding what’s going on for you to exclude racism or not. Basically, perhaps the unknown and the negativity contributes to racism. Take my example, for instance, as a model for truth. If the word racist comes before the word racism, my theory is, perhaps we are the embodiment of racism, and so we are first racists, and then once we learn and understand that we can extract our racist element from within and turn it into an idea, we are out of the unknown and we have a choice. We can either show off this idea and follow it, or we can cover it up and use what society has taught us to avoid showing our racist selves. So when I think about what I’ve just written, we are racist because we are in the unknown or agitated, and we’re not racist when we don’t feel threatened or if we know everything.

 

Works Cited

Google Images.

Transcending the Genderfied Biological Code

For millennia, the idea of gender has been manipulated to serve different schemes. In fact, there is a timeline to which this notion applies. When we look at the core end of the tale, which in this case is the present day, we can see the remarkable differences in how we view gender as something more than just male or female as compared to the early interpretations of gender, which either didn’t come to mind for many humans or subconsciously reigned as natural coalescence. Today, there is an understanding of gender equality and the vast associations that come with each sex. But, of course, it wasn’t always like this. The in-between journey is where the problem of gender has been of most calamity. Retrospectively, if we consider our social politics today, the idea of gender was pure so long as there wasn’t a distinction made that one sex was above the other. But just as humans have always sought to put a name to every thought such as “gender”, which showcased human creativity, we possessed dark creativity, which was essentially manipulation. And this flaw, which has predominantly been used by men to demonstrate their superiority over women, has inflicted a ceaseless mourning of the woman’s history. But to say that it wasn’t natural, and that men uprooted a concept that was mechanical and unhumanistic to justify their claims of power, is where I must defer. If history is honest, as we so appreciate, then what we have come to today has been a natural ending to a natural start, with a journey that has been just as logical. Though many men have fallen to dark actions, the truth is that the manipulation of the concept of gender to assert power is part of a genderfied biological code that we humans are born into. In focusing on the social inquiries of what gender is in a heavily tumultuous present, and being successful in doing so, we have transcended the biological code by forgetting the physical differences in human males and females that explains our history of a one-sided manipulative relationship between man towards woman.

What I would like to point out is somewhat obvious yet considerably snarky and diminishing. Biologically speaking, males have demonstrated physical dominance over females in terms of relative size and strength, as well as possessing the ability of exploiting women’s vulnerabilities. This has been the root to the greater social and political issues that have negatively affected women in the last millennia. I say this because if we consider what women can lose, it can potentially be their life. And it would be to the hands of a man that can be manipulative and treat her unfairly because his physical punishments are able to enforce his policies. I do not mean to say every scenario is like this, but when it comes to the fruit of it, this is essentially the bare version of men’s “superiority” over women. Which leads me to a great example of how this relationship is reversed in a particular group of animals in the savannahs of Africa.

Hyenas, specifically spotted hyenas, are an exemplar of a matriarchal society. For a peculiar reason, females have evolved to be larger, more muscular, and can physically overwhelm the males (Hyena). In fact, males weigh from around 89-121 pounds while females weigh between 98 to 141 pounds, with the latter being demonstratively bigger in every dimension. The clans of hyenas are led by alpha females and a larger share of their kills are primarily given to dominating females due to their aggression and power. In terms of hierarchy, “females dominate males, with even the lowest ranking females being dominant over the highest ranking males.” (Spotted Hyena) One way to explain where all this aggression comes from is in part due to the high levels of androgen that females possess, which is a hormone that augments their aggressiveness. In addition, males that are passive are more likely to be allowed to mate with females, and thus males tend to buy into their inferiority. Another detail to note is that females do not possess the vulnerability of being sexually inferior to males. This is because females have a pseudo-phallus that makes it extremely difficult for males to mate with females, and unless the act is consensual, the female would be protected and have the ability of killing a smaller and weaker male. In terms of the social behaviors of hyenas, the females have their way with everything, from getting the larger shares of food, choosing their partners, and ordering males to do their bidding.

So from a biological standpoint, it should be clear that for one, physical dominance is a recipe for more astounding power. The matriarchal clans of hyenas tell us that yes, the females dominate, but to see what it is that allows it to happen? And that is what gender has given us humans, hyenas, and other species. A unique biological code that has dictated whether one gender or the other, or even both, have differing or equal power in a relationship. It just so happens that men have unjustly treated women for so long, and yes, it is a grave issue, and I am glad we have shown signs of exiting that phase of manipulation in which men declare what they want and justify it with their gender, because we no longer want to acknowledge that they can out-muscle a woman barbarically to get what he wants, which is symbolic of all the evil man has done, but that every human, no matter the gender, should be valued as equal.    

 

Works Cited

Carey, Bjorn. “The Painful Realities of Hyena Sex.” LiveScience, Purch, 26 Apr. 2006, http://www.livescience.com/699-painful-realities-hyena-sex.html. Accessed 13 Apr. 2018.

Google Images.

“Spotted Hyena.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Apr. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_hyena#Anatomy. Accessed 13 Apr. 2018.

 

 

When Will My Reflection Show Who I Am Inside?

This brief blog post will be a reflection of the previous blogs I have written and what I have learned in these past two quarters of Humanities Core.

I would first like to say that I never really thought much about writing blogs and I had a slight interest in reading them online, but aside from that, it was something I never considered. I’m glad that this course incorporated this type of assignment into its objectives because I have found it to tricky but at the same time kind of fun and rewarding. It is definitely more enjoyable than the common essay. In regard to the past blogs I’ve written, I found that some were on the side of complete mediocracy, some inadequate, and others rather sharp. The time I took making comparisons and typing it out was a great way to explore new ideas and the visual adjustments I could make to each post was in itself another adventure I enjoyed meddling with. Humanities Core really engaged my mind to see things in a different light and I am appreciative of the value this course has given me. Overall, I’m glad I get to look at my blog website and say that it was all me, whether one blog was pitiful and the other masterful. Because in some way, it’s a reflection of me.

Shakespeare, what a conundrum you’ve shown us.

There is distinguished praise given to William Shakespeare, whom by many is considered the greatest writer of English prose and poetry for the honest reason that he crafted a language and used it to make works of literature worthy of copious explications. Thus, I would like to consider two of his particular works, The Tempest and Hamlet, in which Shakespeare careens the theme of revenge as the driver and compass of the protagonists’ identity and ambition, giving readers a full-hearted contemplacy of the intentions and vision of achieving indignant retribution. Although Prospero and Hamlet go about their plots of revenge in relatively different ways, the concordant purpose is fathomed by the reader to be righteous and deliberates the importance of correcting the wrong. However, Shakespeare probably knew that the perfect play needed an imperfect lead role, one that would trigger questions from the audience and beg for introspection. I mention this because the “hero” in both of these plays, whether in tragedy or comedy, inhibits the inevitable hamartia of every good man, and this goes to say that, surely, the best of men face the greatest of problems because as more people touch upon their intents, they find ways to squander the intention and direct focus to the error in how it is being done. So when Prospero, the old magician on the island, conjures a storm to strand the royals that usurped his position as Duke of Milan, one could say, “he needn’t a storm to do that” and simply justify the flaw as being too harsh or too shallow despite the deserving nature of Prospero’s intentions. Then, when Prospero needs Ariel to perform magic on the royals, it is for the plan of luring them nearer to his house, but one could then say, “Prospero, you are tyrannical, you have a servant sprite that does your bidding” and proceed to debase Prospero’s righteous objective. On the other hand, Hamlet demonstrates the more violent chasm of schematics, but, we must not forget, he is trying to avenge his noble father by killing the evil, malignant, antagonistic usurper known as Claudius. Hamlet is doing a right by killing the bad guy, right? The blind patron would agree, but as more people tap into the idea, the criticisms arise, and the resistance accentuates. “Killing is never justified”, one would say. And that is that.

 

Shakespeare, what a conundrum you’ve shown us. There is a great appreciation towards you for licensing what I call the wave complex. Every move that Prospero or Hamlet make, they just can’t go in a straight line, can they? Their hamartia only allows them to travel to the depots on the crest and trough, and then slowly wave towards their goal. So then, what really is my point?

 

My belief is, there is a social and political complex of the “radical” means to which the end is achieved, of which to high degree the collective activists, pacifists, anti-socialists, but more generally but more accurately, the volatile and diversely sensitized victims of drastic plans seem to place their reciprocating toil to criticize the pain and unjust nature caused by certain behavior. One particular Aimé Césaire claims that, The Tempest illustrates the “sordidly racist” white european colonizer, to which I say is agreeable, but more profoundly tells us that the commonwealth demands consummate execution, void of the result and the intention, to harbor significance in the means and process of exaltation, because when it comes to the root of it, people have always cared about how something is being done. So my last note is this: Shakespeare makes his work emboldening and reflective of timeless social and political issues, wherein revenge, even in the light of virtue, is insufficient of perfectibility so long as it fails to consider one head. The individual can have the power to exact revenge or create positive change for the good of the world, but one person can also be an agent of hamartia and dismantle that dream, that goal, through critical thinking or even blatant rejection of it for no reason at all. Which makes things, quite frankly, ridiculously difficult for every one of us. If I have made a disservice in this sense, I know that it comes from writing this, because I couldn’t just let Prospero and Hamlet get away with their plans unscathed of my analysis, and that’s what makes Shakespeare’s work remarkable: it thrives off this wave complex, hitting more and more significance and relevance as we continue to decipher the problems almost everyone in every play has.

 

 

Works Cited

Google Images.

Langbaum, Robert. The Tempest.

Shakespeare, William, and Richard Andrews. Hamlet. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Genocide, Exploitation, Fantasy – It’s all Monkey Business

In the 16th century, large conquests led by Spanish soldiers materialized in the Andean societal powerhouse known as the Inca Empire. Having studied this topic for the past two weeks, I have a better understanding of what potentially occurred to the indigenous peoples of the land and how they were manipulated by the Spanish. There were successes and failures on both sides of the line, but the war of Losing Many Lives was fated to the Andeans. They were thrown into a self-inflicted genocide and exploited for their labor. Dare I say it, the tug-of-war between the bearded invaders and the native people was already won when the silvery clank had set foot on American soil. The con-quistador, as I call him, had a poison more lethal than a shot to the heart; he had a gift of procuring imagination and viracochan ideas to the mind. The deception he wielded was genocidal, economic and political, but more than anything it was strictly business (which consisted of a lot of deceit). When I adhere to the truer facts that have been presented to me, I know indefinitely that the Spanish had a goal in mind and they played their cards well, and through this historical frame, I somehow cannot refrain from seeing glimpses of Nazi Germany.

I must draw some striking similarities between the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire and the Fascist control of Europe by the Nazis. Just like Francisco Pizarro had done centuries before, Adolf Hitler amassed summatious amounts of territory for his country through the expense of many innocent lives. The conquest for both of these rulers was soundly based upon an aberrant ideology that was perverted and idiosyncratically appealing to the masses of fanatics. In the Inca Empire, the Spanish aroused the kurakakuna to do their bidding by having them force thousands of Andeans to cultivate silver from the mine of Potosi, leading to so many harsh deaths from the grueling labor that certain populations disappeared altogether (O’Toole). The Spanish managed to do this through a system that benefited only the elite Andeans and would incentivize them to continue their roles. As a result, the kurakakuna were guilty of contributing to the Spanish colonialism by allowing the Spanish to reside in the lands and work behind the scenes to collect the riches. Ultimately, the political structure of the empire was reshaped as the powerful Andeans became puppets of a grander scheme created by the Spanish.

In the same sense, the Nazis executed the same facets of this formidable trifecta of genocidal, economic and political ruse among its subordinates and victims. In a twelve year span, Hitler managed to organize the exploitation and genocidal “cleansing” of millions of “Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and others” (“The Nazi Regime”). Under Nazi orders, a victim was forced to work or was just simply killed. The Nazis also found an intermediary alliance, much like the Spanish did with the kurakakuna, in the form of Jewish policemen. In fact, as stated in a Holocaust Archive website, “approximately 2,000 Order Service policemen were mobilised for the “Aktion” soon faced a complex dilemma. The Germans promised total immunity to them and their relatives and encouraged the alleged differences between them and the Jewish population of the ghetto” (“The Jewish Order Police”). Thus, the Jewish servicemen contributed to the deaths of many Jews through this “Aktion” and helped the Nazi cause for their own benefit. Furthermore, it is stated in another Holocaust archive that “the majority of the German population believed that the Nazi regime would lead Germany out of years of political turmoil” (“The Nazi Regime”). Hence, this solidifies the idea that many, Jews and German citizens included, had bought into the fascist ideology that Hitler glorified, much like the way the Incas fell prey to the Spanish system.

So…we must ask, how did this happen?

Simply, it was the mind game. And both Pizarro and Hitler knew it. Pizarro and the conquistadors persuaded the Andeans into a pit of silver. Hitler was the “universal auteur of the regime he founded and anchored in imagery: propaganda was the governing philosophy” (O’Shaughnessy). People fell delirious to their own imaginations. It was the thought of living a fantasy of wealth, security, and longevity that drew many in. To the Spanish and Nazis, as I said earlier, it was the business of convincing others to support them, and they succeeded. But to those that were offered the goods, it was personal, and once taking, there was no escape from the poison that came with it. I do exaggerate when I say that it was like a fantasy for those that were mentally altered, for I’m sure it’s descriptively inaccurate to a degree, but no worries, I’ll get me a con-quistador and a Nazi propaGandalf to help me persuade you that I’m not going bananas.

 

 

Works Cited

Google Images.

O’Shaughnessy, Nicholas J. “Selling Hitler: Propaganda and the Nazi Brand.” Selling Hitler: Propaganda and the Nazi Brand, Hurst & Company, 2016, pp. 55–76.

“The Jewish Order Police.” The Jewish Order Police Www.HolocaustResearchProject.org, 2008, www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ghettos/orderpolice.html. Accessed 18 January 2018.

“The Nazi Regime.” Holocaust | The Nazi Regime, Projet Aladin, 2009, www.projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/history-of-the-holocaust-shoah/the-nazi-regime.html. Accessed 18 January 2018.

McDonald’s Destiny

It was little known to the human world in 1948 that the McDonald’s restaurant in San Bernandino, California would grow into a mega-machine of fast-food chains across the world over the course of a few decades. Maybe it was destiny, or maybe the McDonald brothers were decreed by a mighty hamburger in the sky to sell their company to the hands of Ray Kroc. Bad jokes aside, the story of the McDonald’s franchise is culturally relevant today and epitomizes a profusion of an idea similar to a certain 19th century attitude: manifest destiny.

It all started after World War II with the McDonald brothers, Richard and Maurice, and their game-changing strategy of creating a successful restaurant. “The concept they created was a revolutionary one that would become the keystone of the nascent fast food industry: an emphasis on efficiency, low prices, big volume, and speedy self-service and a jettisoning of anything that would slow down the transaction” (Galley and Holcomb). At first, the new style of operation was confusing, but soon after people were buying into the idea of having a cheap and quick meal without the proper table etiquette. In fact, just a few years after opening, “McDonald’s sold more than one million hamburgers and half a million orders of french fries [in 1952]” (Galley and Holcomb). This success granted particular opportunities, and one came in the form of a franchising agent named Ray Kroc. After working for the McDonald brothers for a few years, Kroc bought the  company in 1961 for $2.7 million (“McDonald’s Corporation”). He heavily invested in marketing strategies to proliferate profits in order to build more restaurants. The growth was so profound and tremendous that “by 1963 McDonald’s restaurants were selling a million hamburgers a day. In 1965 the company went public. In 1967 McDonald’s opened its first international store in Canada… and in 1995, 7,030 McDonald’s restaurants in 89 countries outside the United States produced sales of $14.0 billion” (“McDonald’s Corporation”). However, this success warranted many criticisms and appraisals. In a negative way, the spread of the McDonald’s franchise was seen as “a symbol of American economic and cultural chauvinism” (James), but in a positive light, “McDonald’s respects the markets, cultures, beliefs and likings of other nations” (“McDonald’s Global Expansion”).

 

The first McDonald’s restaurant in San Bernandino, California.

 

A McDonald’s restaurant in Rotterdam, Netherlands.

 

This duality presents itself in a similar yet contrasting fashion to the idea and occurrences of manifest destiny. In a way, the 19th century attitude towards territorial expansion provided both beneficial and harmful aspects to the social order during the time. Surely, there was “the progress of liberty and individual economic opportunity” for many of the privileged colonists and expansionists, but there was also the “quasi-Darwinist reasoning to argue that because ‘Anglo-Saxon heritage’ made America supremely fit, it had become the nation’s ‘manifest destiny’ to extend its influence beyond its continental boundaries into the Pacific and Caribbean basins” through the very forceful removal of native peoples (“Manifest Destiny”). McDonald’s  persistence in its growth received similar views on both spectrums, where “on April 23 of [1992], 40,000 Chinese lined up in front of [the] first outlet in Beijing, China” (Galley and Holcomb) but on the other hand, countries such as “Bermuda banned all fast-food restaurants to squelch a McDonald’s planned for the island” (James). This is perhaps the greatest similarity that can be drawn between the idea of manifest destiny and the globalization of McDonald’s, where the outflux of a certain plan reaches a recognized and distinguished level that brings in an abundance of reactions.

There is an obvious difference between the two matters that should be emphasized. Manifest destiny was supposedly a divine and fated cause that was closely justified by the racial and dauntless attitudes of predominantly white settlers during the 19th century, as explained by Professor Lazo. The spread of the McDonald’s company, however, was a business exploration and project that was considerate of cultural differences and only sought to maximize sales. I stress the contrast between the two because it shows the progression that mankind has made. From a society in which something is claimed to be definite through religion to a society in which something is done for the goal of superior enterprise. Although this concept is vague and many examples can prove that manifest destiny was more than that, or that such an attitude continues today, or whatever it may be, I am certain that business has become a new sort of religion that has taken over the world, thanks in part to McDonald’s.   

 

 

Works Cited

Galley, Catherine C., and Briavel Holcomb. “McDonald’s.” St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, edited by Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast, vol. 3, St. James Press, 2000, pp. 321-324. Gale Virtual Reference Library, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3409001631/GVRL?u=univca20&sid=GVRL&xid=c5e3df70. Accessed 30 Dec. 2017.

Google Images.

James, Randy. “McDonald’s Abroad.” Time, 28 Oct. 2009, content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1932839,00.html. Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.

“Manifest Destiny.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2010, http://www.history.com/topics/manifest-destiny. Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.

“McDonald’s Corporation.” Company Profiles for Students, edited by Donna Craft and Amanda Quick, vol. 2, Gale, 1999, pp. 863-868. Gale Virtual Reference Library, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3427200181/GVRL?u=univca20&sid=GVRL&xid=c1d9c939. Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.

“McDonald’s Global Expansion.” UKEssays, 20 Jul. 2017, www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/the-global-expansion-of-mcdonalds-marketing-essay.php. Accessed 1 Dec. 2017.

 

 

Giant Expectations

There is a conjecture in philosophy that states that the civilized state of man is full of suffering and inequality and that the state of nature of man is one in which man only has desires of self-preservation and perfectibility, and that somewhere in between the natural state and the civilized state there lies a pastoral and sedentary state in which humanity’s peace is at its strongest and suffering is at a minimum. Therefore, society is bad because the rich man and the poor man are born, and to efface that humanity must go back to a simpler state where we are natural and equal. In other words, inequality is unnatural. Such is the the reasoning of Jean Jacques Rousseau.

 

This reasoning, however, is only half true. Yes it is true that society creates social inequalities, but inequality is not dependent on society. In other words, in the state of nature, there is natural inequality as well. No two people occupy the same life and many factors contribute to the ability and actuality of a person either being above or below another person. Rousseau also says that man naturally wants to preserve himself, expand the population, and has an idiosyncratic perception and knowledge of the world that is compared to none. From the basics, humans developed language, ideas, comparisons, self-consciousness, and reflection (among others). With these abilities together, man joined together in tribes, and then societies, to collaborate and build a social structure. By nature, we are social, and consequently society was natural because there was a combination of intelligence and interactions to tie it together. Therefore, social inequality is not unnatural as is assumed by Rousseau because as societies form, they become more complex like the human mind, and evidently, where there is space for goodness and equality, there is also room for badness and inequality. Nature is never always kind nor cruel, but both, and we as humans have an innate correlation to that. Rousseau draws a distinction between the two sides, but we must understand that equality and inequality are inevitable and coexist as part of one. Yet, there is an element of human nature that makes itself unique. We want to break free from this polarity. There is the desire to fight for equality and claim inequality as the cause for the suffering of many dingy lives. We, above all, care heavily on the problem of inequality because we have great expectations. We have beliefs and hopes and are nothing short of unique. However, I must illuminate and divert to a specific example to show how, however unnatural things may seem, so to say however much they deviate from Rousseau’s concept of naturality and equality, society and inequality are of the most natural essence. How so? We must look at the little things, because they help paint the bigger picture.

I talk about Formicidae, or what are known as ants. However minuscule the species may fare to humans, their existence is inherently beneficial in comprehending the nature of life and of inequality.

An ant colony refers to “the typical ant nest—a vertical tunnel [6-25 feet deep] with horizontal chambers” along with its eusocial inhabitants and functions (Humphreys, McClintock). The ant colony resembles a human society in many aspects including hierarchy, number structure, and responsibilities for survival. At the top of the hierarchy there is a queen or egg-laying ant that lays thousands of eggs either sexually or asexually. Typically the former poses as the primary process for most ant species, where drones are involved. According to the extermination specialists at Terminix, “drones are male ants whose only function is to mate with the queen so she can lay her eggs” (Terminix). Besides these ants, which are almost always inside the ant nest, there are alates, or winged reproductive ants, that partake in nuptial flights to reproduce with ants of other colonies. At the bottom of the social order is the most abundant type of ant which is the worker ant. All worker ants are female and are born into this position. — To elaborate, ant larvae are fed different amounts of food and some obtain better nutrition than others. Of those that survive, the strongest are usually the ants that will have the ability to lay eggs and become queens or alates, while the rest turn out to be worker ants. Therefore, the inequality of ants is inherent through birth and determined by developmental factors early on. Yet, although there is a fundamental hierarchy in an ant colony, the ants coexist in a remarkable fashion. The queen-ant does not delegate duties to the other ants, but strangely, the ants choose their tasks out of preference for the sound functioning of the colony. In the words of myrmecologist Walter Tschinkel “The colony is a kind of creature—a superorganism” (Humphreys, McClintock).

And what have we gained from this knowledge? For one, we must understand that the inequality in society is a natural occurrence, and it is not a stretch to say that humans face inequality from the start just as ants do. Another is that there is a steep contrast between the way ants and humans think. Ants accept their roles in society and place their value of life on the betterment of society. Intuitively we can say humans profess that same value. However, humans have made the distinction between equality and inequality, and in reaching solely for the positive side known as equality, we have raised our expectations, our pity accentuated, to achieve something utopic but unnatural. In this case, Rousseau wants to turn back time and contain human progression to pre-societal dominance, but wrongly claims that this is the cause for inequality. Inequality was always there, and the only thing that has changed to make us feel this way is our perception, reflection, and our expectation. Therefore, we feel a pity greater than that which we have felt in the past, and we have given the idea of inequality an unnatural meaning that errs from its reality. Perhaps the greatest gift humans have developed is the desire for good, truly, but we must understand (without the care for redundancy), that inequality is natural, and that ant colonies and human societies are not much different, except for the fact that ants have an unknowing acceptance of their lives while we have giant expectations only meant for our enlightened minds.

 

 

Works Cited

“Ant Colonies and Social Structure | Terminix.” Termite Control & Home Termite Inspections, www.terminix.com/blog/education/what-is-an-ant-colony. Accessed 15 Nov. 2017.

Google Images. Accessed 16 Nov. 2017.

Humphreys, Brent, and Jack McClintock. “The Secret Life of Ants.” Discover Magazine, 7 Nov. 2003, discovermagazine.com/2003/nov/the-secret-life-of-ants. Accessed 15 Nov. 2017.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. The Basic Political Writings. Hackett, 2012.

Romans on the run, set, hut!

Romans on the run, set, hut!

The Roman Empire was the greatest and largest empire for hundreds of years, but it has also been hundreds of years since it last stood. Yet it stands the test of time and has become a topic of legendary status and human achievement. Although the glory has faded, there is still an example of how the Roman Empire has survived in a contemporary setting.

3911 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90037. The home of the mighty USC Trojans football team, also known as the Coliseum [sic] (the actual standing ruins is called the Colosseum). USC, along with many other schools across the United States, bear a mascot of some group of people that relate to the ancient world, whether it be the Spartans, Gladiators, Romans, Trojans etc. etc. But I’m not going to talk about schools, I’m going to show how an aspect of the Roman Empire, specifically Roman battles and gladiator arena events, has lived on through the game of football.

 

Football is an extremely physical sport that involves a variety of strategy and coordination. It is very much similar to the battles that the Romans fought. What the Romans followed under the general’s orders, the athletes follow under the coach’s calls. Who the hero Spartacus was, many of today’s sports analysts would say is Jerry Rice. The field, even, was called a battlefield, while the field now is called a football field. There is a matter of winning a game, which compares to a victorious battle. In the National Football League (NFL), there is a strife to win the Super Bowl, which is the championship game played after enduring 16 regular season games and several playoff matches. In comparison, the Romans would have to fight many battles and win most of them in order to gain leverage (which would be the playoffs), and then drive out the enemy and win the war, which would be the equivalent of winning a Super Bowl. To extend this idea, if a football team is successful enough to win many Super Bowls, the correlation would be an empire that wins many wars. Therefore, considering the past 20 years of NFL history, which would be 20 seasons meaning 20 wars, the New England Patriots would be the Romans! They both dominated their eras, respectively.

Now, in terms of a game or sport, the arena battles match up with the 60 minutes of regulation of a football game almost identically, and the differences are basically negligent. In the analysis done by Jesse Hicks of Penn State, “both involve spectacular, violent displays before a massive, cheering audience. Fans choose sides and strongly identify with their team—just as Roman citizens cheered their favorite gladiators in combat” (Hicks). And, minus the weapons and killing, the gladiators were basically the classic version of football stars. As stated by Professor Russell Fleming of the University of St. Andrews, “just as the gladiators wore armour to protect their bodies, many sports today require the players to wear protective gear, [such as football]” (Fleming). In addition, the fighting spirit that the Romans valued and acted upon in battle is shown in the teamwork of football teams today. There is also the saying in football that “we fight as a team”, which kind of sounds like..what the Romans did.

There is a conceptual piece to fit together here. Although there are differences in the way these activities function in a society; for example, in a Roman society, the art of war is seen as its primary source of security and longevity, while the gladiator events are seen as a way of telling a story and partaking in delusional enjoyment of violence. Or, in America’s society, football is a way of life that brings people together, or brings people together to watch it. Despite this, the conceptual correlation between the Roman Empire and its physical spectacles and the United States today with the game of football is the idea that the largest and most powerful empires of their respective time are entreated the luxury of showing physical dominance as a means of entertainment or in such profusion that it is deemed a part of its culture. It is a demonstration of pride, glory and strength. This is beneficial in that there is a sense of unity and power that corrals the people of the empire together, but the downside is that such a mentality attributes to the unjust killing of human lives or just the danger of the sports in general.

There is no refuting that part of the Roman Empire still lives on today through football. The sport we value here in America is an imitation of Roman battles and arena events, minus the killing. Plus, I have only given a sample size of the comparisons between the two and what it tells us about their “empire mentality”, so one can only imagine how revelating and intertwined time can be when it comes to Roman warriors and football.  

 

 

Works Cited

“12 Things You Should Know About The Ancient Roman Gladiators.” Realm of History, 15 July 2016, http://www.realmofhistory.com/2016/07/15/12-facts-ancient-roman-gladiators/. Accessed 27 Oct. 2017.

Fleming, Russell. “Roman Gladiators: How They Compare to Modern Sporting Heroes.” AntiquityNOW, 7 Oct. 2014, antiquitynow.org/2014/10/02/roman-gladiators-how-they-compare-to-modern-sporting-heroes/. Accessed 27 Oct. 2017.

Google Images.

Hicks, Jesse. “Probing Question: Is Football Similar to Roman Gladiator Games?” Penn State University, 14 Sept. 2009, news.psu.edu/story/141233/2009/09/14/research/probing-question-football-similar-roman-gladiator-games. Accessed 27 Oct. 2017.

“Super Bowl 51: A Beginner’s Guide to American Football – CBBC Newsround.” BBC News, BBC, 2 Feb. 2017, http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/31082306. Accessed 27 Oct. 2017.

 

 

 

 

The Lack of Seoul

For three generations, the Korean Peninsula has been muddled in stark differences. When I was 10, the only difference I knew was in the land’s geographical split between north and south, and that Pyongyang and Seoul were too hard to pronounce. Today I am more aware of how different the two countries are in heart and mind. I am interested in the former due to its contrast to capitalism and democracy, while the latter provides a model of what we here in the United States value: democracy and individualism.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, more commonly known as North Korea, possesses a nucleic system of government that resembles the red days of its old counterpart, the Soviet Union. The country values its supreme leader and the idea of juche (self-reliance), which has consecrated its history as one of isolationism and totalitarianism (Juche Ideology). I have read articles about the vile treatment in which the masses are subjected to; the lack of food that leads to starvation or even the limited array of haircuts one is allowed to have. The restrictions of life that I would never experience here in America, where I find great importance in my choices and freedom to do, to act, to think and say, are all on my own accord but are deemed punitive there. A North Korean life is one I cannot see with color and emotion. It is dry, gridded, and hyper-uniform. It is a price I’m not willing to pay. Yet despite what I consider to be inhumane and asphyxiating, or what the democratic countries consider likewise, in my eyes, North Korea is doing the right thing.

Shocker, but it’s true. I have come to the conclusion that although the DPRK resembles a fascist and tyrannical empire, the accusations I or anyone has towards them are not ours to make, of course, within reason that we are in fact closing our politics to limits according to our politics only. In the most vast sense, how open we can be to understand their side is best articulated in Edward Said’s “The Politics of Knowledge”, an essay he composed as part of a grander analysis of social theory published in 2000. In his work he describes the necessity to allow ourselves to be vulnerable to works of literature of different cultures and to translate that immersion into comprehension (Said). With that same openness, I have assured myself that albeit North Korea is criminally charged as being one of the malevolent empires of the past 70 years, the notion is merely my disapproval of the reality of history and its workings in the present and its premonitions of the future. Had the northern half of the peninsula not been given to the Soviets after Japan had surrendered the territory in 1945, things would be different. It is a commonality to dispute the differences in our world because without them we would fall right under the very concept we are against in North Korea: uniformity to a grand extent. There is the possibility of unity in our world today, but I have the realization that the time hasn’t come, or in actuality, that there are varied perspectives on how to achieve unison for all.

The way in which the DPRK was created and developed its ideology is peculiar to say the least. Its roots can be traced to communism and socialism, which are systemized to create equality in the economy and an uprising of the lower class as the only primary class of society. The most capable persons are dictated the powerful positions of ensuring equality and a utopic society. Yet when I look at the official name of the country, I can’t help but be confused. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? In what sense is democracy exercised in so limited the freedom that is offered? I discovered the answer in another one of Said’s ideas, that upon a victorious movement in the country, one that liberates the people of another country’s control, that the social consciousness of the land may fail to be upheld and thus result, even despite the objective of achieving equality and “democracy” for all, a paradoxical system of government that we see today, in which the ideology wants what is best for its country, a democracy, but in actuality fell far too left on the political spectrum and has scrutinized the freedom into one of severe socialism. With this system, the individual isn’t valued, which I or any capitalist individual would dissent, but it is still in the ends of creating a democracy and equality for all nonetheless, despite the means to which it is achieved. In other words, as described in an article by Antonia Blumberg of HuffPost, “The state, its leaders and its political vision come before the interests and identities of individuals.” (Blumberg). However controversial this ideology and government may be, it is still one with a purpose of betterment for its people in the long run. With that in mind, that’s why I believe North Korea is doing the right thing.

 The lack of soul that North Korea exhibits is found in its treatment of its people and its totalitarian style of work, yet deep down inside I have the feeling that it’s just a difference that I and many others are unused to.    

Works Cited

Blumberg, Antonia. “How North Korea’s Political Ideology Became A De-Facto Religion.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Apr. 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-north-koreas-political-ideology-became-a-de-facto-religion_us_58ffaf4ee4b091e8c711108e. Accessed 6 Oct. 2017.

Google Images.

“Juche Ideology.” Juche Ideology, www2.law.columbia.edu/course_00S_L9436_001/ North%20Korea%20materials/3.html. Accessed 6 Oct. 2017.

Said, Edward W. “Reflections on Exile and Other Essays.” Harvard University Press, 2000. Accessed 6 Oct. 2017.