Malleable Security: Blog 9

Living in a controversial society where being safe has become a privilege, the concept of what makes the average human secure is quite complex. Each individual in society holds a book in each step. America, the country of diversity struggles with the essence of human balance; equality and coming to a common ground. National security has to be defined by national interest due to the diversity and thought, and the diversity in international values. According to the standards of society today, due to the expansion of diverse thought in popular culture  the notion of “national security” is a malleable concept, which makes Wolfers correct.

When dissecting the concept of malleable national security, one can think about the simple notion of how people perceive security different. For many people, the word “security” itself means something different. For example, some may define security as owning a gun, which supports one's effort to maintain their own personal security, while someone else may feel that owning a gun is absurd and the security a gun provides should be the responsibility of law enforcement or the government. Another example is how some people believe security is best secured under a state that supports religious laws because the laws of their sovereign God is their perception of security. On the other hand, the idea of living under  a state that enforces religious laws in unjust and unfair because it is impossible to properly accommodate everyone's religious freedom this way. It seems that when thinking from the perspective of government authority, and from the perspective of the populace the notion of security is seen under different lens. Furthermore, this puts an emphasis on the liberal thought expressed in Federalist Paper 51, where it is believed that the governance of society is based on the governed.

In relation to the national interest, each state should be able to determine their own malleable concept of security based off of the norms, traditions, and their current sociopolitical circumstances. When considering the notion of security, one can ponder the reasons states have went to wars, and their status on the hegemonic spectrum.  Depending on the national interest, a country may feel the need to put emphasis on a specific form of security, rather than focusing on a less relevant form for the sake of circumstance. This can be seen in the way that states fight for, defend, and protects territory (general resources). A classic example of the stressed importance of territorial security is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The historic territory holds relevant and religious value for both parties so their national interests have decided that  defending personal honor, preserving legacy, history, and the religious right is a form of security both sides should secure. Unfortunately, since Israel holds more hegemonic powers with their resources, international support (amung other hegemonic states), and their military it puts Palestine in a dangerous cradle. In National Security Strategy 2001, the value of military presence is the interest that the U.S has decided is the form of security that is paramount to their agenda of maintaining peace and security through militaristic hegemony. All in all, the notion of security is something that should be determined through the national interest of a state because as a state, it is important to determine what is important and what holds more value as a state when considering what actions will place one in a better position on the hegemonic spectrum.

Consciously Inclusive-- Blog 8

Being born in a body that isn’t white is a paradox within the western world. One is punished, and thought of as peculiar. One is perceived as anything, but normal, and sometimes even exotic. Why is it abnormal to have a different shade of skin? Why is it problematic to possess your own personal identity? Society today offers much awareness to highlight, and sometimes even celebrate our differences as humans and individuals. However, this does not take away from the fact that there are certain situations in current society, certain mindsets and blood-stained history that points to the dark side of human society. This same dark side is a side that only people who are placed in a position that Dubois describes as possessing double consciousness can understand, which puts them at an advantage in terms of perspectives because individuals possessing double consciousness can see society and life in a way that individuals with only a single consciousness cannot. 

To begin, observing life through a single lens puts one in a position where they become oblivious  and sometimes unaware of injustices and the struggles of others, however with a double consciousness one is in more of a position to relate to others who share a similar experience. A good example of this is the black experience in America and the experience of other minorities in the sense of facing discrimination, having to fight for rights that the majority and single-minded  society get to decide are not relevant because they are not affected by the same issue, and the simple struggles of not being part of the single-minded community. A black man has to be cautious about what he wears at night and the way that he carried himself from day to day, otherwise, his life is in danger, and for some reason, he may be perceived as a menace to society. This is connected to the negative connotations connected to having black skin, and being a black male in America. One can be seen as or accused of being  a scoundrel, when simply, one is just minding his business. For his safety, the black man is forced to take precautions that his white counterparts do not have to deal with. These precautions range from him having to be cautious of what neighborhoods he is driving in, to being careful of how he even looks at a person who many perceive him as a threat. He simply is expected to subconsciously “know his place” in society, and to code-switch when necessary.People with a single minded consciousness do not have to wrestle with this reality. The sad reality of the single consciousness compared to the double consciousness is that no matter how the single-consciousness tries, it will never be able to grasp the reality of having to live with a double consciousness because this idea of consciousness is more than a mindset, it's an experience. 

Outside of the complex reality of the black double-consciousness, other demographics possess double-consciousness that differ from the specific form of double-consciousness  described in Dubois work, and they are just as valid in their own existence. Invalidating the experience of other demographics would be just wrong because they have their own experiences with having to modify their lifestyles to meet the level of individuals who live with a single-consciousness. For example, the plight of muslim women who desire to wear their veils in public in reverance to their religion and as a personal choice. These women possess a double-consciousness that is subjected to the haunting accusations of being called a terrorist, or insensitive people who demand to see the woman’s face despite her religious devotion. She is forced to contemplate if this choice may have to be compromised for the peace of mind of the single-conscious individuals. This is an injustice to her, and an attack on her identity. However, one with a single consciousness would struggle to see it as such because of their own justified reasons, and simply because they are not experiencing her experience. Across the board, people who are put in positions where they must operate with a double-consciousness have one thing in common: the validity of their personal experiences. The experience of an individual is never invalid, even if one does not possess the consciousness to comprehend it transparently. 

Furthermore, the main way that America should deal with this multiplicity or multiple marginal points of view , is through being more than tolerant, but being truly inclusive. In today’s world, where a wide variety of hate crimes and several forms of discrimination exist being only tolerant is not enough. To be tolerant is not respective of the individual, their identity, and their experience. It seems just simply a notion that is required for people to coexist with people different than they are without causing wars. It seems to just acknowledge the presence and existence of  people who are deemed different. When the idea of tolerance was engineered and put in place, it is possible that the intention was positive, but because of implicit bias, the idea of just tolerating the presence of another human seems very problematic . To encourage inclusive behavior, awareness must be raised, being more open to try to understand the experiences of those having to live with a double consciousness, celebrating differences, and embracing people for who they are. Nevertheless, to be truly inclusive is to respect the individual, their identity (whether it be religious, sexual, gender, cultural, or racial), and their experience. The key to the issue is for Americans to strive to be consiously inclusive.

Source:https://www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/styles/gbz_article_primary_breakpoints_kalapicture_screen-md_1x/public/images/articles/featured/handshearts_andromina_sstock.jpg?itok=VDIcOKDw&timestamp=1522867578

In a Not-So-Perfect World-- Blog 7

A perfect world, void of hunger, and the proper reduction of pollution would introduce a positive harmony to the state of our current reality. In other words, this kind of world would be ideal. One reality in life is that humans are flawed and full of vices, and because of these flaws and vices, society is forced to face the ugly plight of active shooters, hate crimes, and wars. The ideal world has become a fictitious wish for the optimist. Though not completely optimistic,the constructivism offered in Shotter’s paper, is presented as idealistic because of the wavering extremes depending on the context and society that an individual is brought up in; essentially, the ideal conditions presented in Shotter’s work cannot apply to every human. 

To begin, Shotter’s idea  humans allowing themselves to be ruled by a ‘dominant ideology’ shines a light on the level of submission that is required to act as a functional and reasonable member of a society.The idea of being ruled by a ‘dominant ideology’ is simply the rule of social norms (Shotter). Social norms vary from country to country and from culture to culture. For example, in India, it is socially acceptable for males to publicly urinate. However, in America, a man who decides to do such a thing in public could be arrested and charged with indecent exposure. His allegations can intensify and cause him to become a registered sex offender. In India, the dominant ideology is the system of a male dominated patriarchal hierarchy that allows men to get away with things that women could not imagine getting away with.Therefore, men in India can defend this behavior  with ‘good reasons’ for their conduct , but in America there would not be much of a defense in this situation because many people would agree that the individual peeing in public is inappropriate (Shotter).While in America, the dominant ideology is that humans are meant to do such things in private, or in a place where one is not exposing oneself and offending others. This also points to the differential boundaries that exist in the different settings. 

Another factor that makes Shotter’s constructivist view too idealistic is the idea of the citizens having access to socio-ontological  resources. This concept is based off of the freedom of self-expression and how it impacts our sense of self/being. This is an opportunity and a privilege that not everyone has. For example, in Saudi Arabia, it would not be a good idea for a member of Saudi society to decide that the King of Saudi has hurt their feelings, so they are going to go to Twitter of Facebook about it. This is an offense that people are jailed for, or in some cases people even disappear for. The concept of freedom of speech is quite different, which highlights the lack of the Saudi citizen’s ability to utilize social-ontological resources freely. Meanwhile, here in America people have to right to make very rude and inappropriate political propaganda or to simply make horrible comments about the president. Americans have more freedom in their use of socio-ontological resources. When government constraints are put on a society, the leeway is developing underground groups of people who have the same interest or share the same thoughts, which could be another way for people in socio-ontologically restricted societies to utilise their resources. This idea could even help people who have interests or ideas that contradict the norms of their society find community.

Furthermore, the reality that faces humanity is that humans are not naturally free because of the obligation to abide by the social norms of one’s society. The norms of society challenge an individual’s ability to live the life they wish to live because the social surroundings may contradict the desire. An example would be the desire to be a promiscuous woman in a conservative muslim society. This is a social abnormality that could lead to social rejection, jail time, and in extreme cases death. Though not ideal, this is the reality. It is an individual’s job as a citizen of society to abide by the societal norms or else their are risks and consequences. In the western world, modern day mentalities have a motivation to rebel against and defy social norms. The society has provided a platform where people are not afraid to rebel because Western society is designed in a way to where an individual can go on without the social identities that may be restricting them of exercising their free-will. Due to diversity, people who may be considered social outcasts can easily find  or build their own socio-ontological support system through the internet or other social outlets. Moreover, because of the flexibility that western societies offer in this perspective, Shotter’s idealistic approach better applies to a western society, which makes it bias. 

Lastly, there is a biased fault in Shotter’s assumption that every human will have the proper circumstances to create ‘virtues of their passions’.  Shotter states that as humans people “become themselves responsible for their own nature”, but this statement cannot be fairly applied to societies in which an individual’s class, family, or socio-economic situation has a prohibiting impact on their ability to explore the ‘virtues of their passions’ (Shotter). For instance, in a family where there is an expectation that an individual will only pursue a career or interest that yields a lot of money in their future career, the individual  who is expected to live up to this expectation cannot properly explore the ‘virtues of their passions’. Maybe this individual may have a greater desire to pursue something like creative writing or dancing, but their surrounding circumstance creates a barrier in them pursuing the ‘virtues of their passions’. If the individual was given the opportunity to explore their own passions, then it is possible that the individual would be a completely different person due to the opportunities and situations that would come along with the differing passion. The inability to explore passions prevents an individual from being “responsible for much of their own nature”(Shotter). They become molded and shaped by their surroundings, which robs them of their freedom of self.

To conclude, Shotter’s constructivist view comes across as idealistic because of its inability to respect the plethora of diverse circumstances, norms, and cultural conditions. The context that Shotter offers seems to be very western focuses. Shotter assumes a certain amount of liberty and freedom that many communities do not have the privilege of having. Nevertheless, Shotter’s points on the needs of human nature are indeed valid, but unfortunately not every society is engineered to properly implant Shotter’s way of presenting the fulfillment of socio-ontological resources. All in all, an ideal world is not achievable due to the constraints and the engineering of certain inflexible societal constructs.

Justice and Balance?-- Blog 6

Living in a day in age where social media, and the internet have such a profound social impact, compared to the era in which the Federalists papers were written, it can be observed that a lot has changed. The social-political situation, and the impact the populace has on social occurrences has changed. Coming from a period where snail-mail was the backbone of communication, and moving to an age where the world receives a message in a matter of seconds definitely broadens the global plane of political discussion. This makes the situation more unpredictable and fast paced. Approaching it from the perspective of Madison, it would be overwhelming for someone in this time to imagine how the government would manage to keep a social balance under the conditions of a society driven by social media, and along with this balance from Madison’s perspective there would be more factions, government intervention when necessary, and ideally, more protection for minorities. 

Since the social situation of today is different from the climate the author is use to it would require more factions and representations for minorities people with different political views. Madison would be intrigued by the complexity of society, the controversial movements, statements, issues, and statements made via social media. It would give him a lot to work with, and could potentially had an impact on the content of The Constitution. Many of today’s issues have become very difficult to solve because of the protective foundation of The Constitution that many individuals apply to their diverse contextual defenses. However, he would find it problematic because many times in social media, the majority is constantly at war with different segments of the minority or vice versa. The conversations would have to be carried out in a way that would ensure (to its best ability) that “one part of society [is guarded] against the injustice of the other part” (Madison, Federalist 51). However approaching it from his liberal perspective, there would be an understanding of the “different interests [existing] in different classes of citizens (51). This is connected to the fact that different classes are exposed and subjected to different social and economic climates. As and effect of this, Madison would rule that factions are inevitable. So, in response to many of the social disputes today, he would say that one of two things could be done. One can either remove the causes of the factional dispute or one can control effects, which protects the rights of the minority. Madison would easily discover that in many of the social situations of today obstructionism only makes things worse and prolongs suffering and the hardships of the affected members of the populace.

Furthermore, this would mean that if the government were to have a hand in government under Madison’s view there would have to be a strong balance of power, which is what is initial plan was anyway. With that being said, the government's interference would be acting as a mediator and protector of minorities in many cases related to social media today. This would also be in an effort to make sure factions do not get out of control, as well as government still maintains a sense of balance. This control would not impact or impede on the populace’s freedom of speech as that is a constitutional right, but it would be working to combat things like public presentation of hate crimes like our current government is working on becoming more proactive on preventing. This is an example of one group causing the insecurity of the other. 

One contradicting factor would be Madison’s claim in Federalist 10, when he makes the deep-seated statement that “Justice is the end of government”. This is contradictory because the protection of minorities requires a degree of justice in many cases, and this points out the fact that man governing man can be corrupt. If everyone was given the desires of their will, then it would destroy the power structure, which also connects this issue to the Athenian Thesis. The government still must keep the upper hand, so that it remains strong in the end. The populace or minorities cannot be given too much leverage, which means that the structures of society cannot be just or accommodating of everyone or else governing balance will be destroyed. This lack of justice will essentially result in Anarchy when worse comes to worse according to Madison. 

Thus, through the federalist papers, it can be seen that if Madison were present in the modern world, his perception of social media would require more factions, government intervention when necessary, and ideally, more protection for minorities.Applying his perspective to many issues today would make him really question our current situation of leadership in regards to whether or not each branch of government is fully or properly exercising their responsibilities and abilities. Ultimately the framework of the Athenian Thesis and the Machiavellian value of rulers maintaining power over the populace shine through Madison's work. Madison would have an interesting time playing around with how the  balance of power works to day, and the effects of the constitutional foundations he designed. Madison’s republic would struggle in today’s world.

Climate Change A Hoax-- Blog 5

The condition of our world at the moment is controversially divided. This division ranges from political to climatic. Getting the world on one page will be a profound shift that would remedy many existing world issues today. When looking at the world and many of its issues from a realist perspective, one can be accused of being insensitive and send many people into upheaval. In regards to climate change, the realist perspective challenges the claim of it even existing at all, and if it does exist, then it was meant to happen (it’s natural). When considering what a realist might consider the core elements of politics, I believe a realist would consider realpolitik and the national interest as core elements of international politics.

To begin, in regards to the Climate Change  strikes, a realist opinion of the whole ordeal would be that all of the noise is a waste of time and money. According to a CBS News Story on Climate change, the director of The Heartland Institute, which is a conservative think tank, argues that climate change may not be necessarily bad. During the interview he describes how cold weather has killed more people, and warmer weather is healthier for people. He also states that “The climate change efforts are disproportionate to what science says is necessary”. Using his realist analysis, he comes to the conclusion that the effects of climate change and global warming are natural occurrences that were inevitable, and they cannot be blamed on human behavior. Since the realist mindset directs itself toward challenging the validity of the concern of climate change, then the motivation of the protest is futile, and they could be using all of the money and energy for better things. 

 Furthermore, regarding the realist view interweaving Realpolitik in relation to the Climate change strikes, realists would conclude that the opportunity cost outweighs the benefit, therefore making it a waste of time and money to have a Climate strikes . They would argue that since climate change is not necessarily a bad thing in their eyes, maybe instead of spending money to support the efforts to combat climate change, then maybe more money should be allocated to help society adjust its living standards to the changes of the climate, since some realists view climate change as a natural occurrence. A realist could also simply argue that the money can be used for any other beneficial initiative other than climate change, which is not an initiative that needs more funding. The director of  The Heartland Institute also mentioned his belief that climate change will no longer be the topic of conversation 10 years from now. If an issue could possibly lose relevance within a decade, it decreases the need for investment. 

Moreover, when considering national interest, a realist would say that a climate change strike does not fit within the national interest. The national interest concerns what is good for the nation as a whole. A realist would argue that these protests are self-serving to a cause that is draining the countries available funds and putting them towards useless efforts like reducing greenhouse gasses. Realist became even more motivated when President Trump called  climate change a “hoax”. When someone in such a high political rank supports an idea, it increases the impact. Trump’s impact is even stronger due to his controversial media presence. His views grasp the attention of not only the U.S, but of the world, which adds strength to the realist point of view on climate change.

In conclusion, a realist perspective on climate change strikes rules that the whole initiative is a waste of time and money. Through the lens of believing that climate change is not bad for the earth  and accepting it as a natural occurrence that we as dwellers of the global community have to just deal with calls for a completely different approach towards the issue. The Heartland Institute has taken it as far as sending textbooks to colleges and high schools' around the US. These textbooks teach that climate change isn't a phenomenon that people should be afraid of, in fact, it may be a good thing. Whether people agree with their views or not, the realist view is rooted in objectivity, which is why there is an emphasis on core elements of politics, like realpolitik and natural interests. All in all, realists possess views that they believe have the capacity to achieve what they feel is best for society. 

Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKd30j1HX48

Machiavelli's Truth: He Was Right-Blog 4

When another human has the authority to rule over other humans, it is easy for power to become imbalanced and for corruption to set in. In “The Prince”, Machiavelli defines what a ruler (prince) should be for his country, magistrate, and people. Some may see his views as bizarre, and unrealistic, and even though they are unrealistic in the real-world, his views would assist in the maintaining of power. A (prince) ruler  has to be willing to make his own decisions that support the maintaining of his/her reign. Ultimately, Machiavelli’s argument is basically right because a ruler has to do whatever it takes to maintain power, unless it means he/she is putting themselves in a position where they will be hated by their own people.

According to Machiavelli,“You become hateful above all, as I have said, if you prey on the possessions and the women of your subjects”, which would damage the trust between leader and subject. (Machiavelli, 56). To add, many of the negative attributes associated with a leader who causes themselves to  be hated are related to corruption, and behaviors that are seen within countries that lack structured or balanced government. Furthermore, the key to earning the respect and trust of people is through protecting their goods and honor (56). People want to maintain their dignity, so if a ruler takes that from them, it can lead to that ruler being hated.  When people live in constant fear that their leader will steal from them or hurt them, then there is a risk for possible conspiracy. However, when a ruler has the support of the majority, and he/she is loved, then this offers a form of protection from the people (and other forces of government) supporting their rule, which would lead to the conspirators “. . . facing nothing but fear, mutual distrust, and the prospect of punishment, so they lose heart” (57). The support of the people is a strong force for a ruler. For this reason, Machavelli stresses the importance of a Prince “. . . [seeming] compassionate, trustworthy, sympathetic, honest, and religious” (55). Through appearing to exhibit these traits, people will feel more inclined to trust the government and the ruler, which assists the ruler in maintaining power.

Though controversial to mention, I believe America’s current presidency reflects what can possibly happen when a president is not seeming to maintain compassion, trust, sympathy, and honesty. As far as compassion, President Trump has not had a good reputation in this character aspect. His twitter page reflects his many contrasting behaviors. From his racist comments to his division of migrant families. As far as trust comes, many Americans struggle to maintain trust in our current political situation. This can be mirrored through the trust obstructed through the government shutdown, the claim that Mexico would fund the building of  Trump’s wall, and when a president attempts to build a positive rapport with his people, which leads to him being supported by ethnically diverse populations, whose family members he then imposes policies against resulting in the destruction of their family foundation. To build upon this, a lack of sympathy has been offered towards families that have been broken in result of Trump’s crude policies, and mended by him telling the same people to “go back home”. Though some may argue that Trump is honest based off of his ability to carry out most of the things he said he would do in some form, he is dishonest in the way that he relays crucial information. For example, the recent Alabama weather situation where he dishonestly claims that “. . .  the state was in the path of a deadly hurricane”; doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on his error; defacing an official weather map with a Sharpie to prove [sic] his point; and tweeting absurdist videos mocking CNN’s attempts to correct him” (CJR). Many of Trump’s shortcomings has led to an obstruction of trust, and has even led some American’s to hate him. His behaviors have even led to other members of  government to lose trust in him. In support of Machiavelli's argument, Trump has done what he needed to so to come this far in Presidency (to maintain power), whether it be through promises he has made and kept, or through some form of controversially malicious political corruption. 

As can be seen, Machiavelli’s requirements of what a ruler should “seem” to be, and the consequences of coming short of the requirements (possible hate and distrust of the people) prove that he was right in the sense that a ruler has to seem to maintain the positive qualities of compassion, trust, sympathy, and honesty. Possessing these qualities lead to a positive fluidity in government, and within the public. People want to trust their ruler and maintain their dignity. A modern day example of the implications of these qualities being forsaken by a ruler can be seen through America’s current presidency. All in all, Machiavelli is right about the need for rulers to possess or at least seem to possess specific positive qualities, and ultimately what a ruler should avoid is being hated by his people and supporting forces. Avoiding hate will, in the end, aid the ruler in maintaining their power as a ruler. 

Sources:https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1150381394234941448?lang=en

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trump_alabama_sharpiegate.php

Machiavelli Niccolò, and David Wootton. The Prince. Hackett Publishing Company, 1995.

Hate: A Driving Force -Blog 3

The word ‘hate’ has become a relatable term as a result of tragic actions carried out by members of the national and international community. Hate, being a strong word, is not a term used to explain something light,it holds a heavy and profound weight when it is utilized. To hate, is to have a distaste for the subject so deeply that one has no concern for the wellbeing, life, or fate of  the subject that the ‘hate’ is directed towards. In CP Patrick’s book “The Truth About Awiti”, there is a chapter entitled “Hate” (Chapter 18), the central male character innocently becomes a victim of a very violent and racially charged hate crime. He is beaten to a pulp, hung, and set on fire by a group of drunk white men while he was taking a shortcut home (Patrick, 182). He was simply a negro in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, in the novel, Patrick provided a supernatural platform for readers to have a chance to get to know the souls’ of certain characters. In regards to the “Athenian Thesis”, the central male character in the chapter “hate”, agrees with the “Athenian Thesis”, which can be seen through his life before death, and the actions after he transitions to spirit realm.

Prior to his physical death, the central male character in  “Hate” was forced to assume the weak position, and accept the situation as it is. This was reflected the moment the white men got out of their truck, and the central character states, “ I knew I was in a bad situation- two White men in the front with the driver, and three in the rear… Everything in me wanted to run, but I couldn’t” (181). Here the central character is placed in a double bind, because neither his option to run or his option of pretending to be calm would work out in his favor. He still ends up dead. Therefore, due to his current society’s flawed judicial system,(and negative perception of black people’s right to life or right to be considered a proper human), there was nothing the central character could do. He was weak, and forced to accept his situation as it is, which goes hand in hand with the second half of the “Athenian Thesis”.

Additionally, once the central character crosses over, he gains a new sense of self, his pain is gone, but he becomes hateful. Furthermore, the central character was able to find relief and deliverance from his physical misery through death. He states,” I know I didn’t feel free until the day I died… That was the feeling death could bring. Freedom from worrying day to day about being a Negro man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their hate could no  longer hurt me” (185). The central character essentially expresses how through death, he was able to become something stronger because now he was free from the confines of his corrupted society. Moreover, his anger became his driving force. He explains that, his “. . . spirit was so angry. So full of hate for the men who had ended [his] life for a sport” (184). This switch in power dynamic shows the strength of the impact he could potentially have existing in this different dimension of reality. The consecutive build of his new abilities have shown his progress into the league of “the strong”, which is a component of the “Athenian thesis” that the central character’s situation exhibits.

Undoubtedly, with his new found powers in the spirit realm, and collaboration with Awiti, the power shift allows the central character to be thrusted into a new position of strength. Before meeting Awiti, the true revelation of the power shift was when the central character is able to seek vengence through causing the White men involved in his physical murder to crash to their demise in a deadly car wreck , which was not too far from where the men carried out his brutal murder (184). The central character carries out the “Athenian thesis” by being in the position of the strong and carrying out his vengeance because he had the power to do so, which is a concept his actions prove he agrees with. His engagement with Awiti enhances his belief in the “Athenian thesis” when they plot vengeance against all white people and those who support the hate they give, which can be seen when she fuels his hate by saying, “So why don’t we do them all due justice?” (185). Ultimately, after conspiring with Awiti, and causing a deadly storm, the central character surrenders his remaining intentions to the grips of hate. 

In essence, through his transition from weak to strong, within the theory of the “Athenian thesis”, through his circumstances it can be said that  the central character agrees with the thesis. One may argue that he remained weak because physically he lost his fight, however the spiritual fight and impact proves itself to have a stronger influence overall. Hate can be a driving force for many catastrophic events. This is a fact that has been proven in history, present day events, and in the central character’s circumstance. As a reader, being given the opportunity to observe the dynamics of a character is rewarding. All in all, power distributed, where there is an advantage and dominance. 
Source:Patrick, C. P. The Truth about Awiti. Field Order Press, 2015.

The Key to Mental Bondage: Self Love- Blog 2

Pain is a perplexing feeling that can be perceived from many different angles depending on who you ask. The concept of pain is interpreted contrastingly depending on the culture and community.  Some cultural norms encourage open expression of pain, and for some, the expression of pain depends on gender norms (men are not allowed to express their pain openly, while women are expected to be more emotional). Pain can be tangible, through physical pain, and it has the capacity to also be intangible (through emotional, mental, and spiritual pain). In CP Patrick’s novel, “The Truth About Awiti” the central character Awiti experiences pain from all of its angles. She faces tangible pain through her experiences as a slave, and the pulling associated with her immortality. She also experiences intangible pain through all she has lost, her broken heart and seeing her people suffer for such a substantial period. Many of the situations Awiti faced, and the problems she caused could have been prevented or handled in a more reasonable manner if Awiti adopted the principles of self-love.

When examining Awiti’s first complex predicament when she was offered the option to be immortal by Oranyan, if she possessed a sense of self-love, she would have taken more caution in her decision; therefore, saving her from the plight she agreed to take on, which negatively impacted her and others throughout the duration of the novel. Subtracting the obvious fact that Awiti is simply young and immature, beneath the surface when an individual lacks a healthy sense of self, this can lead to poor decision making. Instead of channeling all her negative energy, thoughts, and feelings into something positive. In relation to the situation with Oranyan, if she would have given her decision more time, then there is a possibility that it would have dawned on her that maybe living for eternity is not something she would want to do. Sadly, the situation was not designed for her advantage, she was manipulated and taken advantage of. Awiti was vulnerable and in need of support, and if she possessed her own sense of mental grounding, then she could have been cleverer. Self-love is working to gain a sense of being grounded in oneself and being confident in one's own identity.

Awiti chose to take matters into her own hands in a negative way, which at times led to others being hurt, or worst-case scenario, it led to other’s being killed. For example, when she helped cause the flood in Okeechobee, Florida, which caused many people to perish (Patrick,184). If Awiti had a sense of self-love she would have had the capability of being transparent and understanding that matching the pain caused to you by others never ends in anything positive. It creates a path of destruction that leads to innocent bystanders falling victim to one’s uncontrolled emotional responses. For Awiti to receive true retribution for all that the whites put her people through, the best course of action would be for her to let karma do its work, which is letting what they did to others come back to them. Awiti, in many situations throughout the novel, assumed the position of God. No amount of destruction or tragedy she inflicts on the people who hurt her people will make up for the fact that what is done is already done. It will not bring her family back, or any of the slaves whose lives were brutally taken.

Ultimately Awiti is not solving anything because the impact of the transatlantic slave trade is deeper than the physical slavery that the slaves were subjected. The transatlantic slave trade established a stronghold on the mind of many blacks that still shows itself in many ways today, but I believe the best way for society to treat this topic is with simple deep reverence and respect of the reality that occurred. Being a black person myself, I have witnessed certain black people limit themselves and what they can or cannot accomplished because of the color of their skin or because they feel they may be too poor, or even worse because no one in their family has accomplished anything like it before. Maybe it is even as serious as the fact that they do not know any successful black people in their community. There is even the lethal mindset of blacks who feel that “the white man” owes him or her (or any other respective pronouns one may choose to be identified by) something because of what many of their ancestors went through, or they simply become slaves themselves (slaves of the “system”), which reflects a mindset that believes that America was designed to “keep the black man down”.

One of the scariest historical connections to this mental bondage is Willie Lynch’s letter, entitled “The Making of a Slave”. In the letter, Lynch discusses his elaborate agenda to break and train the mindset of blacks, to where he creates division within the community, destroys the bonds of trusts, annihilates the power of the black man, destroys black relationships, and the black sense of self.  Lynch even states that the impact of the horrid plans that he had to train his slaves would have such a profound impact on the black community to the extent that the effects will affect generations. Sad enough to admit, whether it was caused by Lynch’s initial plans the black community suffers from many of the ailments Lynch claimed his plan would carry out.

 In Patrick’s novel, one chapter that speaks to a similar issue is the chapter entitled “Questions”. The character Kim makes a profound statement regarding the classification of blacks who allow themselves to become products of their circumstances. She states, “Being a nigger is a state of mind, not a racial classification. It means you are ignorant, uneducated, and want less for yourself”, and she goes on to say “... I am not a nigger. And so, the word doesn’t bother me, because it does not define me or anyone I know” (Patrick). This quote counteracts Lynch’s agenda because the state of mind that Lynch tried hard to brand the black community with is not what blacks have to allow themselves to be. They have the potential to overcome and beat the low expectations some people have for them. Awiti has the potential to be better, through channeling her anger into something positive. Even when people would try their best to redirect her, she did not desire to listen, and if she tried to listen, she would be overtaken by her own weakness and fall back into the same destructive habits. Ultimately, Awiti does not have to let her pain and her emotions overcome her, but she has made up in her selfishly driven mind that her pain and anger is more important than the people she is hurting.  If the black community and Awiti adopted the principles of self-love, altogether personal struggles could be transformed into something positive. What do you think?

Sources: Sources:https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1968/7/30/a-black-mans-lament-pi-could/

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/Willie_Lynch_letter_The_Making_of_a_Slave.shtml

Patrick, C. P. The Truth about Awiti. Field Order Press, 2015.

Gun Control: Controversial Shift- Blog 1

Access to a gun is something that is becoming more easily accessible. In today's world buying a gun is just a few clicks away, and guns are being sold and bought by individuals who are not legally authorized to have possession of a gun. According to The Second Amendment of the US constitution” A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But what if this right is impeding on the human right to life? What if this right is leaving school children and grocery store shoppers in a constant state of anxiety since they could never know if they may become a victim of the next active shooter event? All in all, the central question is with accessibility to firearms being so easy, how do we protect our nation from the dangers of misuse? With the recent active shooting events reflecting a misuse of firearms, and gray areas in the governance of firearms, gun control has proven itself to be the most pressing issue in world politics. 

Living in Cincinnati, Ohio just shy of a year, I resided in the city at a critical time, which has been considered one of Cincinnati's most violent year regarding gun violence. One thing that saddened my heart about this reality is the simple fact that many of the faces shown on news station were people of color. Many of the guns involved in these deadly gun crimes were committed using guns that were illegally accessible on the streets. Week after week, the community suffered more deaths and dangerous altercations, and no one could seem find a solution for the violent episodes. The main conclusion the city has come to is the fact that the root of all the violence starts at home, and many of the people involved in shootings are from populations more susceptible to a lack of direction, support, education, and mental health issues. One solution to this could be the government requiring certain gun education and awareness to be taught in school, which would establish a culture of gun safety, and equip families with the proper resources to encourage safer home environments. This would help prevent and heal community trauma (Prevention Institute).

Observing the gun-laws in countries with the lowest rates of gun violence should guide the U.S in a direction in which gun-violence decreases in the U.S. In Japan, which has the lowest rate of guns owned, as well as the lowest rate of gun related homicides, a way that Japan achieves this low rate is through strict restrictions on specialty weapons (CFR). This restriction decreases the opportunity an active shooter would have to carry out a malicious plan because he or she would lack the proper resources. Another good example of strategic gun control leading to a decrease in gun-related deaths is the UK's Firearms Amendment Act, which tightened the weapon list, and banned some semiautomatic guns (CFR). The government's choice to do so has proven to have had a positive impact on the amount of gun violence the country has experienced since.

Another solution to the issue of gun violence would be more government funding for mental health in communities and for individuals. In many of the U. S’s deadliest active shooter incidents there was a disconnection "from healthy relationships and from belonging to a broader community" (PBS).  The shooters were lacking an important aspect of the human existence, and in many cases were left feeling unfulfilled and angered because they feel they deserve the same human experience as a human with healthier human interactions. If more funding was allocated to mental health by the government, then people would have the opportunity to learn more about building healthy relationships and balancing mental health. People dealing with diagnosed mental illnesses may even develop the courage to stand up. Ultimately, all lives matter, as well as all rights matter, and this fact would be better reinforced and supported by the American people receiving more support from the government to combat the ill consequences of poor gun control. To conclude, changes to gun control laws in the U.S would lead to a controversial political shift, and a fight for what many American see as a violation of their second-amendment rights. 

Sources:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/why-mental-illness-cant-predict-mass-shootings

https://www.preventioninstitute.org/focus-areas/preventing-violence-and-reducing-injury/preventing-violence-advocacy

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons