Royals are Gross

There has been a trend recently in pop culture that I think is stupid. At this point, I'm careful to examine whether something bothers me because its stupid, or because I'm just old and not hip anymore. This has actually bothered me for a while, and it seems to be getting worse. 

Using the words King and Queen as terms of endearment is dumb. While it is meant as a compliment, denoting that person as beautiful, strong, and showing leadership qualities, I'm pretty sure when confronted with what actual monarchs do, it should be seen as an insult. 

Royal titles used by normal people to describe other normal people started out in the Black community sometime during the Black Renaissance. It stems from this idea that all Black Americans are descendent from African Royal families, who were among the first to be sold into slavery in the Americas. While the Triangle Trade did rely heavily on the participation of African Kingdoms, I couldn't find any actual evidence of royalty being kidnapped and sold. Regardless of the historic truth, this idea is still an important metaphor for potential African greatness, robbed by Colonialism. The consequences of this crime are shared by American Natives, Southeast Asians, and Indians. So much progress and development was held back and straight up stolen. There are many books, papers, and studies to attest to the damage Colonialism is responsible for. 

While I understand the need to reclaim identities stolen by generations of racist supremacists, religious zealotry, and greed, trying to claim royal lineage of a bygone era is not the way to do it. In 2016, Damon Young wrote an essay about this same thing for The Root. He puts it very clearly: 

If you’re from a place where kings and queens existed, there’s a small chance you actually directly descended from them. And a much, much, much, much, much, much, much larger chance you descended from people who were ruled by them. And, if history is any guide, if you happen to be from a place with an unfathomably wealthy ruling class, that unfathomable wealth most likely ended with the ruling class. Everyone else was either some version of middle class (not very likely) or a peasant (very likely).

And this, basically, is my point. The chances that any American, no matter what their ethnic background, is actually a king or queen is near zero. This is very much like crazy white supremacists pining for Medieval Europe, because they think they'd all be knights and lords in an Aryan utopia. In reality, they'd most likely be serfs, and dying of plague in a Europe that was actually pretty diverse in the Middle Ages. More on Feudalism later.

First of all, there aren't that many monarchies left in the world, and those monarchies that still do exist are keeping very good records regarding who ascends to the throne. Karen from Alabama isn't on anyone's list. Also, even if there are a bunch of descendants of royals running around in America, only 1 can become king. That's how monarchy works. The word literally means "One Ruler". Also, whatever kingdom these hypothetical royals came from no longer exists. They'd be kings of nothing, unless you want to destroy an already existing state and set up a new kingdom. This sounds an awful lot like Colonialism, actually, which is where this all started. 

This brings me back to why I hear an insult when I hear King or Queen being used. Royals are literally the point source for all the world's current problems with equality. Royals financially supported colonies to start with. The Catholic Monarchs in Spain sent Columbus. Henry VII of England sent Cabot. Manuel I of Portugal sent the Portuguese Armada to Brazil. James I of England authorized the Virginia Company of London. And these colonies are founded on the premise that non-Christians, and therefore most non-Europeans (and quite a few actual Europeans) are inferior. 

Colonialism aside, though, why would anyone want to be associated with royalty? I know we have this weird fascination with princes and princesses in our entertainment which stretches back to some of the first ever fictional epics like Gilgamesh, and Beowulf. All of the ancient Greek heroes are kings. King Arthur. Most of Shakespeare's plays are about kings. Most of Disney's animated films are about princesses. But reading about actual historic royalty makes for some sick and twisted realities.

The way Feudalism works, Royals are at the top of a pyramid of land owning Lords. Basically, one family owns all the land, and has the power to grant land rights to lesser lords, or take it away. Everyone actually living on the land is expected to pay these lords for the privilege to exist there, through goods, services, or taxes. Feudalism relies on this idea that the lords provide protection through military defense. But... if the Lords' manpower and money come from the people, why does the people need Lords to start with? So, really a Royal family, at its core, only appears to exist to exploit the people. Feudalism looks an awful lot like a Medieval Pyramid Scheme. But systemic exploitation isn't the only terrible thing Royals are known for.

The Hapsburgs, the best example of the Royal Ick Factor, were so inbred we named a genetic deformity after them, The Hapsburg Jaw. Consanguineous marriage as a way to "purify bloodlines" wasn't just a Hapsburg thing, either. The infamous King Tutankhamen shows signs of inbreeding, meaning this crazy practice goes back at least 3000 years. The premise of this ridiculous concept originates in the narcissistic notion that royalty can't mix with common folk, for the normal people are somehow inferior. 

Observe, for example, the "rules of etiquette" when meeting the King of England. When the Royal Family visited the US in 2009, a bunch of news outlets published articles about this. The Mental Floss article is here. Basically, no one can speak before spoken to, no touching, they expect gifts. You are expected to be there before they arrive, and they have to depart first. According to the article, even the royal pets are assholes. They behave, essentially, like they're doing you a favor by meeting you. 

This notion that Royals have distanced themselves from everyone else, created myths that they are superior to the very people they rule over is at the root of the problem I have with an entire culture identifying with royalty. Royals are perhaps the worst people on the planet, and are not the role models for the strength, beauty, empathy, and leadership that this nicknaming trend tries to acknowledge. There has got to be better, more positive, more reaffirming titles you can give your loved ones. 

Utilitarianism: A Primer

Sometimes I am accused of being, or lumped into a box called The Left. While it may be true that I am Left leaning on the political spectrum, I think it is important to distinguish how, like the Right, there are many different philosophical groups within the Left.

I like to think of myself as a Utilitarian mostly because A: for it's flaws, it mostly makes sense to me as a broad plan to make decisions B: the over arching theme spells a death for individual exceptionalism. No one is special. C: It's basics are echoed by many other Leftist philosophies. So what is it exactly?

Utilitarianism: 

A branch of Consequential Philosophy declaring that consequences of utility should be the basis for decision making. Basically, actions should produce the most utility for the largest group of people. Utility in this case means "good". Also, to clarify, the philosophy as a whole considers all human beings to be people and to be equal. There is no special determinations made for wealth, gender, or age. As Utilitarianism has evolved, it has merged with deontological ethics, bridging the two philosophies.

In 1780, Jeremy Bentham published the first ideas of utility as a basis for morality. As a consequentialist philosophy, Bentham argued that "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" is the measurement for morality, right and wrong. Instead of rules and laws laid down ahead of time that can be very black and white, consequentialism views the outcome as the indicator of morality, not the actions that lead to the outcome. In Utilitarianism, if the outcome benefits more people, than the actions are justified.

Bentham

Bentham was more interested in earlier Hedonism, popularized by Aristipuss and Epicuris, but Utilitarianism evolved under John Stuart Mill, who moved the definition of utility from "utility=pleasure" to "utility=well-being". Mill was pretty clear to separate Utilitarianism from Hedonism. Hastings Rashdall and G.E. Moore continued to separate the two ideas at the turn of the 20th century. Ideal Utilitarianism is a rejection of Bentham and focuses on promoting beneficial experiences, and relationships, and limiting pain, hatred and contempt.

One of the biggest challenges to early Utilitarianism was the rejection of rule/law. Mill wrestled with this, as did Richard Brandt and Brad Hooker. Act and Rule Utilitarianism attempts to mitigate the problems that arise from attempting to weigh consequences for each and every decision. The probability of choosing less than the best utility are high. So... Act Theory states that an act is right if it maximizes utility. Rule Theory maintains that an act is right if it adheres to a rule/law meant to maximize utility.

John Stuart Mill

Robert Merrihew Adams then took Act/Rule theory in 1976 and rolled it all into Motive Theory, which posits that Utilitarianism should be used to create motive and disposition which would then dictate choice of action and applied rules/laws. This allowed Utilitarianism to shed its Consequential Hedonist past and merge with Kantian ethics.

The biggest issue with Utilitarianism is the definition of utility. How do we quantify it? If we use the earliest, most vague notion of utility as happiness/pleasure, than this criticism has weight. Hedonistic happiness seems to be short term, individualist, and subjective. But, when the idea of utility changes to well-being, the ability to measure that on a grand scale becomes easier, and it evolves from a short-term consequence, into a longterm, more objective, more group-based happiness.

There are definitely parallels to Socialism here. Many Socialist ideals hinge on the greater good for the most number of people (the working class population far exceeds management/shareholders). However, Utilitarianism is not without casualties. The ideal is the "Greatest Good for Greatest Number" after all, not "Greatest good for Everyone". Realistically there will be losers, the plan is to minimize the losers, but still acknowledge that reducing that number to zero is not always possible.

There are plenty of ethical scenarios that play with this idea. Grim scenarios abound, like, "If you have to sacrifice one child to save the lives of millions, do you do it"? Utilitarianism would say yes, by the way, if that is the only, best option. This makes Utilitarianism out to look unfeeling, robotic in the way it weighs consequence, turning people/populations into equations rather than appealing to lives as more significant. I don't believe it does this at all. I think the fact that the end goal is to lift up majorities is enough to prove Utilitarianism does in fact value human life as significant, far more significant than any one single individual.

It seems to me that Democratic Socialism, or as they used to say, Democracy, as a form of government would be the best way to govern through Utilitarianism. If everyone has a voice and vote, it is an easy way to calculate what most of the society wants. At this point, it is pretty easy to study society and figure out best practices to be used to best defend our welfare, maximize social capital, and promote healthy lifestyles on a grande scale, without limiting liberty.

Utilitarianism does not place anyone's own personal ambitions above others, which is why it isn't really a Capitalist philosophy. If the consequence of the actions leaves one person rich, and many others scrambling to survive, that isn't maximizing group utility. If laws protect and serve only one groups' utility and undermine the utility of minority groups, than that doesn't fit into this philosophy.

By framing my thinking this way, like Adams said, I have changed my motivations, which has led to changing my opinions about many political issues. Utilitarianism, at its core, ignores systemic groupings like race, culture, religion, and class. It ignores the ambitions, and desires of the individual for the betterment of the welfare of the group. This appeals to me.

The Ministry of Truth is Real Life

I'm sure by now, everyone is quite familiar with the term "fake news".

While I was experiencing the 2016 campaign, a thought occurred to me. No matter what happens on November 4 (spoiler alert: Clinton lost, somehow), Trump has already made a mark on American culture, probably in the worst way. Terms that he coined during the election are going to become buzzwords. Fake news, bigly, convfefe (whatever the fuck that is), and even actual phrases like "some people say", and "believe me", and "its gonna be huge" are all worming their way into the American linguistic culture, and I hate it. Even people who use the terms in jest are helping to feed the Trump influence on our society.

But, let's go back to Fake News.

Back in 1951, after Fascism in Europe was defeated, and the Red Scare and Cold War were ramping up, Hannah Arendt wrote that the Nazis and Communists were not the "ideal subjects of totalitarian rule". She argued that the targets of these regimes are people "for whom reality of experience, and the standards of thought" no longer can be distinguished. Example: people who would be unable to grasp the concept of a stapler painted red, even though we have the technology to paint other things red, because they've only ever seen black staplers. Basically, people who discount facts, reason, and logic, and rely instead on personal anecdotes, and real life experiences put themselves in a position to be easily manipulated by demagogues, cults, and conspiracy theories.

totally made-up bullshit

Humans have figured out how to manipulate Truth thousands of years ago. Mostly through omitting facts, banning things, and limiting educational resources. There is a reason the Catholic Church banned translating the Bible from Greek and Latin into domestic languages. We as a species are not new at this sort of thing. The lie can be very powerful. The idea that a lie, when repeated enough, will eventually be accepted by the masses as Truth has been echoed by many throughout history. Lenin, Goebbels, Willie Brown, Ron Amundson, Laurence Blair all have said similar things regarding fabricating the truth. I find this amazing that after all these centuries, we still get fooled.

A good example of fabrication of Truth can be seen in the "fact" that people swallow on average 8 spiders a year while sleeping. In 1993 Lisa Holst published an article in PC Professional, which included this bit about spider swallowing. Her plan was to see how long it would take to circulate a myth. Not only did we get to see how long it would take for made up "facts" to be accepted as real, but how long those accepted "facts" would remain within the culture even after being debunked. Search "swallowing 8 spiders a year" and see how many recent hits come up.

Getting people to believe they swallow spiders in their sleep is pretty harmless. But what about things that are far less harmless? What about stories and ideas that cause irrational fear, and promote negativity towards entire groups of people?

There are plenty of examples of poor research, fabricated evidence, and outright urban myth lies that resulted in people believing in crazy things. When the AIDS epidemic took off in the 80's someone spread the fear of catching AIDS from toilet seats. It seems pretty ridiculous now, if someone tried to convince you that a sexually transmitted disease can be caught be touching an inanimate object, but back then your average person had no clue. AIDS was scary, and because it was prevalent within the gay community, any misinformation helped fuel homophobic rhetoric. It took years of PSAs, and a generation of public school health classes to educate and overturn this, and other similar misinformation. There are still groups out there though, that believe "the homosexual lifestyle" is unclean, dirty, and prone to diseases and health risks. Some even go as far as to claim AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality, which is nonsense. AIDS isn't sexuality specific.

this helped too

Anti-vaxxers too still cling to evidence from a 1997 paper published by Andrew Wakefield. This paper has been throughly debunked, Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine, and The Lancet Journal wrote a retraction. And yet, people still claim vaccines cause autism. Far more effort was put into debunking these fake stories than was used to create them, which is the dangerous part. Once out there, it can be nearly impossible to truly delete it.

At this moment, the term Fake News is being thrown around a lot, politically. It is used to discredit actual news, and actual inquiry aimed at keeping the powerful accountable. Questioning the Truth of stories has always been important, but now it has been weaponized, and by the very people that need to be held accountable and be questioned.

I believe this started as a backlash to justifiable claims that unabashedly Right wing news outlets were, in fact, Reactionary Right wing biased. As a countermeasure, every other news outlet not espousing toxic conservative sentiment was labeled as liberally biased. This actually grows out of a decades long conspiracy theory that the media is controlled by Jews, and Jews are liberally biased. The actual truth, aside from a few obvious outliers, is that most news sources are not polar opposites of Fox News, Breitbart, and the Blaze. Eventually, this turned into every media outlet who didn't agree with Alt Right sentiment was labeled liberally biased and discounted by the very people most susceptible to Fake News. There are plenty of credible myth busting assets out there, but they are useless when falsely framed as Leftist.

Don't fall for that "both sides do the same thing" nonsense either. It is a false equivalency, and it's used as a weapon to discredit good journalism and inquiries of accountability. CNN, the AP, Reuters, and NPR are not partisan, or deal in politically biased coverage like Fox News and Breitbart have. There is no Leftwing equivalency to the Alt Right.

During the 2016 election, I said it would be impossible to convince a group of the actual Truth using facts and news, history and Reason, when the group believes in none of those things. And so here we are, halfway through a Trump presidency, already witnessing our cultural language change, with no good answer for how we fix the damage done to the confidence in what is True. Just like with AIDS toilet seats, and swallowing spiders, and anti-vaxxers, it will take so much more time and effort to reverse the damage done to the trust in our journalism, and the changes made to our language.

Cultural Appropriation: What is it exactly?

Recently, and by that I mean in the last 10 years or so, there has been this trend toward social consciousness, a progressive reformation fueled by the internet's ability to bring people closer together and give voices to the previously ignored. One of the great things about social media platforms and the media that reflects that social media back at us as newsworthy, is the ability for the minority to be heard. While I think this is great, giving a voice to the voiceless, sometimes I am surprised by our ability as human beings to take everything a little too far.

Cultural Appropriation is the idea, best put, that dominant cultures, because they are the strong, majority culture, are able to take aspects of minority, oppressed cultures, and use them for nefarious means, often without the consent of the minority culture, and also often without adequate compensation. In short, Cultural Appropriation is an offshoot of Colonialist bully tactics and is inherently evil and should be called out and condemned.

I found this explanation somewhere too... "taking something from a culture that you do not belong to, and use it outside of that cultural context – usually without understanding its cultural significance, and often times changing its original meaning”

I wanted to give credit to the cartoonist. but no one seems to know

Already, with this definition, I have questions, and problems. My first question? What are these nefarious means? 

In many online articles from sites like The Huffington Post, Salon, Gawker (if it still existed), and other "liberal media" publications, the nefarious means are explained as using the cherry picked minority culture for monetary gain. Obvious examples of this include white musicians learning "black" music and then becoming rich off producing those styles, or fashion designers ripping off minority fashion and turning it into expensive high fashion products. Or the alternate medicine industry that often mines non-Western cultures for homeopathic remedies.

Less obvious, however, would be the underhanded scheme of borrowing minority culture and turning it into a fad which then serializes and undermines the appropriated culture turning it into no more than a caricature. The entire crux of the Anti-Indian Sports Mascot movement is built on this premise.  This is also the problem with ethnic themed Halloween costumes. My second definition above is important in this context. A dismissal of original context in favor of brand recognition, or profiteering is totally an appropriation as opposed to appreciation.

Typically, however, the Left, even with the best intentions of supporting the struggles of the less fortunate, and the oppressed minority, took this idea of Cultural Appropriation and over policed it to the point of madness. At times, it seems, the goal for some people is to completely shut out everyone who is of a different culture and revert back to a cultural isolationism. This cultural possessiveness doesn't appear to be a very progressive goal.

this is probably anti-Left propaganda. 

Which brings me to my second question: What cultures do we, as Americans, belong to, or not belong to, and who gets to make those decisions?

The United States of America is in a very unique place as far as culture is concerned. Everyone is welcome here, despite what fervent anti-immigration 'Mericans may say. And, because of that, the US, unlike every other country with stricter immigration policies (or no immigration policies), is a very interesting place culturally. This country has pockets of cultural influence that mirror every place on the globe. And in those pockets reside customs, cuisine, religious practice, fashion from everywhere. I think that is pretty remarkable, that one nation houses all of the diversity of the rest of the world. There are cultures here in the US that otherwise may never meet, and probably never meet under good terms.

Music, I think, gets a particularly bad rep for Cultural Appropriation. Music, the USA's greatest export, is steeped in cultural mixing and matching. All the great pop genres are rhythms and cords borrowed from "minority" cultures in America. Gospel, Blue Grass, and the Blues helped form Country, Rock n Roll, Reggae, Funk, Soul, and Hip Hop. It is almost impossible, however, to look at the history of modern music and not realize that, in every genre, there is a disproportionate number of minority innovators who died penniless while Eurocentric musicians often found exorbitant amounts of wealth and fame by playing "minority" music. At this point, however, I think the power structure in the music industry has shifted enough that all creators and innovators receive their due regardless of cultural identity. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure contemporary Black and Latino artists are no longer largely ignored in favor of White copycats (award shows still have problems). And, on top of that, at this point, I think we, as a society, are informed enough to look back and recognize the primary contributions and importance of minority musicians and artists. I know, personally, I'd rather hear Fats Domino and BB King, and Big Mama Thornton than Elvis.

Speaking of receiving their due... anti-cultural appropriation groups don't seem to take into consideration the market for cultural appreciation, especially when lead by that particular culture. Basically, I'm pointing out the viability for minority cultures to sell themselves. Tourism is one of the biggest, sometimes the only, industry in developing nations. Caribbean nations are good examples. Hawaii and Puerto Rico are also good examples of American cultures outsourcing themselves to the rest of American culture.

Any ethnic specific cuisine is basically a business opportunity to sell a cultural experience. As a non-member of any of these cultures, am I supposed to not give my business? Should my mother return all those amazingly crafted ponchos and wraps? My point is this discussion could get off the rails real fast depending on how far down the hole you want to go.

Is it worth highlighting a fashion company's obvious appropriation of Native art to sell jewelry to college kids? Yes. Especially since there is a Federal law prohibiting the sale of falsely marketed Native American made products. But is it worth shaming that 8 year old who went on a Caribbean trip with her family and got her hair braided and wrapped? Probably not, now you're just an asshole.

And I think that is where the line of Cultural Appropriation and Cultural Appreciation lies... are you being an asshole? Is there really any harm in college aged idiots drinking tequila and wearing hats on May 5? Is there harm in a Mexican restaurant chain selling tequila and hats every day of the year? I think this really comes down to personal judgement all around. With some common sense woven in. This whole thing comes down to judgement: People judging others' lifestyle choices, other people making judgements about what is and isn't respectful and responsible. Is there really harm being done? What is the goal here?

So... no Karen, that white chick with the dreads is not trying to trivialize the struggles of the Rasta. And no, Chad, it's not ok to wear that headdress to Coachella. And yes, Linda, I can make sticky rice in my house and eat with chopsticks whenever I want. But also, ethnic themed Halloween costumes are never acceptable.

There is this myth in America that has been prevalent since my grandparents' day that cultural diversity should be celebrated. But instead of trying to live this myth, we use it as a way to further divide and spread hostility. Please, share the cultures, be open, be understanding, teach, learn, experience, be respectful, don't be an asshole.

Stop Excusing Bad Behavior!

I read an article today from the Huffinton Post. It was meant, I'm sure, to be a fun little fan list meant to be a diversion from the rest of the heavy, crazy headlines, like Crimean invasion, Mayors abstaining from St Patrick's Day parades, a missing airliner, and downed helicopters. The article is titled The 10 Most Misunderstood Villains in Literature, which sounds pretty interesting to an English major. However, after the first number in the list, I realized that it was less about character study, and more about apologizing for villainy.

Let me sum up the article:

The ten villains chosen as the most misunderstood were (in order)

1. Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale's character in American Psycho)
2. Regan and 
3. Goneril (King Lear's daughters)
4. Freddy Montgomery (Book of Evidence)
5. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins's character in Silence of the Lambs)
6. Grenouille (Perfume)
7. Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates's character in Misery)
8. Kurtz (Heart of Darkness)
9. Anton Chigurh (No Country for Old Men)
10. Dr. Frankenstein (Frankenstein)

So, right off the bat, the good looking, successful Wall Street businessman monster is pegged as the number one misunderstood villain. I think we need to set down some ground rules for what a villain is exactly. The word villain describes a character who is the opposite of the character of the hero. If the story has no hero, is the monster character technically a villain to start with?  

Regardless of the answer to that rhetorical question, the title of the article is about misunderstood bad guys. Whether the character is a villain foil, or the subject monster doesn't matter, so much as they are, in fact, awful people who commit atrocities, but maybe not, because they are misunderstood. I do not believe you can misunderstand Patrick Bateman, or anyone else on the list. The man hides behind a facade of successful boredom, and lures unsuspecting people into his apartment where he murders them in crazy methodical ways, sometimes with chainsaws.  

if he tramples you, its not his fault, he's the victim

To quote the article, and also most other criminal apologists, "But his amorality mirrors in miniature the heartlessly vampiric, ethically vacuous culture of Wall Street". In conclusion, the article states that we ought to blame the institution, not the monster it created.  

I call bullshit. True, Wall Street culture creates cold, calculating businessmen who prey on common people and each other to bolster their own portfolios. Gordon Gekko famously stated greed is good, and would sell out his own daughter. However, Gekko doesn't murder strangers on a whim to alleviate sexual frustration. If Bateman is the only example of a Wall Street broker becoming a psychopathic killer, then no one is responsible for his actions but Batmen.  

My point to all this is pretty simple. We can basically go down the list and arrive at the same conclusions. The theme here is making excuses for bad behavior. Stop that. There has been a trend in the justice system for a while now that finds someone or something else responsible for creating criminals, and finding these scapegoats to be legally liable for terrible behavior.

Dr Menninger, author of Whatever Became of Sin? in 1973, wrote, "Wrong things are being done, we know [...]  but is no one responsible, no one answerable for these acts"?

We are quick to acknowledge anxiety, depression, bullying, and neglect, as well as mental illness (the DSM V is 947 pages of diagnoses). And it is easy to give people a pass for a faux pas or bad manners after being aware of these things. But a social faux pas is very different from a psychotic murder rampage, or a shrewd calculated plan to keep your favorite author hostage. There can be no excuse for murder, kidnapping, and war crimes.  

This idea of misplacing blame is highlighted in works by journalist Charles J Sykes, and Stanton Peele (Diseasing America). Bert Thompson writes in an article for the Apologetic Press that "practically every human action can be accounted for by the plea "I'm not guilty, I'm just sick"".

I remember watching, when I was a kid, the trial of the infamous Menendez brothers. The two brothers were accused of murdering their parents with a shotgun in their home. The reason this trial was memorable, was because it was nationally televised, and because the defense relied solely on portraying the brothers as victims without any other recourse but violence to free themselves from oppression. Later in the trial, it was decided that the motive was more likely a desire to gain a large inheritance, instead of stopping abuse.

As a kid, however, I was amazed that this particular defense was given any credibility. It shouldn't matter, I reasoned, what happened before the murders, the trial is about whether or not there was a murder, and what the consequence for that murder would be. Clearly, someone shot somebody with a shotgun. You have victims (dead people), suspects, murder weapon... let's put this stuff together and come up with a conclusion, and then fit the crime with a reasonable consequence (usually murder is a life sentence). Apparently justice isn't so simple.

So, in conclusion, this list of misunderstood villains isn't a very good list, and falls prey to this idea that everyone is a victim of something, and that makes it okay to act in awful, illegal, and monstrous ways. This idea that these villains aren't really villains, just misunderstood sick people, is ridiculous. Yes, they are monsters, and yes they are correctly understood as monsters, and yes they are completely responsible for their actions, every one. Just the fact that everyone who is treated poorly, or is in compromising situations doesn't end up psychopaths is enough, one would think, to negate the victim card.

It is also interesting to note that the title of the article is called 10 Most Misunderstood Villains in Literature, and after reading a title like that, I was so sure I would see characters like Iago (from Othello), Moriarty (Sherlocke Holmes), Mr. Hyde (Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde), Damian from the Omen, Joffrey (Song of Ice and Fire), The actual Monster from Frankenstein, or even the Grinch (although I suppose that would be too easy). Also, there are only really 9 villains, you can't combine two from the same work, talk about them together, and number them separately. That's cheating.  

Summer Camp and the Oral Tradition

It's summer time again, as evident by the recent 90 plus degree heat wave.  And summer time makes me think of summer camp, which makes me think of campfires.  Campfires, as everyone knows, are a staple of summer camp programming.  It doesn't matter if you went to boy scout camp, or a performing arts camp, a camp for one week, or four, or eight, or even Camp Anawanna, or Camp Firewood, there were always campfires.  Summer camp campfire always features the same things: there are a few camper/counselor skits which are usually one of several traditional skits done at summer camp dating back to the beginning of time, and there are a few songs sung on an acoustic guitar, at least one by the same dude who insists on performing last every time because his song is chill and sets the mood for the end.  Throw in a couple of juggling tricks, and a few interactive songs and chants and call it a night... but not before the storyteller.

The campfire has become the last bastion of the oral tradition in this country.  Everything that happens in the campfire is unrecorded, mostly from memory, and shared from one generation of camp people (counselors/older campers) to another generation of camp people (younger counselors/younger campers).  The storyteller was always my favorite part of the campfire event.

Usually the storyteller went last (unless that one dude didn't insist on singing his sappy, mood crushing love song last).  Sometimes the story had a moral, sometimes it was just a funny folk tale.  Eventually, when I worked at camp, I became the storyteller, which is something I learned how to do from other storytellers (hence the whole oral tradition thing).

He's going to play another Ben Gibbard song

The way I tell stories has been influenced by three separate people.

My father has been secretly teaching me how to tell stories since I was a kid.  From the pulpit, my dad has been telling tales, anecdotes, and analogies to better connect scripture to modern people's lives my entire life.  I learned from him that the plot is the easy part of the telling.  It's the details and language that make the story interesting.  For example, anyone can tell the basic plot of Pyramus and Thisbe, but only Shakespeare was able to write Romeo and Juliet and stretch it out to five acts.

There was a counselor at the camp I went to, and not only was he the storyteller, but also the campfire MC.  Seeing him tell stories was amazing.  From the first time I watched him perform (and it was a performance truly) I decided I wanted to do that too.  I learned from him that a good story is told not just by telling the story, but through enthusiasm, pantomime, changes in volume, pitch, accents, etc.  It wasn't enough to just tell the story, showing the story is a must.

this is how I picture myself when I tell stories

Thirdly, there was another counselor who also told stories.  The lessons I learned from him were more about what not to do.  The way he told stories highlighted his arrogant, self righteous personality.  Most of his stories had morals, and he delivered them mostly in a way that made everyone feel he was talking down to them.  When this particular counselor stood up to tell his story, there were barely audible groans, the rolling eyes, and the whispered not-agains that accompany campfire acts that no one wants to see.  I decided that when I tell stories, it would be done in ways that weren't heavy handed, or obviously message-laden.

My favorite story to tell was one I learned originally from my father.  It's called the stone-cutter.  It goes something like this:


There was once a stonecutter, who was dissatisfied with himself and with his position in life.

One day, he passed a wealthy merchant's house, and through the open gateway, saw many fine possessions and important visitors. "How powerful that merchant must be!" thought the stonecutter. He became very envious, and wished that he could be like the merchant. Then he would no longer have to live the life of a mere stonecutter.

To his great surprise, he suddenly became the merchant, enjoying more luxuries and power than he had ever dreamed of, envied and detested by those less wealthy than himself. But soon a high official passed by, carried in a sedan chair, accompanied by attendants, and escorted by soldiers beating gongs. Everyone, no matter how wealthy, had to bow low before the procession. "How powerful that official is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a high official!"

Then he became the high official, carried everywhere in his embroidered sedan chair, feared and hated by the people all around, who had to bow down before him as he passed. It was a hot summer day, and the official felt very uncomfortable in the sticky sedan chair. He looked up at the sun. It shone proudly in the sky, unaffected by his presence. "How powerful the sun is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the sun!"

Then he became the sun, shining fiercely down on everyone, scorching the fields, cursed by the farmers and laborers. But a huge black cloud moved between him and the earth, so that his light could no longer shine on everything below. "How powerful that storm cloud is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a cloud!"

Then he became the cloud, flooding the fields and villages, shouted at by everyone. But soon he found that he was being pushed away by some great force, and realized that it was the wind. "How powerful it is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the wind!"

Then he became the wind, blowing tiles off the roofs of houses, uprooting trees, hated and feared by all below him. But after a while, he ran up against something that would not move, no matter how forcefully he blew against it — a huge, towering stone. "How powerful that stone is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!"

Then he became the stone, more powerful than anything else on earth. But as he stood there, he heard the sound of a hammer pounding a chisel into the solid rock, and felt himself being changed. "What could be more powerful than I, the stone?" he thought. He looked down and saw far below him the figure of a stonecutter.




Of course, I tell things a little differently, adding details, changing some things, but the basic progression of the plot remains the same, and it always ends where it began, on the mountain. There is clearly some sort of moral/value to be learned here, but I liked to leave the whole "and the moral is..." piece out, allowing everyone to interpret it their own way.

What Books do you Teach?

Why is literature important? This question was posed in my class recently. This was my answer...

There are basically two kinds of classes in school.

1. Math/Science
   
2. Social Studies/Language Arts

Both types of classes foster the same basic principles. They teach insight and knowledge into certain aspects of life, solve certain types of problems, and teach certain skillsets. 

So, while Math/science classes teach logic, reason, hard evidence, solutions to concrete problems with concrete answers, the Humanities department teaches social, emotional, and personal solutions to ethical, moral, philosophical problems. 

This department is called Humanities for a reason. It offers lessons and answers on what it means to be human. Franz Kafka said "we have need of books which act upon us with a misfortune from which we would suffer terribly... a book must be the axe that smashes the frozen sea within us". 
The goal for humanities then, is to find that axe. 

Jeffrey Wilhelm has decided that the goal of teaching literature should be about fostering maturity.  He states, "Maturity entails, first, the recognition that you have a unique perspective and a view of the world that has value, and second, the recognition that there are different perspectives in the world and that these have value and are worth knowing about". He goes on further to state that reading can be a social experiment that allows us to share meaning.

In Math and Science, we constantly have to find the value of X. But in Humanities, we try and find the value of self, followed by the value of everyone else. 

Therefore, a good literature classroom should foster social interaction. Literature should foster discussion, dissent, collaboration, teamwork, debate. Empowering the student to take charge of the learning process and build good learning habits and a willingness to seek out knowledge and meaning should be the goal for every literature classroom.

There is a huge discussion in contemporary education about what sorts of materials should be used to teach the above skills. There are a number of books considered classics in the school curriculum which are easily recognized and are taught often. Much has been said of this "canon" of literature, and questions arise as to the validity of these books over other "alternative" or contemporary texts.

I think there are a number of other reasons why teachers now are moving away from the literary "canon"

1. the books we read in school as students are not always looked fondly on. I still cringe when I hear "Johnny Tremain". 
2. it is way more exciting and interesting for teachers to teach new and interesting texts, authors, and genres. 
3. it is very easy to gain students attention with the latest things then with anything that can be perceived as old.

However, the needs of the student should be placed above the desires of the teacher. Sometimes Johnny Tremain needs to be taught, no matter how much it pains the teacher.

So I have a few recommendations for the middle school reading curriculum. These are some books that will help open perspectives as well as deal with some very basic questions on ethics, and social norms, as well as looking at things from different perspectives:

Lord of the Flies

Bell Jar

The Giver

Outsiders

Animal Farm

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian

April Morning

To Kill a Mockingbird

In the Time of Butterflies

Romeo and Juliet

As I Lay Dying

Diary of a Young Girl (Anne Frank)

Little Prince

Heart of Darkness

There are some that would complain that these books have been taught before and don't give a fresh contemporary perspective on adolescence. and I strongly disagree. The themes that can be pulled from these novels are many and varied and are still very much relevant without being crass, inappropriate or too mature. 

Another complaint to teaching older traditional texts is that they are too difficult.

Boo hoo.

Some of these books are complex and can be challenging. I suppose if students would benefit from a molly-coddling teacher and never be challenged in the classroom in any way, then go ahead, teach something easier. I'm sure those students will receive an education just as rewarding. 

I think if anything, the central themes deal with differing perspectives and lives. and all have central figures making big choices dealing with social expectations, obligations, and social norms. Growth. change. adversity... Humanities.