William Safire, notably credentialed with being a speech writer for President Nixon, television producer, and reporter for a well known news paper, laid out his argument against the National ID card in this short article. He used the appeal to the draw of modern technology that not only convenience our lives and calm our fear by the use of a chip developed to help locate our lost animals, to begin his argument. Due to the threat of another terrorist attack similar to 9/11, law makers and marketers are eager to use the opportunity to trample the Fourth Amendment he argues. Mr. Safire relates the current misuses of government power to trample that amendment, to support his case. Not leaving imagination to chance, he described the implications of what having a National ID card would lead to, only after explaining the difference between what a State issued license and the federal card are. Lastly, if you had not been convinced by his argument Mr. Safire leads you back to the beginning showing how the information stored on the chip of a small and insignificant card would naturally be replace by a chip being implanted behind your neck.
After reading William Safire’s argument, one could be left thinking that they had read a science fiction story. Sadly the truth is stranger than fiction. All of what Mr. Safire has written is true and modern reality. His purpose of writing is an obvious warning call.Many people believe, not just Americans, that they are marching toward an abyss that has been described by some biblical scholars as the End Times. Though Mr. Safire was not writing from a biblical persuasion, the question that he addresses gets to the very core of liberty. Are you willing to giving up anonymity, privacy, your liberty for convenience and false security? With the use of technology like the Magic Lantern and the Carnivore, our liberties are already in a precarious place. The way that he describes the natural evolution of a devise such as the National ID card is no scare tactic. He desires for the reader to think. The consequences of not thinking and taking action has been devastating for our nation and I fear that twilight has passed and the dawn of a new day for the US and indeed the world may already be here.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Response essay #7 of "Why Fear National ID Cards?" by Alan Dershowitz
Why Fear National ID Cards?
Alan Dershowitz, a self proclaimed civil libertarian, takes a radically non-libertarian stance on the National ID card in his essay.-Why Fear National ID Cards? The essay’s introduction brings readers attention to the modern technology that has made life for travelers easier who use toll booths. His argument begins to center on sacrificing anonymity for security; however by the end of his writing his argument changes to the issue of Americans’ obligation to give up liberty for that security.
The purpose of Mr. Dershowitz’s essay is clearly to persuade and almost mock the citizens not in favor of the National ID card. The trading-privacy-for-convenience argument that he used does not carry the same weight as the real issue at hand. He and others may be comfortable with being totally transparent with their lives but many others are not. To buy a service and tool that would allow drivers to pass through toll booths quickly is a choice that can be accepted or denied by the patron. However, the choice to accept or reject a National ID would be denied if it were to become mandatory. This is a point that he neglects to mention and weakens his argument for me. His attempt to address the possible objections fell with only non-answers such as: Question-“What about fears of identity cards leading to more intrusive measures?” Answer- “We already require photo IDs for many activities, including flying, driving, drinking, and check-cashing.” Doesn’t this National ID card come in the form of “more intrusive measures?” He fails to ask the question if there is anything wrong with giving licenses for those things that he holds up as identification that “we” have accepted. Thinking like Alan Dershowitz does not actually solve problems. I think that his fear of terrorism has blinded him to what he should really fear, and sacrificing his liberty is a symptom of it. His ideas are not uncommon and I fear a change in America unlike any that we have seen before. The people are ready to sacrifice all but there pleasures to be safe.
Alan Dershowitz, a self proclaimed civil libertarian, takes a radically non-libertarian stance on the National ID card in his essay.-Why Fear National ID Cards? The essay’s introduction brings readers attention to the modern technology that has made life for travelers easier who use toll booths. His argument begins to center on sacrificing anonymity for security; however by the end of his writing his argument changes to the issue of Americans’ obligation to give up liberty for that security.
The purpose of Mr. Dershowitz’s essay is clearly to persuade and almost mock the citizens not in favor of the National ID card. The trading-privacy-for-convenience argument that he used does not carry the same weight as the real issue at hand. He and others may be comfortable with being totally transparent with their lives but many others are not. To buy a service and tool that would allow drivers to pass through toll booths quickly is a choice that can be accepted or denied by the patron. However, the choice to accept or reject a National ID would be denied if it were to become mandatory. This is a point that he neglects to mention and weakens his argument for me. His attempt to address the possible objections fell with only non-answers such as: Question-“What about fears of identity cards leading to more intrusive measures?” Answer- “We already require photo IDs for many activities, including flying, driving, drinking, and check-cashing.” Doesn’t this National ID card come in the form of “more intrusive measures?” He fails to ask the question if there is anything wrong with giving licenses for those things that he holds up as identification that “we” have accepted. Thinking like Alan Dershowitz does not actually solve problems. I think that his fear of terrorism has blinded him to what he should really fear, and sacrificing his liberty is a symptom of it. His ideas are not uncommon and I fear a change in America unlike any that we have seen before. The people are ready to sacrifice all but there pleasures to be safe.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Just How Far Must a Government Go to Become Despotic? (essay #4)
Word Count 1414
“We shall be carrying out everything according to plan. There is no need to change course. Aziz only needs to tweak a few wires.” A simple email correspondence worded in a similar manner as the fake excerpt above would seize the attention of the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Buzz words and phrases such as; “according to plan”, “change course”, “wires” or even my son’s name “Aziz” would perhaps be enough suspicion to believe me to be involved in terrorism. Legislation passed by the US Congress gives the NSA, FBI, CIA and other government bureaus the right to monitor citizens’ correspondences. Government monitoring of phone calls, personal emails, websites citizens visit, and searches that they perform on Google is an evil practice that does not keep Americans safer, but violates personal liberties.
Scholars and theologians of the 16th century understood the necessity to protect the people’s privacy from their governments. In America’s infancy, opinions were split as to how the country should be governed, yet the majority if not all understood the importance of a safeguard for the people’s liberty. Spelled out in the IV Amendment of the Constitution it reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
To conduct unreasonable searches is a form of terrorism in itself. When Germany annexed Austria, the soldiers were ordered to invade the homes of non-Jewish citizens in order to find Jews who would have been evading capture. It is widely known that the Germans, under the reign of Adolf Hitler, practiced eugenics thereby slaughtering millions of undesirables. The Jews were among the undesirables. Austrians feared associating with Jews. It was rare to find them helping one. The Austrians were terrified of the German government. Let it be said that any congressman or women who voted for the unconstitutional search of citizens private effects has not read the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or any of the writings from the time of this country’s founding or worse-they have chosen to ignore them and are perhaps following a fascistic path. The colonists knew of the oppression that came when a government threw out the rule of law. They knew it and many lost their lives to through it off. Obtaining the legal documents, supported by an oath, before a warrant is issued maintains the notion that the people are to be protected from unjust suspicions. However, Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, said, “[Without]…retroactive liability protection, [companies’] general counsels, as an obligation…would tell them not to cooperate with us….The tragedy is it would slow our efforts; it would make us less effective”(qtd. In Mass). Even though “companies’” (such as AT&T) general council would discourage them from cooperating with DHS because of the illegal nature of the job, Mr. McConnell does not seek a warrant for a suspected guilty person, but immunity for companies that would partner with him to spy on every citizen that he deems suspicious.
As hard as it may be to parallel the US government with Nazi Germany, one way to control a population is to keep them in continual fear so as to give the sense of the need to be protected. Therefore, the people would give up liberties willingly. Yet with Legislation such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) or the Protect America Act (PAA) one would have a fear of what to say or even read not wanting to be suspected of terrorism. As one writer notes and quotes James Madison
“The president… played the al-Qaeda card to full advantage. Now might be a good time to recall the warning once uttered by James Madison: ‘If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.’ Madison’s words alluded to the time-honored principle that a people who normally would guard their freedom jealously, often are willing to sacrifice some of that freedom if they can be convinced that a foreign enemy poses a greater threat.”(Mass)
One proponent of the Patriot Act would think that Mr. Mass’ assessment a bit paranoid. W. E. Jacobs argues that the regular business of running a library; collecting fines, storing patrons information is a matter of government watchfulness. He also contends that using those records to combat terrorism would fall under the same government watchfulness, and shouldn’t be seen as an attack on civil liberties (Jacobs). I am not as confident. Under such ambiguous language as in the aforementioned legislations, just about anyone could be suspected of terrorism. Curiosity and inventiveness would be curbed for fear of suspected motivations and intentions thereby being assumed guilty before proven to be. One example of this would be my internet search for “atom bomb”. Being curious about a statement supposedly made by Albert Einstein regretting his part in building the bomb, I decided to do the search. In the back of my mind I was wondering how many alarms were going off at the NSA. Certainly many Americans are not drawing the same conclusions that I am; however does that warrant the lost of their right to privacy?
If one assumes that our rights are derived from a source other than government, legislators removing the most basic right of privacy reduces a person from a citizen to the property of the State. The architects of this nation would abhor what Washington has done. America’s foundational document states clearly that the people are not the property of its government; “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” Every citizen in the United States is issued a number at birth. Unless one desires to cease being a person residing in the country they will take a number; an action that could otherwise leave one destitute. The slippery slope of marking people has no end in sight. In the summer of 2008 my states governor refused to accept the National ID card. On the horizon, the RFID chip will be implanted in every citizen used for identification commerce and whatever else its servant government would deem necessary for the good of the nation.
The argument for tapping into citizens private effects has been said to be a legitimate way of protecting the people and is only limited to suspects who would seek to harm America. The evidence has shown that the orchestrators and attackers of the 9/11 disaster used telephone, email, websites and even public library facilities to carry out their plan. The same tools that the US government maintains that is needed to continue its work, without interruption are basically the same as were used before the 9/11 attack and in no way prevented it. Lisa Graves and Kate Rhudy from SOUNDING OFF mentions that the FISA bill, passed in the late 1970’s, offered spying tactics designed to defend against terrorism that would, maintain legality, and the rights of the people ensured by the Constitution (Graves). Proponents of measures such as the Patriot Act would content that Americans should be willing to give up a little bit of liberty for security. However the exchange would not be liberty for security but for fear. Americans would fear what to do or say for dread of the State’s eyes and ears condemning them. With all of the talk of protecting America from terrorist, it is strange that the immediate cause of the attacks of September 11th has almost completely been ignored by Washington and most news media on the left and the right of the political spectrum. The CIA has a term, blowback, that explains the acts of terror committed by Middle Eastern people, yet that intelligence has been unnoticed. At the time of its signing the intent of the Protect America Act was to be temporary; however President George W. Bush requested that the measure be extended-indefinitely.
America has embarked on a journey that would take it to a strange new world. As we hurl through time and space with our public-private documents open for administrative scrutiny where might we land? I know that a Pandora’s Box has been opened. What horrors will proceed from it? Only time will tell.
Graves, Lisa, and Kate Rhudy. "Warrantless wiretapping: unconstitutional and unwise.(SOUNDING OFF)." National Voter. 57. 3 (June 2008): 21(1). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Greenville Technical College Library. 6 Nov. 2008.
Jacobs, W.E. “Point: Access to Library Records is Needed to fight Terrorism.” Point of View: Government Access to Records p2-2 (2007): p1. Points of View Reference Center. Greenville Technical College Library, Greenville, SC. 12 Nov. 2008.
Mass, Warren. “To Protect America, protect privacy” The New American 23.22 (Oct. 29, 2007): 18(2). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Greenville Technical College Library, Greenville, SC. 6 Nov. 2008http://ezp.gvltec.edu:2069/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=OVRC&docId=A17028807&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gvltec_main&version=1.0>.
United States. “It is Vital that congress Not allow the Core Authorities of the Patriot Act to Expire.” Preserving Life &Liberty..
“We shall be carrying out everything according to plan. There is no need to change course. Aziz only needs to tweak a few wires.” A simple email correspondence worded in a similar manner as the fake excerpt above would seize the attention of the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Buzz words and phrases such as; “according to plan”, “change course”, “wires” or even my son’s name “Aziz” would perhaps be enough suspicion to believe me to be involved in terrorism. Legislation passed by the US Congress gives the NSA, FBI, CIA and other government bureaus the right to monitor citizens’ correspondences. Government monitoring of phone calls, personal emails, websites citizens visit, and searches that they perform on Google is an evil practice that does not keep Americans safer, but violates personal liberties.
Scholars and theologians of the 16th century understood the necessity to protect the people’s privacy from their governments. In America’s infancy, opinions were split as to how the country should be governed, yet the majority if not all understood the importance of a safeguard for the people’s liberty. Spelled out in the IV Amendment of the Constitution it reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
To conduct unreasonable searches is a form of terrorism in itself. When Germany annexed Austria, the soldiers were ordered to invade the homes of non-Jewish citizens in order to find Jews who would have been evading capture. It is widely known that the Germans, under the reign of Adolf Hitler, practiced eugenics thereby slaughtering millions of undesirables. The Jews were among the undesirables. Austrians feared associating with Jews. It was rare to find them helping one. The Austrians were terrified of the German government. Let it be said that any congressman or women who voted for the unconstitutional search of citizens private effects has not read the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or any of the writings from the time of this country’s founding or worse-they have chosen to ignore them and are perhaps following a fascistic path. The colonists knew of the oppression that came when a government threw out the rule of law. They knew it and many lost their lives to through it off. Obtaining the legal documents, supported by an oath, before a warrant is issued maintains the notion that the people are to be protected from unjust suspicions. However, Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, said, “[Without]…retroactive liability protection, [companies’] general counsels, as an obligation…would tell them not to cooperate with us….The tragedy is it would slow our efforts; it would make us less effective”(qtd. In Mass). Even though “companies’” (such as AT&T) general council would discourage them from cooperating with DHS because of the illegal nature of the job, Mr. McConnell does not seek a warrant for a suspected guilty person, but immunity for companies that would partner with him to spy on every citizen that he deems suspicious.
As hard as it may be to parallel the US government with Nazi Germany, one way to control a population is to keep them in continual fear so as to give the sense of the need to be protected. Therefore, the people would give up liberties willingly. Yet with Legislation such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) or the Protect America Act (PAA) one would have a fear of what to say or even read not wanting to be suspected of terrorism. As one writer notes and quotes James Madison
“The president… played the al-Qaeda card to full advantage. Now might be a good time to recall the warning once uttered by James Madison: ‘If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.’ Madison’s words alluded to the time-honored principle that a people who normally would guard their freedom jealously, often are willing to sacrifice some of that freedom if they can be convinced that a foreign enemy poses a greater threat.”(Mass)
One proponent of the Patriot Act would think that Mr. Mass’ assessment a bit paranoid. W. E. Jacobs argues that the regular business of running a library; collecting fines, storing patrons information is a matter of government watchfulness. He also contends that using those records to combat terrorism would fall under the same government watchfulness, and shouldn’t be seen as an attack on civil liberties (Jacobs). I am not as confident. Under such ambiguous language as in the aforementioned legislations, just about anyone could be suspected of terrorism. Curiosity and inventiveness would be curbed for fear of suspected motivations and intentions thereby being assumed guilty before proven to be. One example of this would be my internet search for “atom bomb”. Being curious about a statement supposedly made by Albert Einstein regretting his part in building the bomb, I decided to do the search. In the back of my mind I was wondering how many alarms were going off at the NSA. Certainly many Americans are not drawing the same conclusions that I am; however does that warrant the lost of their right to privacy?
If one assumes that our rights are derived from a source other than government, legislators removing the most basic right of privacy reduces a person from a citizen to the property of the State. The architects of this nation would abhor what Washington has done. America’s foundational document states clearly that the people are not the property of its government; “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” Every citizen in the United States is issued a number at birth. Unless one desires to cease being a person residing in the country they will take a number; an action that could otherwise leave one destitute. The slippery slope of marking people has no end in sight. In the summer of 2008 my states governor refused to accept the National ID card. On the horizon, the RFID chip will be implanted in every citizen used for identification commerce and whatever else its servant government would deem necessary for the good of the nation.
The argument for tapping into citizens private effects has been said to be a legitimate way of protecting the people and is only limited to suspects who would seek to harm America. The evidence has shown that the orchestrators and attackers of the 9/11 disaster used telephone, email, websites and even public library facilities to carry out their plan. The same tools that the US government maintains that is needed to continue its work, without interruption are basically the same as were used before the 9/11 attack and in no way prevented it. Lisa Graves and Kate Rhudy from SOUNDING OFF mentions that the FISA bill, passed in the late 1970’s, offered spying tactics designed to defend against terrorism that would, maintain legality, and the rights of the people ensured by the Constitution (Graves). Proponents of measures such as the Patriot Act would content that Americans should be willing to give up a little bit of liberty for security. However the exchange would not be liberty for security but for fear. Americans would fear what to do or say for dread of the State’s eyes and ears condemning them. With all of the talk of protecting America from terrorist, it is strange that the immediate cause of the attacks of September 11th has almost completely been ignored by Washington and most news media on the left and the right of the political spectrum. The CIA has a term, blowback, that explains the acts of terror committed by Middle Eastern people, yet that intelligence has been unnoticed. At the time of its signing the intent of the Protect America Act was to be temporary; however President George W. Bush requested that the measure be extended-indefinitely.
America has embarked on a journey that would take it to a strange new world. As we hurl through time and space with our public-private documents open for administrative scrutiny where might we land? I know that a Pandora’s Box has been opened. What horrors will proceed from it? Only time will tell.
Graves, Lisa, and Kate Rhudy. "Warrantless wiretapping: unconstitutional and unwise.(SOUNDING OFF)." National Voter. 57. 3 (June 2008): 21(1). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Greenville Technical College Library. 6 Nov. 2008
Jacobs, W.E. “Point: Access to Library Records is Needed to fight Terrorism.” Point of View: Government Access to Records p2-2 (2007): p1. Points of View Reference Center. Greenville Technical College Library, Greenville, SC. 12 Nov. 2008
Mass, Warren. “To Protect America, protect privacy” The New American 23.22 (Oct. 29, 2007): 18(2). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Greenville Technical College Library, Greenville, SC. 6 Nov. 2008http://ezp.gvltec.edu:2069/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=OVRC&docId=A17028807&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gvltec_main&version=1.0>.
United States. “It is Vital that congress Not allow the Core Authorities of the Patriot Act to Expire.” Preserving Life &Liberty.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Uh oh! Letting The Cat out of the Bag on the War on Drugs
To get you thinking about the War on everything series, if you have not, begin here with the other side of the debate on the War on Drugs. Many people have not thought about these things before....
Now you know where I stand on the issue.
Now you know where I stand on the issue.
Response essay #4 of The Power of Words in War Time by Robin Tolmach Lakoff
(This was an intersting and thought provoking essay to read. My response does not do it much justice.)
Robin Tolmach Lakoff, a contemporary linguist, has studied the effects of language in different venues. In this article, which appeared in the New York Times, she unfolds the ever changing and ever present language of war. Documenting many dehumanizing terms, Ms. Lakoff presents to her readers several ways that the “enemy” is addressed. From the Greeks and Romans reference to everyone else as “barbarians” to the American soldiers’ reference to Iraqi prisoners as “it”, we get a glimpse of some of this terminology. She mentioned the idea of an Austrian ethologist, Konrad Lorenz, that “the more we see other members of our own species, the harder it is to kill them.” She also suggest that collecting the enemy in our minds as an “undifferentiated mass” helps us to not think of them as individuals who can suffer. She sights several historical facts, and bring her expertise to bear on the subject.
The purpose for Ms. Lakoff’s article is hard to know at first reading. However, upon reflection I can’t escape the impression that I am left with after each reading. Judging from the style of her writing she seems to be informing. I believe that she is informing, yet I can’t help but agree with her reasoning. Therefore, I think that she is trying to persuade me and her readers to choose peace instead of war. I was of the same opinion as the author before I read the article and found myself congratulating her for articulating this point of view the way that she did. This passage from the article shows clearly her point of view, “The linguistic habits that soldiers must absorb in order to fight makes atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib virtually inevitable. The same language that creates a psychological chasm between “us” and “them,” and enables American troops to kill in battle, makes enemy soldiers fit subjects for torture and humiliation. The reasoning is: They are not really human, so they will not feel the pain.” The danger and tragedy of ignoring the wisdom laid out here is endless war of course, but worse still could develop and has developed. Babies are called embryos and fetus, or blobs of tissue. If they are not babies they can’t feel the pain of being aborted. The elderly are tucked away in nursing homes. The atrocity that we hear about that goes on there, and in mental health facilities shows the evidence of dehumanization. It’s hard to know what hope that Ms. Lakoff has for the abolishment of war, but my hopes for that are dark. My hope resides elsewhere.
Robin Tolmach Lakoff, a contemporary linguist, has studied the effects of language in different venues. In this article, which appeared in the New York Times, she unfolds the ever changing and ever present language of war. Documenting many dehumanizing terms, Ms. Lakoff presents to her readers several ways that the “enemy” is addressed. From the Greeks and Romans reference to everyone else as “barbarians” to the American soldiers’ reference to Iraqi prisoners as “it”, we get a glimpse of some of this terminology. She mentioned the idea of an Austrian ethologist, Konrad Lorenz, that “the more we see other members of our own species, the harder it is to kill them.” She also suggest that collecting the enemy in our minds as an “undifferentiated mass” helps us to not think of them as individuals who can suffer. She sights several historical facts, and bring her expertise to bear on the subject.
The purpose for Ms. Lakoff’s article is hard to know at first reading. However, upon reflection I can’t escape the impression that I am left with after each reading. Judging from the style of her writing she seems to be informing. I believe that she is informing, yet I can’t help but agree with her reasoning. Therefore, I think that she is trying to persuade me and her readers to choose peace instead of war. I was of the same opinion as the author before I read the article and found myself congratulating her for articulating this point of view the way that she did. This passage from the article shows clearly her point of view, “The linguistic habits that soldiers must absorb in order to fight makes atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib virtually inevitable. The same language that creates a psychological chasm between “us” and “them,” and enables American troops to kill in battle, makes enemy soldiers fit subjects for torture and humiliation. The reasoning is: They are not really human, so they will not feel the pain.” The danger and tragedy of ignoring the wisdom laid out here is endless war of course, but worse still could develop and has developed. Babies are called embryos and fetus, or blobs of tissue. If they are not babies they can’t feel the pain of being aborted. The elderly are tucked away in nursing homes. The atrocity that we hear about that goes on there, and in mental health facilities shows the evidence of dehumanization. It’s hard to know what hope that Ms. Lakoff has for the abolishment of war, but my hopes for that are dark. My hope resides elsewhere.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Response essay #2 of Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell
(Orwell wrote this account of his early years as a British civil srervant in Burma. One of my very favorites!)
The thought laid out in this most intriguing narrative were masterfully related by the famous writer George Orwell. His narrative begins with telling of his time living in the town of Moulmein in Lower Burma. The political climate in the world at that time (late 1930’s) had Britain as the dominate world power. As it were, they had conquered and occupied Burma. Orwell despised the philosophy of the “white man’s burden” which many European nations had adopted. Yet he had a conflict. The Berman people hated him. Relating several incidents to support this, he mentioned how “the young Buddhist priests were the worst of all.” This conflict which he described, “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beast who tried to make my job impossible” were the two sides of the coin of the nature of imperialism. The crux of the story is revealed in the telling of his experience with shooting an elephant. On receiving a phone call about an elephant, who had been “musting” and ravaging a town he, being the local officer, went after it. The descriptions given of the damage caused by the tamed animal were excellent. He told of the gruesome murder of an Indian Coolie man, which plays an important role later in the story. As he hunted for the elephant, the town’s people were disinterested. However, once he sent for an elephant rifle, the people came out in droves. An internal conflict began to develop inside of Orwell. He had no intention to shoot the animal, but sent for the gun for his own protection. Upon finding the elephant peacefully eating in a paddy field, it became apparent that the two thousand followers were looking for sport and intended on the death of the animal. He spoke of the will of the crowd pressing down on him. In this he said, “. . . it was in this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East.” He realized that he had to shoot the elephant. The reasoning to this end was so that he would not look foolish. He was loathed to shoot the beast. He even thought of a way to get around it. Yet in the end the mockery would be too severe. In comparison to the killing of the Indian man and the elephant, the man’s misery had ended quickly while the elephant’s death was torturous and laborious.
The purpose of the narrative lies in Orwell’s enlightenment. He said that the incident of shooting the elephant, gave him a better glimpse into “the real motives for which despotic governments act.” Therefore, I believe his design is to warn and dissuade people from the point of view of Imperialism. In his description, by no mistake, he chose to inform his readers that the Burman people were defenseless. They had no weapons, and despised the “white people” for occupying their country. The way that he spoke of the mask that he wore depicts the illusion created by the elaborate game of playing God called Imperialism. It is my opinion that if we do not consider what Orwell has written here and in other works, we will find ourselves marching into World Wars. Indeed, only a few years after he wrote this story that the Second World War took place. Even so now, our own dear country is plagued with this awful disease. Though we may not call it “Imperialism” or “the white man’s burden”, it has been called “Manifest Destiny.”
The thought laid out in this most intriguing narrative were masterfully related by the famous writer George Orwell. His narrative begins with telling of his time living in the town of Moulmein in Lower Burma. The political climate in the world at that time (late 1930’s) had Britain as the dominate world power. As it were, they had conquered and occupied Burma. Orwell despised the philosophy of the “white man’s burden” which many European nations had adopted. Yet he had a conflict. The Berman people hated him. Relating several incidents to support this, he mentioned how “the young Buddhist priests were the worst of all.” This conflict which he described, “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beast who tried to make my job impossible” were the two sides of the coin of the nature of imperialism. The crux of the story is revealed in the telling of his experience with shooting an elephant. On receiving a phone call about an elephant, who had been “musting” and ravaging a town he, being the local officer, went after it. The descriptions given of the damage caused by the tamed animal were excellent. He told of the gruesome murder of an Indian Coolie man, which plays an important role later in the story. As he hunted for the elephant, the town’s people were disinterested. However, once he sent for an elephant rifle, the people came out in droves. An internal conflict began to develop inside of Orwell. He had no intention to shoot the animal, but sent for the gun for his own protection. Upon finding the elephant peacefully eating in a paddy field, it became apparent that the two thousand followers were looking for sport and intended on the death of the animal. He spoke of the will of the crowd pressing down on him. In this he said, “. . . it was in this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East.” He realized that he had to shoot the elephant. The reasoning to this end was so that he would not look foolish. He was loathed to shoot the beast. He even thought of a way to get around it. Yet in the end the mockery would be too severe. In comparison to the killing of the Indian man and the elephant, the man’s misery had ended quickly while the elephant’s death was torturous and laborious.
The purpose of the narrative lies in Orwell’s enlightenment. He said that the incident of shooting the elephant, gave him a better glimpse into “the real motives for which despotic governments act.” Therefore, I believe his design is to warn and dissuade people from the point of view of Imperialism. In his description, by no mistake, he chose to inform his readers that the Burman people were defenseless. They had no weapons, and despised the “white people” for occupying their country. The way that he spoke of the mask that he wore depicts the illusion created by the elaborate game of playing God called Imperialism. It is my opinion that if we do not consider what Orwell has written here and in other works, we will find ourselves marching into World Wars. Indeed, only a few years after he wrote this story that the Second World War took place. Even so now, our own dear country is plagued with this awful disease. Though we may not call it “Imperialism” or “the white man’s burden”, it has been called “Manifest Destiny.”
Sunday, November 23, 2008
How many men behind the curtain?
This is a very gripping video. No matter how you view the men involved, the chronicle of the systematic activity of one family to control the worlds' currency is not to be missed.
warning: the words are written in white. I had a hard time reading them, but I paused it when I needed to. The entire video is filled with quotes and facts until the very end, which is an excerpt from a presidential speech.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Modern day Slavery
This is reality for many children outside of America today... What will we do about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
