The Core of Free Society

Last week my hubby so lovingly tivo'd "Austin City Limits with the Dixie Chicks." As I was listening to them perform "Not Ready to Make Nice," I was reminded of the experience that represented for them and I couldn't help but feel sad. I remember how angry I was when I first heard about it. I couldn't get over how incredibly hypocritical it was that we were fighing a "War on Terror" that was supposedly about protecting our "free nation" and fighting against a people who hated the freedom we stand for, when our very own people were doing the same thing, hating the very freedom we stand for. How can you fight for freedom and then condemn us for expressing that freedom?

A nation that loses it's right to speak and question it's leaders, loses it's freedom. The minute we give over that kind of power is the very minute we give up the very freedom we're trying to protect.

What freaks me out is that there doesn't seem to be many people who get that. I was watching Fahrenheit 9/11 for the second time the other night and Britney Spears comes on and says something about how we should just trust whatever our president says or does.

My last post was about my class I'm taking right now. I referred to some students in my class who basically said that cultures who don't live by our "enlightenment" ideals, basically modernism, are ignorant and living in blind obedience to authority. They referenced the Nazis and how easily people gave them the power to do what they did.

The interesting thing to me is that we could be so easily manipulated. Our nation is uninformed. Matt was telling me the other day that some people he works with had never even heard of Barack Obama. Not only are we uniformed, but we'll believe whatever Fox News tells us to believe. We are surrounded with propaganda and we fall for it, hook, line and sinker.
Just the other day a friend of mine said that people who live in Boston are terrorists. Why? Because they are liberals who don't just buy what the Republicans sell. Let me just say, after the handling of 9/11, the war in Iraq, Katrina and more, why would we? When a nation has been deceived time and time again, it is only appropriate that it begin asking the tough questions. And no, that doesn't make us terrorists. It makes us informed citizens, participating in the democracy that men and women have given their lives for.

I'm currently reading a book titled, "Bitter Fruit." I'm only a few chapters in, but basically it is about "the untold story of the American coup in Guatemala." Interesting book so far, but a line caught my attention today as I was thinking of these things. The first democratically elected President of Guatemala was Juan Jose Arevalo. The book says, "he delighted in the clash of opinions which represents the core of free society."

That seems to be a far cry from the free society our government honors today.

Enlightenment

I have been struggling through my World Civ class this semester. I think mainly because I have a hard time submitting something I don't fully buy in to. Recently we had to read info about the European Enlightenment and then, knowing that our worldview is largely based on the ideas of Enlightenment, we had to consider what the opposite of an "enlightened" individual might be. I was SHOCKED at how easily my classmates simply accepted that the "enlightened way" was the best way and anything less is ignorance. It took me a while to post mine submission because I wrote the exact opposite of everyone in my class. That is a little intimidating. But I got 100% on it so I guess it wasn't so awful. Thought I'd post it here for your enjoyment...ok maybe not for your enjoyment..perhaps for your enlightenment...lol...

I have to disagree with some of my classmates who have described the Enlightened concept of the individual as though it were "better" than it's opposite. To suggest that the opposite of the Enlightened concept is "un-enlightened" or "ignorant" ignores the impact that the ideals of Enlightenment can have on a society. Allison Goforth suggested that to be "un-enlightened" is to be blind. Jennifer Rau went on to say that the opposite of the enlightened individual is ignorant and obedient. I would like to suggest that cultures that live without these concepts that we are studying are not "less than" but simply carry a different value system. While the Enlightened individual may value "solitude" and "independence" as Goforth mentioned, the opposite values connectedness. Of course the differences go deeper than that and there are problems associated with either view in its extreme as many of my classmates have pointed out. The key difference I see between these opposing views is that the Enlightened concept sets up the individual person as the "end all, be all." One must think for themselves and derive all truth from one's own experiences and perceptions, devoid of any connection to past traditions or the community in which one lives. Our text states, "Most historical cultures define the individual's relation to society not by the concept of "right," as we do, but the concept of 'obligations.' This means that an individual sees himself or herself in relation to others based on the duties he or she owes others and society. Obligations tend to be stable, inherited, and concrete; they remain relatively the same through history as a culture develops." Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes about an individual's rights being given to them by the society within which they live. The Enlightened individual is concerned with their personal rights. In our country you often hear talk of our "rights" to do this or that and often our lack of concern regarding how exercising our rights impacts the lives of those around us. It makes sense that this view would bring with it more conflict than a culture where the concept of the individual is based on their obligations to the community they are a part of. The Enlightened individual values autonomy whereas it's opposite values connection. While the Enlightened concept might be, "Everyone's out for themselves," its opposite would be, "Watch out for the needs of others." Although in our nation there are pockets of communities who've held onto or rediscovered a greater desire to be connected and value community over individuality, for the most part we do tend to look out for our own needs above the needs of others. Recently I read a book titled, "What's the Matter With Kansas," that connects this view of an individual's rights and interests over those of the society with Rousseau's discussion of the "social contract." The book basically asks the question, "Why do working-class farmers in Kansas always vote Republican when the Republican Party never looks out for their best economic interests?" Of course the answers to that question are deep and impossible to properly discuss here. Essentially the author, Thomas Frank, communicates that the Republican Party looks out for the interests of the capitalists, the business class, the wealthy. Rousseau might suggest that it's time for a change because the individuals who've been given authority by the people, aren't working to protect the interests of the people. However, they are. The problem is that they are looking out for the interests of the wealthy rather than the working class. Herein lies one of the downfalls of the Enlightened concept of the individual: if you live in a society where everyone is looking out for their own interests, inevitably someone loses.