Crazy Hobo in Pandemic Studio’s Destroy All Humans! said “The end is nigh! It's... really, really nigh!” The hobo could have been talking about the year 1972. After all, that was the year of the Watergate break-in. The war in Vietnam was still ongoing. An attempted assassination of Governor Wallace took place. However, those were as nothing compared to the 1972 arcade release of Atari’s Pong. That, along with the debut of the Magnavox Odyssey home video game system in the same year, may well have been the final nail in the coffin of civilization.

According to Van Rooij (2010), a growing number of people are becoming addicted to gaming. Suggestions have been made that manufacturers of games and gaming systems should provide referral services for those who are spending far too many hours in front of an Xbox, Nintendo, or other gaming device. The technology as it appeared in 1972 was quite primitive compared to the wonders of gaming which are now available thanks to advances in computer capabilities and software. The game of Pong is as far removed from World of Warcraft.as is the special effects of the film A Trip to the Moon (1902) compared to Avatar (2009). According to Tocci (2007), the day of the arcade is over. The advances in technology have turned gaming into an increasingly isolated experience.

Penny arcades first gained real popularity from around the time Louis Lumière began directing back in 1895. The simple amusements soon advanced technologically with the advent of motion pictures. This led to the development of nickelodeons where for a nickel the public could be entertained and amazed by the pictures moving before their eyes. Few if any people alive today ever set foot in a nickelodeon. However, many undoubtedly remember the experience of bringing a roll of quarters to the neighborhood video arcade. Kids met their peers down at the arcade to see who could get the high score at games such as Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, and Frogger. Life for many kids after school revolved around hanging out with friends at the arcade.

The penny arcades, nickelodeons, and video arcades were not stagnant places stuck in time. Advances in technology meant that what was available one year could well be different from what was available the previous year. What an arcade managed to do was to act as a focal point for social gatherings. The meetings were not always planned, but the important thing is that they did take place. The video arcades which were highly popular until the mid-1990s were geared more toward those under 18. Adults were not forbidden but were not exactly comfortable with the youth culture busy feeding quarters to video machine coin slots.

The increasing advances in technological knowhow, especially from Japan, made it easier to have a full arcade experience at home. An initial investment in a gaming system such as Nintendo, Xbox, or PlayStation meant that both children and a growing number of adults could play hour upon hour from the comfort of home. The irony is that so much of what made this possible comes from a nation which is known as being very social and family-oriented. Video arcades are still very popular in Japan which says a lot about the mindsets of the people. The same popularity is something that the few remaining arcade owners in the USA long for.

As Fry in Futurama states “Space. It seems to go on forever. But then you get to the end and the gorilla starts throwin' barrels at you.” According to Griffiths (2010). an increasing number of parents have raised concerns that children are more interested in sitting alone in their bedrooms rather than be outside interacting face-to-face with friends. The children throw barrels and they throw fits, but they don’t seem to want to throw a ball around with the other kids. The famous couch potatoes seem to be coming in a younger form of spud than in previous years.

The parents may not need to worry as much as they think they should. The end of the world has been predicted many times in the past. This does not refer to a Mayan calendar or the famous prognosticator Nostradamus. Humanity has survived Pompeii, the fall of the Roman Empire and the British one as well. Life did not end with the coming of jazz, rock and roll, or hip hop. The world has survived films such as Ishtar, Battlefield Earth, and even John Wayne’s portrayal of Genghis Khan. The Pop art of Andy Warhol has not led to tumult and turmoil.

The earlier mentioned World of Warcraft has millions of fans around the world. The sword and sorcery game is very much an interactive experience. People who have never met unite in pairs and groups to face the challenges which the game keeps throwing at them. Many other popular games such as The Sims and DC Universe are designed to be played with and against others. Children are learning social skills even though in a way that was unknown to their parents. The children are learning how to play and how to win and lose. As Professor T. Bird says in the game Battletoads, “Got too tough for you, huh? A few pigs and monsters and you guys crash and burn!" No player wants to be the one who gives up and quits. The boys and girls will be alright in the end. As Crazy Hobo says, “Oh, who am I kidding? The end isn't nigh. What does "nigh" mean, anyway?” Good “nigh” and goodbye.

  References

Barkan, S.E. (2011). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, Comprehensive
        Edition. Online. Flatworld Knowledge.

Griffiths, M. (2010). Online video gaming: What should educational psychologists know?. Edu-     

        cational Psychology in Practice, 26(1), 35-40. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Tocci, J. (2007). Arcadian rhythms: Video games, public space, and the off-screen experience.

         International Communication Association, 2007 annual, 1-29. Retrieved from

         https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Van Rooij, A.J. (2011). Video game addiction and social responsibility. Addiction Research &  

        Theory, 18(5), 489-493. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Karl was the least funny of the Marx Brothers. That is likely what Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo, and Gummo would have said if they had been asked. Perhaps it had something to do with Karl’s beliefs when he wrote On the Jewish Question. Marx states (2012), “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.” (p. 31). Karl was far too serious to ever let himself be called Karlo. He never lived to see how much the Communists became like the capitalists. The similarities were hilarious at times.

Capitalism is far closer to socialism than either the dictionary or popular thought would lead most people to believe. Webster’s Dictionary (2003) declares that capitalism is “an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are for the most part privately owned and operated for private profit.” (p. 198). The second definition states “the possession and concentration of private capital and its resulting power and influence.” The concentration of wealth in the USA is in the hands of the infamous one percent. The accumulation of wealth in the Soviet Union was held and controlled by the small numbers who were most politically connected. The result is the same even if the two C’s are supposedly different isms.

According to Bennett (2012), worker productivity grew more than three times the rate of wage increases for the average worker. This was in the period between 1989 and 2010. At the same time, CEO earnings grew from small multiples of the average worker’s wage to hundreds of times that level. This is the face of capitalism. Janus could be used to describe the face of socialism in the Soviet Union. There are two faces each looking in opposite directions. One looks East while the other looks West. However, they are still part of the same body. The well-connected in the Soviet Union had access to privileges which were unheard of and unobtainable for the average comrade.

This truth was put on display before my eyes when I lived in Lithuania in 1996-1997. For a few months I shared a flat with a mother and her two children. The father had lived for years in Lithuania in a position of rare advantage. He fled back to Mother Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed. He was a colonel in the KGB. He had good reason to flee as he was a hated man. The citizens despised his cruelty and were envious of his wealth. He and his family lived in a huge flat right in the heart of the city. They were a short walk from Parliament, the National Library, and all the best shops. Of course, they never needed to walk or take public transportation since they owned a new GAZ-24 Volga. Position means privilege in the USA just as it did in the USSR.

The Donald (2011) has stated “Part of the beauty of me is that I am very rich.” Trump made his riches in a nation which celebrates and honors the wealthy no matter how they gathered the “filthy” lucre. Many a KGB colonel was showered financially for torturing and murdering those who were not so highly placed. Money makes all things beautiful while poverty can only make life very dark indeed. Francis Archer in the play The Beaux' Stratagem (2007) states “Don't mistake me, Aimwell, for 'tis still my maxim, that there is no scandal like rags, nor any crime so shameful as poverty.”

Money makes politics and the world go round. William M. “Boss” Tweed ran a highly efficient and highly corrupt political machine in New York City in the mid to late 1800s. Even convictions for corruption could not keep him down. Very little has changed since that time. The United States Supreme Court in 2010 basically ruled that corporations are people. The “people” cannot have their free speech rights limited. “They” must be allowed to throw around as much money as they like to influence the outcome of political elections. For the first time in history bricks, mortar, flowcharts, bottom lines, and black ink now makes up a living, breathing human being. The one percent in combination with corpulent corporations can now spend the kind of money that the lower 99 percent can never hope to match.

People were told who to vote for in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The workers knew who to vote for if they wanted to keep their jobs and keep out of a gulag. The situation is not so extreme in the United States. Nobody will be hauled off to Leavenworth or Folsom if he or she votes for the “wrong” party or politician. However, the media documented several cases where CEOs did threaten to fire employees if Obama was elected. The very real consequences of buying elections is an issue which impacts every American. Citizens state overwhelmingly that they want clean air, unpolluted land, alternative energy, and good schools for their children. The ultra-rich and corporations see little necessity to make things better for those below.

Leaving the vast majority to wallow in the mire does nothing to ultimately advance the United States of America politically or financially. That might seem like an odd statement since the nation is still the richest on earth. What must be kept in mind is that the best workforce is not one which has to constantly worry how to pay the bills. The rich and the corporations in capitalist America are not so far different from the environment created by the Soviet Union. The USA could go the way of the USSR if the levels of public dissatisfaction continue to increase. The left and the right are not so far apart as they would like to think.   

References

Barkan, S.E. (2011). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, Comprehensive
        Edition. Online. Flatworld Knowledge.

Benne, B. (2012, Jan/Feb). Corporations or people? Restoring the common good. Humanist,    

        72(1), 29-32.  Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Farquhar, G. (2007). The Beaux' Stratagem. Act 1, Scene 1. Retrieved from 

        http://www.gutenberg.org.

King, Jr., N. (2011, March 17). Trump on 2012: ‘Part of beauty of me Is I’m very rich’. The Wall  

        Street Journal. Retrieved from http;//www.blogs.wsj.com.

Marx, K. (2012). On the Jewish Question. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Kindle.

Read, A.W. (Ed.). (2003). The New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the 

        English Language. Budapest, Bell Vista.

Artists make technology and technology makes art. Most technological advances made throughout history have come about because someone had a vision of how life could be better. Alexander Graham Bell, Marie Curie, and Thomas Alva Edison were innovators. They dreamed dreams that are still impacting civilization many decades later. The world now better understands radiation thanks to Nobel winner Curie. This is proven whenever a film such as Attack of the 50-Ft. Woman (1958) or The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961) is created. We can thank Edison for allowing visionaries the possibility to unleash such movie “masterpieces”. You can bet that people who had those cinematic experiences were on the phone to their friends to tell them all about it. Bell is responsible for all that chatter. Each of the above innovators advanced technology and created new jobs. They also caused others to lose their place in the workforce. Technology gives and technology takes away.

Technology and rust never rest. Many people have moved up the economic ladder thanks to the innovation and imagination of scientists. Others might feel like this line from The Beast of Yucca Flats best sums things up: “Touch a button. Things happen. A scientist becomes a beast.” (Cardoza & Francis, 1961). Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times (1936) presented a silent humorous yet poignant look at how technology can strip the human out of humanity. Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) was a soundless siren call warning the world that progress is not always progressive.

The silence ended in 1927 (except for the lone holdout Chaplin) with the success of The Jazz Singer starring Al Jolson. The first successful talkie was also the death knell for many stars and for many behind the scenes. The march of progress left Theda Bara and others standing mute on the sidelines as the parade passed them by. New types of actors and new types of technology were needed to project the sounds that the world could no longer live without.

Most creative people fare well with the advances of technology. It is not just the artists who use new machines or Adobe Photoshop who succeed. The power of imagination has advanced the world century after century. Some cave dweller decided that raw meat needed heat. Another figured out that a roof overhead with walls and doors was far better than a drafty cave. Creative people tend to be able to ride the various waves no matter which way they flow. Painters, musicians, sculptors, writers, and others adapt to the times. The good artists for the Czars became the creators of Soviet realism. The good artists before the Depression became the over-the-top mural creators demanded by the Works Progress Administration.

I am an artist as well as a student of communications with a focus on public relations. I paint, write, and create clocks and lamps. Now I am branching out into learning about documentary filmmaking from my wife. The B.A. degree is also a way to advance an artistic career. Better understanding how to communicate with the world can only enhance the chance of success as an artist. Knowing public relations means that I can promote my work and that of my wife. My wife is also a student studying German literature and media studies. Her future lies with the creative arts. We both embrace what technology has to offer. High tech is less intimidating to those who already look at the world through a kaleidoscope.

My work is my goal. I do not see an unbridgeable gap between handling a paint brush and handling a computer mouse. Innovation can be intimidating if someone lacks insight and inspiration. I have used Photoshop to enhance the quality of the art which I create. I have also done what generations of artists did before: simply pick up a brush and keep on painting until the canvas is full. Work is something to be done no matter whether the person handles a shovel or software. Andy Warhol said:

I suppose I have a really loose interpretation of "work" because I think that just being alive is so much work at something you don't always want to do. Being born is like being kidnapped. And then sold into slavery. People are working every minute. The machinery is always going. Even when you sleep. (The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, 1977, p. 96).

The machinery does keep going and it keeps churning out new-and-improved machines. Education is keeping pace with the technological marvels. I am attending Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) even though I live in Germany. As Criswell said in Plan 9 from Outer Space:

Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown... the mysterious. The unexplainable. That is why you are here. (Wood & Wood, 1959).

 I am attending SNHU because I have an interest in the unknown and the mysterious. Every online student gets to explore the world about them (and specifically education) in an entirely new way. I am boldly going where no Wyman has gone before.

My education is preparing me for the future. I can pursue my job and my goals simultaneously. According to Namdev (2012), a contradiction does not need to exist when it comes to creativity combined with technology. Harry Baldwin in Panic in Year Zero (1962) states:

“Now we don't know what lies ahead of us. The unknown has always been man's greatest demoralizer. Now maybe we can cope with this by maintaining our sense of values, by carrying out our daily routine, the same as we always have.” (Arkoff & Milland, 1962).  

Walking on a treadmill might give a sense of health and wellbeing but it does not lead anywhere. The planet’s future will continue to go forward as long as the earth revolves around the sun. Embracing the past will not stop the relentless march of time.

 


References

Arkoff, S.Z. (Producer), & Milland, R. (Director). (1962). Panic in Year Zero. [DVD]. USA: American International Pictures.

Barkan, S.E. (2011). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, Comprehensive
        Edition. Online. Flatworld Knowledge.

Cardoza, A. (Producer), & Francis, C. (Director). (1961). The Beast of Yucca Flats. [DVD]. USA: Alpha Home Entertainment.

Miller, D. (1987). B Movies. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Namdev, D.S. ICT and web technology based innovations in education sector. Turkish Online  

        Journal of Distance Education, 13(4), 256-268. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Warhol, A. (1977). The Philosophy of Andy Warhol. New York, NY: Harbrace.

Wood, E. (Producer), & Wood, E. (Director). (1959). Plan 9 from Outer Space. [DVD]. USA: Quality Studios.

Unreasoning and blind hatred come in many forms. History has shown century after century that prejudice, discrimination, ethnocentrism, and cultural relativism are nothing new. This has changed little with the dawn of a new millennium. Many reasons exist for repulsion, revulsion, and being repelled by the other. That none of the excuses given stand up to examination means very little to too many. A belief in the inferiority of those who are not of a certain group has been responsible for much of the world's miseries for thousands of years.

Just like a building, a belief is made up of many parts. A structure does not stand upon only one column. Beliefs are not built inside a vacuum. Children are not born with a fully developed and rigid set of certainties, convictions, and conclusions. They grow up observing the world around them. They learn the differences between black and white, us and them, who to love and who to hate.

Prejudice is based upon ignorance and sloth. A prejudiced person or group of people dislikes and mistrusts those who they do not understand and are unwilling to learn about. Prejudice assumes that the “other“ is inferior in some fundamental way. Ignorance and allowing others to think for a group has proven disastrous time and time again. Millions willingly followed first Vladimir Lenin and then Joseph Stalin down the path which led to gulags and a scale of murder on the level of Nazi Germany. Both Hitler and Stalin managed to create a cult of personality which gave them free rein to pursue goals which made the free world shudder. The people were proud to follow such strong leaders. Pride can lead to prejudice which can then lead to discrimination. The Soviet and the Nazi leaders each had an inherent belief in their own superiority. This gave them the “right” to discriminate against anyone who did not fit within the fixed and inflexible limited parameters. The Oxford Dictionary (2012) defines discrimination as “the ability to judge what is of high quality”. The same dictionary also states that discrimination is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people”. This might have worked very well for the Nazis and Soviets if those who were to be discriminated against were a set and unchanging list. But someone could fall out of favor with the regime without having done anything different than previously. According to Cavendish (2003), Lavrenti Pavlovich Beria (head of the NKVD) found out the hard way when he was executed in December 1953. Beria had for years been responsible under Stalin for putting to death those who were to be treated to the ultimate form of discrimination. It is difficult to believe that Stalin was a great judge of quality.

A person, group, or nation that is ethnocentric judges other people and cultures based only upon an understanding of one’s own culture. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were nation-sized laboratories designed to define and create ethnocentrism. However, the two countries went about the process along a path which diverged at a critical juncture. The Communists attempted to create a nation where distinctions between ethnic groups and religions blurred into one homogenous “new man.” According to McFarland (1992), “Soviet ethnocentrism […] correlated very strongly with authoritarianism, indicating that the authoritarian personality was an important source of ethnocentrism and prejudice in the Soviet Union as it is in the West“ (p. 1005).

The Nazi system was also solidly based upon an authoritarian model. The primary difference is that the regime insisted upon a society not of absorption but of expulsion, elimination, and eradication. The National Socialists wanted to create a strong Heimatland by doing away with “weak” elements and corrupting influences. The targets for extermination included Jews, Roma, Communists, the disabled, and the homosexual. Wiping out the supposed diseased parts would result in a much stronger body. The Nazis built strength through amputation while the Soviets did the same through incorporation.

Ethnocentrism can have a positive impact in certain limited areas. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, Vilna Ghetto, and elsewhere were besieged, harassed, and repressed by the Nazis and their collaborators. Jews managed to gain strength through looking inward. They studied Talmud and Torah to help better understand themselves and their repressors. The Nazis did not offer much choice in this case when it came to turning to ethnocentrism. The world around the Jews had gone mad. The Jewish people had to believe that they were superior to those around them.

Cultural relativism is the antithesis of prejudice, discrimination, and ethnocentrism. The core of cultural relativism is that all belief systems have equal validity. One culture cannot be held up as better or worse. This theory is an antonym to that of ethnocentrism. An argument can be made that certain elements of various cultures are repulsive and against human nature. At the same time, this is done through the prism of someone’s own culture. Little chance seems to exist to understand another culture if that culture has never been experienced. Cultural relativism is a byword in Germany today. The nation has learned the lesson of looking for the value in everyone.

Acting under the assumption that all cultures are equal can lead to serious consequences. An earlier example of the value of ethnocentrism was given involving Jews during the Holocaust. Cultural relativism, which can be positive, gave false hope to many Jews before and in the midst of war. A great number chose to stay in place despite the clear warning signs issuing from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere. Too many Jews wanted to believe that the vast majority of gentiles valued all religions and ethnic groups equally. The result was that an awakening took place too late for most. Lewis Carroll (2008) might have put it best in Alice in Wonderland with the following statement: “’If everybody minded their own business,’ the Duchess said in a hoarse growl, 'the world would go round a deal faster than it does.’” Prejudice and persecution should go the way of the Dodo.

 

 

References

Barkan, S.E. (2011). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, Comprehensive
        Edition. Online. Flatworld Knowledge.

Carroll, L. (2008). Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org.

Cavendish, R. (2003, December). Lavrenti Beria executed. History Today, 53(12), 54. Retrieved

        from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Keir, G. (Ed.). (2012). Oxford Dictionaries Online. Retrieved from

         http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.

McFarland, S.G. & Ageyev, V.S. & Abalakina-Paap, M.A. (1992, December). Authoritarianism  

        in the former Soviet Union. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 1004-

       1010. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.

Doctor Jean Kilbourne has for decades used the science of macrosociology to help focus attention on how women are portrayed in advertising. Her research, started in the late 1960s, has shown a link between the use of the female form in advertisements and how it impacts both genders. Images such as those of Brooke Shields in Calvin Klein ads portray females as sexual objects. This objectification can cause men to dehumanize women which can lead to everything from insults to assaults to rapes. Women can see themselves as not good enough based upon unrealistic images seen in magazines, newspapers, billboards, and the Internet. This can lead to self-hatred, bulimia, anorexia, and even suicide. According to Doctor Kilbourne, the way women are pictured in the media has a very real societal effect.

Sociology can look at things on a large or small scale. The rate of illiteracy in American society is something which can be studied using either macrosociology or microsociology. A macrosociologist such as Dr. Kilbourne would look at why literacy rates are lower in some communities and higher in others. A microsociologist would instead find out why certain individuals in that community are illiterate. Macrosociology holds up a mirror to society at large while microsociology examines life up close and personal.

Conflict theory is used as a tool of macrosociology. This theory highlights the imbalances that take place in social groups. Karl Marx is considered the creator of conflict theory. He used conflict theory to showcase the injustices that develop when the rich have so much power over the poor. Jean Kilbourne used conflict theory to point out how visual images of women in advertising can lead to inequality among the sexes. Women and even girls are often shown as hypersexual, vulnerable, unsure, and in need of men to lead and control them.

The premise of Kilbourne’s research was that the way women are shown in advertising has a negative impact on how women are perceived by men and by themselves. Her theory is that the images of women submissive and/or sexualized can lead to various negative consequences. Doctor Kilbourne tested her theory using the scientific method. She made use of various research methods to help determine the validity of the theory. One research method she used was to examine existing data. The images she collected from magazines and other sources already existed. She gathered them over a period of years in a longitudinal study. She also studied statistics regarding incidences of battering, rape, and other crimes against women. The examination of the collection of images coupled with statistical analysis led her to see a real correlation between the media portrayal of women and violence.

Doctor Kilbourne also made use of intensive interviewing. Her friends would come over and see her collection of images which she had gathered over time. The friends would ask her what the images meant. She would reverse this by asking them what they believe the images represent. The conclusions reached during these interviews supported her theory that the photos and graphics can lead to low self-esteem, depression, and various health issues.

A paucity of images exists in advertising which display males in a sexualized fashion. The numbers have increased but according to Dr. Kilbourne, this has not led to any negative consequences for men. Doctor Kilbourne started her research in the 1960s. For decades, she has pointed out the hurtful consequences of the way in which females are pictured in the world of advertising. Very little has changed in that time. This can be seen in advertisements from a wide variety of companies: Deutsch Magazine, JBS Men’s Underwear, New York Health & Racquet Club, Dolce & Gabbana, Tom Ford for Men, and many others. The products being promoted include health clubs, underwear for men, and cologne. It does not seem to matter what the product is. All that seems important to advertisers and their clients is to sell the goods however necessary. The way to sell such items back in the 1960s was to couple them with sex. Advertisers today continue to sell sex without regard for the repercussions to half the world’s population.

 

References

Barkan, S.E. (2011). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World, Comprehensive
        Edition. Online. Flatworld Knowledge.

Media Education Foundation (Creator). ElectronicaJohnnyK (Poster). (2012, September 7). Kill
       ing us Softly 3 [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wy6GTc5Vs

Native Americans were transformed into the noble “Red Man” or the ignoble “Redskin” by arriving Europeans after the start of immigration to the shores of North America (Shoemaker, 1997, p. 643). This was done even though the Europeans most often described the Native Americans as tawny or brown in color. According to Shoemaker, the use of red as a descriptor has two possible origins; one being that Native Americans self-identified as red to distinguish a difference between themselves, the arriving whites and their “black” slaves. The other possible origin is that some Native Americans may have actually used the word red to describe their tribe, or may have been so described by other tribes. The tribes were usually only referred to as red people by diplomats (Shoemaker, 1997, p. 629).

The use of the word red as opposed to black or white was originally just an easy reference point to identify Native Americans; just as the term Negroes was used to identify African slaves. The various tribes did not generally have a problem with being identified as red. They would refer to the Europeans as whites, and the slaves as blacks. Much of the labeling that took place was initiated by the Native Americans. As tensions developed over the years, the whites were almost always referred to as whites but often with derogatory terms added on. Americans were considered ugly or as nothing compared to the “red” man.

The use of “Red Man” or “Redskin” as an identifier began to take on a negative connotation as more and more Europeans made the move to what would later become the United States of America. As the lands on the Eastern Seaboard began to fill up and as tales of riches to be found further west circulated, there was a powerful incentive to paint the Native Americans as something less than a benign presence. The people formerly known as Europeans were transformed by the end of the Revolutionary War into Americans. Previously, the divisions between the British and the colonials had not left much time for turning attention to the lands then possessed by the original occupants.

The final defeat of the British in 1783 saw the newly independent Americans restless and filled with a sense of manifest destiny. A ragtag band of volunteers made up of raw recruits had managed to defeat the world’s leading power of its day. The original 13 colonies were now transformed into the 13 states. However, one thing had most definitely not changed. The elite maintained firm control over land, wealth, and power. The elected had gone from British merchants to American gentlemen farmers.

Men who had just been mustered out of the army saw little chance for their lot to improve if they remained where they were. All that most of them had to look forward to was a return to the jobs they had held before the war. Perhaps they would work for “Americans” now instead of the British, but still they would work for someone else’s benefit. The one alternative seemed to be “Go west, young man”, which is something many of them did well before the famous quote by Horace Greeley.

The start of the 1700s had seen the Native Americans as a mainly benevolent group who were willing to share their bounty and knowledge with the newcomers. The end of the century saw the start of the transformation which turned this same group into a band of savages. Popular literature had to be able to justify the pillage and plunder of lands which clearly belonged to groups that had been there for centuries. American pioneers carved out a vast territory upon the grounds which previously had belonged to their neighbors to the west. The destruction of an ancient way of life, accompanied by diseases for which the Native Americans had no immunity     from was the beginning of the end. The start of American independence was the beginning of the end of freedom for Native Americans.

 
References

Berkin, C. (2011). Making America: A History. Independence, Kentucky. Wadsworth Cengage

           Learning.

Shoemaker, N. (1997, June). How Indians Got to Be Red. American Historical Review, 102(3),

           624-644. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Medea was a murderess on call. Jason had her at his beck and call. Medea killed for the man she had been enchanted to love. Jason killed and encouraged killing to advance himself toward the throne. Medea did all she could to prove her devotion to Jason. He did all he could to use her to satisfy his lust for power. One was then and is now considered a hero. The other remains a soul beyond redemption. According to Stover, there is a double standard in fiction and life that for millennia has placed real women in a fictional place not of their choosing (124).

Medea did kill her brother, so that her love could live another day. Fratricide was not uncommon in those days. Still, it is easy to be repulsed by the thought of someone murdering a family member. Medea is guilty of murder, but Jason is guilty of taking advantage of the death of another. He raised no objections at the death of someone with whom he should have eventually welcomed at court as a brother and as a friend. Jason was as guilty as the woman who murdered for him.

Jason was not a man to let love and loyalty stand in the way of his reaching the top. Jason and Medea had been forced to flee to Corinth after the death of Pelias. He believed that his ambitions to advance politically would be stymied unless he made an advantageous marriage. Unfortunately, the marriage was not to be with the woman who had saved his life time and time again. Medea was to be left out in the cold while Jason took Glauce for his wife. According to Federici-Nebbiosi, no self-respecting sorceress could take such a betrayal and turn the other cheek (465).

Jason believed that he could toss aside Medea. He arrogantly told her that she was the lucky one to have fallen in love with him in the first place. After all, it was Aphrodite who made Medea fall in love with Jason. Jason was the type who forgot that it was through the help of Medea and others that he had advanced so far up the ladder. It was the female goddess Aphrodite who brought Medea into Jason’s life. It was Medea who saved the day when the Golden Fleece was so near and yet so far. Medea was the one who defeated the giant Talos on Crete. Now Jason wanted to take advantage of Glauce so that he would be one step closer to his goal of becoming king.

Jason had clawed, climbed, and stabbed his way almost to the pinnacle of power. There was nothing he was unwilling to do or say in his overweening reach for dominance. Power was the ying and yang of his existence. Now he was so very close with the upcoming marriage to Glauce. He had the blessing of the King of Corinth. The throne would soon be his as he would have undoubtedly plotted some nefarious deed to help the current crown wearer onto the path of an early meeting with the gods. Jason was ready to do anything to win.

Jason had tossed aside Medea. Now he lost Glauce and his chance to become the next King of Corinth. But far worse lay in store for Jason. Medea was deeply afraid that her actions would result in the torture, enslavement, and possible murder of the children which she had borne for her former lover. Medea decided to put her two children to death. She has been painted as a woman who would stop at nothing. What must be kept in mind are two things: One is the conditions of the times. Her children would have undoubtedly suffered far worse in the hands of the followers of the dead king. Second, Jason had thrown his lover to the wolves to fend for herself. Jason is the one ultimately responsible for the death of his own children.

Jason had never raised any objections when Medea killed for him. She was welcome to kill her brother, as well as to bring down Talos and Pelias. The blood was as much on his hands as that of Medea. He was not unfamiliar with killing as he lived by the sword. That was no better than Medea who used sorcery and trickery. Blood is blood and death is death. Jason was willing to let the blood flow as long as it flowed in his favor.

The man who wanted to be king seems more bothered by the loss of power than the loss of progeny. The death of his children did not stop Jason from once again reaching for the top. The death of his fiancée and his two sons should have seen Jason reduced into an inconsolable mass. Such a loss should have turned him into a man who renounced violence and personal gain. Instead, he and Peleus decided to attack the city of Iolcus where they defeated Acastus. All of the bloodshed did not teach Jason a lesson. He kept on reaching no matter who stood in his way.

Jason was not Medea and she was not him. She finally had had enough of ambition and bloodshed. Medea went to Athens in a chariot provided by Helios who was her grandfather as well as being the Sun God. The story of Medea ends with a ride provided by a god. Medea was saved by a god while Jason was condemned by a goddess. He had used both goddesses and mortal women to advance his aims. How fitting that it was Hera who abandoned Jason after he threw aside Medea. He tossed away a sorceress and was in turn tossed aside by a goddess.

The tragedy that is Medea’s life story ends with her escaping to a new existence. Jason’s tale ends with a lonely death beneath the very ship which had carried him to adventures and fame. Jason and Medea had walked that ship together as they plotted and schemed how to advance his career. Medea sailed away from Colchis with Jason on the Argo after she had revealed to him the secrets of winning the Golden Fleece. The same ship took them to Crete where it was again Medea who saved the day.

The ship Argo had reached the end of its glory days. The vessel lay rotting on the shore much like the ruins of Jason’s life. He had used, abused, and abandoned Medea. He was only going to marry Glauce to get one step closer to power. Now he was himself abandoned by all that knew him. Hera and human alike no longer had anything to do with him. His end came when his magnificent ship fell apart about him as he slept beneath. He literally went down with the ship. However, it was certainly not in a way that he or anyone else could have ever imagined. He did not die at sea during a mighty storm. That would have been a fitting (though tragic) end for a man who became a legend. Jason’s greed and gluttony for power brought him down to earth in a devastating manner.

The story of Medea and Jason is in a way an ancient Bonnie and Clyde. Guns were not drawn, but those who stood in their way were bound to come to a bad end. One encouraged the other to greater deeds, or excesses, depending on who was looking at it. The difference is that Bonnie and Clyde lived for each other. One would do anything for the other. According to Federici-Nebbiosi, Medea was willing to do anything to help Jason one step further up the ladder (470). Jason was willing to let Medea do his dirty work until such time as he no longer felt a need for her.

Jason was not afraid to get his hands dirty when it came to treachery, deceit, and murder. At the same time, he raised no objections when Medea or his Argonauts were the ones to shed the blood instead of him. All that mattered was that he was one step closer to his goals. Medea murdered for love, whereas Jason murdered for ambition. Medea betrayed others in the desire to help the love of her life. Jason betrayed others in his desire to advance at all costs. Murder and betrayal are not to be admired. The one redeeming factor in Medea’s favor is that she did it for love.

Medea has long been looked at as nothing more than a woman willing and able to murder family members. Jason is looked at as a hero. The story of Jason and Medea was written well before the birth of Jesus. Jason was brave then and brave now. Medea was a murderess then and the same today. The birth of the 20th century saw the rise of a new medium of entertainment in the form of moving images. The story of Jason and the Argonauts was filmed in 1963 and again in 2000. Jason is a hero written large in both productions. Another production is planned for 2014, and the hero remains. Jason is proof that things do indeed stay the same no matter how the times change. Two films bear the title of Medea. One was made in 1969 and another in 1988. Medea was not portrayed as a heroic figure. She is again the woman who is best remembered for murdering her own family. Medea cannot get a break onscreen or off. She is a villain no matter in which century or in which medium.

The arrival of a new millennium has seen very little change. Jason’s name is writ large in the annals of the great heroes. What matters is not the body count for which he was directly or indirectly responsible. All that is of import is that he boldly went out in search of great adventure. Men were expected to do such things in that day and age. Women were meant to stay at home, raise the children, and wait patiently for the men. Medea broke the mold in that regard. She was as willing and as capable as any man. Her very boldness is in large part what has eternally condemned her. Men are supposed to be men, and women are supposed to worship the very ground they walk on.

Medea was a villainess hundreds of years before the start of what is now called the Common Era. Jason has been the image of a hero for the same length of time. Jason encouraged Medea’s murdering schemes as long as they helped him reach his goals. He raised no more objections to fratricide than he did to the murder of the bronze giant of Crete. The body count in the story of Jason and Medea is an impressive one. However, it is the story of one who remains majestically above the fray while the one who loved him was cast down into the dirt. Jason is ultimately the real villain of the piece. Medea is a model of strength and determination all too rarely seen in works of fiction.

The fact that Jason first encouraged Medea’s rampage is largely ignored or glossed over. Men will be men and women have to be women. According to Staley, Medea was a woman out of her time (137). She still is in many ways. She has not been forgiven for her sins. The double standard means that Medea will never be redeemed.
 

References

Federici-Nebbiosi, Susanna. "Earth, Speak to Me, Grass, Speak to Me!" Trauma,  

       Tragedy, and the Crash Between Cultures in Medea. Psychoanalytic Dialogues.    

        16.4. (2006). 465-480. Ebscohost. 06 Oct. 2012.

Staley, Gregory A. ed. American Women and Classical Myths. Waco. Baylor  

       University Press. 2009. Print.

Stover, Tim. Confronting Medea: Genre, gender, and allusion in the Argonautica of 

       Valerius Flaccus. Classical Philology. 98.2 (2003). 123-147. Ebscohost. 06 Oct. 

       2012.

The end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783 should have seen the start of a bright new future for the newly minted United States of America. The 13 colonies had already ratified in 1781 a document that had raised rebels into the ranks of real nations. The agreement which was drafted in 1776 called the Articles of Confederation was as revolutionary as the war. While the Articles did help to form a nation, it did little to transform the attitudes of the haves toward the have-nots. The path toward rebellion against the status quo was as certain as the rising of the sun.

The abstract for the article Suppressing Shays’ Rebellion says it all in two sentences. According to Cain and Dougherty, the states had sufficient resources to fund a national army but did not free up these resources to the fledgling nation’s benefit. This revealed the weakness inherent in the Articles of Confederation (Cain, 1999, p. 233). The thirteen colonies were attempting to break free of British domination. An often hurled and legitimate complaint regarding the home country was that British politicians and merchants put self-interest and profits over the welfare of the people. The irony is that the newly formed and free United States of America emulated the British mantra of profit above people.

The famous rebellion, which helped to bring about an end to the Articles and gave rise to the Constitution, was led by a true American patriot. Daniel Shays was the son of Irish immigrants who had moved in the 1730s to the then British colony of Massachusetts (Shays’ Rebellion, People: Daniel Shays, 2012). Shays was exactly the type of success story of which every nation could be proud. He rose from a poor background to a captaincy in the Continental Army. His parents were without land of their own while he eventually ended up owning 251 acres of farm land. His service to his nation and his success as a gentleman farmer should have left him as little more than a footnote in early American history. The Articles of Confederation changed this war hero into a reluctant rebel against his own government.

The Articles of Confederation were the law of the land in American colonies and later the United States of America from March 1781 to March 1789. A relatively brief period from winning independence in 1783 until the ratification of the Constitution was enough to lead the United States to its first real economic crisis as a nation. The state government of Massachusetts decided to enact a ruinous policy that spelled financial disaster for honest, hardworking patriots such as Daniel Shays. The decision to pay off war debt by demanding tax payment strictly in limited amounts of gold and silver was a sure way to damage goodwill and good credit. Heroes and farmers both lost a lot because of ill thought out taxation which was unregulated by the national government.

Shays went from successful gentleman farmer to losing half his lands and being sued more than once for debt (Shays’ Rebellion, People: Daniel Shays, 2012). This sad state of affairs might not have come about if Congress had had the funds necessary to give the expected and essential back pay which every soldier deserved. The short-sighted policies of Massachusetts politicians created a formula for disaster. The government helped create the recession by refusing to release funds providing soldiers with money which they had rightfully expected. The economy suffered thanks to the fact that soldiers had little money to spend on goods in shops. The subsequent rebellion would likely not have happened if state governments such as Massachusetts had been required under national law to provide for its citizenry.

Daniel Shays simply wanted to live the newly born American dream. The Articles of Confederation favored the individual states to the extent that citizens only had recourse to governments who had an interest in keeping up the status quo. Shays’ Rebellion was no more than the cry of a desperate group of men who believed that they should be allowed to take their proper place in the American sunshine.

 

References

Berkin, C. (2011). Making America: A History. Independence, Kentucky. Wadsworth Cengage

           Learning.

Cain, M.J.G. & Dougherty, K.L. (1999, April). Suppressing Shays’ Rebellion. Journal of Theo-
          retical Politics, 11(2), 233-260. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com

Nettels, C.P. (1952, Spring). British Mercantilism and the Economic Development of the Thir

           teen Colonies. The Journal of Economic History, 12(2), 105-114. Retrieved from

           http://www.jstor.org

Shays’ Rebellion. (2012). Historic Scenes. Retrieved from
           http://shaysrebellion.stcc.edu/index.html

The British government and its merchants aligned to create a form of mercantilism that ensured the coffers continued to fill at a steady rate. An effort was made to ensure that the various British possessions, including the North American colonies, remained completely dependent upon trade with the homeland. According to Nettels, the British did want to achieve total self-sufficiency. This was not possible, even despite the protective tariffs put into place by the government. The tariffs and taxes imposed to keep the royals and merchants rich led to resentment among those who were under British domination. Mercantilism at its extreme was exclusionary and ultimately self-defeating for the British. 

The British did their best to create and support homegrown agriculture and industries. Citizens were encouraged to show initiative, and those who did were given benefits by the state (Nettels, 1952, p. 106). This was not act of socialism as Nettels points out. Those who showed initiative and succeeded were duly rewarded, whereas as those who risked all and failed were not propped up by the state.

The growth of colonial agricultural development and native industries led to the creation of the Navigation Acts. These acts were a trade barrier designed to funnel all trade from the colonies through British ports. Colonists were not allowed to trade directly with the other nations of Europe. The first act was created in 1651 and revised periodically in small ways. The act came about thanks to the Eighty Years’ War which ended in 1648. The British found themselves in a competition which saw a decrease in the power and profitability of trade. Thus, the requirement of the colonies to trade directly with the home country was designed to shield British merchants from a competitive war of which there was no guarantee of winning.

The colonists in the New World were supposed to remain agrarian and send to Britain produce such as tobacco and cotton. Whatever industrial development necessary was to be controlled and overseen by the British. The colonists were primarily in supporting roles, even when the British overseers were new to the shores. The local knowledge and expertise of the colonists was seen as less important to advancement than place of birth. At the same time, the British showed no aversion to exploiting the locals. The Navigation Acts were meant to ensure that the cotton, tobacco, and other colonial goods enriched the British above all.

Every law which protected British merchants came about not because of governmental innovation and policies, but rather as a response to developments which merchants (British or otherwise) were responsible for (Nettels, 1952, p. 108). According to Nettels, the colonists were given free rein in developing industries until such time as they threatened British industries and British profits. The Staple Act was pushed for by British merchants requiring colonists to buy manufactured goods and even slaves from the home country.

The colonists were subjected to the ultimate in protectionist policies. British interests came above all others. The growth of slavery in the colonies came about in large part as a method of colonists attempting to reduce expenditures. Although the slaves had to be bought from Britain, the workers then provide a source of cheap labor. Farmers were completely dependent upon the home country because of the artificial imbalance in trade. The colonists could only buy and sell to the British. Thus, conditions were set which left an indebtedness which could never be fully done away with. The Navigation Act did stimulate the growth of shipping and shipbuilding (Nettels, 1952, p. 110), but the colonists were still restricted in where those ships could sail.

The British government (thanks to the direct influence of the merchant class) did its best to restrict and manipulate colonial trade. The gross imbalance did much to lead the colonists down the path of rebellion. The infamous Stamp Act of 1765 happened to be the straw which finally broke the backs of the colonists. Trade restrictions and barriers were no longer enough to contain a people who wanted self-determination.

 

References

Berkin, C. (2011). Making America: A History. Independence, Kentucky. Wadsworth Cengage

           Learning.

Nettels, C.P. (1952, Spring). British Mercantilism and the Economic Development of the Thir

           teen Colonies. The Journal of Economic History, 12(2), 105-114. Retrieved from

           http://www.jstor.org.

The possibility of anyone ever facing the position of deciding between life and death for a group of shipwreck survivors is indeed remote. It is not often that anyone has to deal with such a situation. However, deciding between life and death for thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children, a situation even less likely to happen to anyone, was a choice faced by many medical professionals who found themselves in concentration camps created by the Nazi regime. The start of the war saw the beginning of a moral dilemma for many unlike that which anyone living had previously faced. As the conquest of territory grew, so did the number of camps and those held within. The Nazis made use of slave labor; prisoners could find themselves working as musicians, craftspeople, or many other professions including that of doctors.

Even three famous philosophers (Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill) are not in agreement as to what a medical professional should do who was chosen to function as a concentration camp doctor with the chance to save thousands of lives but also with the fate of condemning some to death. Aristotle and Mill both would agree that the doctors should accept the position offered. Any doctor that accepted such a deal would do so not only to save his or her own life. The doctor would also do so in the hope that it would be possible to do the greatest good for the greatest number. Mill was a believer in utilitarianism, a belief that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, 1987, p. 278). Sending some innocents off to death would be difficult, but does follow the Greatest Happiness Principle. Perhaps the best possible way to state this principle is in a quote from Aristotle who says, “The truly good and wise man will bear all kinds of fortune in a seemly way, and will always act in the noblest manner that the circumstances allow” (Amemiya, 2007, p. 137). Aristotle was in a way a utilitarian before there was such a name.

Kant would not be able to approve of any doctor accepting the bargain offered by the Nazis. The belief that only maxims “that can be universalized without contradiction” (Cahn, 2012, p. 396) should be permitted would not allow a doctor to make such a Faustian bargain. “By a lie a man throws away and, as it were, annihilates his dignity as a man.” (Kant, 1964, p. 93). The decision regarding who lives or dies has no place within the sphere of universal law or universalized maxims. All three philosophers would want as many as possible to survive. However, it would only be Aristotle and Mill who would be able to make the tough choices necessary to create the greatest good for the greatest number. They both stand for consequentialism. A truly happy ending does not exist, but a best possible outcome does. Kant would not philosophically be able to justify the murder of some so that others can be saved. He stands for deontological ethics; he focuses on someone’s intention. Kant’s belief would not allow him to intentionally kill someone even if other people’s lives could be saved. This attitude can best be summed by the Bible verse from Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

The choice of whether I would have accepted such an offer is something which required a lot of soul searching. I believe that ultimately I would have to accept the utilitarian maxim of doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Kant could not have accepted the offer made by the Nazis since it would have required violating the principles which held together universalized maxims. I find that the philosophical thoughts of Aristotle and Mill would lean toward accepting the offer made, even though done so with great reluctance. I hope that I would have the strength to make the right decisions that would save as many lives as possible. Here is to the hope that the world never again faces such a moral dilemma.


References

Amemiya, T. (2007). Economy and Economics of Ancient Greece. New York, New York.
            Routledge.

Cahn, S. M. (2012). Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology (4th ed.). New
            York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Honderich, T. (2005). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2nd ed.). New York, New York:
            Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1964). The Doctrine of Virtue: Part II of the Metaphysics of Morals. Philadelphia, Penn-

sylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mill, J.S. (2010). Utilitarianism and Other Essays. New York, New York: Penguin Classics.