JSA2

Here is a video on the Junior State of America organization which I am a part of. I am also the founder of the JSA Chapter at my high school!
We met with the controversial, Arizona Maricopa County Sherrir, Mr. Joseph Arpaio or Joe Arpaio

JSA

As some of you may know, I am apart of the Junior State of America (JSA) national youth organization. In fact, JSA is the largest student-run organization in the country! JSA events are composed of debates, though talks, and other likewise political agendas. JSA aims to spread political awareness to the youth, because everyone must be aware and active in a flourishing democracy. JSA moto: DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT.


Anyway, during JSA's Fall Convention, in Phoenix, AZ. I was the Pro speaker for the followeing resolution-
Resolved: The embargoes are an ineffective method to effective governmental change.

The resolution failed; we lost by two votes! Anyway, here is the speech I gave in the opening 6min. time slot.

Resolved: That embargoes are ineffective methods of effecting governmental change.
Pragmatic definitions for an embargo read in like manner to this: An embargo is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country in older to isolate it. Thus, the isolated country is expected to mold its political, social or economic policies in order to please the country imposing the embargo. In other words, the embargo-imposing country is using the threat of economic immobility in an attempt to affect change in another nation. Embargoes are ineffective methods for affecting governmental change for two distinct reasons. First, is the notion of an ever-connecting world, a globalized international community which will greatly be affected by any, and all, embargoes implemented; the embargo-imposing country must be willing to face off against all other countries wishing to have commerce with the embargoed nation. Secondly, an embargo forces the isolated country to comply with any rules, or face economic detriment. Essentially, an embargo is nothing less than one country oppressing another country and in such settings we must question the candor of a nation’s obedience when under coercion. Furthermore, from the Embargo of 1807 on Europe, to America’s present embargo on Cuba, a large majority of past and present embargoes failed to achieve their initial goals.
The interconnectedness of the world is undeniable, as time progresses globalization progresses with it. America has a myriad of ties with a chief majority of the nations on Earth, as do other countries. If the United States were to prohibit commerce and trade with a country like France or China, though that country will be initially hurt, there is great potential for that country to turn to other foreign economies for trade and economic growth. In an article published by The New York Times titled, “The World; Trade Embargoes: Do They Work?” Keith Bradsher, the author, notes, that today’s globalized economy, an embargo is illogical, he goes on to say that the prohibition of commerce and trade by one country is like “one bank not lending you money, in a town with 108 banks”. What theoretically makes an embargo successful is the economic harm done to the embargoed nation, and that nation will thus be forced to modify its policies. However, this can only work if the United States was the only nation importing and exporting goods and services to that country, which in today’s world is not an actuality. A large majority of developed and undeveloped nations contribute to the world economy by either exporting, importing or both; in 2003 alone America exported $767Billion out into the world and imported $1.67Trillion- this fact tells us two things, 1) no wonder the US is in an economic recession and 2) it demonstrates the extent of a country’s, in this case America’s, involvement in an world economy. And although in other times, countries have agreed to follow embargoes implemented by America, in tough economic times like today’s, a country simply cannot afford to refuse the import and export of another country, which contributes to the ineffectiveness of an embargo- since the embargoed nation will continue to take part in the world economy, minus the embargo-imposing nation.
Aside from the economics of an embargo, we must question the integrity of a country’s obedience when embargoed. If in fact a nation is greatly harmed by an embargo, it makes sense to that nation to simply “pretend” to follow the provisions of the aggressor in order to gain back economic strength. A lot of times, America, will chose to place an embargo on a nation if it is cruel or “undemocratic”. For example, the embargo placed on Beijing, China because of the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989. Though there are good intentions in such embargoes, America is only really forcing a country to appear “democratic” or humane, but truly it takes much more than economic peril to socially change a nation. Moreover, a majority of the nations which America chooses to place embargoes on, are governments lead by corrupt and tyrannous oligarchies, like China, Iran and the Middle East, and Cuba. So when that country’s economy is weakened, the only people that suffer are the people whom have suffered under tyranny all along not the leaders, which does not change a thing. Past and present dictators and tyrants like Cuba’s Castro, and Iran’s Hussein were, and are able, to protect themselves and their regimes from the consequences of an embargo, while the lower class suffers; yet another reason which contributes to the infectiveness of embargoes.
In fact, embargoes have never really worked on any level in America. When British ship Leopard fired on American ship Chesapeake in the summer of 1807, inflicting 21 casualties, at-the-time President Thomas Jefferson declared complete and total embargo from Europe and the rest of the world- no ships left and no ships came in, this is known as the Embargo Act of 1807. Though, the goal of the embargo was for Britain and other nations to respect America as a country, the Embargo Act eventually harmed the US itself more than it did the world, due to the fact that trade plummeted by 80% and prices fell 23% all around the country. Consequently, states like Maine and New York and others along the Canadian border took part in smuggling operations in a desperate struggle to end the economic depression. By August of 1808, while the nation was severely affected by the economic hardships, it became vehemently clear to officials that the embargo was a failure; needless to say the Embargo Act of 1807 was later lifted. Another example of a failed embargo would be that of the embargo on Cuba by the United States. The initial goal of the embargo, initiated in 1962, was to pressure communist leaders Fidel and Raul Castro to move towards a democratic government. 47 years later, Cuba continues to be a communist-lead country by Fidel Castro, which is a prime example of a failed embargo. So much so, that earlier this year, Sen. Richard Lugar- a Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee- released a draft report saying it is time to reconsider longtime U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba. His report says, “After 47 years…the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of ‘bringing democracy to the Cuban people… we must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests”.
Though an embargo might have at one point appeared effective, in today’s fully globalized world, an embargo does not make sense and perhaps may only harm the embargo-imposing country. As our world further develops, it is time for leaders to draft new EFFECTIVE means to affect governmental change- ones which prove successful from the start as oppose to the negative, inclement beginnings and present state of unsuccessful embargoes.


Ehh, I know I could have done better, but it was pretty last minute, and I though it was good.

What are you thoughts about embargoes? Do they work?

A World Forever Changed.

The following is an elegy style poem for my AP English Lit. class, I am not so great @ poetry. However, it is in memory of Mr. Martin Luther King. Jr.

Un Mondo Cambiò Per Sempre.

April 4, 1968-

Creates, relates all of the hate.

His speeches and essays, his eyes and his mind,

His power and strength,

Oh how the world now seems blind!

Our hopes and our dreams, our progress and intellect,

Now whimper greatly- since, of them, he was a chief architect.

April 4^th, created a gloomy, weakened room,

A room bleeding sorrow, bleeding flight,

Bleeding doom!

His life was not his, it was ours,

That moment of hate did not kill him;

The bullet shot us, it terminated our powers.

Yet, he had dreams that not many of us dream,

He longed for us, to unite together

And be supreme

-together.

Black, white, red, or yellow or brown,

Stand tall, we must!

And never shall his dream drown.

Drown the way he did, in a bathtub of hate-

Never shall Earth suffer what we did, in a bathtub of hate.

Though humanity was able to recover, partially-

His life is lost, his ideas are gone,

Earth now walks with an injured gait.

Since April 4, 1968,

Creates, relates all of the hate.

Weakening U.S.D. - good or bad?

This is a video provided by one of the followers of this blog. Great video, the website is awesome as well.

What do YOU think?

BAD: ISOLATIONISM IN FOREIGN POLICY

During much of the time prior to the 20th and 21st centuries, Foreign Policy was a way for this nation to control other nations; to exploit and diminish any sense of individualism that another country could have. However, at the turn of the century with the Industrial Revolution at its zenith, the world was quickly becoming the world we know today. A world where the economies, societies, and social-aspects of any given country are connected in a myriad of ways to any other given country, in short, a world with full-scale globalization. In this world, America has watched as its Foreign Policy has transformed into a tool which is no longer chiefly about controlling other nations, but a much needed tool in order to keep this nation safe, economically sound, and progressive. Thus in a world where the people are becoming more and more unified in economic and social provisions, America cannot implement the doctrine of Isolationism into its Foreign Policy. There are three chief and distinct reasons why America’s best interests are to stay connected to the world beyond its borders. First there is the safety of our nation, second there is the firmness of our economy, and third is this nation’s progress as a world leader.
In a theory proposed in 1943, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, safety is the fundamental necessitate, without safety one is unable to advance in any way, shape or form into a more profound individual. This theory, dictates that without safety, one essentially is nothing. Though Maslow intended this theory for people, we can apply this very same ideology to countries. If a country is not safe, how can it attempt to fix any of its internal problems, how can a country progress and how can a country shift its focus onto bigger entities? The answers are simple, if a country is not safe that country can do nothing, it essentially is nothing.

In the decade that came after the end of the Cold War and before the terrorist attacks in 2001, the United States military cut back and reduced its massive nuclear stockpile. The American Government and a large bulk of American People, believed that there were no overarching threats against this nation. As a result, American leaders were slow to put together new and innovative military strategies for much of the post-Cold War era. Nevertheless, the morning of September 11th, 2001 was not only the first foreign attack on American soil since the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, but also those unfortunate attacks served as a reminder to U.S. leaders of the new and urgent threat to its national security. An isolationist-driven foreign policy is not capable of protecting America against any its potential threats today and definitely not in a future where technologies for Weapons of Mass Destruction are quickly advancing. Simply because of the fact that according to the definition provided by the debate moderator, in an isolationist foreign policy, a country isolates itself “from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.”; meaning, that a country is unable to maintain its understanding and awareness of the status of other nations, because it focuses its attention solely on itself. And while there are a number of domestic problems which America needs to try and resolve such as: education, immigration reform, health care, et cetera. Without American leaders, and the American people truly being secure, these domestic problems will be far from handled. Also, the terrorist and hostile nations which are blamed for the September 11th, 2001 attacks are nations infamous for not playing by any rules and can strike again without warning. Unless, however, America preserves and sustains a Foreign Policy which is capable of keeping our leaders, and us cognizant about all nations, and also a foreign policy which keeps America active in those nations. In the definition I read aloud earlier, in an isolationist doctrine, a country declines to enter into alliances with other nations. One of the main reasons why America was not, and has not been, attacked by nuclear hostilities after World War II was because of an alliance which the United States helped create and lead; The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance meant to defend its 26 members from any form of aggression from nations which are known to have nuclear weapons. In an Isolationist driven-Foreign Policy, this treaty would have never existed, and thus who knows if the 1945 nuclear bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would today remain the only nuclear assaults in history.
Aside from the safety of our nation, America’s foreign policy has a lot do with how our economy will function. Trading goods and services with other nations is a crucial part of the U.S. economy. The number of businesses that export American goods to other nations, habitually provide good and solid salaries, and the growth of these businesses abroad brings money into the United States. Additionally, the inexpensive foreign imports provide American consumers with better choices by allowing them to get more for their money. In a foreign policy which indoctrinates isolationism, foreign trade does not occur. Thus, businesses of that certain nation are unable to expand their companies and industries into the world, and the potential for jobs inside that country is highly weakened. On the other hand, a country which opens up its economy to the world is not only receiving economic benefits, but also trade and economic integration has allowed America to break down barriers with other nations in terms of cultural and social provisions.

Moreover, though isolationism would, and probably does make sense to other nations, we must not forget who America is. America is not a nation like any European nation, or those like China where there is a distinct feature to its people- physically and culturally. America is commonly referred to as the melting pot of the world, where all sorts of cultures, societies, peoples, and languages come together to make it the great nation that truly is. Unfortunately, implementing isolationist-thinking into this nation’s Foreign Policy could harm the U.S. in the short term and the long term. For if America suddenly decided to stop all form of functioning with other nations, Americans would thus have less opportunities to learn from and cooperate with other nations.
All in all, indoctrinating isolationism into our Foreign Policy simply does not make sense on an economic, social, or safety-concerned level. A Foreign Policy which allows the U.S. to be an active and strong leader in the world is more about maintaining and upholding the American way of life. Therefore, the question is not whether or not to be an active nation, but how can America elevate its world standing and continue to become a more effective and profound world leader, active and leading in every and any foreign allegiance, economic commitment, and world policy. For these reasons, America simply must not implement any form of isolationist influence in its foreign policy.


I was debating the con side for the following prompt: Resolved that the United States should implement isolationism into its foreign policy.

American Identity

Advanced Placement U.S. History was a class in which I discovered many different, significant concepts, relevant to not only this nation’s history but also to the way in which society today operates. One of the most profound and thought-provoking concepts we constantly undertook was the concept of the American Identity. What is a genuine American Identity? Or can one concrete definition even be prescribed?
We analyzed the stories authored by Horatio Alger, which share the common theme of “rags to riches”; the preconceived notion of the early 20th century that any hard working and dedicated man can easily climb the social ladder here in America. However, as we read along we would stop and have conversations debating Alger’s theory of how one can become prosperous in America. We discussed two sub points, access to opportunity versus self help. To what extent was the success of the wealthy Americans at the time, such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, success earned by hard work or success which was given to them through certain opportunities. Furthermore, Alger’s theory was one shared by not only many Americans, but also, shared by a large majority of the world. America was seen (and arguably still is seen) as a beacon of hope and opportunity to all those in impoverished nations. One can see this as a fact because during the time when this theory became widely accepted (late 1800s- early 1900s), the number of people immigrating to America proliferated greatly. In fact, the late 1800s was the time in which more people from around the globe started to immigrate to America in mass, in contrast to only the Northwestern Europeans as before. This is the time when America received a tremendous influx of Chinese, as well as individuals from Mexico and Southern America.
The question of an American Identity became an issue largely tackled by the authors of the early 20th century, namely the Women’s Rights Movements and Harlem Renaissance authors. To a degree, America’s questions of who it was are owed to the influx of immigrants from around the world. For the first time, the term “American” was being given to men and women of color; “yellow” “brown” and “black”. Unfortunately, this sparked a number of violent physical and emotional clashes between the characteristically-typical Anglo Saxon community and the newly formed “colored” Americans.
This concept of the American Identity intellectually excites me because of all the social struggles and lives devoted, and that continue to be devoted, to answering this one question. The many social movements: for rights of equality, to vote, to live freely, to end wars, and so on, that have taken place in America have by great measure been centered on the question of who Americans are. Are we a nation where yes, all men and women are created equal, a nation where war is but our last resort not our first decision to combat a problem, a nation where any hard working person can someday receive great success?

A New Meaning To The Term...

The term being: What is mightier, the pen or the sword?

As I sat in my 2nd period class- AP English Lit- I was thinking about what Miss Hill asked us.

"Is war the only way to fix a WORLD WIDE issue?". We were discussing speeches made by W. Churchill and by Ghandi. Churchill being the "warhog" and Ghandi (of course) the "nonviolent".

I swiftly made up my mind, YES. War fixes the world's problem. Look at the American Revolution, the Civil War, and many of the numerous of wars during the 1900s- all those wars eventually served as a greater good. Right?

However, what we too are in the middle of, in that AP class, is a novel by Richard Wright, "Native Son". "Native Son" deals with the life of Bigger Thomas, a young black male whom does not know how to deal with the fact that (during the early 20th cent.) as a black person, he WAS considered as unequal.

This of course brings me to the Harlem Renaissance, and this is what truly made my mind change. no, war is not ALWAYS the answer. I'd actually argue, that 9 out of 10 times, war IS inevitable.

The Harlem Renaissance was not merely a "renewal of life" (dicitonary.com) for the Negroes and other minorities of America, goodness, it was a movement which shifted- or began it's way towards shifting- an entire nation's identity Black and White, together. Yet, the weapons which allowed this shifting to take place, were NOT weapons of physical destruction such as: guns, tanks, ships, planes, bullet, and such. The Generals and Lt.s of this emotional war- that is the people whom fought against an enemy- Langston Hughes, Billie Holiday, Abel Meeropod, Richard Wright, etc., fought with their intangible ammunition.

A civil war had already been fought in order to "free America of slavery, and racial prejudice" (as much of Americans would say), but in the end, it was not a war with an eventual greater good ending. The Civil War (1860s) is today considered a war, by many historians and myself, which was about state's rights (North v South), power and greed. NOT FOR THE MORALITY OF SLAVERY. (Moreover, that war was what sparked the high emotions in a people who killed one of America's most promising President, Lincoln). Though the conclusion of the war did leave the South economically, emotionally, and politically shattered, and thus the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were made law. Which abolished slavery, gave the freedmen and freedwomen citizenship, and granted the male freedmen the right to vote.

The overall effect of those amendments were (I hesitantly say this, but whole-heartedly believe it), worhtless. The government, the Constitution can "change" the way America behaves politically, and economically. (Yet, the Jim Crow South and Black Codes enacted to continue the oppression even after those amendments) However, the government CAN NOT control or "change" the way America behaves, psychologically/emotionally. (in the mind of a white supremist)- just becuz my govinmnt saiz I can not enslave them negroes, that dont mean I have to view dem as equal, either! (Ughh, forgive me I sometimes fall victim to stereotyping as well, I AM HUMAN TOO!).

As I was saying, the Government can only control the tangibles in one's life: money, laws one follows, and things in like fashion. Yet, no government can ever make one not be racist- it could enact anti-racist legislature, but passion to hate will always find it's way around through loop-holes.

Thus, the individuals of the Harlem Renaissance had to be innovative in order for their voices to not only be heard, but to be followed. Another war, physical, would not solve anything, two wars do not make a right. Hence, the novels, poems, songs, and art that came out of that most paramount event in American History.

The Harlem Renaissance is a perfect example of why sometimes, war is simply not the answer and only adds fuel to the fire. Langstog Hughes, among many, took the mighty pen in hand and proved that a sword is but a mere sign of weakness and tyrancy. For if one wishes to change or "swift" a part of the world, the most powerful weapons are the ones which come from with in.

I wrote an essay on this topic, well more about the Harlem Renaissance, will post later.

Literary response to Colored Oppression.- 2nd Edition

This post is to supplement the last post, Literary Response to Colored Oppression (1st).

I wrote a poem about Bigger (main character in Native Son, by Richard Wright).

“Bigger”

Let the BIGGER ones, let the BIGGER ones die

To live in a small world- a blind world,

Two words, two worlds,

Two levels, two stories;

Let the BIGGER ones die.

The BIGGER ones ought to die-

A soul with no soul,

A mind with no mind,

A voice with no voice,

A life with no life.

Let the BIGGER ones die.

The BIGGER ones must die.

A history concealed- facts omitted,

Peoples never understood

…never significant.

The BIGGERS’ Divine Book gave them the right

…to rip apart- culture, dreams, and flight.

Let the BIGGER ones die.

The BIGGER ones are now dead.

The hopes we’ve hoped,

The songs we’ve sung,

The bodies we’ve missed,

The sparrows trapped in the gutter-

Will forever be lost- irredeemable

At least, At least the BIGGER ones have died.

The BIGGER ones revisit us, always.

The tears cried,

The sorrow ride

Is again forgotten by the small ones.

Must the BIGGER inside always rise,

From the core of the oppressed-no-more?

That is until the newly depressed cry,

“Let the BIGGER ones, let the BIGGER ones die”.

What do your guys get from this?

There is also another poem by the greatest of poets- Langston Hughes.

LET AMERICA BE AMERICA AGAIN

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!

WHAT A GREAT MASTERPIECE, NO?

Literary response to Colored Oppression

The book I am reading, along with my AP English Literature peers, is Richard Right's _Native Son_.

What a great book, before I begin to post textual sources on the piece, I just wish to state my opinion on the subject.

American History carries with it many blemishes, which is okay- America never has been, is not, and never will be perfect. I am okay with that. However, one of it's most severe blemishes, is quickly turning into an incurable scar among it's face. Race Relations in America are something which continue to hinder it's ability to truly and completely be a fierce competitor within the world's educational/economic market. Honestly, how can America be the "world police" (as many reference it) if America can not fix it's own internal issues?

Since before the mighty year of 1776, when a courageous group of men held a Continental Congress and in it's second meeting decided to declare independence from a government's oppression. Colored people have been regarded as unequal.

Since before the infamous decade of the 1940s, when the world was in peril, and America fought an oppressor to the Jewish community. Colored people have been regarded as unequal.

(I love the irony of WWII, although many people think of America as a "heroine" during the war. This nation had been taking part in similar atrocities, as seen in Hitler Dominated Germany, before Hitler himself was even born!)

Still today, a day in which we have our first Colored President, I do not believe colored peoples are regarded as equal. The statistics of inmates, the many south, east, west side ghettos, the unemployment rates among minorities are all strong evidence to support my beliefs.

I strongly recommend the book _Race Matters_ by Cornel West- a MASTERPIECE.

West is great at not only calling Americana out on it's failures to "love" a people whom have been taught to hate themselves for way too long. West calls out his own ethnic group, the colored peoples as well.

So I went off on a tangent, it is okay. I like expressing my views.

On to Wright's _Native Son_.

Richard Wright was born 1908 (the year the NAACP started) in Roxie, Mississippi.

He was a part of arguably, or definitely, what is the best and most quintessential periods for African American Literature: the Harlem Renaissance. Wright took a strong role in changing the face of this type of art, morphing it into a form of literature which showed (with little ambiguity, as lit. before) the anger, frustration, and confusion of a people oppressed.

He received great acknowledgement for his novel, _Native Son_

Wrights does a superb job at demonstrating the way colored, and white, people saw the world during that time. Making sure he emphasizes the difference between "black asphalt" and "white clouds", black and white- and the differences between them- are an extended motif through out the novel.

In the eyes of Bigger, the main character, everything around him is either black or white, dark or light, good or evil. Which is what had to have been the same thought process of much of society living in the 1920's-'30s.

The quote which is the most important so far in the novel (I am half way done, maybe 1/3 the way there).

"Why did he and his folks have to live like this? What had they ever done? Perhaps they had not done anything. Maybe they had to live this way precisely because none of them in all their lives had ever done anything, right or wrong, that mattered much"- 1st book (p.105 in Perennial Classics Edition).

The narrator let's the reader inside Bigger's mind- his thoughts (which are sometimes far more crucial than actual dialogue). This quote, however, is not aimed at Bigger. Wright is directing it to the reader, like West in his book, he is also putting the blame of the issue on the colored people themselves. They had (at that time) never done anything "that mattered much", that was significant to change the way race relations were handled. Their voice was voiceless, their minds were mindless, and their power was powerless. & in a way, they added much to this lack of strength to raise up against the machine.

There are a myriad of quotes in the book which allude to Wright's ANGER, FRUSTRATION, AND CONFUSION.

Has anyone ever read the book? If so, I would like to read about your opinions of my thoughts, and of your own.

America, where are you?

The irony of the discrimination that people- like Emmal Goldman, Allen Ginsberg, MLK Jr, The Beatniks, The Hippies, The Civil Rights Activists, and so on- have received is that those people stood up and spoke out against a government that simply did not work any longer. They were labeled as communists, anarchists, and even un-americans. However, standing up and creating a change in the government that no longer works/ protects it's people is the most American thing anyone could ever do. Infact, it is our duty to do so it is written in our founding documents and it is heroic people like those who help America progress.

You see, American soceity constantly falls into a state of indifference. The economy is properous and society becomes to comfortable with what is going on- there is no sense of revolution in the atmosphere; and America is far from equal to all of it's constituents, so that should never occur. Yet it does, and when some one, or a group of people, become enlightened of the fact that "peace" is a dangerous state to assume- they are oppressed by the government and by the society of which it dominates. Our government in America is not our boss- quite the other way around. Still, I see people everyday who are submissive to government officials and decide to just go with the flow.

AMERICA!- YOU HAVE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL TO LEAD THE WORLD INTO A GREAT EPOCH OF EQUALITY AND SOCIAL (MUCH NEEDED) REVOLUTION. YET YOU DECIDED TO SIT DOWN ON YOUR COUCH, WATCH TELEVISION AND EAT. WAKE UP! DO NOT LOSE THE DRIVE AND STRENGTH THAT HAS DEFINED US FOR SO LONG- DO NOT CONFORM. MOST IMPORTANT- DO NOT DO IT FOR ME, FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY INSTITUTION. TRANSCEND THE FEAR YOU POSSESS OF A GOVERNMENT THAT HAS CONTINOUSLY FED YOU FEAR, LIED TO YOU, DECEIVED YOU. AMERICA, BE YOURSELF ONCE AGAIN.

The Issue of American Morality

Many people think that the civil war was fought in the name of morals and good values- the North being the hero and the South the menace. Although, that is partly accurate, with the South being the menace and all, the Civil War was not fought to end slavery because of good values and the belief that "all mean are created equal". The war that shattered America from with in was about power, money and sectional supremacy. Since before the creation of America, one could see two opposing sections in North America- Chesapeake Bay and New England. The two geographic regions had two very different economies, and societies. Chesapeake Bay's being an agragian economy, cach crops such as tabacco (in the beginning) and eventually cotton. Also, there were not too many families in that region, mainly young men who needed to work ended up in the South. Therefore, the New England region was quite the opposite.

With that said, as time progressed into the 19th century, one could see sectional conflicts begining to heat up with the Missouri Compromise, the Wilmot Proviso, and also the Great Compromise of 1850- they all had to do with slavery and what states would render it legal or not. While this was going on geographically, politically sectional conflicts were all too evident. Southern politicians were concerned with the newly industrialized Northen Region's seemingly power over them in congress/government. As was the North. So when the shots were finally fired in 1861, the bullets were not sent out of the weapons for the freedom of man, but the oppression of man. The oppresion of the South by the North, or the Noth by the South. The North was quick to use the end of slavery as a theme in the war to allow it's self to become the hero, and have a justifiable reason for war. However, after the war was over the freedmen rushed to the North in massive numbers, and yes they were politically free, but socially they were still seen as unequal. & It would take them a century to receive the promise they were granted by the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Civil War was a war that was fought between to regions who each wanted geographic, political and ideological supremacy over the other, so Lincoln was not about ending slavery because it was wrong. The Republicans wanted to end slavery because it would immensely weaken the political, economic, and social power of the Southern Democrats.

In like manner, WWII American troops were not fighting to save the Jews from their evil opressor. Before America was even involved in WWII Jews were flocking to America, and were denied entrance into the country and shipped back to Europe to await their sad fate. Roosevelt, and the government, were more concerned about Communism ideals penetrating the world and thus affecting the capatalistic empire that America single handedly protected and cherished.

I could talk about this forever, but I am sure you get the point.
American history shows us how great past congressional leaders have been at putting a great and seemingly moral faces on conflicts (wars) as a way of justifying their cruel, and inhumane actions. It has always been for the sake of capatalism, never for innocent civilans.
The government simply conceals it's true intensions with good and moral intentions in order to get mass support from the American people, and the world.
You Know?

I am not saying it is a bad thing, I mean American society is far too ignorant and stupid to understand why some thing must be done, as the bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It is genious actually! Just funny to see how some people think America is so civilized, human, and especially MORAL!

Why we hate Bush, and love Obama

Of course, the assumptions above are GENERAL. However, they apply to, I would say, close to 70% of the American population.

Now, on to the real message....

It is true that the President of the United States is debatably the most powerful person in not only the nation, but the world. However, that does not mean that we either lose hope for a better tomorrow, or gain a massive sense of relief for the problems that affect this aching world just because of who is sitting in the oval office.
Yes, Presidents have all been quite different. Yet the differences have not been substantial enough to either make or break the country's economy, social status, and things in like manner. The President, or the govn't for that matter, is not the stronger group in the society in which we live in today. America did not pull out of Vietnam because of how many troops it was losing, or how "unwinnable" the war seemed. The truth is that the youth was able to come together and raise a protest against the war in number never before seen in America, or the world. The youth made Vietnam a war with no real purpose, because they simply did not support the government's actions.

Basically people. You may have your rants against Bush, or your supportive rhetoric for Obama, yet do not forget that either way, it continues to be our duty to run politics and life around us. Presidents can be either good or bad, but that does not mean we put all our hope into them or lose all our hope in the government, in OUR GOVERNMENT. Too often, that is the case.