Author: sdoyle22

With this semester closing on a certainly seminal moment in American history, I would like to take this time to encourage everyone to restrain themselves when returning home. This is not one of those “how to educate your Trump supporting uncle” posts – In fact, I voted for Trump and am proud of that. This is a post about civility. This idea can be applied to anyone in your life. There are very few things worth dying for, or burning a bridge – family is one of them, and cutting them out or devaluing them in any way is a ridiculous way to organize your priorities.

The danger of a sustained conflict within the United States is certainly more real than ever – with a significant portion of American’s believing that the Democratic party stole the election, and another significant part believing that the current commander in chief is simply a Cheeto colored version of Adolph Hitler – it doesnt suprise me that tensions are high. After all, if both sides view the other as not just wrong, but inherently evil, there are very few things left on the table as a means to communicate or mediate.

Therefore, I encourage everyone to make amends with anyone you’ve intellectually jousted, verbally boxed, or mentally sparred within your past few years attending our lady’s university. Use these ten weeks to reconnect with your family, your childhood, and your friends. Build good habits, read good books (I recommend C.S. Lewis, Doestoevsky, or even Tolkien) – come back to next semester ready to conquer your challenging academics.

As tense as things can be at the moment, they have not yet reached the point we have seen in Northern Ireland. There are not balaclava clad militant Catholics armed with ARs(Armalite Rifle not Assault Rifle – that’s a made up term) shooting up police stations. So in all seriousness, reconnect with your family. Remember who you are and where you came from.

In the brief blogging hiatus that we enjoyed the previous few weeks, each student in this classroom had the opportunity to peer review several of our peers rough drafts for the research paper due at the end of this semester. This gave each of us a more in depth opportunity to explore and appreciate the perspectives each of our classmates took on the literature we have reviewed thus far this semester. I appreciated this opportunity, as the blog posts we previously commented on were a more niche perspective on specific issues. This paper, however, is a much larger picture, and more accurately reflects each individuals take on the material that we have been examining in this class.

From these papers, we can see the true interests of our peers. We see the influences of previous education, their ideals, their worldview and their interpretation of the events we have discussed in class. For political science students like myself, these tumultuous decades we have examined are often viewed through a political sense – for English, or literature majors – they often can do a more effective in depth analysis of the rhetoric used by the authors. For STEM majors – the literature reviewed and the historical perspectives often can be seen through a more analytical, statistical lense.

Overall, I truly did appreciate the wide spread views that these papers allowed me to read in depth, its a really cool experience to see the material we have all learned together interpreted in different ways, influenced by the backgrounds each individual has compiled throughout their life experiences, time in school, and courses taken.

The struggle in Ireland for equal rights between religious groups is a story even older than racism. Before mankind was divided based upon melanin content, ethnicities and societies distinguished themselves from others based upon a certain system of beliefs in a higher power, or oftentimes, multiple higher powers. Even before monotheism came to dominate the religious landscape, particularly in the developed world, ancients would often persecute or justify war, enslavement, and pillaging upon divine inspiration. The advent of monotheism was marked by centuries of religious-inspired conflicts, the Jewish conquest of the Canaanites, for example. Two other important examples are the centuries of oppression, execution, and torture endured by Christians at the hands of the Roman Empire. Charlamagne’s conquests in the north of Europe are also well known for their brutality.

What is the common theme between all these infamous examples of religious warfare and persecution? Not necessarily that the parties involved are religious, after all, the Quakers, Amish, Jain, and most Christians today are well known for their pacifism. The true link between violence, oppression and injustice via religious discrimination is a wedding of religion and the power of the state. The human institution of government as usual poisons the well.

The logic I followed in class holds that when a state and religious ideology are successfully melded, any dissent from the religious body is essentially dissent from the government that is in cahoots with the religious body. By wedding the auspices of the state with the divine power of religion, governments not only obtain ultimate authority on earth but also have the ability to dictate the eternal afterlife – creating the ultimate coercive apparatus. In essence, I argue that the root problem is not religion itself, as there are arguably more examples of religions coexisting and living in peace with one another than there are of conflicting ideologies. Rather, I argue that the uniquely toxic combination of religion and the powers of earthly government creates a wholly unacceptable society rife with religious discrimination, persecution, and violence.

The concept espoused by Dr King, namely “love the person who does the evil deed while hating the deed the person does” is firmly rooted in scripture, as Christ teaches his followers to love the sinner but hate the sin. This is the root of many of the churchs teachings on topics ranging from homosexuality to warfare. Regarding comments made in class regarding parallels between todays Black Lives Matter movement and the mid twentieth century civil rights movements, I would disagree with the assertion that Dr. King would approve of todays general culture of unrest. 

The Black Lives Matter platform as formally organized, advocates for the dissolution of the western prescribed nuclear family, this is one of the primary goals of the movement that Dr. King would resist with gusto, in his own words, King espouses the nuclear family as the single most important organization within a society, saying: “The group consisting of mother, father and child is the main educational agency within mankind”

Dr. King would also speak out against the widespread destruction of private property, ironically occurring primarily within minority majority neighborhoods, which at this point has likely exceeded hundreds of billions of dollars.  King, when saying “riots are the language of the unheard” was not justifying or defending violent property destruction, but merely emphasizing he understood the anger behind such behavior. In fact, a quotation from his speech regarding such activities from a Stanford speech captures this balance of rhetoric perfectly: “It is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots.” This quotation gives much needed context to the quote that BLM activists are currently using to justify their felonious behavior. Half of understanding rhetoric is context, something many people lack in our information overloaded society. To drive this point home, this excerpt from the paragraph preceding his “riots are the language of the unheard” soundbite drastically changes the message of the aforementioned sentence: “Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve.”

Simply put, I find it comical that one would believe that Dr Martin Luther King would support Black Lives Matter. There is simply not enough evidence to convince me that a conservative southern Baptist preacher would advocate for the abolition of the nuclear family and support violent destruction of minority neighborhoods 

While reading this book by Mr. Vinen, I couldn’t help but be somewhat confused by the absence of structure – though I’ve come to realize that in reality, it is probably more conducive to our understanding of this time, than if this work was to be organized in a coherent fashion. The amount of subjects this book attempts to cover is as broad as the concept of “68” itself, and I feel it does do a surprisingly good job of detailing some of the more important issues that culminated in “68”

Something that caught my interest was the Black Panthers and their affection for firearms – as an avid enthusiast of the 2nd amendment, I am well versed in the legal history of gun control – particularly its racist origins – this example of California repealing its open carry laws after the Black Panther Party marched with rifles is simply another example of this tactic being used by the government to oppress certain groups within society. MLK and W.E.B. Dubois were well known proponents of gun ownership, and in a society where the powers that be could not be relied upon to protect ones property and family, the 2nd amendment was truly an African American’s greatest friend. The racist history of gun control dates back to the 1751 French “Black Codes” forbade any slave from possessing any form of weapon, including a cane – In the colony of Louisiana, free blacks were repeatedly barred from purchasing firearms under a myriad of gun control laws enacted by  suspicious administrations.

Overall, I found this passage to be one that not only affirms my belief in the 2nd Amendment, but reiterates its importance in todays political climate. With many left of center political activists characterizing the current commander in chief as “fascist” and the police both federal and local as his jackbooted thugs, it would seem evermore important for everyday Americans to exercise their first and second amendment rights to the utmost of their abilities. After all, if the police and Mr. Trump are truly fascist demagogues rife with intent to destroy our democracy, is it not each and every citizens responsibility to arm themselves in defence of our great republic?