If you've followed my posts at all I believe that you would come away with the impression that I believe our political system to be flawed with the end result that power is in the hands of the rich rather than in the hands of the people as we are constantly told. It's unfortunate but little has happened to change my mind. Well actually nothing has happened to change my mind, lets be honest here. In fact the more I look at things and the more I review the history of such matters the more firmly this notion is entrenched in my mind.
I've recently been discussing the idea of whether or not we as individual people have the 'power' to effect change on a large scale. I've posted previously on a couple of examples of people that have been able to do just that, specifically Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. If one looks throughout history we can find numerous examples of such 'everyday' people effect great change either for good or for evil such as Adolf Hitler or Nelson Mandela.
In looking at such cases its not so much that one solitary person stood alone and brought about change but rather they were part of larger movements. It was not only the energy, passion and charisma of such leaders but the groundswell of support that they enjoyed behind them that made change possible. Is the same true today?
This discussion that I've been having has been over the ability of individuals in the west to effect change in the ongoing Palestinian/Israeli/Lebonese conflict. Our governments respond according to foreign policy design rather than what may be considered the humane and morally right way. What power do we have to change that?
Here is a brief clip talking about the situation edured by Palestinians day in and day out. Is it possible that if enough of us, Canadians, Americans, etc. stood up and demanded our governments constructively work towards a peacable solution that they would be forced to listen and ascede to our wishes?
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said: "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." Are we in fact denying these people hope everyday by virtue of our continued inaction?
Monday, July 24, 2006
Monday, July 10, 2006
As I vomit it onto the page
I just noticed that I haven't written anything here in over a month. I am acutely aware that the only person whose loss this is, is my own.
***
I've found a new title for my job:
Sinecure
Definition: A position or office that requires little or no work but provides a salary.
***
Sometimes I wonder if I project a sense of isolation and unhappiness simply to be melodramatic. I mean its not like I'm depressed and I have come to realize that I am only as alone and isolated as I allow myself to be. When I was 20 I ended a search for identity by finding myself in God. Now I find myself on a search for community. Its become painfully apparent that sitting on my couch alone watching TV will not provide that which I seek. Its almost like I have to do something. Huh, who would have thought?
***
I finally expressed out loud today something that I have come to realize. I grew up in a smaller town of about fifteen thousand people. I always thought that that is where I belonged, that I would not like something bigger. Now I live in a town of eighty thousand and I'm finding it too small. I hope that when I become a teacher I'll be able to get a job in a larger city. A place that feels alive and vibrant. A place filled with interesting people. I hope to be one of those people.
***
There has long been a debate over the cause and/or effect nature of art on society. I'm not one of those people who think that people perform acts of violence because they seen it in a movie. Humanity has been violent throughout its history and I believe that art reflects that part of our nature. However I think that there are instances when art influences society towards a certain path rather than simply documenting it. I work with youth in a smallish city far from the bright lights and dismal opportunities of such places as Los Angeles, Chicago or New York. It was in the inner cities of such places that birthed art forms such as rap and hip-hop. Now I see white suburban youth removed from the conditions of life described in many rap songs emulating what they hear. They're worried about their street-cred and appearing all gangsta and thug. Its quite laughable to be honest but the realities that birthed the art are not equally shared by this group whose only real connection with it is the music.
***
I travelled to the National Art Gallery in Ottawa last week during my vacation from work. I can't say that I liked everything there. The section on Canadian art and specifically the Group of Seven section was interesting on one level but not really captivating. I can recognize the skill thats involved but in no way did their work move me or help me to feel more connected to this country called Canada.
I enjoyed the Gustav Klimt that they had and a few of the more classical works. But I found myself trying to engage with the works rather than leaving it at the surface level of pure ascetic. By doing so I found that I never really gave art all that much credit. My friend and I were talking about how art is a language but its not a basic one. It is one of coplexity and depth. For instance math is a language that most people understand but at vastly varying levels. While one person may understand algebra another may understand single variable calculus while another may understand integral calculus of several variables. They understand the same language but at varying levels of complexity, art is the same. There was some 'modern' art there that I had no clue about but that doesn't mean that its not saying something it simply means that its speaking at a level that I don't understand. There is nothing wrong with that.
When Einstein wrote his famous book on the theory of relativity it is estimated that approximately only ten people on the face of the planet could understand what he was saying. Ten! So just because people can't understand what someone is saying doesn't mean that they aren't saying something of value.
***
It seems clear to me that by describing our society as a democracy we continually lie to ourselves. It seems clear to me that those who are in power are there because those that came before them have helped to create a system that limits the majority while elevating a select minority. It seems clear to me that throughout time that select minority has overwhelmingly been the wealthy.
Now one needs millions of dollars to run a political campaign effectively creating a new aristocracy. Before you simply needed enough land and indentured peasants to call yourself a member of the nobility. Before that the Romans had a republic system in which the populace annually elected their consuls, of course a member of the nobility's vote was equal to that of hundreds of votes cast by the plebians.
While the wealthy might change from the large land owners who ruled for milennia to those who are able to generate vast sums of wealth through our capatalistic economies the fact that one has to be wealthy to have power hasn't.
Sure I vote in every election but I ask you what would be the result if absolutely no one voted? I asked a friend that and they speculated that it would be given over to the supreme court which is made up of wealthy political oppointies. Do you really think that they would give the power back to the people? Not a chance.
As I get older I sit back in amazed fascination as I read Abraham Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address. Lincoln ends his address with the following: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Look around you today and ask if this is true. I'm not convinced it was true even when Lincoln uttered those oft quoted words. In fact it is somewhat erroneous to list the U.S. as a democracy as it is more accurately a republic which is different. In actuallity the president is not elected by the people but rather by the electoral college which is not beholden to the vote/will of the citizenry. This system was purposefully devised by educated aristorcats so as to ensure proper governance of the country. In other words so that they were assured of maintaing power for themselves over the lower classes of society. Canada is no better.
***
I've found a new title for my job:
Sinecure
Definition: A position or office that requires little or no work but provides a salary.
***
Sometimes I wonder if I project a sense of isolation and unhappiness simply to be melodramatic. I mean its not like I'm depressed and I have come to realize that I am only as alone and isolated as I allow myself to be. When I was 20 I ended a search for identity by finding myself in God. Now I find myself on a search for community. Its become painfully apparent that sitting on my couch alone watching TV will not provide that which I seek. Its almost like I have to do something. Huh, who would have thought?
***
I finally expressed out loud today something that I have come to realize. I grew up in a smaller town of about fifteen thousand people. I always thought that that is where I belonged, that I would not like something bigger. Now I live in a town of eighty thousand and I'm finding it too small. I hope that when I become a teacher I'll be able to get a job in a larger city. A place that feels alive and vibrant. A place filled with interesting people. I hope to be one of those people.
***
There has long been a debate over the cause and/or effect nature of art on society. I'm not one of those people who think that people perform acts of violence because they seen it in a movie. Humanity has been violent throughout its history and I believe that art reflects that part of our nature. However I think that there are instances when art influences society towards a certain path rather than simply documenting it. I work with youth in a smallish city far from the bright lights and dismal opportunities of such places as Los Angeles, Chicago or New York. It was in the inner cities of such places that birthed art forms such as rap and hip-hop. Now I see white suburban youth removed from the conditions of life described in many rap songs emulating what they hear. They're worried about their street-cred and appearing all gangsta and thug. Its quite laughable to be honest but the realities that birthed the art are not equally shared by this group whose only real connection with it is the music.
***
I travelled to the National Art Gallery in Ottawa last week during my vacation from work. I can't say that I liked everything there. The section on Canadian art and specifically the Group of Seven section was interesting on one level but not really captivating. I can recognize the skill thats involved but in no way did their work move me or help me to feel more connected to this country called Canada.
I enjoyed the Gustav Klimt that they had and a few of the more classical works. But I found myself trying to engage with the works rather than leaving it at the surface level of pure ascetic. By doing so I found that I never really gave art all that much credit. My friend and I were talking about how art is a language but its not a basic one. It is one of coplexity and depth. For instance math is a language that most people understand but at vastly varying levels. While one person may understand algebra another may understand single variable calculus while another may understand integral calculus of several variables. They understand the same language but at varying levels of complexity, art is the same. There was some 'modern' art there that I had no clue about but that doesn't mean that its not saying something it simply means that its speaking at a level that I don't understand. There is nothing wrong with that.
When Einstein wrote his famous book on the theory of relativity it is estimated that approximately only ten people on the face of the planet could understand what he was saying. Ten! So just because people can't understand what someone is saying doesn't mean that they aren't saying something of value.
***
It seems clear to me that by describing our society as a democracy we continually lie to ourselves. It seems clear to me that those who are in power are there because those that came before them have helped to create a system that limits the majority while elevating a select minority. It seems clear to me that throughout time that select minority has overwhelmingly been the wealthy.
Now one needs millions of dollars to run a political campaign effectively creating a new aristocracy. Before you simply needed enough land and indentured peasants to call yourself a member of the nobility. Before that the Romans had a republic system in which the populace annually elected their consuls, of course a member of the nobility's vote was equal to that of hundreds of votes cast by the plebians.
While the wealthy might change from the large land owners who ruled for milennia to those who are able to generate vast sums of wealth through our capatalistic economies the fact that one has to be wealthy to have power hasn't.
Sure I vote in every election but I ask you what would be the result if absolutely no one voted? I asked a friend that and they speculated that it would be given over to the supreme court which is made up of wealthy political oppointies. Do you really think that they would give the power back to the people? Not a chance.
As I get older I sit back in amazed fascination as I read Abraham Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address. Lincoln ends his address with the following: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Look around you today and ask if this is true. I'm not convinced it was true even when Lincoln uttered those oft quoted words. In fact it is somewhat erroneous to list the U.S. as a democracy as it is more accurately a republic which is different. In actuallity the president is not elected by the people but rather by the electoral college which is not beholden to the vote/will of the citizenry. This system was purposefully devised by educated aristorcats so as to ensure proper governance of the country. In other words so that they were assured of maintaing power for themselves over the lower classes of society. Canada is no better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)