Month: August 2020

This is a rant posing as an essay. If you don’t want to read the brutal truth as laid out by a fed-up teenager, this is not the post for you. Have some cat photos. For those who do read this, be aware that the statistics listed were accurate as of July 21st, 2020 but may or may not be so now.

Salutations. Today I am here to debate the quote, “Without the ideas and leadership of Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton, the United States would not be the great nation it is today.”

It is a simple fact in this type of debate that I must agree or disagree with the statement as a whole. If the claim were simply that the previously named gentlemen had made the United States the nation it is today, I would concur. However, the word “great” was inserted, and as such, I must most vehemently disagree.

As much as we try to treat our country as if it’s golden, perfect, flawless, it’s not. If it were, we wouldn’t have a total student loan debt of $1.6 trillion, with an average of over $32,000. We wouldn’t be continually denying and ignoring climate change, our immigration policy wouldn’t be so insensitive that there are children in cages, and there would not be US citizens dying because they can’t afford medical treatment, or working multiple jobs just to survive.

Unfortunately, the truth is that we live in a country that values profits over people, and “freedom” over lives. That’s why there were 418 mass shootings (at least four victims injured/killed in one location, excluding the perpetrator) in 2019 alone but we still haven’t further regulated firearms. A startling amount of the population would rather risk getting sick — and getting everyone else sick — than wear a mask during a pandemic, which is how the United States has 4% of the world’s population, and 26% of global Covid-19 cases! According to the CDC, we now have over 60,000 new cases a day, yet the federal government is pushing to reopen businesses and schools. But that’s alright; we’ve flattened the curve! Vertically.

I imagine my opponents in this debate would argue that those problems have nothing to do with the Founding Fathers. Which is true. The grievances I’ve listed are not their crosses to bear. But as I said before, the entirety of the statement has to be true. As such, these are points to discredit the USA’s purported greatness.

Setting that aside for a moment, there are many points the opposition could make in favor of Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton. After all, Adams nominated Washington to serve as commander in the Revolutionary War and Jefferson to draft the Declaration of Independence. He helped to negotiate the Treaty of Paris to end the war, and acted as the first American ambassador to Britain. As president, he took a strong stance and set an honest example by refusing to be bullied into unsavory terms during the XYZ Affair with France.

Jefferson, as Adams had nominated him, was the primary draftsman of the historic Declaration of Independence. He wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which established freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, and he founded the University of Virginia — the nation’s first secular university. During his presidency, he doubled the size of the US with the Louisiana Purchase and devised the Lewis and Clark expedition for further exploration. His extensive personal library went on to serve as the foundation for the Library of Congress.

Meanwhile, Hamilton contributed heavily to the American victory at Yorktown, and went on to play a key role in the ratification of the US Constitution. Defending the monumental document, he, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers: a series of 85 essays published in six months, of which Hamilton wrote 51. His persistence was also put to use as Secretary of the Treasury, where he established our national banking system.

All of these points are true. I’m not arguing the fact that these men were instrumental in the creation of the United States as we know it, nor that they have their accomplishments. However, the Founding Fathers also made their share of mistakes that we’re still suffering the consequences of.

In particular, I’m referring to the continued systemic racism, sexism, and party politics that can be traced all the way back to the precedents they set. The Declaration of Independence is well known for the statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” And yet the man who wrote these words, Thomas Jefferson, was a slave owner. Admittedly, he was also, at the time, an abolitionist, but even then he believed that black people were innately inferior both mentally and physically to those of European descent. By the early 1790s he had “rationalized an abomination to the point where an absolute moral reversal was reached,” and was bluntly treating slavery as an investment strategy. 

His estate of Monticello was, at any one time, residence of about 100 slaves, and he owned over six hundred in his lifetime. Furthermore, at least one of them, and probably five more, were actually children he had fathered with his spouse’s half-sister (who was the product of her father’s affair with one of his slaves). Not only is this infuriating on the basis of racism, but the implicit disrespect he (and Hamilton, who too had an affair) displays for his wife. In fact, Abigail Adams, John Adams’s wife, is reported as “perhaps the only woman he [Jefferson] ever treated as an intellectual equal.”

And then of course, there is the fault of major resonance I find in all three individuals: partisanism. George Washington is credited with saying, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” Despite this clear warning against just that, the Hamilton-Jefferson rivalry shaped America’s first political parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The ramifications of this early-on polarization can easily be felt in our modern two-party system, as can the childish way that Jefferson and Adams handled falling on different sides. Instead of properly discussing and debating their differing opinions, they effectively broke off their friendship, and for twelve years after Jefferson’s inauguration they exchanged no words at all.

To review, I disagree with the statement, “Without the ideas and leadership of Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton, the United States would not be the great nation it is today,” on the grounds that the US is clearly flawed, and while those men made note-worthy accomplishments, they also made resounding errors that continue to damage us as a country. Rather, I believe that, in some part thanks to the ideas and leadership of Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton, the United States has the potential to be a great nation. But we have a long way to go.

This is not the first time I have been posed with the prompt, “If your house were on fire and you could only save three items, what would they be?” This is, however, the first time I have sincerely and thoroughly tried to formulate an accurate response.

I’m going to presume that if my home were on fire and I could only save three items, cats, like people, do not count. Even if this were not the original case, I am electing to now make it so because if the cats did count they would be my only selection, and also I could not possibly choose between the four of them. I am further going to presume that “backpack” is not a valid option, since in the case of a real fire I would probably sweep as many nearby objects as possible into a bag, but that would defeat the purpose of this exercise.

The underlying question, “What is most precious to you?” is a difficult one to answer. My family, my friends, knowledge, happiness, and the stories I write, but most of these aren’t tangible, and in the given scenario none of them need saving. Of my possessions, I value a great many things, from collections of plush and books and ceramic dragons to pins and favorite T-shirts and a hand-carved wooden quetzal that was given to me by a friend. In truth, however, painful though it is, most of these are replaceable.

My first instinct, and my first choice, is to save my laptop. While it is technically also replaceable, in that all of my files are backed up to be accessible from other devices, it also means a great deal to me. My computer is my school, my library, my most consistent and unwavering connection to the world, and where I transcribe the worlds of words and wonder in my mind. I suspect, in the ensuing chaos of losing a home and most possessions, I would desperately need all of those in arm’s reach.

It may sound childish, but the next most important thing I want in arm’s reach is a stuffed animal. Specifically, Cilantro, the alligator I bought at a Cracker Barrel when I was nine, and wrote a book about the following month. A fairly short book, only about ten thousand words, but a book nonetheless, and that experience (along with his virtues as a pillow) makes him the particular one of my many beloved plush that I would save.

My last choice I knew would be sentimental as well, but what exactly proved a greater challenge. I factored out the replaceable: favorite books and blankets, my clarinet, the necklace with my Mayan astrological sign. Of the remaining, there is a piece of jade I carved while I was in Guatemala that I seriously considered as my third, but decided against. Jade might survive fire; my eighth grade yearbook most assuredly wouldn’t. Not only does that carry the significance of fond memories, but it was also my last year in the public school system, lending extra weight to the well-wishes and farewells in the cover, as well as the reminders of friends I now less frequently get to see.

“If your house were on fire and you could only save three items, what would they be?” is a difficult question to answer, and it becomes even more so the longer you consider it and the possessions you usually take for granted. Despite this, if I could only save three things I do not believe I would regret choosing the items I did.

A while back, I did a sampler post with Writing Prompts I found on Pinterest. Now, I’d like to show off another type of post I love reading. Those of you who have seen my Rosetta Stone and Duolingo posts might already be aware that I’m kind of obsessed with languages; beyond studying them, I also enjoy picking up stray words and phrases. As such, I’ve compiled a few fun examples from Pinterest for you. Enjoy!

Again, I’m exhausted, so I’m focusing on little happy things. But, honestly, we could all use more of that right now, so I can’t say I feel bad about this.

First off, we have hibiscus flowers in the garden! Of multiple varieties!

Also, I got some really neat stuff from my amazing godmother last weekend! I’m especially looking forward to reading through the cookbook and the explanations for each recipe with how they tie into their related fandoms.

Julius Caesar is a work rooted in history. Like history, and like many of Shakespeare’s other powerful plays, there’s a great deal of debate centered around it. In this case, whether the tragic hero is Julius Caesar or Marcus Brutus. For my part, I believe Caesar could easily have been the tragic hero. However, as Shakespeare chose to make Brutus the protagonist by focusing on Brutus’s decisions, conflicts, and demise, the role of tragic hero is his.

Allow me to begin with some definitions. A tragic hero is a protagonist who is doomed to fail due to a tragic flaw, and a protagonist is the main character of a story, around whom the narration revolves. Therefore, to prove that Brutus is the tragic hero, I will endeavor to explain why he is the protagonist.

It can be seen throughout the play that the narration is focused on Brutus and his conflicts and decisions. For instance, in Act 1, Scene 2, when Caesar turns down the crown, we instead are focused on Brutus’s conversation. If Caesar were the tragic hero, and thereby the protagonist, we should have seen this from his perspective, just as all of Brutus’s pivotal moments are centered on him. Yet rather, the whole ordeal was recounted second-hand, through Casca.

Furthermore, while it is true that Caesar is faced with a decision in Act 2, Scene 2, on whether or not to go the Senate, conspicuously absent are the stirring soliloquies characteristic of Shakespeare’s work. There was a decision that was made, questioned, and revised, but there was no conflict in Caesar; at least, not that we are privy to. The same is true of the opinions he expressed in Act 1, Scene 2. In contrast, a significant portion of Act 2, Scene 1, is focused on Brutus’s internal conflict and thought process leading to his conclusion that Caesar must die, and further in the determination of how with his co-conspirators.

Another point that suggests Brutus is the protagonist is the focus on his demise. While tragic heroes are defeated by their fatal flaws, and Caesar’s pride certainly was one, the fact that his death was in Act 3, Scene 1 of a five act play suggests that his fatal flaw and his demise were not the center of Shakespeare’s tale, but rather a catalyst for Brutus’s downfall. It was Brutus’s nobility that spurred him to let Mark Antony give a speech in the wake of Caesar’s death, which led the people to turn against him. He only ever wanted what was best for them, and we see that at every step of the way, where Caesar’s intentions largely remain clouded. Again, this focus on the inner workings of Brutus’s mind, but not Caesar’s, suggest that Brutus is the tragic hero. Furthermore, if it had been Caesar’s story, it either would have ended with his assassination or, during the fourth and fifth acts, would have focused on Mark Antony’s and Octavius’s attempts to avenge him, rather than Brutus’s continued fight for the good of Rome. Even in his dying line, he highlights his fatal flaw, his nobility: “Caesar, now be still. I killed not thee with half so good a will.” (SparkNotes translation: “Caesar, you can rest now. I didn’t kill you half as willingly.”) Because Brutus is the tragic hero, the play ends soon after his death, with only a due acknowledgment of his nobility from his enemies between that and the final drawing of the curtains.

As I said before, Caesar could well have been the tragic hero. However, because Shakespeare instead centered the narrative around Brutus’s decisions, conflicts and demise, making him the protagonist, I believe it is clear that though the play is titled Julius Caesar, it is Marcus Brutus who is the tragic hero.