I was doing some research on Auschwitz and I came across a quote that I think ties into our discussion quite well – Edward Bond said “Auschwitz was a place in which tragedy cannot occur.” I could not disagree more. I think that for the people in Auschwitz and the people behind Auschwitz it was a huge tragedy. The life altering experiences that each person who was either in the camp or saw the aftermath of the camp are surely indescribable. I don’t think we can begin to comprehend the total lack of care and concern that was felt for the people in the camps. I can’t help but wonder if I were in the camp would I have the desire and will to push on though each day like so many others did? In the time of the “now” society and the luxury that most Americans live in, I honestly can’t see many of us coming out of Auschwitz. Many people wonder about the lack of actions by the Germans, and why they didn’t do anything about the atrocities they knew were being committed, but what could they do?
If I try and imagine putting myself in the shoes of a prisoner in Auschwitz, the first thing that comes to mind is the humiliation. They were humiliated in so many ways, not only physically, but sociologically too. The humiliation of having your pride and identity taken away from you is tragic. But, if they were to focus on the tragedy being inflicted on themselves they would be even more quickly overcome by the almost inevitable death that was intended for them. I can’t even begin to put myself in those shoes. Being stripped of everything I know and love, and forced to work every day with inadequate clothing, food, and basic necessities. Somehow though, so many of these men and women were able to find the strength to get up and press on. Would you? Would you do something if you knew this was being done to someone who used to be your neighbor, your friend, or your family?
I know that a lot of people are perplexed as to why the German people sat idly by and watched Auschwitz and the other concentration camps happen. In reality though, what could they do? Write Hitler a letter? Being under a government like the Nazis doesn’t leave much room for disagreement. I would hate to be put in the shoes of the German people who had nothing against the Jews. Unless the German people could get an enormous group of people who were against the concentration camps, nothing could be done to stop it. Even if they were able to get a large body of supporters together, what would they do? I’ve tried to think of things that could be done, but what would keep the SS from sending them to the camps too? I think that Auschwitz was not only a tragedy for the people in it, but it was also tragic for the people of Germany as well. It is tragic that people probably lived with guilt their entire lives for turning in their neighbor for being Jewish when their only other option was death for themselves and their family. To me, Auschwitz and everything encompassing it was tragic.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Women and work
When we discussed the women of the Soviet Union and their roles in Communism it was an area that I hadn’t put much thought into, and subsequently found it interesting. The pressure put on the women to join the clubs and be the “good” communist woman was something that I feel like we in some ways still see today. Not in the sense of being communist, but in America women are encouraged to do certain things and act a certain way. The reaction of the Bolshevik working women to the women’s departments was something that women still do today. These women wanted to be seen as equal to men, they wanted to be able to work without being harassed, and they wanted to be valued as workers. These women were women who didn’t want to be associated with a “promiscuous” crowd, they wanted fair treatment in the work place, and they wanted protection.
As we talked about in class - the perception that was associated with the Komsomal group was not a good one. If there is a group that people associated with being promiscuous and a place to get pregnant, who wants to be part of that? Not the upright women, not the moms, not the girls who want to get married and become the upright moms. I can see that being applied to girls and women today. Rarely do you see girls that want to have solid reputations working in strip clubs; not because they wouldn’t be able to do it, but because they don’t want the stigma that comes with that line of work. I am in no way bashing the girls that do that for a living, but the connotations from society are not good when this is your line of work. Therefore, why would the women in Russia want to be associated a group who has the same connotations attached to it? I would do the same thing as those women and start sewing circles and groups that taught the things necessary to be a contributing part of the home. As a young woman it would be better to be seen doing the wholesome activities as a potential wife, rather than hanging out with the “rough” crowd.
These women also wanted to be treated fairly in the work place. Women of today want the same thing, this is a struggle fought today in many work environments. The average women in 2007 made 11 cents on the dollar less than a man doing the same job. In 1988 women made 28 cents on the dollar less than men. The difference has lessened, but the gap is still there simply because it is a woman doing the job. It was the same for the women working in Russia; they wanted to be seen as equal works to the men. The women wanted the women’s department to defend their rights as women to be paid equally and not get sexually harassed in the process, but the departments failed. I think the communist could have gained the support of so many more women if they had been there to support these women when they needed it. When they were raped and when they couldn’t feed their children; that is when they needed help, and that type of help would have earned the communist the support of the working woman. Today, women have greater influence and they are able to defend themselves with greater support, but the work environment is still in many ways a man’s world. I understand the frustration of the Bolshevik women when they are so strongly encouraged to participate, but when they do, there are no benefits. They didn’t get the help they needed, so why should they support the communist?
As we talked about in class - the perception that was associated with the Komsomal group was not a good one. If there is a group that people associated with being promiscuous and a place to get pregnant, who wants to be part of that? Not the upright women, not the moms, not the girls who want to get married and become the upright moms. I can see that being applied to girls and women today. Rarely do you see girls that want to have solid reputations working in strip clubs; not because they wouldn’t be able to do it, but because they don’t want the stigma that comes with that line of work. I am in no way bashing the girls that do that for a living, but the connotations from society are not good when this is your line of work. Therefore, why would the women in Russia want to be associated a group who has the same connotations attached to it? I would do the same thing as those women and start sewing circles and groups that taught the things necessary to be a contributing part of the home. As a young woman it would be better to be seen doing the wholesome activities as a potential wife, rather than hanging out with the “rough” crowd.
These women also wanted to be treated fairly in the work place. Women of today want the same thing, this is a struggle fought today in many work environments. The average women in 2007 made 11 cents on the dollar less than a man doing the same job. In 1988 women made 28 cents on the dollar less than men. The difference has lessened, but the gap is still there simply because it is a woman doing the job. It was the same for the women working in Russia; they wanted to be seen as equal works to the men. The women wanted the women’s department to defend their rights as women to be paid equally and not get sexually harassed in the process, but the departments failed. I think the communist could have gained the support of so many more women if they had been there to support these women when they needed it. When they were raped and when they couldn’t feed their children; that is when they needed help, and that type of help would have earned the communist the support of the working woman. Today, women have greater influence and they are able to defend themselves with greater support, but the work environment is still in many ways a man’s world. I understand the frustration of the Bolshevik women when they are so strongly encouraged to participate, but when they do, there are no benefits. They didn’t get the help they needed, so why should they support the communist?
Friday, July 9, 2010
WWI
I have enjoyed learning more about WWI this week in class, and I’m sure that it will only get more interesting from here. When it comes to learning about history, from this point forward is probably my favorite time period. I’m not sure if it’s because it seems more real due to pictures and such, or if it’s because there are still people alive from this period of time; but, whatever the reason, I really enjoy it. When we discussed the letters, the Wipers Times, and mentioned the poetry in class today I was able to see a different perspective that was not one I had previously considered. I’m sure I’m not the only one who really enjoys this time period, and seeing it from a different angle has been interesting.
One of the reasons I enjoyed the letters and Wipers Times was because it gives you the perspective of both the officers in the back, and the men in front on the ground. I feel like the letters showed us the more noble and proud attitudes that a lot of the higher-up men had, while the Wipers Times showed us the dark humor and at times whining attitudes of the men up front. The proud attitude held by all of the men involved is visible throughout all of the literary works that we read. They might not have been proud of why they were fighting, but they were proud of themselves and their comrades for the men that they were.
Although we didn’t talk much about it in class, I really enjoyed the poetry that we read. I think poetry is a beautiful way to portray something as ugly as war. Some of the poetry was graphic and showed the less glorious side of war, while some was inspiring and telling of the minds and attitudes of soldiers from the eyes of another. I don’t know the history of each of the poets whose work we read, but it could be more inspiring if the poetry came from someone with first-hand experience. The poetry that Jesse Pope wrote that glorified war and the soldier along with the later written refute from Wilfred Owen shows that even in writing about war, everyone has a different perspective. Owen shows the more gruesome and haunting effects that war can have, while Pope writes about the pride and glory that it can have as well.
All of the things we have read about WWI and all who were involved have been interesting and at times fun. As we continue to read and discuss the happenings of the world during and after WWI, I hope to gain a greater knowledge and different perspective of the people and places that were involved. The letters and poetry are just a few examples of view-points that we might not always get to see, but that give insight beyond the average history book. This time period is full of perspectives and people that were influential in essentially changing the world. Though this could be argued for all of history, I think that from the 1900s to present is more influential because of the global changes that were brought about by many of its events.
One of the reasons I enjoyed the letters and Wipers Times was because it gives you the perspective of both the officers in the back, and the men in front on the ground. I feel like the letters showed us the more noble and proud attitudes that a lot of the higher-up men had, while the Wipers Times showed us the dark humor and at times whining attitudes of the men up front. The proud attitude held by all of the men involved is visible throughout all of the literary works that we read. They might not have been proud of why they were fighting, but they were proud of themselves and their comrades for the men that they were.
Although we didn’t talk much about it in class, I really enjoyed the poetry that we read. I think poetry is a beautiful way to portray something as ugly as war. Some of the poetry was graphic and showed the less glorious side of war, while some was inspiring and telling of the minds and attitudes of soldiers from the eyes of another. I don’t know the history of each of the poets whose work we read, but it could be more inspiring if the poetry came from someone with first-hand experience. The poetry that Jesse Pope wrote that glorified war and the soldier along with the later written refute from Wilfred Owen shows that even in writing about war, everyone has a different perspective. Owen shows the more gruesome and haunting effects that war can have, while Pope writes about the pride and glory that it can have as well.
All of the things we have read about WWI and all who were involved have been interesting and at times fun. As we continue to read and discuss the happenings of the world during and after WWI, I hope to gain a greater knowledge and different perspective of the people and places that were involved. The letters and poetry are just a few examples of view-points that we might not always get to see, but that give insight beyond the average history book. This time period is full of perspectives and people that were influential in essentially changing the world. Though this could be argued for all of history, I think that from the 1900s to present is more influential because of the global changes that were brought about by many of its events.
Friday, July 2, 2010
time or stuff?
Happy 4th of July weekend to all!
After reading and discussing Conspicuous Consumption, it was very interesting to me how split the class was on whether our society is more focused on consumption or leisure. The more we talked about it the greater the split became. Some people used the show “Cribs” as an example that we are a more about the stuff, while others used the example of becoming a fine wine connoisseur as a leisure activity to show that time is more valuable. I personally would like to have a mixture of both; I don’t need a lot of great stuff or all the time in the world, but I would like to have time to enjoy the nice things that I do have. I do wonder if that is possible? Can you have both or is it one or the other? Is it like The Eagles song that says “you can spend all your time making money, or you can spend all your money making time.”
I think that to live a life full of stuff would be an easier thing to do without having a large financial base to start than a life of leisure. It is feasible to work hard and get things along the way, more than it is to live a life of leisure at a young age. The amount of stuff a person can acquire is only limited by their willingness to work hard. Acquiring goods depending on the quality of those goods can be done before retirement if a person is wise with their money or has a way to make large amounts of money. But, famous people are usually the people we look to as an example of great consumers. They have huge houses full of toys and garages with more cars than they know what to do with. To reach the level of consumption that very wealthy people achieve is possible for anyone, but the chances are slim. I think that most people who say that we are a society who is consumption based are correct, but the examples they use are the extremes of society.
To live a life of leisure I feel like it requires a large monetary base. To sit around and enjoy stuff or the lack of stuff to do is not something the average working person can do for any extended period of time. I think our society does idolize the person who has the option to do this. The American “dream” is to work hard until you can retire. The ultimate goal is to not have to work. To have the luxury of time I feel like you have to already have the luxury of money. I could very well be wrong? I think the split in class of people who said the goal was leisure were just as correct as the people who said it was consumption, but does it require the ability to consume to have leisure? The quest for time is one that we are all on. More time for friends, more time for family, and more time to play. Does the drive for time outweigh the drive for stuff?
The discussion in class was very though provoking. I don’t feel like we can definitively say that our society is consumer driven or leisure driven. While our society is a consumer society as a whole, I don’t think excessive consumption is the goal of everyone. In the article Conspicuous Consumption it seemed like the goal was just consumption, but to do that the people had to have time. Is there a balance of excess leisure and excessive consumption? Or is it a choice that has to be made? I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive, I think a balance can be found. I think our goal should be to find that balance, like Aristotle said “moderation in all things.”
After reading and discussing Conspicuous Consumption, it was very interesting to me how split the class was on whether our society is more focused on consumption or leisure. The more we talked about it the greater the split became. Some people used the show “Cribs” as an example that we are a more about the stuff, while others used the example of becoming a fine wine connoisseur as a leisure activity to show that time is more valuable. I personally would like to have a mixture of both; I don’t need a lot of great stuff or all the time in the world, but I would like to have time to enjoy the nice things that I do have. I do wonder if that is possible? Can you have both or is it one or the other? Is it like The Eagles song that says “you can spend all your time making money, or you can spend all your money making time.”
I think that to live a life full of stuff would be an easier thing to do without having a large financial base to start than a life of leisure. It is feasible to work hard and get things along the way, more than it is to live a life of leisure at a young age. The amount of stuff a person can acquire is only limited by their willingness to work hard. Acquiring goods depending on the quality of those goods can be done before retirement if a person is wise with their money or has a way to make large amounts of money. But, famous people are usually the people we look to as an example of great consumers. They have huge houses full of toys and garages with more cars than they know what to do with. To reach the level of consumption that very wealthy people achieve is possible for anyone, but the chances are slim. I think that most people who say that we are a society who is consumption based are correct, but the examples they use are the extremes of society.
To live a life of leisure I feel like it requires a large monetary base. To sit around and enjoy stuff or the lack of stuff to do is not something the average working person can do for any extended period of time. I think our society does idolize the person who has the option to do this. The American “dream” is to work hard until you can retire. The ultimate goal is to not have to work. To have the luxury of time I feel like you have to already have the luxury of money. I could very well be wrong? I think the split in class of people who said the goal was leisure were just as correct as the people who said it was consumption, but does it require the ability to consume to have leisure? The quest for time is one that we are all on. More time for friends, more time for family, and more time to play. Does the drive for time outweigh the drive for stuff?
The discussion in class was very though provoking. I don’t feel like we can definitively say that our society is consumer driven or leisure driven. While our society is a consumer society as a whole, I don’t think excessive consumption is the goal of everyone. In the article Conspicuous Consumption it seemed like the goal was just consumption, but to do that the people had to have time. Is there a balance of excess leisure and excessive consumption? Or is it a choice that has to be made? I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive, I think a balance can be found. I think our goal should be to find that balance, like Aristotle said “moderation in all things.”
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Bourgeoisie
In class we talked about the differences between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat class during and after the Industrial Revolution. We discussed that the Bourgeoisie or Middle Class is not necessarily what we think of as our middle class today, just as the Proletariat class is not the equal of our lower class. The differences seem to me more like the difference between the upper class and the middle class of present. But, I think our middle class has a lot more in common with the Bourgeoisie than the Proletariat when a closer look is taken.
Our middle class is not seen oppressors of the lower class, but we have much in common with the Bourgeoisie. We believe that a person can increase their power through honest hard work, which is true of all classes, but I feel like it is lived out in the middle class. The values and discipline of the middle class are evident in their hard work, as well as their planning for the future thought savings and investments. People in the middle class tend to dress in the same style i.e. Polo, Ralph Lauren, and Coach. They are usually educated and well versed. There is a distinction made between their work lives and their home lives. Middle class people tend to work regular 9-5 jobs. They do not work the grave-yard shift, and rarely do they work in factories. While the trend today is for both members of a couple to have a job, it has not always been that way in the middle class, which during the Bourgeoisie time was a clear distinction between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie. Women of the middle class usually have the option of being stay at home moms if they choose to. In contrast, the lower class of today does not have that option.
To equate our middle class with the Proletariat class does not seem like a parallel comparison. I am not saying that we were told to compare today’s middle class with the Proletariat class, but if we were to make the comparison I feel like our middle class better compares to the Bourgeoisie. The Proletariat class had an average life expectancy of 17 years. It was not abnormal to have your entire family, children included, working in the same factory or mine for a 10-14 hour day. Women did not have the option of staying at home, nor did their children. Their dress was usually the same as everyone else’s, simple, cheap, and functional. They probably had some sort of dialect slightly off the proper language. And most importantly, they understood that the chances of moving into the middle class were virtually impossible. They knew they were under the oppression of the Bourgeoisie and at their mercy when it came to having work.
While we do not live in the times of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, there will always be class distinctions and social differences. I think that our middle class better relates to the Bourgeoisie class and their consumer lifestyle more than the forever-working Proletariat. Both classes shared their lives with their fellow class members, but the Proletariat seemed to cultivate stronger bonds through their hardships. This unity can be seen in the lower class still today.
Our middle class is not seen oppressors of the lower class, but we have much in common with the Bourgeoisie. We believe that a person can increase their power through honest hard work, which is true of all classes, but I feel like it is lived out in the middle class. The values and discipline of the middle class are evident in their hard work, as well as their planning for the future thought savings and investments. People in the middle class tend to dress in the same style i.e. Polo, Ralph Lauren, and Coach. They are usually educated and well versed. There is a distinction made between their work lives and their home lives. Middle class people tend to work regular 9-5 jobs. They do not work the grave-yard shift, and rarely do they work in factories. While the trend today is for both members of a couple to have a job, it has not always been that way in the middle class, which during the Bourgeoisie time was a clear distinction between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie. Women of the middle class usually have the option of being stay at home moms if they choose to. In contrast, the lower class of today does not have that option.
To equate our middle class with the Proletariat class does not seem like a parallel comparison. I am not saying that we were told to compare today’s middle class with the Proletariat class, but if we were to make the comparison I feel like our middle class better compares to the Bourgeoisie. The Proletariat class had an average life expectancy of 17 years. It was not abnormal to have your entire family, children included, working in the same factory or mine for a 10-14 hour day. Women did not have the option of staying at home, nor did their children. Their dress was usually the same as everyone else’s, simple, cheap, and functional. They probably had some sort of dialect slightly off the proper language. And most importantly, they understood that the chances of moving into the middle class were virtually impossible. They knew they were under the oppression of the Bourgeoisie and at their mercy when it came to having work.
While we do not live in the times of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, there will always be class distinctions and social differences. I think that our middle class better relates to the Bourgeoisie class and their consumer lifestyle more than the forever-working Proletariat. Both classes shared their lives with their fellow class members, but the Proletariat seemed to cultivate stronger bonds through their hardships. This unity can be seen in the lower class still today.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Napoleon - love or hate?
This post is not really an opinion or debate as much as it is a question. The more we learned about Napoleon through looking at the pictures and reading about him, the more I wonder if his situation could be applied to many historical figures? I’m sure there are many examples in history of people that we are taught to see as great, but if further studied, we would find otherwise. If we were to look, we could probably find just as many examples of positive literature and graphics of Napoleon as we could negative. While on the surface we are shown the bold and fearless leader, when a more in-depth look is taken, we see the cowardly, small man. Napoleon was loved by many of the French people, but he was also disliked by many others.
In all honesty, I never really put much thought into Napoleon in one way or the other. I just knew he was some French guy that fought a lot of battles and did a few notable things in France. I had seen the pictures of him on his grand steed looking quite noble, and heard the history of some of his battles. After learning more about him, I learned that a lot of the French people really loved him. He was their hero! And I think this is the Napoleon most of us are shown. We see the Napoleon who has songs written about him, who had dishes with his crest on them, and the man who was small in stature but large in spirit and fearlessness. But, I think like many historical figures, we romanticize him. We put the short man on a big horse and forget his cowardly behavior. He did a lot for France, and I am sure it will never be forgotten, just as I am sure there will forever be people who refuse to see him as anything other than their hero who can do no wrong.
Conversely, there are many people who are less than impressed with Napoleon and his performance as the Emperor of France. As we saw in class, there is plenty of propaganda that is less than flattering. These views are the views that most people do not see. There were plenty of people who saw Napoleon as a less than capable leader who chose to flee when times got tough. Through the images we looked at in class we could see that many people likened him to the devil. He was by no means loved by all of the French people! If we were to take a look at other figures in history, I am sure we could find a plethora of examples to match Napoleon. Again, I never really looked to see if he was as great as I have read of him, but upon further reading I see that maybe he is not the fearless leader who can do no wrong. I was unaware of the ill feelings toward him. The images portraying him as a short little man who was fled at every opportunity show the feelings that some people have. He was not everyone’s hero, he was not their fearless leader; he was a man who got his way though killing and force.
Again, I do not feel one way or the other about Napoleon. It was interesting to see both sides of his story and see how the French viewed him. To some he was their leader, to some he was far from it. I feel like that can be said of many people in history and even today.
In all honesty, I never really put much thought into Napoleon in one way or the other. I just knew he was some French guy that fought a lot of battles and did a few notable things in France. I had seen the pictures of him on his grand steed looking quite noble, and heard the history of some of his battles. After learning more about him, I learned that a lot of the French people really loved him. He was their hero! And I think this is the Napoleon most of us are shown. We see the Napoleon who has songs written about him, who had dishes with his crest on them, and the man who was small in stature but large in spirit and fearlessness. But, I think like many historical figures, we romanticize him. We put the short man on a big horse and forget his cowardly behavior. He did a lot for France, and I am sure it will never be forgotten, just as I am sure there will forever be people who refuse to see him as anything other than their hero who can do no wrong.
Conversely, there are many people who are less than impressed with Napoleon and his performance as the Emperor of France. As we saw in class, there is plenty of propaganda that is less than flattering. These views are the views that most people do not see. There were plenty of people who saw Napoleon as a less than capable leader who chose to flee when times got tough. Through the images we looked at in class we could see that many people likened him to the devil. He was by no means loved by all of the French people! If we were to take a look at other figures in history, I am sure we could find a plethora of examples to match Napoleon. Again, I never really looked to see if he was as great as I have read of him, but upon further reading I see that maybe he is not the fearless leader who can do no wrong. I was unaware of the ill feelings toward him. The images portraying him as a short little man who was fled at every opportunity show the feelings that some people have. He was not everyone’s hero, he was not their fearless leader; he was a man who got his way though killing and force.
Again, I do not feel one way or the other about Napoleon. It was interesting to see both sides of his story and see how the French viewed him. To some he was their leader, to some he was far from it. I feel like that can be said of many people in history and even today.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Sapere Aude!
On Thursday we talked about the Enlightenment and what it meant. We discussed the motto by Kant - Sapere Aude! “Dare to know!” I was asked in class if I thought it was an appropriate motto for the time and events taking place. While I am sure it can be argued that the motto is adequate; I disagree with that thought. I think the motto leaves something to be desired in describing this time period. There are examples of people and mottos that define or mark a radical time period, and there are people and mottos that are just remembered or associated with a time period.
Some examples of radical people include Galileo and with his heliocentric view, Martin Luther and his 95 thesis, Albert Einstein and his physics approach that was contrary to the popular beliefs, Amelia Earhart and her radical flying career, Christopher Columbus and his view of a round world. The list could go on and on. Some mottos that were defining of a place, time period, or people include the Marine Corps motto - Semper fidelis “Always faithful,” Martin Luther King Jr – “I have a dream,” Hitler’s Youth – Blut und Ehre “Blood and Honor.” All of these mottos and people were radical! Their views and sayings exemplified their beliefs and goals. While Sapere Aude! does express what the philosophes wanted the people to do, it does not define this movement or pattern of thought. People who were truly daring did things that others did not, this does not include going along with what the philosophes wanted everyone to do. I understand that during that time it was not common for people to voice their thoughts or opinions, but it was not radical to have one’s own thoughts. I think that the philosophes wanted people to act on their beliefs, not to just have them. Some mottos and people are memorable, but that did not make them daring or radical.
A few examples of memorable, but not radical people include Babe Ruth, Theodore Roosevelt, Marilyn Monroe, and Tupac. Mottos that we know and remember include “Just Do It” by Nike, “I’m Lovin’ it” by McDonalds, “Be the Change You Want to See” by Gandhi, “May the Force Be With You” from Star Wars. We remember these people and these mottos, but that does not mean they define or are the best example of a given time period. To say that any of these people or these mottos are radical would be giving them more credit than they are due. In saying that Sapere Aude! is the motto of the Enlightenment is almost like saying that before this time, people did not think. I think that the motto should have been “Dare to Speak!,” because people have always been able and free to think.
I’m sure this can be argued either way, but this is just my point of view about the discussion this week. Please Dare to Speak!
Some examples of radical people include Galileo and with his heliocentric view, Martin Luther and his 95 thesis, Albert Einstein and his physics approach that was contrary to the popular beliefs, Amelia Earhart and her radical flying career, Christopher Columbus and his view of a round world. The list could go on and on. Some mottos that were defining of a place, time period, or people include the Marine Corps motto - Semper fidelis “Always faithful,” Martin Luther King Jr – “I have a dream,” Hitler’s Youth – Blut und Ehre “Blood and Honor.” All of these mottos and people were radical! Their views and sayings exemplified their beliefs and goals. While Sapere Aude! does express what the philosophes wanted the people to do, it does not define this movement or pattern of thought. People who were truly daring did things that others did not, this does not include going along with what the philosophes wanted everyone to do. I understand that during that time it was not common for people to voice their thoughts or opinions, but it was not radical to have one’s own thoughts. I think that the philosophes wanted people to act on their beliefs, not to just have them. Some mottos and people are memorable, but that did not make them daring or radical.
A few examples of memorable, but not radical people include Babe Ruth, Theodore Roosevelt, Marilyn Monroe, and Tupac. Mottos that we know and remember include “Just Do It” by Nike, “I’m Lovin’ it” by McDonalds, “Be the Change You Want to See” by Gandhi, “May the Force Be With You” from Star Wars. We remember these people and these mottos, but that does not mean they define or are the best example of a given time period. To say that any of these people or these mottos are radical would be giving them more credit than they are due. In saying that Sapere Aude! is the motto of the Enlightenment is almost like saying that before this time, people did not think. I think that the motto should have been “Dare to Speak!,” because people have always been able and free to think.
I’m sure this can be argued either way, but this is just my point of view about the discussion this week. Please Dare to Speak!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)