This is the fourth segment of the conversation/discussion I have been having with a friend. As with previous posts, their comments begin with F: and mine with X:
F: White people are told that we should feel ashamed for the actions of our ancestors (slavery, colonialism, imperialism, etc), but we are also told that we should not feel pride for the successes of our ancestors (ending slavery, winning wars, giving rights to women and minorities). This is hypocritical. Why should I only associate with the actions of my ancestors when they are evil? X: This is a really good question and one that I have thought about before. I think there is a really wide spectrum of beliefs on this topic. I, personally, believe that we should not ignore or suppress the successes and achievements of our predecessors. However, it is more important to focus on their shortcomings and injustices that have not been recognized, corrected or properly atoned for. Additionally, it is important to honestly evaluate our institutions, traditions, and actions in order to determine if they were created and upheld by the aforementioned shortcomings and injustices perpetrated by our predecessors. If there is evidence of such injustice, it needs to be recognized, corrected if necessary, and properly atoned for. F: I personally believe that Universities are becoming too biased towards the left. In many classes (especially ones like gender studies, black studies, history, etc) will often not allow alternative opinions to be expressed. Whether or not someone is right or left wing is irrelevant, university is a place where your ideas should be challenged. There are also classes in some universities on how to impeach President Trump. While I don’t like him, this seems like a waste of money and time. What are your opinions on this? X: (I want to preface this response with the assumption that we are generally talking about US universities here) Again, this is a fantastic question and one that I have really thought on. I do agree that many universities, or departments within, or the population, are becoming biased towards the left. (Something I find ironic since colleges in the US have historically been the sources of extreme discrimination, primarily sex and race based) I believe that the courses you mentioned are necessary as part of the recognition and correction of historical injustice and oppression I mentioned earlier, but like you said, there is definitely the suppression of alternative opinions. I am a huge supporter of the First Amendment, (I have a great book on it if you want to borrow it) and I do believe the First Amendment is being explicitly, and non-explicitly violated fairly frequently in universities in the US. However, I do think it is worth pointing out that there is some hypocrisy to people calling this out without properly recognizing the extensive history of universities suppressing left-wing opinions. I’m not saying that the current suppression is justified because of this. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but this goes back to question 2. We need to properly recognize, correct and atone. F: Do you think social justice is going too far? I think it is. Kink and fetish pride is becoming normalized, child drag queens are now a thing and are acceptable (despite drag being a very sexual hobby), so many genders and sexualities being created for the sake of being different, and so much more. As the world becomes more connected and cultures begin to become more similar, people in the west seem to be very confused about their identities. Thoughts? X: I have thoughts, but I am hesitant to voice them. Not for fear of what people might say, but more because I don’t feel I have a good enough understanding of that world. I am a straight, white man who has had relatively little contact with the scene/world/movement you mentioned. In regard to what you said about kink pride, fetish pride, and drag, I think that laws in the US currently provide enough protection to those specific communities. If a child is in an overly sexual position, there are laws to protect and remove them. If a kink or fetish is being conducted in public that can be considered offensive or inappropriate, there are laws to stop that. I think that someday this will become a larger discussion, which it should because of its increasing prevalence, but for now we need to focus on recognizing, creating, and improving the basic civil rights of members of the LGBT community. You mentioned the creation of many new genders and sexualities, something I have noticed and consider myself to be sceptical of. In some ways, I find it hard to believe that humans could have such a large number of genders and sexualities. At the same time, there is one organ we are far from understanding, the brain. In that sense, I believe there could be more than we conventionally realize, based upon pure lack of scientific understanding. However, I don’t want to take a real stand on it until I, as a straight, white man, have a better understanding on the issue. F: When does patriotism end and nationalism begin? X: You are really hitting hard on this and hitting me with questions that I consider to be complex and important. I consider myself a strong patriot and not a nationalist. I do believe the line blurs between the two at times and it isn’t true for every person or citizen. I believe patriotism is based on your love for a country and recognition of that country for what it is. A patriot sees what is good about their country, currently and historically and works to improve their country based on that, as well as values and beliefs. They work to make the good things better, but also to recognize, correct and atone for shortcomings. I believe the line between patriotism and nationalism is crossed when the concept of equality is breached. As a patriot, I believe that all humans, across the world are equal, regardless of what country I come from. A nationalist, however, believes that some people are better than others based upon which country they are from. I do believe that there is a certain amount of blind faith that can be damaging as it can lead to the responsibility to recognize, correct, and atone for injustices, failures, and shortcomings perpetrated by that country, currently or historically, to be ignored or deflected. Additionally, the ideology of nationalism, historically and currently, leads to racism, xenophobia, harassment, discrimination, and ultimately violence, on small and large scales. For me personally as a patriot, I believe that my country was founded on a foundation of ideals based on equality, justice, opportunity and freedom. However, it was also founded on a foundation of supremacy, racism, violence, and oppression. Many of the injustices that my country was created from are visible and active today. As a patriot, I want to uphold the positive traditions and ideals that my country was founded on, as well as recognize, correct, and atone for the injustices that are part of my legacy. F: Do you agree with the statement that the natives should be the majority in their own countries, even with diversity? X: This one is tricky and I think that difficulty stems from the definition of natives, as you could theoretically say that we are all native to Africa. However, I will assume that we are going by general continental nativity. In that case, I would say it shouldn’t matter who is the majority. We are all human beings and it shouldn’t matter who “belongs” and who doesn’t. F: From what I and many others have observed, humans seem to segregate themselves. In nations where there is lots of diversity people often stay in areas where there are lots of people like them. Blacks often live with blacks, whites often live with whites, asians often live with asians, and so on. Is this diversity? Again, this depends on the definition, in this case the definition of diversity. I think that humans tend to segregate ourselves based on race to a certain point because we are instinctually tribal creatures. When we are within circles of group definition where there is no clear definition of what creates subgroups, we go by what we see, which is race. This leads to the development of different cultures, traditions, etc. This is diversity in the sense that there is a wide variety of different cultures, traditions, experiences, etc. If so, how is this any different from having separate nations (other than a joint government)? X: It is different because people of different races can still unite under the same ideals, values and experiences that define a nation. F: You mentioned that the world needs to be diverse. Isn’t it already diverse? Do we have to live side by side for the world to be considered diverse? X: I would say that we don’t have to live side by side for the world as a whole to be diverse, but it is necessary in order for specific, smaller communities (continents, countries, states, cities, neighbourhoods) to be diverse. In this case, there is no negative aspect to such diversity. Diversity allows us to experience and learn from other cultures and grow as individuals, as such interaction allows us to dispel biases and misconceptions we have. F: Doesn’t diversity kill tourism? You may go to another nation to see tourist attractions, but you also go to experience the culture there. If we all live side by side, the whole world will have the same culture. X: Diversity doesn’t kill tourism. Diversity fosters the blending and evolution of different cultures in to even more diverse, storied and vibrant cultures. Diversity doesn’t create one singular culture. Diversity doesn’t define culture; it just helps shape it. The other factors that create different cultures include experience, history, and much more. As a tourist going from a diverse nation to another, you will experience the different culture that is unique to that place. F: Globalism is mostly about the economy and foreign policy. Globalism especially benefits corporations. Does this reason to embrace globalism not seem materialistic and in favour of the political and corporate elite? X: Yes, globalism does benefit large corporations, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. What that depends on is how governments regulate those corporations in order to protect and benefit citizens and the environment. I do believe that globalism is good for the world. It facilitates the spread of ideas, understandings and the diversification of cultures. All of this enriches the human experience. Yes, there are downsides. Unregulated corporations can do damage to people and the environment and the enhanced speed at which people and cultures interact with each other can create conflict. However, I do believe that the growth that humans have experienced as a result of globalism is invaluable. F: Multiculturalism has caused many racial and cultural clashes; how much blood must be shed until we have our multicultural “utopia”? I wouldn’t say that there can be a multicultural utopia. Human nature and the way humans interact with each other means that there will never be a time when we achieve a society (of any kind) that has no cultural/societal change. I do believe that we can achieve a time when we have no violent conflict. However, the path to that peace is through multiculturalism and diversification. The blending and diversification of cultures does lead to some conflict born of misunderstanding, but that is to be expected. The larger effect multiculturalism has is the challenging of biases and misconception and a better understanding of humanity. We desperately need that kind of understanding, empathy, and relatability in order to achieve world peace. F: Canadians dislike Americans because we are so similar, and we have very little that sets us apart as a nation. Canadians have lost all cultural and national identity. This has caused lots of resentment and sometimes even hatred of Americans. When we are all multicultural nations, what will stop this feeling of resentment towards everyone from escalating? X: That is a rare example, mainly because the US and Canada have relatively similar cultures and histories. I can think of many multicultural nations that don’t have that kind of problem. Multiculturalism facilitates the increased understanding of those who surround us and people around the world. I want to know what you would say if I had asked the same questions you did. I also want to know what you think about my responses. This is awesome! One of the pillars of a functional democracy is free and civil discourse!
0 Comments
This is a further continuation of the conversation/discussion I have been having with my friend. Their comments begin with F: and mine with X:
F: Do you think the EU will either collapse or be reformed within the next decade? X: Yes. I don’t think it will collapse, but Brexit has significantly altered the political landscape in Europe. That combined with civil unrest in France plus the large rise of the extreme right in Poland, plus the influence of Trump’s words/actions/policies, AND Putin/Russia’s interference has weakened the strength of the EU and faith in its importance (it is extremely important) (this weakening is exactly what Putin/Russia want) I think that we will see one of two things over the next decade:
If neither of these things happen, there could be extremely adverse effects, both economically, politically and socially. I’m talking economic collapse on a Great Depression scale, a war that could lead to WWIII or in the best case scenario, widespread injustices that infringe on civil and social rights We need the EU, NATO, and UN F: I agree. You have mentioned the rise of the extreme right in Poland (this is also the case in Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria, Italy, etc), What is the extreme right? What do they believe in? What is the difference between the right-wing and extreme right? X: I just said Poland because I consider them the textbook case of the phenomenon that is occurring in Europe. I consider the extreme right to be the movement that supports a generalized agenda of discrimination based upon social and human lines. Each national extreme right-wing movement is different with a larger emphasis on certain aspects of the generalized agenda. However, the agenda of the extreme right wing can be generalized. They are different from the right wing in the sense that their views are more extreme (more polarising, more discriminatory, more exclusive) and the means they are willing to use are more extreme. I would consider the extreme right wing to be a fringe movement, but they are gaining popularity, hence becoming less fringe, which is quite dangerous. While a more central right winger may say “deport them all” (which is a generalization, but it is an oversimplification for argument's sake) an extreme right-winger would say “we need to make them want to leave” and go use extremist, violent means to do that. (I mean actions including discrimination, intimidation, harassment, assault, and even murder). F: Okay, I understand and agree with you. Why is it that the only places that “need diversity” are first world countries? African, Asian, and South American countries are largely monoethnic. Canada, America, and Europe have lots more diversity than those places, why do we need more and they need little/none? If boats full of migrants show up in Europe its migration, but if boats full of migrants show up in Africa its colonization (ignore reasons someone might migrate); Why? X: The world needs diversity, not just first-world countries. This is an aspect of pro-diversity that is often ignored but has a reason. There is less diversity in 2/3 world countries because of the economic conditions. People from 1st world countries have little motivation to go to Lesser Economic Regions (LER) You mentioned colonialism, which is one of the few motivations that 1st world members have, which is ironic because it is the actions born of those motivations that ultimately create that cycle. When a boat full of migrants from Africa land on the shores of Europe, it is migration because it is (generally) the equalization and distribution of equity. if you are talking in modern terms, very few boats of migrants show up on Africa’s shores (because it was depleted and socially ruined in the age of colonialism) if you are talking historically, it was colonialism. It was people coming to Africa, not looking for a place to promote equality and the equalization of equity. It was people looking to take over and exploit the land. What needs to happen is two things:
This is a continuation of the conversation/discussion I was having with my friend about our beliefs. As before, their comments begin with F: and mine begin with X:
F: About why I'm a nationalist: Canadian nationalism vs American nationalism (basically why I'm not afraid to say I'm a nationalist): https://globalnews.ca/news/4745341/canada-nationalism-surveys/ Here's the definition of nationalism: "nationalism is a political, social, and economic ideology characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty over its homeland." Basically, I advocate for putting the needs of my nation and my people first. However, not in such a way that would encourage hatred for others or bring down other nations. I simply want my government to fight for the interests of my people on a global scale so long as it doesn't harm others. I want the government to ensure we get treated well but also cares that others get treated well too. As I said, they should first fight for the people of my country, but support and care for others too. Putting Canada first (for our government) doesn't mean everyone else should have to fail. X: I see what you mean, but I do think that there are certain responsibilities that a capable nation and government have that supersede that individual nation's "best interest." If a country has the ability to help other nations, groups, and individuals that are in dire need, they have a human, moral obligation to do so. Even if it means that 10,000 citizens of that nation have things a little harder, it is absolutely worth it if 100 individuals are removed from a situation where they will likely end up with shrapnel in their hears and gas in their lungs. We are all humans on this planet and artificial, manmade borders can't take priority over that fact. I think the philosophy of putting your country first is very dangerous and can lead to a violent, racist, xenophobic ideology that destroys peace, justice, and democracy. F: My thoughts on Trudeau: I don't like him. I can agree that he's attractive and charming, but that's about it for me. I'm a liberal but I dislike him. From my perspective as an Albertan, he doesn't give a shit about us. Alberta is in the middle of an oil crisis yet he refuses to do anything about it. Alberta wants to build a pipeline so we can transport oil faster and more efficiently so it sells better. Again, this isn't some half-assed desire being thrown around, this is to fix an oil crisis. My province, Alberta, adds millions to the economy every year from our oil, and we supply oil for the rest of Canada and even the US and other countries. This is a huge industry and a crisis like this will have drastic negative effects on Canada's economy next year, the one we just got up and running again (Canada has a reputation for having a lousy economy). Trudeau doesn't listen to what we want in the west. So far he hasn't said anything about the pipeline the Premier of Alberta keeps asking for. He also claimed not too long ago that we don't have the money to pay for veterans, then he pledges 50 million USD to a charity on Twitter. He told the country that our tax money is being given to a charity over fucking social media. Yes, it's for a good cause, I'm not against giving money to charity. However, we need to understand the context of this announcement. He tweeted this to Trevor Noah, saying he was sad he wasn't able to attend a party celebrating Nelson Mandela and pledged the money to charity. This comes off as doing this for maintaining a good image in the press, which is something he does regularly. Our country is still deep in debt and this is not what he should be putting tax money towards. Trudeau also says there is no core identity in Canada and doesn't believe in (Canadian) nationalism. I don't know what drugs he's on but there is very much a sense of Canadian identity in our country. This isn't all the beef I have with him, but you get the idea. X: I'm going to start off seemingly off-topic, but it will circle around, I swear. I definitely see where you come from and Alberta is definitely going to be one of the hardest hit economic zones in the coming century. What we are seeing happen now is only going to get worse, which is tragic, but I would argue that it is a necessary evil. And don't get the wrong idea and consider me an outsider looking on the situation from outside. I am from a town in LA backed up against the hills and less than 100 miles from the San Andreas fault. LA is a beautiful city, but it is eventually going to die. Forest fires will decimate the vast suburbs that have been built in areas that are meant to burn. Ocean levels will rise, submerging the areas that weren't consumed by the fire. Over the next couple centuries, and perhaps sooner, we are going to see (relatively) large areas of the planet that become uninhabitable as a result of climate change. Some of these areas are going to be victims of the direct consequences of climate change. Others are going to be economic victims, mainly communities whose wealth rose with the harvest of fossil fuels and became ghost towns as the world abandons fossil fuels. We are already seeing this, most notably in the coal mines of the Appalachians. Alberta is sadly one of those victims. However, it is useless to argue whether this will happen. Instead, the human race needs to focus on how it happens. There are two paths. The first path is the path of fire. We are already seeing the effects of it. The devastating wildfires in California are just the beginning. The world will suffer from irreversible damage as climate change occurs. This will be near-apocalyptic as the global economy is shaken by housing crises, energy crises, and most importantly, agricultural failure en masse. The second option is the choice. So far, this is the path we are turning towards. Within this choice, the aforementioned communities will shrink and eventually become ghosts of what they once were as the human race makes a conscious choice to support a sustainable future. It is tragic that this path requires the sacrifice of those communities that fueled the world in the previous couple centuries, but the way I see it, if that is what it takes the ensure the security of the human race from environmental devastation for the next millennium, so be it. If we don't resolve the issue of climate change and global warming, we won't have a future to affect. That second option is what leaders like Macron and Trudeau are fighting for. I realize that he may have broken promises that got him where he is, but if any politician were to run, saying what I have said, they would be instantly be rejected by that too ignorant, short-sighted and selfish to understand the need for the measures he has created. And it isn't those people's fault. I totally understand. The prospect of economic and communal ruin is terrifying, but it is in some places, a necessary evil in order to ensure the security of the planet. In regard to what he says about finance delegation, I would look and compare what he says against what actually happens and how it happens. I think that for Trudeau, it is extremely important to maintain the image of being progressive, charitable, and internationally engaged. Canada is a sleeping giant within the world economy and has the standing as a reliable and friendly player on that part of the global stage. He is working to maintain that image as well as capitalize on it in a time when major global players are experiencing significant disruption. While he might make some choices that aren't domestically popular, he needs to keep maintaining Canada'sposition within the global economy, the fight for sustainability, and Canada's place within the G20. In addition, he needs to communicate this agenda to his nation. I think that that is where he is failing. He, like other world leaders such as Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron, is failing to communicate his vision and agenda to his base, arguably the most important group for a world leader. Overall, I think that it is important for global leaders, Trudeau, in particular, to work towards a more sustainable future in regards to the environment and human conditions, under the umbrella of international cooperation. Recently, in the spirit of civil discourse, a pillar upholding democracy, I engaged a friend of mine in a discussion that spanned a variety of controversial topics. We are good friends and we both recognize that we have different, yet valid points of view and that we shouldn’t let this sort of disagreement endanger our friendship. I thought that the discussion was very interesting and provided a glimpse at my political beliefs. For me, personally, the discussion challenged me intellectually and morally, and allowed me to consolidate and inspect what I believe. Here it is.
Note: All of my friend’s comments begin with F: and all of mine begin with X: Additionally, much of the conversation has been directly transferred to this page, including comments pertaining to the course of the conversation, so ignore any such comments. F: The Dalai Lama said that once their home is safe, they should go home and rebuild their own countries. He's right. It is predicted that by mid-century, white people will be the minority in their own countries. This is unacceptable. When you import the third world you become the third world. London is now minority white. The murder rates have passed that of NYC and you aren't even allowed to have a gun in London. I went there and saw more Pakistanis then white English people. sharia courts are already popping up in England. when you change the demographics of England by taking in millions of migrants, England will no longer be England. the fertility rates in western Europe are below replacement levels. bringing in migrants from a culture that has multiple children per woman will replace the native population. here’s a quote from Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi: “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. [...] Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore, a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe's feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.” I don't know about you, but I hate this idea. Why replace diversity of people with diversity of individuals? People are already diverse! Why kill so many beautiful cultures? X: Ok, so I have a fair amount to say about this. First, I think there are two main topics of discussion here. They can and often do overlap, but I think that it is important to identify the facts and opinions about each individual topic. As far as I can tell, it is these two: 1. Economic migration 2. Racial/ethnic/cultural mixing (If you disagree with my classifications, let me know what you think) First, on economic migration, I don’t think it is as black and white as you make it out to be. I think many cases of economic migration are born of forced migration (war, famine, disease, natural disaster, etc.) Economic migrants may not be directly affected by those events in the sense that their home, family or themselves are threatened by the events. For example, take a person who owns a small business in a country where there is a civil war. However, the area of the country where they live and operate their business isn’t where the fighting is. Despite this, they can become economic migrants because their business failed as a result of the localized (within the nation or region) economic disruption that was caused by the war. That’s just an example, but there are many ways where economic migrants can be born from forced migration events. However, I would argue that there are even more conditions where economic migration can be justified. There is a certain level of human condition that is unacceptable and if people have the opportunity to leave it, they should. In conditions where there are few or no opportunities for you or your family to receive a satisfactory level of education and establish a certain quality of life, that is grounds for economic migration. If you look at the conditions that many migrants coming from Central America, Africa, and the Middle East are leaving behind, you’ll see that they don’t match the conditions that are on par with the potential for a quality life. In addition, if you look at our history as North Americans, we are born of immigrants. Our success today was born of hardship, the will to escape and the hard work that comes with establishing a better quality of life. (Also, we can’t forget the MANY atrocities and genocides that the foundation of our success rests on) It is undeniably hypocritical, disrespectful, and wrong for a land of immigrants to deny those who are following in our footsteps the same opportunities. In general, I believe that economic migration is a very complicated concept and in many cases, justified, primarily based on human rights and our own history. In regard to what you said about racial, ethnic, and cultural mixing, I think that while your opinions are understandable, they can lead to a very dangerous and damaging path of racism and xenophobia. You talked about the racial and cultural makeup of Western Europe and England in particular, changing like that is a bad thing. It is not a bad thing. The race of human beings has always been evolving, quite literally, since the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species. The same goes for cultures. Humans are an inherently tribal species, meaning that every tribe develops their own culture as an expression of their history and who they are. As interact, their cultures interact as well. The result of this interaction is the absorption and exchange of aspects of cultures. Just like scars on the human skin, every bit of a new culture absorbed serves to act as a reminder of a culture’s history and past interactions. Cultures and races are meant to interact, exchange, and ultimately change. That is what humans have always done. However, that change has happened at an accelerated rate over the past 80-100 years due to two main factors: globalization and the population boom. The ability for people of different races and cultures to interact has greatly increased, made possible by advancements in transportation and communications technology. You asked the question, “Why kill so many beautiful cultures?” There is only really one way to kill a culture, and that is suppression, appropriation and extermination of that culture. The culture you and I are born to is one that can be traced from North America, to Europe, to the Middle East, to Africa, to Asia, to South America. As cultures evolve and absorb, certain aspects fade in and out of relevancy, but are found buried deep within that culture. The same goes for racial evolution. We are white, but if we were our ancestors, we would be called Middle Eastern, Asian, and African. The concept that racial mixing and diversity is extremely dangerous. It is born from the concept that some people are superior to others based upon race, an idea scientifically and socially proven to be undeniably false. The aversion to the mixing and diversification of cultures and races is born of fear. Fear of the unknown and unfamiliar. It has been there since people and tribes of different cultures and races began interacting and is entirely understandable. If you think back to the pre-evolution of humans as a species, different equaled danger, but humans as a species has shown that that equation is only true if it is believed to be true. In conclusion, I understand where you are coming from, but I think that what you have said is not just generally untrue, but based in an ideology of fear and hatred which has seen the rise of racism of xenophobia. We are one human race, born of many ethnicities, cultures, religions, ideologies, and experiences. It is that diversity of condition that makes us beautiful. To actively oppose what is a human tradition of interaction and exchange is inherently inhuman. What is stoicism? To me stoicism is a philosophy which has positively impacted my life, making it easier to endure hardship and easier to savor joy.
Defined by the Daily Stoic, a website dedicated educating people in what Stoicism is and how they can use it to better themselves, as “The philosophy asserts that virtue (such as wisdom) is happiness and judgment should be based on behavior, rather than words. That we don’t control and cannot rely on external events, only ourselves and our responses.” This is the generally accepted definition and one that I apply in my practice of the philosophy. I define Stoicism as the silent endurance of hardships in order to better feel joy. For example, by enduring inevitable hardship without complaint or resistance, said hardship goes by faster. In addition, by willingly abstaining from complaining about or resisting inevitable hardship, I am better able to look at it and see what it is. This better allows me to overcome the challenges I am facing. By examining hardship, pain, and discomfort while it is happening, I am able to look back during times of happiness and joy and have an unobscured view of the hardship I have endured. By interrupting times of joy and comfort with thoughts of times of discomfort and pain, I am able to obtain a greater appreciation for such pleasurable moments. This greater appreciation is generated by the recognition of the contrast between the discomfort of the past and the comfort of the present. I further define and practice Stoicism as the reduction the stress and anxiety in my life by accepting that which is out of my control and taking stock of what is in my control. By accepting what is out of my control, I automatically stop worrying about it, as it is illogical and impractical to worry about that which is out of my control. This frees up mental capacity for working to improve the aspects of my situation which are within my control. By determining what is within my control, I automatically obtain an edge over it, as I have the confidence which is generated by having the knowledge that there are things within my control and that I can make them better. By devoting all mental capacity to the things within my control and abstaining from worrying about that which isn’t, I obtain the focus needed to overcome any challenges in my way, reducing stress and anxiety. Stoicism is a very complex philosophy with various schools of thought within it, but what I have included here are what I believe to be the most important, relevant aspects to myself and the average person looking to learn more about practical Stoicism. If you want to know more, you can learn more at the websites included below. https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/stoicism-podcast/ https://dailystoic.com On the first day of my senior year of high school, my school rolled out a restrictive new mobile device policy. It completely disallowed any usage of cell phones and went to state that if any faculty saw a mobile device anywhere in the building or on the playground at any point in the day, it would be immediately confiscated and held until the end of the day. For many adults, particularly teachers, this seems fairly reasonable since cell phones often provide an unwanted distraction and make it harder to teach. For many students this seemed horrid and intrusive. Having no cell phone means not being able to access an item which has seemingly become almost indistinguishable from a limb. The loss of a cell phone seems to deprive them of a large portion of their social life. While I fall in the latter age group, I had a very adverse reaction for different reasons. As a senior and someone who uses my phone significantly less than many of my peers, I was surprised to find myself so aggrieved. Then I realized what my phone means to me at school. I use my phone for educational purposes when I am at school. I use my phone to take photos of diagrams in Biology, a valuable resource in a class where I struggle. I use my phone as a communications tool, allowing me to be in contact with individuals and organizations who I communicate with to further my education. For example, on the first day of school, also the first day of the new phone policy, I had intended to contact the university I plan on going to in order to make sure my current study course would meet the standards needed for admission to that particular university. I had planned on calling during lunch when I wouldn’t be disrupting anyone. I also use my phone as an organizational tool. I have planners and calendars on my phone, a tool which I almost always have with me, allowing me to always be organized. I’ve heard from a very reliable source that members of the school’s Leadership Team, particularly the members of the Team which are more in charge of younger students (Grades 9 and lower) were the ones who for years have been fighting for this new policy and finally just forced the policy through. I find this narrative even more disturbing. If there had been some incident or a series of incidents which provided a certain amount of reason for the new policy, I would have understood that. However, the fact that this new policy is born of individual opinions through non-democratic election, makes me disagree with it even more. If there is an issue of younger students with access to phones using them inappropriately, then I would be completely understanding and supportive of a policy restricting their phone access until they demonstrate maturity and a capability to use their devices responsibly. That is not the case. Instead of differentiating between maturity, responsibility, and necessity, the school is blindly implementing a blanket policy which will be detrimental to those who deserve it least. I also take issue with the way this policy was introduced. While being developed, the Leadership Team never took the opinions or concerns of the parents in to account. At no point was the proposal for such a significant change given to the parents for approval. It wasn’t even announced to the parents at the beginning of the year. As for the students, it was bluntly inserted in to our lives on the first day back to school, a time already full of change, uncertainty and often anxiety. For example, take those who are usually most filled with confusion and unease: new students. Entering in to a new environment, having left behind friends and familiarity, new students were met with an aggressive, antagonizing new policy. By implementing this policy on a day when it is necessary to build connections, the Leadership Team only succeeded in creating a rift between the teachers and students. While I may sound like a whiny teenager, I know that I am basing these assertions on experience and reason, something which I hope, with faltering confidence, that the Leadership Team would use when making decisions. As I write this, I don’t know you yet. I can tell you that I love you though. You haven’t been born yet and I already love you. That’s probably because of what you represent to me. You live in a world that can be pretty messed up. People will lie, beg, cheat, steal, kill and more for the most warped of reasons. What you represent to me is the feeling I get when I stand alone in a forest on a spring day. It is the feeling of seeing a bird picking up a twig to put in its nest. It is an innocence that brings hope and happiness in to this world. You are the light breaking through a storm cloud as a storm breaks its waves on the raft of a drifting castaway. You are the canary in a coal mine, singing to the darkness and waving away the poison with a flutter of your wings. And those same wings you will someday raise as you fly in to your own storm. I know that you will survive the winds and waves because no matter how much you are blown around, you will keep flying. Every storm has an edge, and you will come out on one. You won’t know which one it is until you get there, but it will be full of light and a breeze that will carry your wings to a shore of safety. I want you to stay full of bright-eyed innocence and hope. It is something that every baby is blessed with. I will work and sacrifice so that you stay pure and uncorrupted by the storm. I have heard that to survive every struggle and challenge that you face, you need to have something in your mind, that thing that makes every bit of pain worth it, your motivation. You are mine. Every step I take, you will be the driving force. I will visualize you in my head and push just a bit harder. So I want to thank you. You remind me of the good and beauty in the world and drive me to be better. Love, Your Father Recently, I covered the current situation the U.S. is facing in Afghanistan, the capital-p Plan the U.S. has for Afghanistan and my own analysis of how that Plan would go. More specifically, I outlined that the U.S. intends to eradicate the Taliban and other extremist groups in Afghanistan as well as how they intend to do so. Now, I would like to discuss the flip side of that coin, namely: what if the U.S. throws in the towel and withdraws, leaving Afghanistan set for a Taliban takeover. While there are no numbers on Taliban force strength, it seems clear between the rising number of attacks and the increasing amount of territory controlled by the Taliban, it would be only a matter of time before a Taliban force would take full control of the country after a U.S. withdrawal.
A question that should be asked is, what would that Taliban-ruled Afghanistan look like? The Taliban have been in control before, in which time terrorist groups were sheltered and supported, women's rights were suppressed, living conditions decreased in quality and the population of Afghanistan was generally terrorized and oppressed. In regards to governance, they certainly wouldn't be more lenient than they were before they lost power. If anything, they would be more rigid in the enforcement of their beliefs, seeing as the Taliban has become more desperate and extreme in their attempts to take back control of Afghanistan. It seems clear that the U.S. can't simply hand over Afghanistan to that Taliban as that would result in a significant step back in the evolution of human human rights. Afghanistan could become a terminal for international criminality, terrorism, and despair. In that sense, a vicious cycle has formed. The U.S. can't leave Afghanistan without completely eradicating the Taliban and implementing an functional government. However, the U.S. can't seem to win with its current tactics. Unless the U.S. establishes a new strategy to win in Afghanistan, they will be doomed to sacrifice many more lives for many years to come. As the war in Afghanistan goes in to its 17th year, the situation is far from resolved. It was believed that the Taliban was largely defeated and enough stability was created in the region for a U.S. withdrawal. However, that was not the case. The Taliban had dug in deep enough and anticipated the counterinsurgency tactics the U.S. used when combatting the Taliban and other groups in Afghanistan. When the U.S. began the process of withdrawing its forces, the Taliban began retaking control. As of August 2017, large portions of Afghanistan were either heavily contested or under Taliban control.
In response to this revived threat President Donald Trump has announced that the U.S. will be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan in order to finally defeat the Taliban and other terrorist groups in Afghanistan. While the strategy hasn't been announced and will likely be created almost entirely by the United States military, it is likely that it will focus on simply destroying the groups instead of working on a longer term solution, such as training government forces and supplying humanitarian and economic aid. This would be achieved by heavily increasing U.S. troop levels in the country in order to support a steep increase in missions focusing on killing terrorists. It would likely be similar to the fight against ISIS in Iraq where an intense air campaign coordinated by ground forces as well as selective strikes from Special Operations forces worked to quickly and efficiently destroy the enemy. In terms of eradicating the enemy, this would likely be successful, as in Iraq, with some variations based on the environment and the strength of the enemy. However, what would happen afterwards is what would vary the most. In Iraq, the transition from ISIS to Iraqi control has been relatively easy, due to the Iraqi government being somewhat stable and popular in comparison to the Islamic State. That will not be the case in Afghanistan. The Taliban is seen as a source of stability to a population that has a distrust of the current government, who are often viewed as foreign puppets. If the U.S. were to use the same strategy as they have used in the past, the same pattern will repeat itself. If they use the same strategy as in Iraq, the short term objective of eliminating the threat will be achieved, but a more dangerous possibility could arise. If the U.S. eliminates the Taliban and the other groups who hold control in Afghanistan without establishing a stable force to bring stability to the region, who will fill that vacuum? On Wednesday , the 17th of January, the U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that the United States would be extending it's military presence in Syria past the defeat of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL) in order to deter Iranian forces in the area, ensure the demise of the Assad regime, and establish safe and secure conditions in Syria, partially for the return of refugees. There are currently around 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria, primarily Special Operations and artillery forces who were sent there to support groups working towards defeating ISIS. It was believed that those forces were there temporarily and would be withdrawn as soon as they were no longer necessary for the defeat of ISIS. However, now the U.S. is signifying a new level of almost imperialistic interest in Syria, a center of the Middle East. Does this sound familiar? The war in Afghanistan is in it's 17th year and has cost the U.S. 2,271 lives and 20,083 wounded. At it's peak there were about 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan which has been reduced to around 10,000, with more on the way. It started as a short-term deployment of Special Operations troops in order to defeat a terrorist organization. From there, the situation evolved, becoming more complex and resulted in the country experiencing a near-full occupation. The situation is Syria is very similar, but is much more complex. Since Syria is more central, that means that it has a higher strategic value, in political, economic and military terms. That has led to a high number of factions within the country battling for control and even more dangerously, foreign powers such as Russia, the United States, Turkey and Iran becoming invested in the area. This foreign intervention has even become so intense that what was being called a civil war is now being called a proxy war. This complex web of alliances and animosity is illustrated in the diagram below: In Afghanistan, the situation was much more simple, relatively. It was essentially the Taliban, al-Queda, and recently ISIS fighting against the U.S. led coalition with local citizens trapped in the middle, working with whoever was in power at the moment. If the U.S. uses the same strategy in Syria and doesn't learn from their mistakes in Afghanistan, they are doomed to the same fate. However, getting trapped in Syria would be much more dangerous than Afghanistan, given the complexity of the situation. Any wrong move against the wrong group could inflame international tensions. The only hope for the U.S. to secure it's interests in the Middle east is to work towards a peaceful diplomatic solution. Sources: -https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/us-military-syria-isis-iran-assad-tillerson -https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/12/06/there-are-four-times-as-many-u-s-troops-in-syria-as-previously-acknowledged-by-the-pentagon/?utm_term=.52c00085150c -https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/up-to-1000-more-us-troops-could-be-headed-to-afghanistan-this-spring/2018/01/21/153930b6-fd1b-11e7-a46b-a3614530bd87_story.html?utm_term=.9daacd6cd488 -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan |
|
Photo used under Creative Commons from Lorie Shaull