Kirk vs. Spock

     Emotional appeals are everywhere. From the TV, to magazines, to billboards, and t-shirts galore, we spend a good majority of our day influenced by advertisements. And it's nailed down to a science: puppies for the awe factor, models for the wow factor, hashtags for the trend factor; we are invariably affected by our environment. Advertisers are smart; they know that consumers respond to emotional appeals. It's a technique that is tried and true. Take a quick glance at history: speeches and literature are littered with emotional appeals, in fact, they practically ooze hormones. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream", Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" are highly effective and well remembered because they played off the sentiments of the public. Sure there were probably speeches based solely on numbers and data, but we don't remember them. 

So why are emotional appeals so potent? I mean we're obviously a very emotional race.

 It's because humans aren't solitary creatures. We live in mass societies, we have rules and groups because we not only survive, but  we thrive on interactions. Emotions are a response to these interactions, they stem from a need to connect with others and empathize. Emotions separate humans from the machine.

So emotions are a part of human nature, but is that beneficial or injurious? Emotions aren't always a good thing. Though society places high value on protagonists who follow their heart or act upon their instincts, emotions cause irrationality. Mob mentality, hubris, jealousy, hatred, anger, and prejudice have led to wars, catastrophes, and the deaths of innocents. All evil comes from the same cache where good is created. 

Hitler used emotional appeals to manipulate the German sentiments against Jews. Castro did the same with the Cuban people and started a revolution. Lenin and Stalin managed to take over half of Europe and Russia by preying on the emotions of a broken, poverty-stricken people. It seems as if emotions have become our fatal flaw. The passion and care we feel can so easily be taken advantage of and manipulated into something much more sinister. 

So would it be better if we no longer had emotions? We would be able to think clearly and rationally and millions of lives would be saved. Or would they? It is our compassion and sense of obligation that makes us fight. It's this fierce stubbornness and need to protect that makes us try and save those who can't fight.  And it's our sense of right and wrong and love that allows us to sacrifice ourselves for the good of mankind. 

It's the classic head vs. heart: Kirk or Spock. Do you play it safe because the numbers tell you it won't happen or do you risk everything for one dream? Sure emotions can lead people astray but it is our nature. It is our humanity that allows us to feel these things, good and bad. It is our humanity that gives us the ability to love and remember. We don't know whether our humanity will be our downfall or out saving grace, but today it is a gift, so embrace it. 

The Eye of the Beholder

"If we could but paint with the hand what we could see with the eye."-Honore de Balzac

Paintings, as we've learned, are a form of visual rhetoric, a contemporary argument stressing that art conveys cultural and sensory meanings as opposed to purely aesthetic appeal. This image was painted during General Warren's death at the Battle of Bunker Hill, an American defeat, by John Trumbull. And anyone who looks closely at the painting can see that it was meant to incite anti-British emotions.

Analyzing a painting 101. Almost always, the painter has an ulterior motive in choosing colors because they are known to create strong emotions. Trumbull makes an emotional appeal to religion, when he paints the British a bright, bloody red, an allusion the demons and the devil. In contrast, the revolutionaries are painted in a simplistic, wholesome white, a possible reference to God and the angels. The pale blue sky juxtaposes the black showing the irony of war on a beautiful day. Lighting also plays an essential part of a piece. Here there is almost a spotlight on the dying man. Directional focus points here as well: any man with a face is seen looking at the dying man. The dying General Warren is the primary focus in the piece because his brutal death can evoke colonial sympathy and rally them to fight even after a devastating loss. The British ruthlessness is emphasized here as the soldiers try to kill the injured fighter. Also, if you divide the painting up in thirds, the middle third is filled with British soldiers, while the left side has a notably smaller number of colonial fighters. The painter subtly insinuates that the revolutionaries were outnumbered by showing a limited view of the battle and shrouding much of the colonial side in blackness. A painting bias is clearly shown here. But how much of it was true?

Trumbull was in fact at the Battle of Bunker Hill, but it is not known for sure if he witnessed General Warren's death. He obviously couldn't have been painting this as the battle went on so it is based off a a mere memory. It looks realistic in its portrayal of human form. but the lighting, colors, and schematics, are too convenient to be true. So paintings became the earliest forms of meta-fiction. Here Trumbull displays the emotional truth, the fear, horror, and grief, that he felt. But whether or not it is what actually happened cannot be discerned.

In a time where non persuasive writing contained only statistical and quantitative facts with little skew, paintings showed the completely biased emotional truths. In literature, writers could leave out what they felt was emotional bias, but in paintings, leaving out information makes the piece incomplete. And as we move towards the present day we can see the two genres of communication merging together. Paintings become more abstract, entering the realm of fiction, while books now show the emotional truth. All previous boundaries have now become in-distinctive. So what is real? Well, truth is in the eye of the beholder. 

The Art of Name

      Names are the first thing given to us as a child and the last thing we have when we die. It is constant and you only get one. A name can garner respect and foster shame. Our names define us. It is a single word that encompasses our entire being.
      In The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, Proctor initially cares a great amount about his name. He could have saved himself and his wife had he not waited so long to call out Abigail, but he didn't want his reputation (name) tainted. While it was noble for him to save his name in the end by withholding his confession, if he given up his name he would have been able to raise his children instead of abandoning them.
     This is because the name is actually what others think of us. It allows others to define us because the name is credited with the accomplishments, not the person. Rumors wouldn't be so effective if we didn't have names: they cause damage because names are inexplicably linked to power and social status. Names essentially represent all outward materialistic things, not the inner person or conscious. How can we let one word describe a lifetime of memories, accomplishments, and traits. Our names shouldn't embody our dreams and hopes. When we identify ourselves with out names we bind ourselves to things that may not even matter. And it makes you wonder: are you your name?

The Dark Knight

     It all started when man switched from pagan religions to modern religions. Instead of praying to the gods of weather and harvest for forgiveness, they found a way to blame people. Conditions people couldn't control like natural disasters became god's punishments. In constant fear of God's wrath, humans began the game of blaming others for the natural hardships they faced. Here and then the scapegoat was created. The man or woman on whom society could blame their problems. John Proctor became Salem's sacrifice.

     The people of Salem allowed Proctor to die because they were scared and they needed for life to be prosperous again. Even after they knew the children had lied, they went on with hanging, because to turn back is to admit wrongdoing. But its more than that. Why would anybody believe children, the ones who have imaginary friends in the first place? The Salem people believed the girls because children are the hope for the future. Children are the fruit of all struggles: everything a parent does is to ensure that their child can carry on comfortably. To admit that the girls had made everything up was to admit that the society had failed to culture the children and to pass on their heritage and values. It meant that the entire Puritan dream, to be the beacon of hope and "the city upon a hill", had collapsed and that they had failed.

     Similarly, in The Dark Knight, Batman takes the fall for the death of Harvey Dent. Dent, an electoral candidate campaigning against crime in Gotham turns to the dark side when his fiancée is killed in the crossfire, and proceeds to commit murders of his own. When Dent dies as a repercussion of his actions, Batman takes full responsibility and becomes the villain. Even though Dent was no longer a good man, he was still the symbol of hope, change, and innocence in Gotham City. To tarnish that image, after his death, was to give up all hope of ridding the city of crime. The city didn't need a hero, so Batman became the villain. The truth didn't matter because idea needed to be protected.
     Men like John Proctor and Batman gave up everything to protect the people they loved. They became scapegoats because that's what society's fragile fabrication needed them to be. And while their downfall could have been prevented, it was by no means in vain. John Proctor's death allowed for society, no matter how flawed, to continue. His confession was so readily accepted because Salem needed a villain. Society will always need a villain, even a fake one, to push them towards the light, towards good, and towards the future.

Clash of the Titans

Disclaimer: This message was not meant offend or condemn anyone or their beliefs.

     Ex·trem·ist  n. One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics and religion. The Puritans of early America, while commended for their ethics and values, were intolerant towards almost all other people. Native Americans, unconverted men, and slaves were all unworthy to the Puritans. In fact, they moved to foreign, uncharted land just to get away from the members of the English Church. The Puritans were, in many senses of the word, extremists.
      Today, there are many more extremist groups. Groups like the Al Qaeda and West Borough Church go to extreme tactics to get their message across. Some are even willing to kill for their cause. And we can wonder, how does it get so far? Just imagine being so involved in a movement that you're willing to die for it, because you believe in it that much. You hear about it on the news: the tragic events, the plans for preventative action, the failures, the deaths. But it seems, no matter how many  people are caught or how many single events are stopped, too many people are still found dead. For every man that is stopped, there is a new man who joins the cause. So maybe instead of trimming the leaves we should uproot the whole tree. Its not the people, its the idea. And the one thing all of these groups have in common: religion.
     Don't get me wrong, religion can be a good thing. God gives people hope. Everyone needs something to fear, to believe, to love, and to respect. Sometimes religion is the only source of hope, faith, and sustenance in a world that has a habit of beating people down. Without structured religion, our world would not have evolved into the thriving, global society we have today.
     But religion is extreme. It's an ancient theory in a modern world. It's asking you to believe whole heartedly in a concept that has absolutely no proof or conclusive evidence. And somewhere along the line, somebody figured out that this abstract concept could be twisted to fit the mold of any new deranged idea. Maybe some do believe that their god wanted them to kill other human beings. Maybe they do feel justified in hating others on the sole basis of who those people are. Or maybe not. Maybe they were driven to it by conditions like poverty, starvation, and oppression. Maybe they do know what they're doing is wrong and they knowingly use religion as a cover for their actions.
     The real problem isn't religion, it's that we aren't allowed to question it. Our global society has made religion untouchable. No one can draw attention to the problem without being heavily criticized and inviting conflict upon themselves. Religion has become a war. One nation cannot question an aspect of a religion without it being considered an attack on the whole faith. It's a fight where questioning a viewpoint becomes an attack on all of its people. It's a battle between right and wrong, but no one seems to understand that there are no winners. There is no right and wrong.
 

I Am My Mother's Daughter

     Our history is a part of who we are. Our customs shape our beliefs, our beliefs shape our choices, and our choices ultimately define us. We use our roots to grow into who we become. But when the roots are ripped out, the tree falls over. The Native Americans in the United States have been battered, bruised, and removed, but they ultimately lost when they were stripped of their culture. What is left is a shell of the proud and remarkable people they once were.
     There is a Kikongo (African tribe) proverb saying, "One can only steal a sleeping baby: once awake, she will look for her parents." This depicts the instinctive pull of heritage. We have an inborn curiosity in our origins, the quest we share for self identification and self knowledge. This proverb was acknowledging the African American slaves in the United States. Another people uprooted from their culture and left to find their own path, the difference is that African Americans were given a new beginning and a new environment to adapt to. They weren't shipped back to Africa and left to survive with a fragmented culture. Africans had a choice, they could go back to Africa and find their culture or they could move forward in America and create their culture.

     Native Americans were not so lucky. The reservations are a constant reminder of their failure as a proud, warring people. While they have their Indian community, they have little else. The land they own is not their ancestral land and the stories they tell aren't believed the same way. The US cavalry may have taken their land but the missionaries did the real damage by taking away their culture. They have no where to move back to and cannot move forward in the society the government has created for them. Alexie, a Native American author notes this as he talks about his classmates, "The bright students are frightened...they don't know what comes next...[so] they look back toward tradition," (Alexie 180). The reservations, seen as a way to compensate the Native American population, leaves them trapped in the same depressing cycle. One Indian blogger notes,"Our reservation environment includes many self-destructing and alcohol abuse promoting forces such as a high unemployment rate (poverty), depression, hopelessness, lack of motivation, anger, a survival mentality, entitlement, low self-esteem, jealousy and negativity," (Red Hawk).

     The Native American population is absolutely and irrevocably stuck. The real problems in their society are not addressed. The Native Americans are still being subjugated by the American government in a way that most people don't even consider. The Native American people are lost they have been left to piece together their lives in a place that drains the hope out of them. They cannot find themselves because their way of life was destroyed. And the saddest part is that people think that giving Native Americans an easier way to get in to college and other miniscule benefits will make for it.

Bad to the Bone

The Evil Nature of the Human Race

In 1972, Flight 571  crashed in the middle of the Andes Mountains leaving its survivors in a desolate and harsh wasteland with little food and a chance to survive. In a miracle chance, some survivors were found two months later, broken and half alive. Their means of survival? Cannibalism or the consummation of the deceased passengers. When it came down to it, the rules and pressures of modern society didn't matter. The only thing that thrived was human nature to survive.

 

As humans we like to believe that we are innately good. But the fact is that we are taught most of our values and we follow them to conform to society. Sharing, caring, and being polite are all mannerisms we follow so that society doesn't erupt into chaos. We follow rules to construct this idea of a perfect society where everyone can get along and there is peace. But there will always be conflict because its a part of human nature. War, for example, strips humans down to their primal instincts. As shown in The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, war reveals man's tendency to destroy and his truly selfish nature.

 

In the war, men fight for themselves. While men may have different intentions coming in, the war itself  draws out the instincts that allowed cavemen to survive millions of years ago. They fight, claw, kill, and protect. There are no decencies. There are no formalities. And there is no mercy. When O'Brien kills the Viet-Cong soldier, another soldier consoles him, saying that he carried a gun and he had to die. But when is killing another human being ever all right? In the war they desensitize themselves to killing, causing pain, and taking revenge. In war there are no rules it is kill or be killed and these men face death on a daily basis. Society and its rules become arbitrary as they take their own justice. O'Brien shows this raw feeling when he plays his "prank" on Bobby Jorgenson. Fear causes irrational actions and thoughts but the instinct to survive is what leads us to kill.

 

How can men that are so good do such terrible things? And these aren't murderers and criminals, these are our American troops. Time and time again history has shown us that we cannot trust in the innate goodness of man. Even our founding fathers found this to be true. Alexander Hamilton, who experienced the American revolution first hand, saw the cruelty and culmination of man's poor choices. He advocated for an American monarchy where the people have no say in the government because he didn't believe the common people could be trusted with the rules. The United States today is a democracy not a republic. The people have a say in their government but it is limited by boundaries, laws, rules, and even other people, all to protect the fragile society we have crafted.  This façade that we can all live in peace. But after all, what is peace without war? Can there be good without the bad?