Aggression is the next step when you're passionate

 This week in AP lang we read Because my father always said he was the only Indian who saw Jimi Hendrix play the "Star-spangled Banner at Woodstock" by Sherman Alexie. I did not enjoy the piece and quite honestly thought a lot of the moments in his parent's marriage that the author references were quite strange. The author seems to have a very complicated relationship with his father and mother, one involving a lot of alcohol and substance abuse. More than that however a lot of Sherman Alexie's parent's relationship is characterized by passion and aggression from both sides but more so his father.

Specifically, at multiple points in the piece we hear the Author talk and reminisce about moments with his father. And from the picture that Sherman Alexie paints of him he is portrayed as a very spirited man. His father was a native American hippie man that was thrown in jail due to a violent outburst at a Vietnam War Protest. We can first see the hints of both passion and aggression his father carries here, when Sherman Alexie is talking about a photograph that was taken of his father right before he is about to attack a national guard officer at the protest. The author talks about how this picture was printed all across the country with the photographer who took it actually winning a Pulitzer Prize for it. Alexie talks about the different headlines that the picture is printed with but one in particular actually stood out to me. "Demonstrator goes to war for peace". I really liked this headline specifically because I think it really highlights the contradiction of violence (The dad beating up the national guard officer) in the name of peace (the end of the Vietnam war). I think it kind of goes to show the very fine line there is in between emotions of aggression and passion and how the two can actually characterize such a significant event that was in the name of peace as violent and dangerous. The father's passion for peace and the hippie movement is essentially what leads to his aggressive actions. We see this at another point in the piece when Alexie is describing his father in the picture "red peace symbols splashed across his face like war paint". This contradiction is an innate trait of his father who is ready to go to war for his beliefs but is also ready to stop a war in the name of world peace. 

Along with that, Sherman Alexie's mother and father's relationship is marked by moments of both passion and aggression/conflict. On page 27, Sherman Alexie's mother is talking about her relationship with his dad saying, "she loved him too with a ferocity that eventually forced her to leave him". I think that this quote again shows the kind of passion that both of Alexie's parents had for each other and how their relationship was marked with conflict and aggression because of how much love and passion they had for each other. Their relationship is one that is marked with strong emotions like these, and it goes to show how very passionate people also provoke aggression within each other. When you have such strong convictions about yourself and the world of course you will be willing to fight for them and what you believe in. 

I think that this is also represented with the public response to our current administration's actions and legislation. Just last week in major cities like LA, NYC and Chicago there have been millions of people showing up at the No Kings protests to protest Donald Trump's (among others but mainly him) actions. These people are standing for hours, braving police intervention and teargas to fight for what they believe in have a passion that is admirable. Despite this however the protests have been marked with an array of violence from protestors. Recently in Portland, Oregon several protestors attempted to raid an ICE building at which point police deployed tear gas on the protestors. There have been many such events like these marring these protests with a fear of violence from the general public. These events are the result of a general feeling of helplessness from the protestors who feel that their actions aren't doing enough and that violence may be the only answer to our government's actions. This represents how often the next step is aggression for many of these people who are deeply passionate about this country and its people in order to make an actual change that will get attention.

September 10th. Charlie Kirk a right-wing influencer was shot dead by a white male suspected republican. When he was announced dead on social media, I remember scrolling on TikTok and coming across an influencer I followed expressing grief and empathy for his family. I raced to google thinking this was just another bout of misinformation floating around on the internet, but it was real.  Many of my friends and people I knew on social media immediately posted sympathy for him and his family or cited his support for less regulation of guns or even posted a comparison of Palestinian deaths and his own. When I first saw the news, I'll admit that I believed that the shooter was likely a democrat or liberal who fed up with his blatantly racist, traansphobic, misogynistic comments decided to kill him. But exactly how much do you have to care about something to be willing to kill someone? While the shooter's political affiliation remains a matter of speculation, we know that he must have been exceptionally rooted in his convictions to have even considered killing Charlie kirk for the sheer matter of disagreement with him. Charlie never hurt, killed or even stole from the shooter so we know that this is a matter of disagreement with what Charlie stood for. 

Passionate people like the shooter, Alexie's father and Protestors who stand up for what they believe in can often result to violence and aggression as a means of furthering their own beliefs. This is the result of becoming consumed in your passions and feeling as if any disagreement or friction against them is a direct attack on you and your own personal rights. Which in many cases it can be.

Is Kamala Harris a partly cloudy patriot?

 This week in lang we had the pleasure of reading the Partly Cloudy Patriot by Sarah Vowell. While I will admit that the piece overall was uninteresting to me, I did enjoy the discussion we had in class about what constitutes as a partly cloudy patriot. After bringing up numerous politicians and comparing them to either side of the spectrum of patriotism, I was curious as to how democratic politicians (Kamala Harris) that were just as wildly popular compared from before and after the Trump administration. 

Before the trump administration was elected to office, Harris served as the Vice President. During this time, Harris was very outspoken on numerous controversial issues such as abortion, immigration (border control) and expanding healthcare. As vice president, Harris was perceived by many democrats to show a united front of patriotism during many of her speeches in congress or at public events. Harris did this specifically during the Democratic National convention where she is quoted saying " I see a nation that is ready to move forward". When Harris ties the idea of patriotism to democratic values, it allows vague sentences like this to make people feel hopeful for the future of America especially during such a strong political climate. Her talking about America and the nation in a positive light however is what many Far- right republicans accuse her of not doing. Senator Cotton of Arkansas is quoted saying this in the Guardian, “And it will be much worse under Kamala Harris,” Cotton said. “Just look at her record. She wants to ban private health insurance, she wants to ban fossil fuel production, she wants to ban guns.” By constantly painting Kamala Harris as this America hating liberal immigrant many republican politicians are able to further this narrative that she is a cloudy patriot. When in fact this is quite the opposite. 

Harris during her campaign for the presidency was outspoken on several controversial stances the government had taken on state and federal levels but despite that she was still someone that advocated for the country on numerous occasions. For example, when Harris was serving as a senator in 2017, she coauthored a bill with Senator Bernie Sanders that would increase social security for the elderly by expanding tax rates on investments. This is a direct example of her making efforts to support and improve the country, something that cannot be said about the current administration. Her working with lower income families, the elderly and economists to create an effective and supportive plan for America in itself is demonstrating qualities of a sunshine patriot. 

By advocating for the country and working to make it better, does Harris not qualify to at least have been a partly Cloudy patriot before the current administration?

I think so.

Now let's talk about her actions after President Trump was elected. 

When president trump was elected in January of this year, many people, including democrats, were vivaciously outspoken about how horrendous of an administration this was going to be. Among those people was ex-VP Kamala Harris who came out numerous times to talk about the negative effects his economic policies would cause, how restriction of reproductive care would negatively impact the lives of millions of women and of course how the much stricter immigration control would likely displace millions of families and put hundreds of thousands of people in danger. I for one have not seen a single positive comment come out from the democratic side of our government since Trump was elected. And along with that Kamala Harris, while she has still used many terms and phrases that signify that she wants a united America, has also attacked Trump and his administration a numerous number of times. If she was a partly cloudy patriot before, at the very least she must be a cloudy patriot now. 

This cycle of shifting in support for the government based on what political party or person is in power is common and well understood. With different people in power come different changes and with that comes controversy and protest no matter what. But the key to having a government where everyone can be a sunshine patriot is to be a fascist government. And it's well-illustrated by president trump today. If you are targeted and prosecuted simply for having a different opinion than those in charge, then of course everyone will be a sunshine patriot! That's why in my opinion this cycle of shift in support is important, it shows diversity in opinion, background and ideas and is ultimately what makes America and its politicians strong. 

There is no such thing as a honorable hypocrite

When you think of important memorials a couple come to mind.

The Vietnam memorial, the 9/11 memorial etc.

But it's not the actual statue or structure of the memorial that provokes a reaction, rather it's a culmination of factors that are just as important as the memorial itself. When creating a memorial, it's important to take in numerous factors like location, size and political context. We learned about this in class when analyzing the 2013 FRQs, in Source E Christine Musser writes about how putting a holocaust memorial in the mall in Washington DC was inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, she talks about how it was strange to create a Holocaust memorial in a country that had done little to prevent the Holocaust. This is something I agreed with as well, specifically because the U.S. was one of the last countries to enter WW2 despite knowing about the horrors Jewish people were enduring at the hands of the Nazis. Also, the reason it entered the war had nothing to do with the Jewish people and rather the result of the attack on Pearl Harbor from Japan. It can be surmised then that the U.S. was perfectly fine with the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people until they were attacked by the Axis powers and were forced to take a strong political stance against them. While some may argue that it serves as a memorial to the Jewish people that live in America today that came here as refugees and to honor the American contribution to the war, that's not entirely representative of the actual situation Jewish refugees faced. While that claim is partially true, America did not actually welcome many Jewish refugees after WW2. Rather America turned away thousands of Jewish Refugees fearing that they were Nazi spies. This persecution of refugees and victims allowed the U.S. to portray itself as a benevolent world power that helped the allies win WW2 but in actuality did nothing to help the people that were actually suffering. The political context of this very controversial history made many people protest the Holocaust memorial being put in the Mall in Washington D.C. because it felt like a slap to the face of the actual refugees and Jewish people who were blatantly ignored and had their Visa's denied as well as the many that ultimately died at the hands of the Nazi Regime while the U.S. did nothing. It being in the capital of the U.S. as well just goes to show how this memorial being placed in a city so ingrained within a government that actively tried to limit and persecute Jewish refugees. The response to the location and political context of this memorial shows just how important factors like size, political context and location matter when trying to honor people who died in such horrific ways.

Citations: 

The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing That They Were Nazi Spies