The Most Controversial Blog Yet

I will be labeled as un-American for this one but it was during listening to a couple of conservative radio commentaries that I began to think and realize this idea. The opinionists were talking about the waves of protests and revolutions in North Africa and the "Middle East" / Arab Nations. The first was talking about how Muamar Qaddafi had lost touch with reality and even with some of the pilots in his military as they sought asylum in Malta rather than attacking their own people. The next commentary was about how we (Americans) had better watch out because we (Americans) may not get the leadership in these countries that we (Americans) would want. The opinionist put out the supposive threats of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and even al-Qaeda even though these elements are not leading the protests.

The second commentary went on to praise Benjamin Franklin and John Adams for setting up a blessed republic instead of a democracy so that the rule of the chaotic, selfish individuals en masse can be overruled by a divinely governed law. In other words that a minority that claims the moral high ground can rule the chaotic masses because they have been given the correct rule book. I can see where conservative commentarists are going with this. They have to admit that no, they did not win enough people's minds to control the Senate, in other words they are still in the minority but they will propose that they have been divinely inspired to save the country their way.

This is typical Americanism and isn't shocking to me and doesn't make this blog controversial. The first commentary ended with the speaker speaker questioning where the U.N. and Amnesty International were when it came to the situation in Libya. Obviously the speaker had not checked his facts much because the U.N. and Amnesty International have been monitoring Libya for human rights violations for decades. It is this type of blind Americanism that drive's the world's hatred for America in undeveloped and under developed nations. We declare things so that they meet our goals for what we think is needed throughout the world.

After thinking about this I proposed my "slanderous" recognition to someone who got upset with me and didn't want to discuss it because it was so "outrageous". My logic was so "flawed" according to this person I trust and respect. Yesterday was President's Day to commemorate George Washington and Abraham Lincoln's birthdays. I proposed that Abraham Lincoln, who after previous administrations' concessions and peaceful negotiations with a popular uprising, decided that he could not let the people of the south break up his nation even if it meant using the military. The same stance that Qaddafi and Ahmedinejab (and other "dictators" / Arab leaders) have taken. If you think I am supporting these leaders skip down to the end of this blog and clear your mind of it. I am supporting the people of these nations.

In 1861 America forces were mobilized. There is no denying that Lincoln used military force to keep the nation as he thought was best, under his administration (I am not even suggesting that it wasn't for the best). The first battles were fought in the South, Charleston and Manassas (Bull Run). The people of the south seeking to get rid of what they saw as an oppressive government took the fort in the harbor at Charleston and Lincoln moved his army into Virginia. The bloodiest war America has known was fought savagely (most notably Sherman's March to the Sea) against its own citizens right to assemble as they pleased and to set up a government representative of their wishes and political opinions. America had famous military defectors / dissenters that joined their "own people" on the opposite battleline (Robert E. Lee & Stonewall Jackson) instead of a couple of pilots defecting to an island in the midlle of the Mediterranean Sea rather than attacking their "own people".

The response I was given was how could I compare Lincoln with Qaddafi. One was a moral, sane leader (Christian went unmentioned but was understood) doing his patriotic duty whereas apparently Qaddafi is an immoral, insane dictator famous for being a mystic Muslim who is supposedly not patriotic. Don't get me wrong, I do feel that Qaddafi's regime has been abusing human rights for four decades and that he rules autocratically. Then again in the autumn of 1861 when Indians in Minnesota who were promised food in peace treaties to stay on reservations that were so small there wasn't enough room to plant sufficient agriculture to feed themselves (concentration camps) and Lincoln decided to keep that food for the war effort so the Indians seized a trainload of food from settlers who were living on their old lands Lincoln ordered the execution by hanging on a cold, winter Christmas Day of fifty "warriors", males who needed food for their families. The only real difference is the religion and the country of origin of the leader.

The undeveloped and under developed countries of this world continue to chant "Yankee Go Home" because we have had a system of reaping / raping the resources from their countries at lower prices than we could get them from our own country while giving loans and aid to the dictators to build palaces while minimally supplying necessities to the citizens. The citizens are then taxed to pay the dictators extravagances that are way beyond the country's means. National debts escalate so taxes are increased and rations are decreased by dictators creating more dissent for Americans. In America we are blind to the fact that we have enjoyed the system that has allowed these autocracies to exist and we are also blind to our own history.

If you see someone familiar in the crowd of protesters chanting "Yankee Go Home" it is not me but at least I can sympathize and realize why they are protesting. When we think it is our right to determine how other live or even accept a system that does we give democracy the bad name especially when we play political games with our own national debt because none of us want to pay the country's debt through taxes. I would say that if we (Americans) get what we (Americans) want we will get what we (Americans) deserve both at home and abroad.

What a Wonderful World?

I was just listening to the radio and they were playing Rod Stewart’s version of Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World”. Then an appliance store advertisement was played with part of the original version. Listening to both so close together you realized the words and the tone of the music and voice of the original.

This song that is now so well-loved by generations of listeners because to most people it sounds so optimistic to them in their cultural perspective has long been misunderstood. Rod Stewart can recognize the music as being blues-based, but his version is sentimentally laced, nostalgic with superficial attention to the words. The superficial attention to the words give this song a supposed upbeat message of cheer and this is the danger of hearing something from one culture in a different cultural perspective.

Louis Armstrong on the other hand was singing a bluesy song with longing for what he is singing about. Here was a world famous musician who in his own country most of his lifetime had to enter where he was performing through kitchens or back entrances. Performing to multi-cultural audiences he was up in front of the affluent who could afford the admission price and a night out on the town. He himself, came from poverty and never completed school as he started working as a shoeshine boy and then became a horn player in a band.

He learned to play the trumpet exceptionally and piano good enough to write songs, so he put together several bands before becoming popular enough for a recording contract. “What a Wonderful Life” was written towards the end of a great career and even more specifically after the Civil Rights Act of 1965. People hear the words about the sky being so blue, the birds singing and people saying, “How do you do?” meaning, “I love you” and assume it is an optimistic song. All of those things sound great that they hear, no one can deny that.

Why would anyone be blue if they were making these observations? Isn’t he saying, “What a wonderful world”? One’s cultural perspective can change where that question mark goes. Listen to the words completely. He is singing that “I see …” or “I hear…”. His observations are of things that should make a wonderful world but he is asking, “What a wonderful world?” because white America was not asking him, “How do you do?” because they did not love the color of his skin. He didn’t get much time to experience the sky so blue or the birds singing because his life had been too busy. By the time he wrote this song he was depressed and addicted to heroin even though he was “a success.”

The majority of listeners worldwide took this song to be an optimistic song from America. Rod Stewart was still a resident of Great Britain when it originally came out. Later the movie “Good Morning Vietnam” used the song in its true ironic meaning when the words are juxtaposed with that conflict but that movie backfired bringing the song back as nostalgic. Now the sky is blocked by city buildings or filled with pollution and the birds are drowned out by automobiles and jet airplanes. Oh and in our age of fear of strangers how many people ask you, “How do you do?”