Many people, myself included, have wondered why I have chosen to name this blog "The Shrike," instead of something more conventional, like "the writing blog," or the "John Stamos fan club blog." The Shrike is a rather odd name, as it sounds most like a mix of "shriek," and "reich," two words that I would not like associated with the blog on which I spend my down time. The name "The Shrike" is actually, as many of you guessed from the title image of this blog, a reference to a type of bird. Shrikes are large songbirds, and rather uninteresting at first glance; they have no bright colors or fancy frills, and have inspired no children's songs of which I am yet aware. A Shrike is a bird found in many areas of the world, although all sub-species of Shrike have one particular attribute in common: a very unique method of food preservation. While most of us humans choose to preserve food by "popping it in the refrigerator," Shrikes save the odd mouse or amphibian for later by impaling its body on a sharp thorn or barbed wire.
The first and only time I had the pleasure of observing this brutish behavior was in the humid swamps of southern Georgia. While working on an outdoor project with the student conservation association, a friend of mine pointed to a bird she thought was a mockingbird, and remarked that the mockingbird was her favorite because of the symbolic role for peace and innocence the bird played in her favorite novel. The large black and white bird then dropped swiftly out of the tree in which it had been sitting, snatched a lizard off the ground, and impaled it unceremoniously on the tines of a pitchfork that had been resting leaned up against a wall.
The scene was obviously very surprising to us, particularly because of the inconspicuous nature of the black-and-white bird sitting in the tree. Therein lies what I believe to be the purpose of good writing and social commentary: to be inconspicuously vicious. Writing has had an inconspicuously vicious impact on the world as we know it: writers like Spinoza and Marx were fundamentally able to change society through writing, while others such as Orwell and Voltaire were able to change forever how we regard establishment. Countless authors have changed our lives and the ways we interact; in being inconspicuously vicious, writing has the ability to change the world.
That, however, is not the purpose or ambition of this particular blog. This blog is merely the side-project of an often bored teenager. If in attempting the inconspicuously vicious I make you laugh or entice you to share a post with a friend, I have achieved my goal. Please don't think I am comparing myself with Voltaire.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Eurocentricity in History Class
I am writing this post on Martin Luther King, Jr. day, a day set aside to honor the leader of nonviolent protests who brought equality to a segregated country. The reason I am writing this, and not furiously scribbling down notes, is that my school, Highland Park Senior, celebrates Martin Luther King, Jr. day by granting all students temporary freedom. The elementary school I attended did not give MLK day off, however, and instead used it as an opportunity to educate children on the history of African Americans and segregation in America.
Throughout elementary school, we were intensively educated on the importance of integration and tolerance. And with good reason: education works almost frighteningly well. In many parts of the world, education is still used to instill values of racism and violent hatred into children. Teaching tolerance in schools has brought us from a segregated country to a black president in about forty years, which is impressive if you consider how long it took us to invent toilet paper (thousands of years).
Through education, we have greatly succeeded in mitigating racism in main-stream America. However, once we are taught not to hate black people, we almost immediately forget they exist. Crack open a copy of A History of the Modern World, the current history book used by Highland Park, and you'll find a map of Europe in the "geographical background" section, to the exclusion of a map of any other region. The preface of the textbook explains that it "makes no claim to be a world history," "focuses primarily on the developments of the west," and "stresses the influence of European societies." All non-European history in the textbook, which is scarce, is presented only as it applies to Europe, and non-European history that does not in some way involve Europe is not present.
Durning history class one day, I discovered that my teacher, who can eloquently describe how Rasputin affected the Russian Revolution for two hours if provoked, did not have any idea who Joseph Mobutu, the dictator who ruled Sub-Saharan Africa's largest country for nearly forty years, was. Nor should she be expected to: Mobutu, and the Great African War that succeeded his reign, are not present in any of our textbooks, and are entirely ignored by most schools and historians in general. It appears that as high schoolers we don't know anything about black people, aside from the fact that we should be nice to them.
The lack of contemporary African history in schools has led Africa to become everything our tolerance education has tried to prevent it from becoming: the giant "dark" continent that appears on our maps, but not in our knowledge. The particularly troubling aspect of our history textbooks is not that it only teaches European history, but that it teaches all history through the lens of European society. In America, we are not European, and besides the fact that our classes are delivered in a European language, schools do not have any obligation to teach history from a European perspective. In American history classes, we are somewhat perplexingly choosing to look at history from the point of view of Europe.
Meanwhile, African history is relegated to special events and national holidays, as if learning African history were some worthy cause, not a necessity. I have always found it ridiculous that we should set aside special time to learn about any certain minority group, as if to compensate for our lack of attention towards that group during the rest of the year. One serious issue with "black history" is this: history is far too interwoven for the teaching of just one group to be relevant. Imagine if we tried to fragment historical education into the histories of all ethnic groups: three months of Asian history, followed by two months for European history, and then a month of Latin America. I suppose we would then allow three weeks for Middle Eastern history, followed by a month of North American history and a week of Australian history, before closing out the year with our typical "black history month." This thinking brought Morgan Freeman, pictured in the quote above, to speak out against black history month, saying: "you're going to relegate my history to a month? Black history is American history." Freeman is always so good at explaining things.
The need for greater education of Africa in our schools is all too apparent. When I had the pleasure of meeting Chingwell Motumbu recently, a former Congolese citizen who started first step initiative, she stressed to me how education was the most important factor in lifting the Democratic Republic of the Congo out of poverty. If we are to lift ourselves out of our own bubble of eurocentricity and into global relevance, it will require the same equal attention to education that is worldwide and multi-cultural, and this includes education of Africa, not just as it applies to the West, but education that highlights the value of African society independently.
It has been suggested that history remains Eurocentric because history is taught as a study of "us" and who "we" are and where "we" are going as a people. But what are Americans if not a conglomeration of worldwide cultures? In fact, what is modern civilization if not a conglomeration of influences from across the globe, not merely, as my textbook implies, made up of the influence of European societies. As a global society, we all benefit from the contributions and the histories of other societies, not just as they apply to our own, but in their own right.
written by Abe Clark, January 21, 2013
 |
| obviously, we learned well |
Through education, we have greatly succeeded in mitigating racism in main-stream America. However, once we are taught not to hate black people, we almost immediately forget they exist. Crack open a copy of A History of the Modern World, the current history book used by Highland Park, and you'll find a map of Europe in the "geographical background" section, to the exclusion of a map of any other region. The preface of the textbook explains that it "makes no claim to be a world history," "focuses primarily on the developments of the west," and "stresses the influence of European societies." All non-European history in the textbook, which is scarce, is presented only as it applies to Europe, and non-European history that does not in some way involve Europe is not present.
Durning history class one day, I discovered that my teacher, who can eloquently describe how Rasputin affected the Russian Revolution for two hours if provoked, did not have any idea who Joseph Mobutu, the dictator who ruled Sub-Saharan Africa's largest country for nearly forty years, was. Nor should she be expected to: Mobutu, and the Great African War that succeeded his reign, are not present in any of our textbooks, and are entirely ignored by most schools and historians in general. It appears that as high schoolers we don't know anything about black people, aside from the fact that we should be nice to them.
 |
| Another excerpt from A History of the Modern World |
Meanwhile, African history is relegated to special events and national holidays, as if learning African history were some worthy cause, not a necessity. I have always found it ridiculous that we should set aside special time to learn about any certain minority group, as if to compensate for our lack of attention towards that group during the rest of the year. One serious issue with "black history" is this: history is far too interwoven for the teaching of just one group to be relevant. Imagine if we tried to fragment historical education into the histories of all ethnic groups: three months of Asian history, followed by two months for European history, and then a month of Latin America. I suppose we would then allow three weeks for Middle Eastern history, followed by a month of North American history and a week of Australian history, before closing out the year with our typical "black history month." This thinking brought Morgan Freeman, pictured in the quote above, to speak out against black history month, saying: "you're going to relegate my history to a month? Black history is American history." Freeman is always so good at explaining things.
The need for greater education of Africa in our schools is all too apparent. When I had the pleasure of meeting Chingwell Motumbu recently, a former Congolese citizen who started first step initiative, she stressed to me how education was the most important factor in lifting the Democratic Republic of the Congo out of poverty. If we are to lift ourselves out of our own bubble of eurocentricity and into global relevance, it will require the same equal attention to education that is worldwide and multi-cultural, and this includes education of Africa, not just as it applies to the West, but education that highlights the value of African society independently.
It has been suggested that history remains Eurocentric because history is taught as a study of "us" and who "we" are and where "we" are going as a people. But what are Americans if not a conglomeration of worldwide cultures? In fact, what is modern civilization if not a conglomeration of influences from across the globe, not merely, as my textbook implies, made up of the influence of European societies. As a global society, we all benefit from the contributions and the histories of other societies, not just as they apply to our own, but in their own right.
written by Abe Clark, January 21, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
On the Worldwide Imbalance of Labor
Sometime during the incredibly heated and incredibly irrelevant Republican primary of 2012, evangelical candidate Rick Santorum stood in front of a large crowd after pulling off a narrow victory over Mitt Romney in Iowa. "My dad taught me over and over again: Work hard, work hard, and work hard," Santorum patriotically delivered. The applause that followed this statement reflected how perfectly this statement illustrates the American belief in Capitalism. Even Democrats could not argue with this: no one would say they are "against" working hard. While few Democrats would disagree with Santorum's platform that working hard prevents poverty, fewer still would disagree with the idea that hard work pays off.
Remember, if you will, back to 2008, during the last election. Remember what the most prominent issue of that election was? Chances are, you remember it being the same as it was this election: the economy. That made sense back then: the economy sucked. Unemployment was climbing; by 2009, it was nearing 10%, and the country was terrified of economic ruin. The "great recession," as we called it back then, would eventually end. A couple of years after President Obama took office, the economy began to slowly improve. The unemployment rate dropped below 8%, and President Obama was rewarded with a second term. Now image if, in 2009, the economy had not gotten better, and instead had become worse...and worse...and worse...
This is the economic situation that grips Greece, which currently has an unemployment rate of about 26.8% percent; approximately what the United States sustained during the Great Depression.
In a recent poll conducted in eight European countries, a plurality of citizens in five of those countries rated Greece as the "least hardworking" country in Europe. In case you are unaware or a fish, Greece is currently in an extremely difficult economic situation, with unemployment and debt that have led to violent riots. Greece itself was the only country in the poll that considered themselves the hardest working country in Europe, yet they were right: according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), citizens of Greece work longer hours than any other European country. It would appear from this study that hard work does not pay off as it should.
Interestingly, every country except for Greece ranked Germany as the hardest working country, yet it actually works the second-least according to the OECD. Germany's reputation for being an extremely hard-working country has most likely risen from its resilience to Europe's economic issues: in 2012, Germany reported just a 6.70 percent unemployment rate, far below the European Union average. This study showed that, for some reason, we seem to equate hard work with success. In fact, the true correlation is closer to the opposite: Matthew Yglesias wrote for Slate magazine that "Countries aren't rich because their people work hard. When people are poor, that's when they work hard."
When we equate wealth with hard work, we corrupt our ability to see where our work is truly going. Citizens of highly developed Norway work an average of 1413 hours per year, one of the lowest amounts in the OECD's study, but pull in a median annual income of $31,011, among the highest. The hardest working non-European countries in the study, South Korea, Chile, and Israel, make the 20th, 32nd, and 25th highest per year in median income, after most highly-developed European countries. Of course it is true that hard work pays off, but it only pays off in the right context. Capitalism does not, contrary to what many think, create an environment where hard work is rewarded with economic advancement. Rather, it fosters an economic system that rewards those who have capital with more capital.
It isn't the fault of highly-developed countries like Norway and France that other countries work hard for little benefit. Those countries should be commended for figuring out a way around difficult labor. Rather, it is the capitalistic worldwide economy that so many countries embrace, and that so many countries believe will solve their economic issues. Capitalism dictates that hard work is rewarded with economic advancement. In reality, the Capitalist system rewards those countries that are already economically stable, and don't need to rely on long work hours for economic security. The data taken by the OECD shows that no country is truly struggling because of a lack of hard work. The fact that so many people in Europe thought Greece was a "lazy" country is proof of how far Capitalist ideology has become engrained into our society.
written by Abe Clark, January 15, 2013
Remember, if you will, back to 2008, during the last election. Remember what the most prominent issue of that election was? Chances are, you remember it being the same as it was this election: the economy. That made sense back then: the economy sucked. Unemployment was climbing; by 2009, it was nearing 10%, and the country was terrified of economic ruin. The "great recession," as we called it back then, would eventually end. A couple of years after President Obama took office, the economy began to slowly improve. The unemployment rate dropped below 8%, and President Obama was rewarded with a second term. Now image if, in 2009, the economy had not gotten better, and instead had become worse...and worse...and worse...
This is the economic situation that grips Greece, which currently has an unemployment rate of about 26.8% percent; approximately what the United States sustained during the Great Depression.
In a recent poll conducted in eight European countries, a plurality of citizens in five of those countries rated Greece as the "least hardworking" country in Europe. In case you are unaware or a fish, Greece is currently in an extremely difficult economic situation, with unemployment and debt that have led to violent riots. Greece itself was the only country in the poll that considered themselves the hardest working country in Europe, yet they were right: according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), citizens of Greece work longer hours than any other European country. It would appear from this study that hard work does not pay off as it should.
Interestingly, every country except for Greece ranked Germany as the hardest working country, yet it actually works the second-least according to the OECD. Germany's reputation for being an extremely hard-working country has most likely risen from its resilience to Europe's economic issues: in 2012, Germany reported just a 6.70 percent unemployment rate, far below the European Union average. This study showed that, for some reason, we seem to equate hard work with success. In fact, the true correlation is closer to the opposite: Matthew Yglesias wrote for Slate magazine that "Countries aren't rich because their people work hard. When people are poor, that's when they work hard."
When we equate wealth with hard work, we corrupt our ability to see where our work is truly going. Citizens of highly developed Norway work an average of 1413 hours per year, one of the lowest amounts in the OECD's study, but pull in a median annual income of $31,011, among the highest. The hardest working non-European countries in the study, South Korea, Chile, and Israel, make the 20th, 32nd, and 25th highest per year in median income, after most highly-developed European countries. Of course it is true that hard work pays off, but it only pays off in the right context. Capitalism does not, contrary to what many think, create an environment where hard work is rewarded with economic advancement. Rather, it fosters an economic system that rewards those who have capital with more capital.
 |
| Writing about the terribly sad global economic system that hurts many countries reminded me of this funny cartoon I once read. |
It isn't the fault of highly-developed countries like Norway and France that other countries work hard for little benefit. Those countries should be commended for figuring out a way around difficult labor. Rather, it is the capitalistic worldwide economy that so many countries embrace, and that so many countries believe will solve their economic issues. Capitalism dictates that hard work is rewarded with economic advancement. In reality, the Capitalist system rewards those countries that are already economically stable, and don't need to rely on long work hours for economic security. The data taken by the OECD shows that no country is truly struggling because of a lack of hard work. The fact that so many people in Europe thought Greece was a "lazy" country is proof of how far Capitalist ideology has become engrained into our society.
written by Abe Clark, January 15, 2013
Friday, December 21, 2012
The Great Truth
I was forced to write a poem for someone in my 12th Grade Theory of Knowledge class. Here's what I came up with:
The Great Truth
ave ever you wondered on what lies beyond,
This whirling blue orb that we happened upon,
That some foreign agent created all things,
And to this earth all forms of life he did bring.
To answer this question we all must not look,
Between dusty pages of Bible or book,
Or under the microscope, squinting the eye,
No, for this great answer we look toward the sky:
And look high and wide, as far as we can,
And there we see floating, a sort of a man,
Who's also an alien. An interesting thought,
That all of our lives on this earth he has wrought.
He built the tall pyramids; China's great wall;
And under his hand Vader's Empire didst fall.
So don't this truth doubt, though the truth may seem odd,
Scientology is king; L. Ron Hubbard is god.
Written by Abe Clark, December 21
Sunday, December 16, 2012
The Art of Insult
Perhaps you can sympathize with this situation: sitting in Physics class one day, I overheard two goons in back of me undertaking a heated discussion of sporting events. The conversation went more or less as follows:
"I'm telling you, golf is a sport."
"No, it's not, there's no teams, and it doesn't even make you sweat."
"Yeah, but, it's really hard; you gotta be really good."
"Yeah, well, okay, then hot-dog eating is a sport."
"You're gay!"
I instinctively rolled my eyes at this last statement. I thought about my best friend, who happens to be gay, and the ambivalence he would show toward hot-dog eating's status as a sport. I thought about my best overweight friend, who happens to be straight, and how he might take offense at having his sexuality questioned because of his eating patterns. But mostly, I thought about the qualities of the insult itself.
"You're gay." It doesn't mean "you have a fundamental lacking of cranial capacity," or "you have an unfortunate lack of manliness," it means "you find the same gender sexually attractive." However, I don't think sport-guy one really meant to call sport-guy two a homosexual. Rather, he meant to call him any mixture of "dim-witted" and "socially inept." Unfortunately, because sport-guy one lacked the vocabulary necessary to convey this ignominy, he could only rely on the insult "gay."
The tragic thing about sport-guy's insult was that not only did it fail to insult thoroughly, it backfired. The insult exposed sports-guy's lack of vocabulary, and presented him as rather dim-witted himself. Where a simple “that is a logical fallacy” would have sufficed, “you’re gay” was possibly the worst thing sports-guy could have said at the time in terms of debate quality. "You're gay" has practically become the conversational equivalent of "I concede; you win this argument. You are both smarter and less homophobic than I."
The one thing I will give sports-guy is that the intent was there. Sports guy had decent grounds to insult the other sports-guy, and had the perfect opportunity to ridicule his insipid hot-dog comment. While the execution was terrible, the potential was there. He just needed to learn some better insults.
A good insult can really turn an argument, or a friendly conversation, in the insulter’s favor. The insultee, likely taken aback by a well-directed and colorful insult, will cease defending his position and instead be forced to defend his honor by coming up with another, better, insult. The convenient thing about a good insult is that even if the insultee comes up with a valid retort, the conversation’s result will be in your favor when the subject changes. For example:
“I’m telling you, Porkchops would totally make a better national bird than the bald eagle. I mean, how many eagles do we even eat in this country? A porkchop would be much more representative.”
“That doesn’t even make sense. You aren’t supposed to eat the national bird, and a porkchop isn’t even a...”
“YOU, sir, are nothing but a barmy berk-brained pootchie-parceled pram-pot!”
“What? Oh, uh, well, you’re a big, fat...stupid...uh...yeah, you’re stupid.”
Conversational result: Porkchops would make a better national bird.
 |
| I know what you're thinking: maybe when pigs fly. |
A good insult can tell your victim a lot about yourself: that you are intimidating, intelligent, person who is able to stand his ground. It can also tell the insultee a little about your cultural background; where you grew up, and what your nationality is. This is because insults are very often cultural. If you are being called a “wanker,” you are most likely standing in someone’s way in Britain. If you are being called a “fascist connard,” stop talking politics in France. And, if you have insulted a group of speech impaired people, well, you can guess how they may choose to insult you. If you are devoid of culture, however, feel free to choose from this list:
Yiddish: Zoln dir vaksn tzibeles fun pupik! (may an onion grow from your navel).
Soviet Russian: Пусть ваша жизнь станет таким же несчастным, как моя. (May your life become as miserable as mine)
Minnesotan: Um...your shirt looks nice.
New York: Stupid frickin' stupid tourist comin’ into MY city an’ leavin’ a three-dollar tip, stupid, stupid, stupid, tourist comin’ inta MY city an’ three dollar tip, stupid tourist three dollar MY city... (source: original research)
Chinese:
"我喜欢鸡汤面" (far too inappropriate to print)
Cuban:
"No single-payer health care system for you!"
Cubist:
Relativist:
"You're an ass, even objectively."
Relative:
"No more blog posts until you find a job, or you're out of the basement, mister."
Dadaist:
Picking a cultural insult can be a very good choice of insult, because not only does it intimidate, it tells the victim a little bit about yourself. This is why insults can be a very good way to meet new people. Try it with blind dates, classmate peers, crushes, and long-lost relatives, as a way to break the ice and learn a little about each other. If you don't have any specific culture of insults, don't be ashamed to borrow one from the list above. Doing so will allow you to appear worldly and cultured. Impress people with your appreciation for world culture by using these at job interviews, business meetings, and oral exams.
 |
| "Your hair looks like an inverted snail's shell." "How enlightening! Welcome aboard!" |
If insults are an art, then one of the greatest artists of all time was former Prime Minister of England Winston Churchill, with his infamous insults directed at Lady Astor. Astor had told him he was drunk, to which Churchill replied "Yes, and you, Madam, are ugly. But tomorrow, I shall be sober, and you will still be ugly." Another artist of insults was our own President Theodore Roosevelt, who gave my personal favorite when he grumbled that President William McKinley “has no more backbone than a chocolate éclair.” William Shakespeare, thought of by many teenagers as a boring and dull writer, was actually a master of the insult, crafting brilliant personal affronts: “they lie deadly that tell you you have good faces,” violent insults: “go hang yourself, you naughty mocking uncle,” and: “it shall to the Barber’s with your beard!” Whichever category of insult that falls into.
So next time I'm sitting in Physics class, I hope to hear the following:
"Cheerleading isn't a sport"
"I mean, it can be...if the chicks are hot enough, huh huh huh huh huh."
"You, sir; the only difference between you and an aircraft carrier full of festering beetles' carcasses in the aircraft carrier in which the aforementioned deceased insects float."
"Guess it's not a sport."
written by Abe Clark, Dec 16, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Energy and the Presidential Debates
I've greatly enjoyed watching the reactions to the debates. It's a great time of year, when all Americans can sit down in front of their television and shout at it. For the most part, people’s reactions have focused on Romney’s describing his “binders full of women” during a question about women’s rights in the workplace. (In short, the argument was that Romney could support women in the workplace because he’d hired them before and made sure that they could get home to take care of their children and cook and do other woman’s work while still working. I'm sure that's what the women were worried about.)
This was
not, however, the part of the debate that concerned me. I saw, near the
beginning, a question on energy, in which both candidates held their ground
considerably well. They both talked about how they wanted to increase jobs in
the oil and coal sectors, with Obama touting how he had opened up more public
lands to drilling than Bush. But he's also invested in green energy! Historians surveying the postapocalyptic wasteland of two hundred years in the future shall surely say of Obama:
Romney, meanwhile, criticized Obama's inability to let the sector expand indefinitely, turning the heat up on Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Romney's mix-of-energy policy includes both kinds- oil and coal!
Romney, meanwhile, criticized Obama's inability to let the sector expand indefinitely, turning the heat up on Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Romney's mix-of-energy policy includes both kinds- oil and coal!
Obama
replied by pointing out that Romney, during his
governorship, publicly declared that a coal plant “killed” and helped to
shut
it down, which shut down coal jobs. As a man who criticizes his
opponent's departure from facts, Obama should probably be encouraging
when Romney does resort to truths.
This happened during the first debate, too. Romney twice pressed Obama on his funding of green energy companies, which Obama did not even attempt to defend.
This happened during the first debate, too. Romney twice pressed Obama on his funding of green energy companies, which Obama did not even attempt to defend.
These
discussions of energy were entirely backwards. Neither one mentioned the issue
of global warming, perhaps the most pressing issue to our society currently.
Neither one defended the closing of coal plants by pointing out that just the
direct pollution from coal plants, without even mentioning the long-term
effects of global warming, kill thirteen thousand people per year[1].
Romney has rejected the environmental moderation he championed during his time
as governor. Obama continues to pretend that “clean coal” is not a complete
fabrication of the coal industry.
We ought to
have a president who is proud of shutting down coal plants. We ought to have a
president who defends the public’s right to public lands, who will stifle the
oil drilling industry. We ought to have a president who will stand in front of
the Keystone XL pipeline every step of the way, who will note with a smile that
oil production is down in America, and who will not replace coal with the
slightly-better natural gas.
We ought to have a president who understands that short-term job numbers are not worth a serious risk to society. The current voting priorities of America are irrational and absurd. Environment should be the number-one priority in this election, but it seems all we can do is hope for 2016.
written by Noah Shavit-Lonstein, Oct. 27, 2012
[1]
http://washingtonindependent.com/97196/study-predicts-13200-deaths-from-coal-pollutants-this-year
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)