Whether it’s just or fair, “-isms” are ideologies held by the individual. Racism and Sexism are prominent examples of -isms that have hindered progress in our nation. To disallow a “that’s just how things are” state of the nation, we must assert this: there is no right or wrong belief, just society evolving side by side, and engaging in realistic activism. Reaffirming this core belief proves, the lack of understanding that right and wrong are opinion-based, is why there is a strain between Right-wing conservatives and Left-wing progressives. Hot Take: Progress is about evolution, Liberal for liberating out of oppression. To be a Traditional Republican is safe—to be an extremist, I hope that is not what the party orients their party around . . . Regardless, how politics is conducted is not simply a blue v. red issue. If American politics, in its foundation, declared independence from being governed, how is the current state of politics blurring the line between individual declaration and infringement on someone’s rights? Despite a lack of renouncing -isms in extreme, modern politicians have instilled hope in me that our modernizing government aims to band together as much as possible. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, “-isms” are still ideologies held by persons as facts of life. Take Eugenics for example. Eugenics was taught to me as a Nazi ideology. In actuality, Eugenics simply argues, “Anglo-Saxon/white people are the superior race.” In practice, people wielded Eugenics to pillage and colonize Africa, in addition to advancing antisemitism during WWII. You may view discourse around Eugenics as an archaic topic, however, it is evident in modern immigration laws, the church’s stance against same sex rights, and women’s health care regulation; these all originate from a neo-chosen people ideology. ‘neo’ simply means the revival of an original concept or belief. Even neo-Nazis do not inherently view themselves as present-day Germanic National-Socialists; however, the subculture is being streamlined from generation to generation since fascism’s inception nearly a century ago. To better understand ‘political revivals,’ I will highlight acclaimed blues musician, author, and activist Daryl Davis’. Daryl Davis’ work explores lingering Ku Klux Klan beliefs, arguably demonstrating there is a direct link between replacement conspiracies and cultural polarization. In going around the country to sit with Klans members, he did not set out to convert them, he wanted to understand ‘How can you hate me when you don’t even know me?’ With the rise of Trump he expanded, “When was ‘again?’ Was it back when I was drinking from a separate water fountain? Was it when I couldn’t eat in that restaurant over there?… ‘Make America Great Again’ – before I had equality?” Daryl Davis’ initiated the mission to replace the hate. Davis exposed that changing the system requires “[Keeping] in mind, when two enemies are talking, they’re not fighting, they’re talking. . . It’s when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence” (Daryl Davis TEDTalk, 18:32-18:39). Postmodernism is no longer upon us. In our post-postmodernism, compromise is to give-and-take. This expanded scope is about inclusion, not one’s capacity to include. If no one is willing to compromise, maybe this is why we end up fighting to take up space. Bottom line– street law, civil engagement, and activism are mutual efforts. We cannot fixate on -isms, individual discourse, and opinion-based political preference. Yes, the government must abandon ‘composite-ism’ and leverage consensus. There can be no melting pot. Americans can no longer allow a push against the evolving majority. To campaign for -isms’ decline into obscurity, the power of your tongue and wield of your action can create a future where progress forces these attitudes into the margins—the majority, into the center.This center is Social Justice Reform. This sociological structure is the people’s issue, not “the publics” or a marginalized issue. This understanding is a nonpartisan one that makes bipartisanship nonpolarizing.
By Raven W. M.
110 years ago marked the beginning of a new political era for the Irish. Centuries of oppressive rule by British overlords included the prohibition of expressions of Irish culture, discrimination against its Catholic population, and worst of all, intentional mass starvation during the 1840s. Although it is known as the Irish Potato Famine, the reality is that while the potatoes died in large quantities, British landlords confiscated virtually all of Ireland’s supply of other foods, such as beef, cheese, and fish. They made exorbitant profits off selling them back in Great Britain, whose wealth contrasted with the extreme poverty that scarred Ireland in the 19th century. As a result, around one million Irish people died of hunger, and millions more emigrated from the island, mainly to urban centers in Canada, the United States, and Great Britain since then. In fact, the island’s population today still is lower than it was in 1841, while tens of millions of people in America alone claim Irish ancestry. But in 1916, a rebellion that would serve as the catalyst for Irish independence began. The Easter Rising conducted by fighters aiming to establish Ireland as an independent republic in Dublin was unsuccessful after days of attempting to seize control of various buildings in the city. British troops crushed the rebellion, but later lost to the Irish republicans in the War for Independence. Despite a civil war shortly after Irish independence, the Republic of Ireland has enjoyed political stability and a lack of armed conflict ever since, even during the Second World War, when the country remained neutral. Ireland was no longer impoverished to subsistence levels, but still remained a largely agrarian, isolated economy that was far from Europe’s strongest in the mid 20th century. The economic policies of the new republic were marked by intense trade barriers, and in particular, high tariffs on imports of British goods in the 1930s. These failed to produce prosperity for Irish farmers, and even after the Second World War, Ireland’s economy remained relatively stagnant, in contrast to the booming ones on the European mainland. However, since the 1970s, reforms in Ireland’s economic policy have greatly improved its significance on the global stage. In 1973, Ireland turned away from protectionism by joining the European Economic Community, predecessor of the European Union, which allowed for free movement of goods, services, capital, and people between the island and continental Europe. This would only be the first step towards producing its economic boom later on. Combined with low corporate tax rates that kicked in during the turn of the millennium, it has produced a business-friendly environment not just to other European investors and corporations, but for the rest of the world as well. Major American firms, such as Dell and Intel have also established presence in Ireland’s business-friendly environment to gain access to the European Union’s market, which has turned it into the “Silicon Valley of Europe.” In fact, the country has now greatly surpassed its former colonizer in GDP Per Capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity, becoming one of the richest members of the EU. Even when Ireland’s government imposes restrictions on market activity, it has done so in a highly transparent manner. Ireland consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, and has invested its tax revenue and subsidies from the EU heavily in education to continue this economic growth. These contrast sharply with many other countries that gained independence from Britain, such as Nigeria and Zimbabwe, whose public institutions have been rife with corruption and mismanagement of funds. It is not a coincidence that many of Britain’s similar former African colonies also rank low on indices of business friendliness and market freedoms, which has severely hampered their economic growth. If colonialism really explained poverty in the world, Ireland would be far from where it is today economically.
By Edward Kim
It may come as a shock to individuals who have been told otherwise that feminism and women’s rights are not the same concept. It is unclear when the two ideas were interconnected, however, in modern culture, especially digital media culture, you cannot believe in women’s rights and say you’re not a feminist. Common arguments used to respond to those who try to disconnect the two are to ask them to get rid of all of the things they received from feminism, and deem them oppressed. However, there is a vast amount of undebatable arguments that sit below the surface as to why the two are not the same. The most simple is that the idea of “women’s rights” is a term that speaks for itself, while feminism, despite popular belief, is not. Women’s rights simply encompasses women’s ability to have liberty and the same access legally as men. The idea of feminism drives beyond that; feminism is a movement shaped by its authors. To make the statement “feminism believes in equality” is logically incorrect, because feminism is a social movement with a variety of different perspectives. Additionally, a similar statement of “it’s only fourth wave feminism” is also incorrect, because quotes from multiple early authors of first wave feminist literature associate themselves against systems of religion (primarily Christianity), traditional family structure, and women who chose to partake in the two. Overall, this reasoning fundamentally separates feminism from “women’s rights” or “women’s equality” because it associates equality with debatable ideas, not solid concepts. As time passes on in societies, the definitions of popular movements tend to change. Feminism is not exempt. Today, feminism is associated with “pro-choice” and other political movements. Advertisements like Nike’s “Dream Crazy” highlight current feminist perspectives of toxic sameness – the common definition of “feminism” today not only believes in underlying oppression, at a systemic level, but its method of dismantling oppression is by disconnecting women from traditional roles and placing their value in their success in typically masculine settings. Arguably, feminism as a movement does not create equality on the level of both sexes and their typical gender distinctions, but it disconnects women from the idea of gender altogether, taking their groundedness away from biological-social connections, and arguing that men and women should not be distinct social groups, only distinct biologically. The most important subnote here is that identifying feminism’s wins for women’s legal advancement does not take away these tensions between morality and underlying sexist trajectories. The underlying issue in all of this is rooted in the lack of thought given to “pro-women” ideas and the irresponsibility associated with modern “girlhood”. The blind acceptance of anything that seemingly positively influences women or places them on an equal level to men, regardless of the fact it does not properly represent the essence of womanhood, is an issue by which society has turned into a gender-confused warzone. This is not to say gender diversity does not exist, as we see intersex individuals being born for many years, but false gender diversity has blurred the line between “pro-women” and “pro-sameness”. This rhetorical dystopia reflects the very ideas we were warned about in previous years, which could be considered “Orwellian”, and unfortunately, it has torn apart classical ideas of women’s rights and any true opportunity for respect of our sexual difference.
By Megan Fincher
Follow Us