Buffers Between Peace and Violence

After reading a few posts, I looked more into an article on the Franz Fanon's view on violence against injustice. I believe that these controversial ideas were brought about by the harsh extremeness of the times, and the lack of systems for the people.  Before colonialism, most major revolutions, that brought about good change, were actually achieved through radical uprisings and violence.  Ironically, this violence was able to bring about a more just world, as it did during the French Revolution.  With this prior knowledge, his belief in necessary violence is not surprising.  Although I too do not believe that violence should be the path to freedom, we have to take into account the differences between our society today and the times he lived in.  Currently, we have many established organizations and systems, such as the United Nations and our government, that help maintain the peace.  What I mean to say is that we have the means to bring about change in a civil way; we just have to work the system.  In order to more fully understand his position, we must realize that his society was completely different from ours.  He lived in a time where there were no systems to work, no means to help the people's voice be heard, and consequently no buffers between peace and violence; just two distinct groups - the oppressors and the oppressed.

Dinesh D'Souza- religious scholar

In a recent debate with the self-pronounced atheist Christopher Hitchens, Dinesh D'Souza flung himself into a worldly argument in an attempt to justify virtually every aspect of Christianity. His defense was formidable, as Hitchens' attack was relentless. From the beginning, one could sense D'Souza's immediate disadvantage as a theocratic scholar. He began by calling out and condemning a society that had conformed to contemporary social values rather than the Christian based morals that had guided people's lives for thousands of years. He clung to his faith in the heat of Hitchens' accusations that pertained to science, politics, and historical indications of religious immorality and ruthless behavior. It is almost impossible to deny the arguments of Mr. Hitchens, as their validity could simply be justified by "any person who could think." However, I couldn't help but respect the way D'Souza valiantly and credibly defended his position. With every Hitchens offensive, he found a way to counter the accusations by pointing out, ultimately, that his opponent's strongest arguments were purely circumstantial. Even in the scientific arena, Mr. D'Souza indicated the presence of scientific embodiments in aforementioned religious ideals. How could the electron know to be attracted to a proton? How are scientific laws justified? Were humans only coincidentally developed/placed upon this earth with a natural compatibility and knowledge of our surroundings? He provoked questions that certainly challenge atheist arguments on non-sensical aspects of theism. Science could be evidence of a greater and universal scientific mind. However, despite the hope that D'Souza laid out for us wishful thinkers, every part of his argument was grounded by a foundation defined by faith. If faith was absent, his arguments were simply irrelevant. In his mind, atheists were shutting out the evidence and effects of God and confining themselves to what appeared to be a rational and more appropriate belief system (especially in our modern world). But he seemed to be unaware that even though the idea and possibility of God is undeniable, that does necessarily correspond to absolute religious belief. He had the advantage of genuinely  believing in Christianity and God. Some of us, unfortunately,  do not.

Frantz Fanon

Frantz Fanon was an African psychiatrist and writer who lived from 1925 to 1961. He openly protested colonialization and all of the negative effects that the people under imperialistic rule had to experience. He was one of the main inpirations for the leaders of the Black Power movement in the United States. During the time in which Fanon lived, all the countries of Europe were posessed by racist ideas regarding their colonies. Black people were expected to give up all of their traditions and culture and adopt the white way of living. Fanon was a main supporting force in many of the colonial independence movements, mostly supplying them with supplies.

I found this article extremely interesting as it talks about Fanon's extremely controversial beliefs on combatting colonialism. He believed, not only that it was necessary for colonised people to use violence to combat their oppressors, but also believed that violence was a way to unite all people fighting for independence and "binding people to the liberation movement." I do not share Fanon's belief that violence is necessary to break colonialisms hold. There are surely other ways to fight for independence that do not involve direct combat with the oppressors.

Dinesh

I used this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4

The video is a debate with Daniel Dennett. Daniel Dennett raises the question, is god a human invention? *the question was proposed by Dinesh

Another big question raised is why is the youth turning away from religion? I think that this is an obvious question. People are getting smarter. People aren't believing things because "they should" because its "just right," but because they ration through it. People can think for themselves, and with all of these scientific discoveries, it really is quite irrational to believe in a religion or god. Back when Christianity was formed, things were far from scientific. If people in the town were sick, it must be because of that black cloud in our head. Atheism goes with liberalism and religon, while Religion goes with conservatism. The bottom line is that liberals embrace everyones rights, while conservatives only care about their own. That is what it comes down to. If you really took the time to rationally think about things (life) you would realize how accurate that statement is. Can there be an atheist conservative? NO. Can there be a religious liberal? YES. That says a lot if you think about it. 

Dinesh is simply crazy! He is a master of rhetoric. A master of saying so much, but meaning so very little. He tries to rebut Dan's FACT that the only reason Islam is growing is because of families having children and not because of converting, but is wrong in his attempts. Dinesh also thinks that religion is growing in America. Not really Dinesh, did you listen to Dan at all? Dinesh, life must be so easy only seeing the things you want to see. Anything that proves you wrong, doesn't it make life just so much easier for you to ignore it? Doesn't that make your lame points about religion seem even more valid to yourself? Dan pointed to the New York Times (a valid source last time I checked) which said that when the children today become adults, only 4% of them will believe in the bible. Yes Dinesh, religion is really growing (remember he ignores FACTS that do not support his theory). Go back a couple hundred years ago and everyone believes in the bible. Look at this study, 4%? I wonder why people are turning to atheism? Does that tell you anything? He then points to countries and say "hey look they are growing from a decade or so ago!" Dinesh, the population is growing to. The majority of the growth isn't from conversions! Some atheist must have rubbed him the wrong way when he was a child, because he really has an axe to grind. His agenda is huge. Of course Dinesh is going to side with religion. Duh! He is religious himself! He makes Sam Parker arguments (very broad over generalizations).

I cannot stand Dinesh!

*I did not mean to attack anyone's religious beliefs in anyway. I respect everyone's beliefs. As I said, liberals support everyone's rights religious and non religious. 

Dinesh D'Souza: What's So Bad About Atheism?

This is a response to Ryan's post (and the interview with Dinesh D'Souza he discovered), found here.

I have a pretty different opinion of this interview. My parents are Christian, and though they brought me to church when I was younger, I never really identified with this—or any other—religion. It's not my intention to start a dispute over religion (these kinds of wars are often pointless and counterproductive), but I do think a non-religious viewpoint is needed.

D'Souza does not only say that "atheism is becoming more of an option for young people", he goes further, arguing that "atheism is more attractive to young people". He also claims that "new atheism accuses Christianity for being behind most of the war, suffering, and terrorism in the world". While I do agree that the atheist population has grown—especially among younger generations—I find it frankly a bit offensive and hypocritical of D'Souza to accuse atheists of blaming religion for suffering and tragedy in the world while so vehemently defending Christianity. I think that what D'Souza has done is misunderstand many people. I do not think that religion is to blame for the suffering of the world, but rather religious controversy. These are two seemingly similar opinions that are often lumped together, and inaccurately so. I doubt that all atheists are so hidden under their "garbs of morality" that they can reconcile with blaming the belief system of millions for wars that humans would have found reasons to fight anyway.

D'Souza calls many atheist writers "witty and stylish", but he forgets to count himself among them. He seems to do the invoke the same tactics, sinking to the level of the atheist authors that use "witty" language to denounce religion. D'Souza says quite plainly in his interview that his book, What's So Great About Christianity?, is meant to "challenge atheism and beat it". This goal seems very immature to me, because at the simplest level his book is merely retaliation against other published works, seeking to prove why he is right and they are wrong. I'm disappointed that D'Souza has described the aim of his work in such a way, because in my opinion this is how wars are started. I would have more respect for him if his book had stood alone as a modern and compelling work on religion, calmly proving why other beliefs aren't valid without him falling into the easy trap of "right vs. wrong" that was the tone of this interview.

Just A Piece of Literature?

While I'm not quite sure if someone already used this website (no one had used the site link in their blog) it is basically an excerpt from Fran(t)z Fanon's book The Wretched of the Earth.   Going into it with basically no knowledge about Fran(t)z Fanon except that he was an African American that was an advocator of decolonization, from his rhetoric you can definitely tell that he is a speaker/advocator calling upon his comrades and brothers to hear his words and take action.

One thing that I find particularly interesting is that he says that Europe is falling down into an abyss.  This piece was published in 1961 which was right smack in the middle of the Cold War.  It is almost imposing a doomsday thought into those that are reading his piece.

Fanon says that the only colony to catch up with Europe is now the monster superpower the United States, and that therefore his goal is to have his own country catch up in the same way to "create a third Europe."  This seems fairly different than the decolonial advocate that I thought we were supposed to be researching.  Unless of course he is arguing that colonialism hinders the places that are colonized so that when they are free they catch up into more superpowers that can get involved in more affairs/wars.

If Only Dinesh D'Souza Came to Menlo...

Play it through your head. Dinesh D'Souza is introduced to the school by...the young conservative's club...my mistake that does not exist at Menlo School (and probably never will.) Nevertheless he is introduced somehow, perhaps by an outspoken teenager who feels their views on politics in the world are being crippled by those around them, or maybe by a teacher... Let's face it, a speaker like D'Souza would never be accepted at Menlo School. To be brutally honest, the points he makes about American Society are so anti-liberal that they would be bashed by the majority of politically correct thinkers of our school.

Nevertheless if* Dinesh D'Souza came to Menlo School he would see that we pride ourselves upon political correctness more than most everything else. He would see that there is not an American Flag in our quad, but instead a Gay Pride flag. What's So Great About America would have insight into the reasons for why our school placed a Gay Pride flag up in the quad before the American Flag, and it would also have a take on why most at Menlo would not even put an American Flag up at all. 

I will admit, I was/am a bit of an America hater, and have even imagined living in a foreign country for my adulthood. I have grown to be a critic of America, and lately all I see are flaws. However, D'Souza makes several valid points on why America is "Great." He says -- It is the country that has the most "rags to riches" stories. It is the only country where the poorest of people still own a cell phone and a television. It is the country that all other nations look upon as great; however, many within speculate whether or not our country is as great as others think it is.

Sometimes I think Menlo sees America as far from "Great." Perhaps Dinesh D'Souza would be an influence upon our school. He would be able to give us that conservative outlook that most are deprived of these days.