Black Elk and Nature

I've always admired the Native American's close ties to nature.  The connection they have and the way the speak of it is simply beautiful.  While reading "Black Elk Speaks" the admiration the Native American's have for nature is upon nearly every page.  Their names and descriptions are gorgeous, and sometimes I felt myself yearning to be called Fire Thunder instead of Jake, which is just boring in comparison.  The month of August would seem so much better if we referred to it as Moon When the Cherries Turn Black instead of simply August.

It makes me sad to think Americans were hell-bent on wiping out this beautiful culture simply for land.  It was obvious that the Native Americans were the ones who cared for it and worshipped it.  We simply charged in with industry and Christianity, and found them more than adequate to replace what had been there before.

It's a shame, really.

What do you say?

I've had two heart-breaking conversations in the past couple of days.  They're the worst, especially with two people you really care about.  These conversations were, in their own ways, critiques on the society we live in today.

Both of my conversations were with girl friends of mine who happen to be lesbian.  They don't know each other, and yet their stories are so similar that one would think that two people experiencing such things would somehow find each other.  Instead, they share me, a simple link that doesn't really do either of them any good, except having me to help them out as best I can.  In my opinion, I always come up short.

Both of my girl friends are lesbians.  Both have girlfriends.  And both are experiencing their first same-sex relationships.  It should be liberating.  It should be exciting.  Above all, it should feel right.  But because of the way society has reacted towards homosexuality, they feel everything but.

The first one I talked to was asking me how to hold her girlfriend's hand in public and ignore the stares.  She was scared her girlfriend wouldn't understand why she might be a little uncomfortable doing such a simple action right away.  It was so unfair.  I remember the first time I held a boy's hand in public; it was scary but exhilarating.  We were at a movie, which was kinda cheating, because it was in the dark.  But, all the same, it happened and it felt great.  To imagine such a simple act scaring my friend nearly to tears isn't right.

My second conversation fell upon the topic of marriage.  My second friend has been in talks with her girlfriend about it, and it's looking likely.  But because they live in Wisconsin, where it isn't LEGAL, they can't.  They can't enter into the bond of love because a state government says no.  How can this be? It breaks my heart every time I think about it.  To constantly live with the overwhelming sense that what you're doing isn't allowed is exhausting.  To see your friends go through it breaks your heart.

The culture wars can continue.  Morals can be challenged, the Bible can be referenced, and anger and fear can dominate the conversation.  But what will you say when a GLBT youth comes up to you and asks why they can't be who they are, can't do what feels right?

What do you say?

 

Yikes

I found Louisa May Alcott's "Transcendental Wild Oats" relatively upsetting.  She was making light of the movement slightly, correct?  If not, I'm deeply disturbed.  That anyone can read that and believe that the lifestyle laid out is agreeable is sorely mistaken.  It seemed liked extreme-Veganism (not that Veganism in itself isn't radical as is,) with its dedication to not using animals in any way, shape, or form.  I have a difficult time understanding the rational behind this belief, and an even more difficult time understanding how a parent can put their child through such a lifestyle, when there are essential vitamins and nutrients necessary for healthy growth that are only available through the consumption of meat.  Rather upsetting, if you ask me.

Beyond that, isn't it just too hard to constantly live a life of virtue?

Henry and I: Two Peas in a Pod

Oh, Hank.  I feel like I can call him that because we met way back; Interim in fact, in my Problem of War class.  He and I met one cloudy afternoon after I had collected him from the printer and had him join me for a cup of coffee. I found him engaging, funny, and pragmatic (all things I admire.)  He did most of the talking, lots of libertarian-esque ideas I agreed with and underlined with my own affirmations (i.e. YES!) and a couple disagreements here and there (Voting important here- I disagree with his view that voting is feeble,) but on the whole, we got along just fine.  A relationship flourished.

So, perhaps my meeting with him was a bit romanticized.  But his work in "Civil Disobedience" struck a chord with me.  Here he was, unhappy with America's role in the Mexican-American war, and he refused to let his taxes go towards such an endeavor, so he did not pay them.  Illegal, yes, but such an inspiration!  To not pay one's taxes in protest is such a perfect tactic: Though just a finite amount of money in the grand scheme of things, as a taxpayer you are holding the government by the money bags.  It's something I would love to use once Congress starts using taxpayer funds to protect the Defense of Marriage Act as Speaker Boehner wants to do, but the legal ramifications are. . .daunting.

I think De Tocqueville would be a little put-off by Hank's ideas.  His obvious distaste for the State would have probably conflicted with De Tocqueville trying to sell such a thing to his French pals.  I have the distinct feeling that since Hank and I get along, and De Tocqueville and I don't, they wouldn't fair well either.  But, De Tocqueville's loss.

Hank and I are two peas in a pod.  And to follow, my favorite plant quote by Hank:

"If a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

A Post Without Words

The train: A missed opportunity

I was experiencing train withdrawal there for awhile; after having finished Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged over Spring Break and thoroughly enjoying the one thousand plus pages dedicated to trains and railways, my system was in need of a pick-me-up.

I've always liked George Will; he and I share a lot of similar views when it comes to the issues, but I was disappointed with his opinion on trains.  I get it; now is not the time to be throwing money at such an undertaking, and the governor of my home state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker (you may have heard of him,) was right in killing plans for a train that was illogical to invest in at this point in our economic history.  However, that does not mean that it is not a good idea for the future.

We screwed up.  Trains should have been kept around.  Can you imagine the accessibility to the United States we would have now if trains were still a viable form of transportation?  Also, with grumblings of how gas prices are getting high, wouldn't it be nice to keep the gas guzzler in the garage and take an efficient, greener way to work?

I see a lot of promise in trains.  Not now, when the country is struggling to get out of the mess that was the recession, but sometime in the future.  Obama's current slogan is "Winning the future."  It's cute and optimistic, but has little substance to it now.  I would love to see some mention of greener transportation, specifically trains, become a part of it.

Back in the day, greener pastures could be reached by trains.  Who says they can't be in the future?