Ending the Segregation of History

Although it is usually meant in a respectful and tolerant way, saying something along the lines of "in honor of black history month", is actually quite the opposite in my opinion. Black history month is, in a way, a continuation of racial segregation. By simply existing, Black History Month is implying that "black" history is separate from and not to be included in "regular" history. 

In 1926, when Black History Month's predecessor was created, Negro History Week, the government could have easily gone down a path of integration: changing school curriculums to further incorporate black history. Instead, however, the government confined the area of study to its own separate and extremely unequal time in school curriculum, the month of February, coincidentally the shortest month of the year. (This wasn't the government's only attempt at "separate but equal"). Not only is a separation implied, but it is quite literal. Also, there is the implication, though perhaps it is not intentional, that black history deserves one twelfth the time that "regular" history deserves. 

Perhaps this subtle degradation of black history is why Morgan Freeman has a similar view on the month meant to honor and recognize the historical impact of people of color. In an interview on 60 Minutes, the topic is briefly discussed (brief enough to watch the whole thing). Freeman expresses that it feels as if black history is not so much being recognized but rather being "relegated to one month". In  those words, it sounds almost as if the history of a people is being contained, not celebrated. 

As I mentioned above, Black History Month grew out of Negro History Week, which may be a sign of progress. Not just because of the more respectful word choice, but also because of the longer time spent to recognize black history. Nevertheless, the best way to recognize and observe the history would be to treat it as nothing special, just history. Black history will truly get what it deserves when it is simply called, in the words of Morgan Freeman, American history. 

 

The Benefits of Hallucinogens

Former President Richard Nixon's "War on Drugs" was a complete failure. The government intervention, originally intended to free the streets of harmful drugs, has in fact not decreased drug use in the United States at all. In actuality, the "War" has wasted billions and billions of taxpayer's dollars, and caused more U.S. citizens to be imprisoned than ever before.

An additional effect of the "War on Drugs" is the increase in the stigma associated with the use of drugs today. Drugs that were once ingredients in soft drinks, and even in the Pope's wines, changed into terrible poisons that caused instant death as a result of ubiquitous nationwide anti-drug campaigning.

Though I agree that in most cases the changed image of drug use is very good, a recent article from The New Yorker, "The Trip Treatment", reveals how this change may have been bad. The changed image of drugs, and consequently the "War on Drugs" as a whole, may have taken away a key treatment option for people suffering from mental illnesses. 

According to the article, research from the 1950's revealed that hallucinogens (also known as psychedelics) , specifically LSD, and Psilocybin, found in magic mushrooms, were "useful in treating anxiety, addiction, and depression". The article goes on to explain that, between 1953 and 1957, the government allocated "four million dollars to fund a hundred and sixteen studies of LSD", and the results of the studies were "frequently positive"even if some weren't perfect in design. By the 1960's, LSD and other similar drugs were used "successfully" to treat alcoholism and end-of-life anxiety in medical patients.

Unfortunately for any patients that may have been treated after 1970, Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act, "prohibiting the use of [psychedelics] for any purpose". Therefore, research was abandoned and all of the promising results that had been acquired over the years "was all but erased from the field of pschiatry". And it was at this point that hallucinogens switched from being candidates for curing disease to drugs that only ruin lives. It is the result of the widely accepted belief in the latter that many find the topic of this post so surprising. And that belief was created entirely as a result of Nixon's act and more generally, the War on Drugs. 

Had Nixon's act not been signed, research and clinical trials with psychedelics would have continued, and psyschedelics may have gone on to become common drugs, tremendously helping to ease the suffering of those with mental illnesses, or maybe not at all. The point is that we will never know. Because of government intervention, one can only speculate what the effects of psychedelic drugs may have been.

Should there be a Naked Statue of Bill Cosby?

After being accused of sexual assault by more than thirty women, America's favorite comedian and renowned pop culture figure, Bill Cosby, was put to shame. Despite the fact that he has not yet been convicted of these alleged crimes, his once magnificent image has been tarnished nonetheless. His place in history as a progressionist for the portrayal of African Americans on television may even be ruined.

However, one high school artist from Massachusetts, Rodman Edwards believes that Cosby's punishment of shame, ruin and inevitable prison time is not enough. Edwards feels that two statues honoring Cosby- one of which is in Walt Disney World, the other in the TV Hall of Fame in California- should be removed and replaced (in a different location, such as an art museum) with something intended to shame the criminal: enormous bronze statues of the man standing naked with Fat Albert in place of his penis.

Rodman Edwards' Digital Proposal

As humorous as the proposal is, it is genuinely being considered. The statue will be presented at the Cory Allen Contemporary are showroom on February 20th, and the idea is being proposed to the Academy of Television Arts and Science Hall of Fame.

While it may be reasonable to argue that the previous works that honored Cosby should taken down, I am not so sure about arguing for this sort of replacement. Cosby's actions may have warranted many decades in prison, but should a buffoonish statue of him be added to his punishment as well? Maybe a better question would be: is this the way the situation should be handled?

With the severity of Cosby's alleged crimes taken into consideration, I am not sure that this kind of statue gets the job done properly. I feel as if it turns a series of horrible rapes and turns it into something that can be punished with an unusual joke that has no connection at all to the crimes except for maybe the lack of clothing. Also, it is important to consider that a statue is permanent, something put in place to preserve the memory of honorable people. And quite simply, though he had two of his own statues before, Cosby is sadly no longer a person to be remembered with one.

What do you guys thing about statues such as these being displayed in a contemporary art museum?

What America WANTS in a Sniper

The recent blockbuster, American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper, is supposed to be based on the autobiography by ex-Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. However, in truth, the film strays from the storyline of the book significantly. Having read the book and seen the movie- both of which I would highly recommend despite the criticism about to follow- I know that not only are omissions made and events dramatized, but the characteristics and actions of protagonist Chris Kyle are different than shown in his best-selling autobiography.

A few additions may not seem so significant, but some of the changes struck me as too big to ignore. Take the portrayal of fellow SEAL Ryan Job for instance. In the movie, Ryan Job is shot in the face by an enemy sniper and dies in a military hospital soon afterward. In real life, Job was seriously wounded but still made it home to his wife and children. I couldn't help but wonder why the writer and/or director decided to make this change. One reason might have been that it set the protagonist Chris Kyle on a quest for revenge against the foreign enemy, which is well explained by this Slate article. So maybe a living man was shown to be dead in order to portray Kyle as a more noble figure, one who avenges his fallen comrades even if it mean taking a fourth tour of duty in Iraq, one more than normal.

This possible intention, of making Kyle appear like a better person in the movie, actually made sense after considering how different his stance on war is in the book. While in the movie Kyle goes to war entirely to protect his country and save American lives, in the book he explains the excitement and enjoyment that his line of work brings him. He admits many of his weaknesses on the battlefield, including thinking with his emotions not his head, and also reveals his ruthlessness as a soldier, "You'd have a violent explosion, a fire, and then no more enemy. Gotta love it". In the movie, something designed by producers, and intended to be approved of by the public, Kyle is never shown to have this love for violence and death.

But is this change okay to make? It does make for a more relatable and more noble hero figure. But, in a way, it may be hiding American civilians from the truth about our military. By portraying our soldiers are extremely virtuous and good-willed people, the movie may be presenting a skewed depiction of American involvement in the Middle East. And this may lead Americans to further believe what our country is doing is always right. Though as Kyle explains himself in his memoirs, he is not one-hundred percent perfect. He turns saving American lives into a bloodsport of killing as many enemies as possible. Yet, unless you read the book, you would never know the truth.

Is it okay for producers to change these aspects of a story when it is based on real life events, especially something as significant as the war in Afghanistan?