Respect our Armed Forces at Holloween

Everybody loves Holloween. Well, at least most people do. I'm especially excited now that I have a 10-month-old daughter that my wife Lindsy and I have resolved to dress up like a giant pumpkin (it's far too cute for words). Provided that you have a safe and friendly neighborhood, going from door to door and collecting treats is a time-honored tradition for kids and parents alike, and many of the parents get into it with costumes of their own.

However, last year, both around town and at Holloween parties, I ran into a few folks who were dressed in military uniforms as a Holloween costume. I understand that putting on some BDUs or an old Class A uniform that you found at an army surplus store is an easy way of dressing up as something you're not, but I hope that people will think twice about this. Really, it is in very poor taste, and it is insulting to those men and women who wear the uniform of our country (or any country) and are willing to risk their lives to protect us. Now, of course, there are exceptions. I think if you are dressing up as an historic military figure, an historic uniform would be reasonable (General Robert E. Lee, General George Washington, etc.). Similarly, there are fictional characters that require a military or pseudo-military uniform (the Nutcracker, George Philip Sousa). This is all well and good.

The problem I'm addressing is the wearing of uniforms that are in use by current, active-duty military personnel. Service members are quite rightly taught to have a very high level of respect for their uniforms, as they are symbols of their dedication to their branch of service and to the country. They are taught to wear them properly, to exacting specifications, as a mark of that respect. Believe me when I tell you that any current or former member of any military branch or unit would never, never (am I being clear enough?), NEVER wear the uniform as a "costume." It would be like using the flag of the United States as a tablecloth or slip cover for your couch.

I'm not talking about kids here. There is a time-honored tradition for kids to dress up on Holloween as all manner of things, including the uniforms of professions they especially respect or might want to pursue when they grow up (fireman, policeman, doctor, sports star, etc.). A kid who dresses as a soldier is indicating his or her approval and admiration for military service, and very likely has a close relative who is or was in the military. This is fine, and even to be encouraged.

Adults, on the other hand, presumably have a job. As I said before, if they are members of the military, they most certainly would not consider the uniform a costume. If they are not members of the military, they don't have any business wearing an active-duty form of the military uniform. Period.

So, before you grab that green Class A coat and trousers off the rack at the Army Surplus Superstore and tack on a rank you don't have and a random assortment of ribbons you did not earn before going off to the Holloween party, stop and give due consideration to the men and women who wear that same uniform (and especially those who have died in that same uniform), and whose sweat and blood earned them the ribbons and the rank insignia they wear. They deserve to be honored and thanked. They do not deserve to be parodied.

Heartland for Change Tour

On Sept. 7, I attended the Barack Obama campaign stop in Winona as part of their “Heartland for Change Tour.” The focus of the discussion was the economy and jobs, but the very interested and engaged group that gathered at the Blue Heron Coffeehouse was equally interested in many issues that connect to these, such as health care, taxes and education.

Of course, in a roundtable discussion lasting a little more than an hour, the fine details of Sen. Obama’s proposals couldn’t be discussed, but I was very encouraged by the accessibility of campaign representatives and their desire to take the discussion to communities around Minnesota (they had been in Red Wing earlier that morning).
The all-important first step to good leadership is the willingness and ability to really listen to people and to seek out their opinions and hear their concerns.

These days, working families worry quite rightly about the weak economy, the risk to their job security and falling real estate values. They are concerned when they see jobs being sent overseas and the companies that outsource them being rewarded by tax breaks. The United States has a tremendously flexible and well-educated work force, and we truly need government policies that keep jobs here, create new jobs, and invest in new and emerging industries (such as renewable energy) that will ensure America’s future economic growth.

As a college professor, I worry about the job market that my students will enter upon graduation. In recent years, this has become increasingly challenging, both because fewer jobs exist and because the burden of student loans that graduates carry is growing steadily as student aid is cut. And now, thanks to the tightening of credit, even the loans are harder to obtain. These young people are eager to work hard, but they are increasingly squeezed out of the market.

We really do need change on several fronts. Sen. Obama and his representatives don’t pretend that these things will be easy, but they are, in my opinion, focusing on the right problems and working to formulate real solutions. I am very encouraged that similar conversations are happening at the local level across our state and country. This is exactly how real people address real concerns and find lasting solutions.

United States of Amnesia

World War II Memorial, Washington, DC

Americans are very good at forgetting things. Of course, all peoples have this capacity, but it seems that affluent nations are especially adept at ignoring the lessons of history. Perhaps there is an unavoidable correlation between affluence and cultural and political amnesia. Perhaps this is history's "safety valve" which ultimately deflates empires, from Babylon to Rome to the British Empire.

In defense of my fellow citizens, it is tempting in the extreme to live in the moment when the moment is luxurious (and I use that term comparatively). Why remember failures and fiascos of the past when one has 200 cable channels and cold beer? Why study history at all? It seems that the level of historical awareness of students entering university studies in the United States has declined alarmingly, even in the past 12 years in which I have been a full-time professor. Identifying important dates in American or world history is all but impossible for the vast majority of college students I see. Lest you feel too smug about your own history IQ, here are a few important dates. Take a moment to list the corresponding events (answers follow at the end of this article):

44 BCE
314 AD
800
1066
1492
1620
1776
1789
1812
1815
1861
1917
1929
1939
1941
1945
1949
1953
1964
1968
1974
1981
1986
1991
1995
2001

Of course, not everybody will score 100% on this little quiz, but I've seen students fail to identify any of the dates (well, perhaps with the exception of the last one).

The United States is only recently a powerful nation, following the enormous industrial buildup of World War II, and the devastation of the world's primary European powers in that conflict. We have thus only been a "superpower" for half a century. Yet, in this relatively brief span of time, we appear to have forgotten that before WWII, we had a very modest military for a country of our size (under 190,000 troops). By 1945, this had swelled to 1.6 million. Having been finally drawn into the conflict, with its industrial capacity and relatively large population, the US became, along with the Soviet Union, the major actor on the world stage.

Americans born after World War II can scarcely imagine a world in which the United States is a second- or third-rate military and political power. We might consider the microcosm of a family over several generations as a parallel.

Most Americans of today are descended from immigrants, who in most cases left their countries of origin precisely because they were not rich or powerful. They came in search of a better life - economically, politically, and spiritually. As one traces a family from its immigrant generation through subsequent generations, the affluence of the family almost invariably increases. A conflict develops between a desire to remember and honor ethnic and cultural origins and a desire to forget the hardships and sacrifices of earlier generations. Over time, at least in the American experience, the forgetting appears to gain the upper hand.

So it is with nations. Americans, and notably those in power, prefer not to remember our precarious national origins as a "breakaway" colony. I do not suggest that the founders of this nation were anything but thoughtful and courageous people. On the other hand, the framers of our Constitution were very well aware of history's lessons, and incorporated concepts drawn from these lessons into the documents that still today form the basis of our republic. Sadly, in the midst of our great military might and economic power, today's leaders scarcely seem to grasp even the most fundamental principles of the agreeable conduct of nations, and thus commit the most egregious blunders.

There is a remedy, of course. We must teach our children our history - with all its warts and blemishes. We must insist that they understand the fluid nature of international politics and power, and they must know something of our nation's founders and their vision (as well as their disagreements and struggles). We can start by teaching our children the history of their own families, of the courage of pioneer ancestors, the selfless sacrifice of veterans, the struggle of slaves for freedom, and the desperation of the Dust Bowl and the Depression. There are heroes and villains in every family history, and lessons for each of us to learn from them. As we learn our personal and familial histories, we learn how our ancestors shaped this nation and their nations of origin. Perhaps we also learn from their failures.

Mark Twain was once quoted as saying that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does "rhyme." There is a great deal of rhyming going on at this very moment. However, with no sense of history much of our population lacks the ear to hearken to the poet's warning.

Answers to some significant dates:

44 BCE - Murder of Julius Ceasar
312 AD - Conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity
800 - Charlemagne crowned Holy Roman Emperor
1066 - Normans invade England, William I "The Conqueror" becomes King
1492 - Christopher Columbus discovers the "New World"
1620 - The Mayflower lands and Plymouth Plantation is established by the Puritans
1776 - Declaration of Independence (July 4th)
1789 - French Revolution
1812 - War of 1812 begins. (Washington captured and burned by the British in 1814)
1815 - Defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo (June 18th)
1861 - US Civil War Begins (Ft. Sumter, SC - April 12th / Bull Run, VA - July 21st)
1917 - US Enters Word War I (war began in 1914)
1929 - Stock Market Crash (October 29th)
1939 - World War II Begins (Germany invades Poland September 1st)
1941 - Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (Dec. 7th. US joins WWII Dec. 8th)
1945 - End of World War II (May 8th in Europe, Aug. 15th in Pacific)
1945 - US drops Atomic bombs on Hiroshima (Aug. 6th) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9th)
1949 - First Soviet atomic bomb test (August 29th).
1953 - Death of Josef Stalin (March 5th)
1964 - Gulf of Tonkin Incident (US dramatically increases troop presence in Vietnam)
1968 - Assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. (April 4th) and Robert F. Kennedy (June 6th)
1974 - Watergate Scandal (break-ins of 1972) results in resignation of President Nixon (August 9th)
1981 - Assassination attempts on President Reagan (March 30th) and Pope John Paul II (May 13th)
1986 - Space Shuttle Challenger explodes 73 seconds after takeoff (January 28th)
1991 - Operation Desert Storm "Gulf War" (air assault begins Jan. 17th, ground assault Feb. 24th)
1995 - Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombing (April 19th)
2001 - Terrorist Attacks on World Trade Center, NYC and the Pentagon (Sept. 11th)

Memorial Day

In memory of my ancestors who served the United States:

Francis Joseph William Bilodeau (1897-1950)
Sergeant, 178th Aero Squadron
United States Army
World War I

Michael Joseph O’Shea (1889-1971)
Sergeant, 12th Coastal Artillery Company
Rhode Island National Guard
World War I

Charles Edward Knight (1841-1923)
Corporal, Company I, 46th Massachusetts Vol. Infantry
United States Army (Union)
Civil War

Jonathan Pierce (1734-1800)
Private, Col. Job Cushing’s Regiment
Revolutionary War

Daniel Alexander (1741-1831)
Private, Col. Ebenezer Larned’s Regiment
Revolutionary War

Charles Foster Simpson (1744-1834)
Drummer, Massachusetts Line
Revolutionary War

Most Tragedies are Not

Oedipus with the Sphinx, from an Attic red-figure cylix, ca. 470 BC (Vatican Museum)


Nitpicky word usage posts are, no doubt to the relief of the reader, not my usual essay type. However, I would like to raise an objection to the pervasive use of the word "tragedy" in popular media. The misuse of tragedy, in fact, has now nearly escalated to the level of abuse perpetrated with "impact," which is now far more often used to mean "effect" or "influence" instead of its proper meaning of "collision." My students know all too well how that particular malapropism raises my hackles.

Most of what is labeled as "tragedy" these days is simple misfortune. When bad things happen, it is not unreasonable to call them "disasters" (literally, "bad stars" or ill fate), or terrible accidents. Clearly, bad things do happen, and we as human beings feel sympathy for those harmed, particularly if such misfortunes come as a result of no action of the victims. It does seem, though, that "tragedy" is increasingly applied to every school shooting, motor vehicle accident, military casualty, or health problem featured in the media. This, however, is not appropriate use of the term, as tragedy should really only be used in special circumstances.

Tragedy has a particular meaning, and while it does include the unfortunate downfall or destruction of the protagonist in a classical, dramatic context, the destruction or suffering of the principal character is not the only requisite element. The protagonist must be of heroic stature, larger than life, and must be a good person or at least have qualities that are admirable, so that the audience identifies with or approves of that character. There is no sympathy for the destruction of a purely evil character. And, of equal importance, the downfall of the protagonist comes about as a result of some weakness, the "tragic flaw."

Perhaps the most famous of the ancient tragedies is Oedipus Rex. Oedipus, while loved by the people of Thebes for saving them from the plague, displays the flaw of hubris, or excessive pride. This is particularly apparent when he refuses to yield the road to an older man. In the ensuing fight, the man is killed by Oedipus, who is unaware that the man is his father. Of course, the other part of the prophecy concerning Oedipus has to do with his unwittingly marrying his own mother, Jocasta, which has led to Oedipus' Freudian immortalization.

Tragedy, of course, need not be relegated to the description of theatrical or literary works. There are real-life tragedies, and it is perfectly reasonable to describe them as such. However, before CNN slaps the tragedy label on a story, it would be prudent for the copywriters to consider the elements of the definition:

1. Does the story concern a person of great stature, generally seen as "good" by most?

2. Does/did the person have a particular flaw or make a particular mistake in spite of being "good" in the eyes of the public?

3. Did the flaw/mistake cause this person’s downfall or injury or death?

4. Does the public feel sympathy for the fallen person?

If the above conditions aren't met, the event is not a tragedy in the classical sense. Even with this restricted definition, we can point to plenty of contemporary tragedies in the world. Just as with plays or novels, real-life tragedy produces what one of my 8th-grade English teachers eloquently described as the "holy s&*# response," or the somewhat more literary, "there but for the grace of God go I" (spoken by The Rev. George Whitefield as he watched a condemned criminal being led to execution). We feel for the fallen hero, because we recognize in ourselves a similar flaw or all-too-human weakness, and we are led to conclude that if even a person of heroic stature can be laid low by this weakness, we must be doubly on our guard against it. It is thus a didactic tool in the hands of the playwright and the novelist, and we can similarly draw valid lessons from real-life examples.

We have all seen tragedies, either in the media or personally. We all know of great people who have fallen as a result of a flaw or mistake. It is natural to be sympathetic, and it is important to learn from such unfortunate examples. The result, at least according to dramatic theory, is a catharsis or cleansing that comes from the realization that we recognize the tragic flaw, and that we can take steps to avoid it in our own lives.

So, please use "tragedy" responsibly. It is an especially potent word with significant connotations. And, when you witness a genuine tragedy unfold, it is entirely appropriate, indeed necessary, to give way to sympathy for the fallen hero, and to understand that the flaw or mistake is a mark of humanity even in the context of greatness. The ancient Greeks understood this well, and knew that sympathy for human frailty, even in those we most revere, was important to our society and to our very souls.

There but for the grace of God go any of us.

-PMÓS