Amistad

Dear Readers--

Happy Saint Patrick's Day! I'll have you all know that as I write this I'm listening to the soundtrack of Riverdance and once I've finished, I'm rewarding myself with a delicious bowl of Lucky Charms.

Last week in Honors 240, we watched a pretty incredible film, called Amistad. It tells the story of the controversy surrounding the Amistad slaves and the trial determining their fate. Here's the premise. A group of Africans was taken from Africa in a Portuguese ship and then transferred to a Spanish ship, La Amistad. The Africans took control of the ship, tried to steer it back to Africa, but ended up landing on the East Coast of the United States (I'll be honest. There was footage of the ship heading East, into the rising sun and I don't understand how they got turned around and landed on the East Coast. Oh well, it happened). There was some other business with an American ship who tried to "claim the cargo" of La Amistad. There were four main competing claims (and several smaller parties that were also involved)--the Africans claimed their own freedom, the Spanish owners of La Amistad claimed private ownership, the Queen of Spain (Isabella II at the tender age of eleven), and the Americans who discovered and "salvaged" the "cargo."

The case proved to be very difficult. There was falsified logic, unprovable but true and valid evidence, and of course the problem that none of the Africans involved spoke any European tongue. The case was fought long and hard and decided in favor of the Africans. It was then taken to the Supreme court. The decision was the same, but it was a very difficult legal battle.

The movie stimulated a lot of thinking about a lot of issues. Here are some scattered ideas that stick out a week in retrospect.

First, I'm grateful to live in the circumstances I enjoy. Though the world today is by no means perfect, it's a lot better than it was one hundred and seventy years ago. I'm grateful to be part of an economy that is not founded on human bondage (although some would argue that it is, considering the vast majority of the goods we enjoy are manufactured in sweatshops). I'm grateful that human dignity is recognized and valued in my society. I'm grateful to live in a nation that was founded on the idea of freedom and that has realized that idea as well as any nation ever has.

Next, I'm shocked at the corruption that was and is in politics. It is sickening to know that, even in the nineteenth century, when right and wrong and personal integrity were valued much more than they are today, there were so many in power who were so obsessed with maintaining their power that they sacrificed their integrity. I imagine that the situation is even worse today. That being said, the film made me much more thankful for men of integrity and fidelity who stand up for what is right no matter how such action will affect their careers and integrity. This film showcased several men who were so committed to doing the right thing. It was very inspiring.

I was also very impressed at the power of ideas, educated men, and good public speaking. I don't quite know how to explain this one--you'll have to watch the film, but you'll know what I mean if you. Some day I'll figure out how to articulate thoughts pertinent to this subject and I'll blog about it.

Lastly, this movie made me love John Quincy Adams! For so long I thought of him as sort of a loser who wasn't very effective as president and whom no one really liked. This movie completely changed that opinion, especially if the speech at the end of the movie is similar or identical to the speech that he surely gave in real life. That speech alone is enough reason to watch the movie--it is stunning.

Well, that's all I have to say on the subject for now. Here's some Irish hardshoe for Saint Patrick's Day (random: I accidentally typed thanksgiving and then caught my mistake--I think I've had one to many yummy treats today).



Enjoy!

--Christian

The Federalist Papers

Dear Readers--

A new week of course means a new blog post for Honors 240. This week I'll be writing about the federalist papers, so get ready :-)

Of the federalist papers that we studied, I think my favorite is number ten. It was the federalist paper with which I was most familiar before this class (though I was hardly familiar with it at all, and even now I do not consider myself an expert by any means) and retains its special place in my heart now that we have examined a few in some depth. Why is Federalist Number Ten my favorite, you may ask? Well I really do not know how to answer that question--I am not sure there is any particularly good reason for it, it just is.

I do, however, know perfectly well why it appeals to me, even if I can't explain why it is my favorite. Perhaps the coolest aspect of this essay is that it is so counterintuitively sensible. It addresses a problem that was surely worrisome to the founding fathers and other politicians of the day, indeed any politician of any time and any nation, and offers a wonderful solution in the most surprising of ways. I suppose, incorporating the proper phrase, it can be said that Federalist Number Ten fights fire with fire.

The problem of factions had afflicted every government ever to exist (or almost every government--I suppose the City of Enoch did not suffer from a plague of troublesome factions) and had never been successfully figured out. Leave it to James Madison to discover, or even have the idea that the way to negate the ill effects of factions is to actually encourage their growth!

More amazing to me than the fact that James Madison generated such a novel and unexpected idea is the fact that this new idea completely changed the general concept of a healthy government and a healthy society. It certainly took a while for the idea to sink in; George Washington, who served as President after the writing of the paper, in his farewell address, counseled America to avoid any sort of political division--to cling to unity and avoid and discourage political factions as much as possible. I do not know exactly how long it took for that idea to reverse itself in the general mentality of the people and the politicians, but nowadays, political parties and multiplicity of political groups is usually seen as a symptom of healthy government. Those societies in which separate political parties do not form, for whatever reason, are usually viewed as unhealthy, even oppressive.

The party system which formed in America is a more plastic system of checks and balances that tends to protect the rights, liberties, and freedom of the people alongside the protection built into the structure of the government. The party system produces multiple opposing candidates, all of whom are ambitious and hopefully well-intentioned as well, who all present different ideas and potential policies. The very expression of these various ideas in a competitive setting is conducive to freedom because it gives citizens more choices and is more likely to result in a candidate that will specifically cater to the desires of the general populace. A tyrant is much more likely to emerge from a society without political parties than from a society that cherishes them.

Best of all, I love Madison's conscientious exploration of all the options and possibilities in Federalist Number Ten. He logically examines the different ways that societies have tried to deal with factions, whether through eliminating the causes or manipulating the effects , and constructs a distinctly American solution in a genuine desire to serve the American people.

Well those are just a few thoughts on Federalist Number Ten. I hope they made sense!

No video tonight, but lots of love just the same!

--Christian

A More Perfect Union

Dear Readers,

Last week I had the tremendous blessing of watching the BYU film A More Perfect Union which tells the wonderful story of James Madison and the constitutional convention. I could write post upon post about the excellent acting and direction and craft in general, but that doesn't have much to do with our topics of discussion in Honors 240 :-). More along the lines of American Studies, I was very struck by how dramatic all the founding fathers seemed to be. Sure we don't have video footage of how they actually acted, but (to my knowledge--I could be completely) the script was based on the detailed notes that James Madison took as the convention dragged on. Anyway, for being the American paragons of the Age of Reason, they sure let their emotions drive them. The whole time I was so frustrated by how resistant they all were to compromise. Granted, they were involved in perhaps the most important intellectual and political work of the eighteenth century, but still, I was amazed at how long it took both sides of the representation debate to come around.

Furthermore, I was surprised at which particular characters (perhaps that's the wrong word) chose compromise first. The men who came off most headstrong at the beginning of the process seemed to be the first to suggest a mutually agreeable solution. Surprisingly, wise James Madison, who wanted the convention to succeed more than anyone, was one of the last to agree to the compromise which has lasted until this day. It's reassuring that their matters of debate were so greatly beyond themselves, otherwise their behavior might have accurately characterized them as some of the most stubborn and self-centered people in history.

I'd like to reemphasize how surprisingly dramatic the film was. If it weren't for the fact that the birth of the Constitution was of immense global and historical importance, the story would almost be a political soap opera.

Well, I'd better stop blaspheming the creation our nation's foundational document. I'll leave you with a video of a great singer singing a great song. Enjoy!



Christian

The Challenge

Dear Readers--

Here's yet another post for Honors 240, this time discussing the questions and difficulties faced by the Founding Fathers before they met to discuss and draft the constitution. Due to unexpected changes in schedule, this is the most hurried of any post I've written for the course so far. Hopefully it still makes sense and may even be enjoyable. I plan to revise and better it when I have the chance, but that chance is not now. Happy Reading!

It was more than clear that the Articles of Confederation weren’t working. In the first few years of their existence that became more than evident. Discord and discontent were rampant and chaos was quickly absorbing the logic, reason, and elevated thinking that gave impetus to the war for independence. Congress had little power to do anything and the inflated power of the individual states prevented the nation from functioning as a united body. Neither the states’ governments nor the national government were functioning as they ought. The high hopes that accompanied victory in the Revolution were certainly disappointed.

The biggest problem was that the founding fathers were doing something that no one had ever done before. Never had a fair, non-tyrannical, non-oppressive government been conceived, executed, and sustained on such a large scale as the United States. Unless my history is quite wrong, the thirteen new states and accompanying territories were larger in geographical space and population than any of the states of Europe. And Europe, even on that smaller scale, had not yet proven itself capable of good government. Combine this creative challenge with the chaos already reigning, the pressure of the watchful eyes of every European nation, the primitive (by our standards) means of communication and transportation available at the time, and the terrifying desire and necessity to succeed at such a lofty task, (among many other challenges that I cannot list here) and the job that the framers of the Constitution faced surely seemed pretty well nigh impossible.

They had no example to follow. No guidebook with detailed and concise instructions as they assembled the pieces of a new government. No model to inspire the pieces themselves. And yet they had to succeed, they believed, for the sake of mankind.

After extensive reading of historical accounts and political treatises, James Madison clearly understood that every government ever to have existed (or every government that whose record was available to him read) was flawed. He and the rest of the Constitutional Convention faced so many questions. Which aspects of past governments are good and virtuous? Which aspects proved self-destructive? Which aspects proved tyrannical? Once the proper parts of other governments were identified and selected, how could they be modified and molded to fit together in this new context? The delegates from the small states wondered how to preserve their power in congress. The delegates from the large states wondered how to equalize the imbalanced system of representation. Both groups wondered how to convince the other of their point. But most of all they wondered how to make a perfect government out of flawed individuals. The imperfection of human nature often came close to tearing apart even the small group that was the Constitutional Convention. How could they possibly deal with that challenge when created the government of an entire nation.

But, thanks to Divine aid and inspiration, they succeeded in answering each of those questions and many more besides. Though the government they created was not perfect, it was very close to it. As close any group of men possibly could come, and today we are the better for it.

--Christian

John Adams

Dear family and other readers,

The rest of my Honors 240 class is blogging about their responses to a segment of the John Adams miniseries based on the David McCullough and comparing the film portrayal of the man to their own understanding of his life and personality. Having been sick in bed last week when they watched it, I don't have the same privilege. My post tonight is a collection of thoughts on some basic Wikipedia research on the man and his life.

Factual as the Wikipedia article may be, it does not give much of a sense of his personality or character. Nevertheless, in piecing together those same dry facts, I left with the impression that one of John Adams chief qualities was humility. I could be completely wrong. I did not know him personally, and I haven't even read the David McCullough book. I am certainly not the expert on his personality, and yet I can't help thinking that of all the adjectives that might sum up who he was, humble was one of them. He definitely had dreams and aspirations and ambitions, but it seems that in every case his goals were for the greater good and not for his own gain. For example, he put his reputation on the line in defending the British troops involved in the massacre because he knew it was right. He knew that most of those officers were completely innocent and that (according to my understanding) even the officers that did fire in the crowd thought they were doing so under orders. He knew that it was his fellow Bostonians and friends who had, in this case, been in the wrong and he risked permanently losing or damaging his clientele because of his defense in behalf of the British soldiers. Yet this humility paid off and his victory in that most difficult of court cases resulted in respect for his prowess as a lawyer and contributed to (or at least confirmed) his appointment to the Continental Congress. Throughout the rest of his political career, it seems that he kept this same sort of humility. He would always stand up for what he believed to be just, yet he did not do this for attention or wealth or any sort of personal gain, he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.

I am also impressed by his role as a family man. He and Abigail are, of course, famous for their letters. It is a blessing to have that correspondence so thoroughly preserved. Someday I would love to read their letters thoroughly--as of now I haven't (I have read one or two but not enough to create an intelligible picture of their relationship in my mind). But, as far as my understanding is correct, their relationship was very admirable and they clung to each other as best they could, through correspondence, during John's long stays away from home. In a day of rationalism and pre-romantic philosophy, it is refreshing to hear of a happy, successful marriages in which the man and wife are so mutually supportive. In addition to his role as loving husband, he was also the father of several children. Considering his many political accomplishments, it is highly unlikely that he was able to be very present as a father, and yet his children ended up living very successful lives. It is a tribute to him that his son John Quincy became the president, and that many of this posterity have taken up office, following in his footsteps. Though he may not have always been present in the home, his fatherly influence was certainly great, considering the success of his children.

I'm grateful that his temple work has been done. It will be interesting to talk to him in the hereafter to check if my take on his character is correct.

Now for the weekly Youtube treats. The musical Finian's Rainbow, recently revived on Broadway, is my new favorite. Here's a little tidbit of a video from this latest production. More videos will follow in future blogs. Enjoy!



Love,
Christian

Types and Shadows

Dear Readers--

Here are some thoughts on an exhibit in the Museum of Art that my class recently viewed.

Types and Shadows

To me, Types and Shadows is representative of everything that BYU is about. In this exhibit, each piece was intended, at least in context, to point to Christ. Though each work was quite different from all the others, Christ was there in some way. This, I think, is the aim of a BYU education. Though all of us who attend the university will live unique and individual lives, it is the aim of the university to educate students each year whose lives will be centered on Christ and who will point the way to Christ for all those with whom they interact. There is a quote that I like (unfortunately I do not know who first said it) that charges us to “live so that those who do not know Christ but do know you will want to know him because they know you.”

Anyway, I’m getting off topic. Back to the exhibit. Several pieces really stood out to me, but I’ll discuss just one here. The first is one of the first pieces in the exhibit, a bronze in low-relief that depicts a boy or young man either falling from or reaching (almost as if jumping) to a rod that extends from the fingers of a man in a very cruciform position. I guess the artist didn’t necessarily intend for that man to be Christ, that particular interpretation makes sense to me. The detail in this piece, especially in the modeling of the body parts, astounds me. For example, the feet of the young man are very specifically shaped. They are pointed downward and slightly sickled, as if gravity is working its hardest on them. He may be falling—that was my initial thought because of the downward motion of the line of his legs and feet. But then I thought about the foot articulation work we’ve been doing in my Modern dance class and I realized that his feet are pointed in the exact way a foot acts after pushing off the ground. Moving all the way up his body to his extended hand, it does not look to me like a hand that has barely slipped from the rod and is letting go. It looks like a hand that is reaching for it and is about to grasp it. That hand seems to be the focus of all the energy in his body. I love that. I love the desperation in both figures—the boy who is expending all the energy of his soul towards reaching up and the man who is giving everything he can to reach out, despite the veil in between them. I think that this piece does an excellent job of depicting certain aspects of our relationship with Christ—the boy has obviously jumped with all the strength he has, and Christ’s power, in bronze shown as a rod extending from his hand, is there to bear him up.

I could write much more about this piece, and similar amounts about each piece in the exhibit, but that would far exceed the limits of this blog post. I hope I can find the time to take in each piece more thoroughly in the future. I hope I can discover more of how each artist testifies of Christ.

On a completely different note, here are some videos that I absolutely love love love. Being sick the past couple days, I've thought back on sick days in my childhood. Whenever I stayed home from school I would always watch PBS kids, and Sesame Street was one of my favorite shows. I never actually saw any of these videos, except for the theme song when I was young, but I have since discovered them and I sure love them.







--Christian

Sober Expectations

Dear Readers,

Here's the second of my Honors 240 Blogs. This in particular is in response to Martin Diamond's "A Revolution of Sober Expectations." I recommend it to all of you--it was a very interesting article.

Sober Expectations

Martin Diamond’s concept of sober expectations is particularly brilliant, and reflective of the brilliance of the Founding Fathers. Diamond’s essay sheds light on the perfect balance between idealism and realism that the Founding Father’s so perfectly crafted in declaring independence. These men weren’t fighting to put one form of government in place over another. They weren’t fighting for an unrealistic utopian ideal. They weren’t even fighting with a specific form of government in mind, which one can easily see from looking at history—it took years of chaos under the ineffectual Articles of Confederation before the Founding Fathers even thought about drafting the constitution. These men were simply rebelling according to their own consciences against an institution they reasoned to be evil. In declaring independence they did not demand or even offer any alternative form of government. Indeed, specifically democratic government is never explicitly suggested. The closest the document comes to it is insisting that government can only rightfully be formed by the consent of the governed. That government must be operated by the consent of the governed is neither mentioned nor hinted at. Had the newly independent Americans desired another monarchy, they could have formed one and stayed entirely within the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

This is the genius of the document. This is why it is truly inspired. Firstly, had the Declaration specifically designed an alternative government at the time, many colonies, groups, and individuals would surely have been alienated by and opposed to the new form. This would have created many problems in the course of the war and the solidarity that kept the colonies together and ultimately led to their success might well have been weakened or dissolved. It was the purposeful lack of specificity that contributed to the unity of the colonies and helped them to succeed. Moving on to the inspired aspect of the document, the intended vagueness allows for these principles to be applied in many, if not all, settings. There certainly are and have been places in the world where freedom and liberty are not enjoyed, but a democratic government would not be the proper way to ensure them to the people. I believe the Lord guided the writing of the Declaration of Independence so that it could be a model for any other nation to follow—a formula that could be flexibly applied to any context. I believe that the principles of the Declaration of Independence, if read and applied at face value, could realistically serve as an effective guide in creating any form of government that wishes to protect the rights of the people. I believe that the principles in the Declaration of Independence are eternal. Applied them to a more spiritual setting, they hold true. As Latter-day Saints, we know that we can choose to be subject to the Adversary or subject to the Lord. Because we have agency, neither the Lord nor the Adversary can govern us without our permission. This gospel truth fits right into the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and is just one of many similar examples I could list.

The Founding Fathers knew that they were declaring the independence of a nation of imperfect men, and so they set realistic, achievable goals instead of wasting their time with impossibly lofty ideals (idealistic though they were). This “soberness” allows for the flexibility that the document currently has. This “soberness” is what makes the document not only a masterpiece, but a miracle.

Have a great week!

--Christian

P.S. Here's a video: