http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/
A grand sentiment, but a pipe dream nonetheless. I have a fault in that I become enamored with anyone that has an idea I've expressed at some point, me completely unknowing of the supporting viewpoint. Example, when I was a kid I'd spend weekend mornings on the toilet, looking out the window, and contemplating the meaning of life. I'd been preached at from every angle, as is the misfortune of many children, but I still had a tendency to think for myself. Usually I'd panic about death, hell, or, my personal favorite, the idea that Heaven is a mundane form of blissful torment. Anyway, one such thought structure led me to the thought that, just as God had created us and allowed us to mature in one realm, so to did he at one point in time occupy the same role in existence, and we would in turn become Gods someday. I can't say I've ever dropped that concept, at least not as potential (vs. belief system), but I found someone else who agreed. My mom joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and as such brought the word to me. I don't know if they think God was one of us (just a slob like one of us), but they think that's the direction we're headed. And that's great, until you consider what I perceive as their incredible intolerance towards people of different race or sexual orientation, and that basically wrote their religion off for me (for posterity, I've developed a healthy stance of anti-religion).
That's the same thing that happened with me and the Sovereign Republic of Cascadia. I've always wondered what keeps us a nation. Like many other souls on the left coast, I tire of our pathetic lack of Federal representation, of being ignored by the American government, of having our elections rendered to a pathetic joke, and I'm especially tired of us squandering our resources on those who are wasteful. The thought eventually manifest itself into the idea that everything west of the continental divide ought to be its own nation. We have the most similar culture, climate, resources, economy, political affiliation, and quality of life. The likelihood of us Pacific villagers adopting our pitchforks and torches against the fascist American government is so unlikely that it's keeping company with the prospect of a homosexual president. Here is one musing why.
Abraham Lincoln. One of the few geniuses to have adopted the presidency, the mastermind that erected the Emancipation Proclamation and prevented this nation from an inevitable schism. Why would I adopt a stance so un-patriotic as to criticize the outcome of the American Civil War? Let me just preface this rant with one crucial concept: I am not racist. The act of slavery is atrocious, both in what it did to black and white people. Tearing a human being down beyond their scope of dignity simply for profit is unacceptable. Work is hard, no one wants to do it, but purchasing a human being as stock just so you can sit around the plantation sippin' sweet tea should earn you a metal object in the throat. Slavery needed to come to an end as severely as it needed to not have been invented. The Emancipation Proclamation should be a welcome occurrence to me, but I object. Why? Slavery was on its way out. It was too expensive to keep slaves anymore. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and as a result the requirements for massive labor forces was dwindling. I don't believe slavery was the catalyst behind the Emancipation Proclamation. The true intent behind that liberating document was a power-play on behalf of the Northern states to keep the lower-classed South producing the capital goods the North so badly needed to sustain their businesses. The American Civil War occurred as a class war more than anything. It wasn't necessarily the cruel and inhumane atmosphere of slavery that was so offensive, but the idea that the wealthy can undermine your entire society and govern you in a means that is detrimental to your prosperity is unacceptable. In that sense I almost sympathize with the South. That does not mean I support the Confederate flag atop state buildings, as it resonates with too many people as a symbol for hatred; our cultural equivalent to the swastika. This means I am tempted to lament the outcome of the war for the simple fact that it set the irrevocable precedent in American history that it is impermissible for a like-minded culture to govern themselves. The idea that a people united cannot declare their independence from the motherland is, to me, unacceptable. This is why the South is meant to look evil in the history books and why we are programmed from the onset of our education to provide our endless devotion to our country. Racism is abhorrent, and I do not wish to convey the opinion that its expedited eradication was unwelcome, rather I simply object to the ruse that it was the only reason this nation went to war with itself.
Pour one out for Cascadia, the novel notion that will likely never come to pass. However, bear witness to the plights of the Lakota nation, as it will be interesting to see what happens as they attempt to perpetuate an unanchored culture.
UPDATE:
Another thought that occurred to me. It is entirely feasible that the intervention of the North states into the affairs with the South, by means of the Emancipation Proclamation, may well have worsened conditions for African Americans. Again, this is not to say that African Americans don't deserve their freedom (on the contrary, it never should have been stolen to begin with), this is to say that, by forcefully ending slavery, an embittered climate overtook the South. It is this reactionary stance that may have hindered the growth of the African American community in regards to their national rights and recognition. For example, England ended slavery nearly at the same time as did America. A big difference is that English slaves were treated significantly better, but that's not my point. English folk of African descent are afforded more social acceptance than our racially tense climate in America allows. Perhaps the gradual petering out of slavery, as historical evidence shows was the trend, there would be less of a grudge on behalf of Southerners towards African Americans.
In retrospect, I have great sympathy for African Americans. I cannot imagine the emotional ramifications of emerging from the womb already defeated. I have never had to ask my parents and grandparents information about my heritage to receive a crestfallen answer, to have them say "Our people were treated worse than livestock."
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Great post Ruxton. Our founding fathers seemed well aware of those sentiments, hence the federal system. However, for a while now, and especially I think in the 20th century, our federal government has come to dominate. And this is a bipartisan point of view. The Democrats look to federal solutions to problems, and the Republicans pay lip-service to "state's rights" while at the same time trying to legislate their morality from the capitol.
Just to point out a few West coast specific instances, over the course of the last administration we've seen the EPA try to stop California's attempt to regulate greenhouse gases, we've seen the Attorney General attempt to nullify Oregon's assisted suicide policy via federal drug trafficking laws (Supreme Court said otherwise), and we all know that if they could ban gay marriage, abortion, etc, they would. Not to single out Republicans, the same thing could happen with a liberal administration as well.
I think your concerns are justified and shared by a lot of people. I hate to play up the red state/blue state divide, but our country seems to be becoming more and more polarized. If this election we have more of the same, or simply switch to an equally overbearing liberal administration, these feelings will increase.
The solution, I think, is not necessarily dissolution, but rather a renewed respect for federalism by Congress and the President.
***
Just as an aside, it is possible the under-represented Northwest may get a little love this primary season. If Super Tuesday fails to produce a clear front-runner for either party (more likely for the dems then the republicans), late primary states like Oregon and Washington may actually see the candidates!
I hate bipartisanship, especially given that neither party, in my opinion, has the right answers. But I do recognize that, in the last two presidential elections, the blues states are the ones by water. The entire Pacific coast, the Great Lakes states, and New England. That's significant. Water has always been the means of trade, of commerce, of ideas. These are the culturally fortified areas of our country, and the fact that they choose the democratic party should say something.
Interesting point in the update. I wonder how much of the post-Emancipation Proclamation madness is related to the simple fact that southern states were forced from above to give up their slaves. If mommy forces you to be nice to your little brother it's only going to make you want to punch him harder when she's not looking.
Zach, do I sense some anecdotal evidence in that statement?
Post a Comment