Helen Keller: My Radical Hero

Think about Helen Keller. Now that's a great story, isn't it? An infant comes down with an illness, leaving her deaf, dumb, and blind. The world sees her (and others like her) as helpless, yet she perseveres. With the help of Anne Sullivan, she overcomes her disabilities and learns to read, write, and speak. Helen Keller becomes the poster child for never giving up and is a living testament to the capabilities of the handicapped. And to that, most say "Man, what a feel-good, inspirational tale."

Helen Keller would disagree. In her own words "Oh blind vanity of slaves!"


Helen Keller was a radical. Helen Keller was a socialist. She was an enemy of Woodrow Wilson and was constantly fighting for the working class.

Living during a time where you were either a capitalist or you were the enemy, many news outlets crucified her and condemned her thoughts as side effects of her disability. In How I Became a Socialist, Keller writes:

The Brooklyn Eagle says, apropos of me, and socialism, that Helen Keller's "mistakes spring out of the manifest limitations of her development." Some years ago I met a gentleman who was introduced to me as Mr. McKelway, editor of the Brooklyn Eagle...At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error.

Oh, ridiculous Brooklyn Eagle! What an ungallant bird it is! Socially blind and deaf, it defends an intolerable system, a system that is the cause of much of the physical blindness and deafness which we are trying to prevent. The Eagle is willing to help us prevent misery provided, always provided, that we do not attack the industrial tyranny which supports it and stops its ears and clouds its vision. The Eagle and I are at war.

Helen Keller studied the causes of blindness and found that it is not distributed uniformly throughout society. The lower class are more likely to become blind due to a number of reasons, mainly unsafe work environments that Keller attributed to corporate greed. She founded Helen Keller International, which works to fight disparities and the causes of blindness as well as their consequences, malnutrion and bad health.

Helen Keller notably spoke against war and the machine that causes war. In her speech Strike Against War, Keller asserts that "wage slaves" are brainwashed to fight for "country", when really they are fighting for the economic interest of few.

Every modern war has had its root in exploitation. The Civil War was fought to decide whether to slaveholders of the South or the capitalists of the North should exploit the West. The Spanish-American War decided that the United States should exploit Cuba and the Philippines. The South African War decided that the British should exploit the diamond mines. The Russo-Japanese War decided that Japan should exploit Korea. The present war is to decide who shall exploit the Balkans, Turkey, Persia, Egypt, India, China, Africa. And we are whetting our sword to scare the victors into sharing the spoils with us. Now, the workers are not interested in the spoils; they will not get any of them anyway.

She goes on the explain how we really have no country for which to fight.

This terrible sacrifice would be comprehensible if the thing you die for and call country fed, clothed, housed and warmed you, educated and cherished your children. I think the workers are the most unselfish of the children of men; they toil and live and die for other people's country, other people's sentiments, other people's liberties and other people's happiness!

Helen Keller stood up in the face of adversary many times throughout her life, before and after she overcame her disabilities. She held opinions many would consider radical even today.

Most importantly, she took action. Thank you Helen Keller. Fight On.

Separation as I See It: Religion is the USA

So, we are taught that a pillar of this great nation is it's "separation of church and state". And, of course, we're using the Christian term "Church" to represent any and all religious faith. Irony aside, I think this is a step in the right direction, a step we may owe to John Leland, who outlined issues he had with the US Constitution as it was being written. Among the issues Leland highlighted (before the Bill of Rights was added): a guarantee of "religious liberty" was not secured. Finally, the Bill of Rights was added with it's first amendment reading:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yet, the number of times the Christian God comes up in federal affairs is unsettling. The first example that comes to mind is "In God We Trust", a phrase literally exchanged millions, if not billions, of times a day via our US currency.

As the world gets smaller, it become increasingly clear that some of our laws and traditions have little more merit than their religious grounds (I'm looking at you, ban of same-sex marriage). Even in our courts, it is customary, though not mandatory, to swear to tell truth, or "help me God".

Is this not an establishment of religion? Although it does not explicitly prohibit free practice of other religions, it certainly sets expectations. It creates an "us" and a "them", Christians and others.

It's time to take this a step further. Let us graduate from feeble seperation to total isolation. Personal values have no place in government. Freedom comes first.

But do not misconstrue these thoughts; if people wish to practice faith of any kind, that is still their inalienable right, so long as it does not overlap with the rights of others.

Consent is key.

PS If you have any other examples of laws or customs in the US that soley exist because of religion, leave a comment below.

Why the LGBT Community is Braver than You

The irony is that the title of this post assumes that you, the reader, are heterosexual. This assumption is an example of one of the many privileges that straight people take for granted.

Think about it. When a straight person first meets someone, say a new classmate or roommate, they're not worried about having to tell them that they're straight. In fact, the new classmate or roommate already thinks they're straight. Why would they think otherwise? Having to "confess" their sexuality never even crosses a straight person's mind.

This is not the reality for someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans-gender. And this is just one example. For a fuller list, click here.

Now, some of the privileges listed I think have less to do with not being heterosexual and more to do with being part of a community that makes up less than 5% of the US population (http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html, http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm). For example, not being adequately represented in media is an issue that many minority groups face.

This does not, however, excuse the other very valid points outlined in the list.

Usually, people are reluctant to admit they committed a crime, which is natural. Society justly reprimands those who hurt others, those who steal from others, and those who violate the rights of others. But we know that being gay or lesbian, being bisexual or transgender, does none of the above. We should not contribute to a culture in which someone is reluctant to express their identity.

The privilege I found most insightful in this long list was "I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation." I had never thought about it this way, but being gay in the US has turned into a very political stance. You are expected to have opinions on civil unions, Proposition 8, and hospital rights. You have to be able to defend gay marriage.

As a straight man, I have never been asked why I like females or if I think it's moral. It just doesn't happen.

As history continues, we must propagate (no pun intended) the idea that the GLBT community and the heterosexual community are really not so different. We must be blind to sexual orientation as we are taught to be blind to race. A culture of open mindedness and acceptance will shrink the privilege list down to zero.

And we cannot afford to settle for anything other than zero.

Why Beyonce's "Single Ladies" is Two Steps Backwards for All Ladies

Step One: As part of my work with young people, one thing we ask teens to prompt analysis of music videos is to consider is the expectations it sets for certain groups. When you listen to the lyrics and watch the visuals, what is glorified and what is shunned?

Rap videos are particularly notorious for portraying woman as sex objects. They feature half naked women dancing around their male masters. It tells young girls "you're sexuality is what you are worth." And here we have Beyonce. She is no rapper, yet she still seems to present her body as her most valuable commodity. Ask any male what he finds most attractive about the video. Ask any female of what aspect of Beyonce she is envious. After watching this video, chances are "intelligence" isn't at the top of the list.

What you may hear is her "confidence". What concerns me about this answer is that Beyonce achieves her confidence through having what Hollywood considers a perfect body. Effectively, it tells women that they cannot be confident without going out of their way to shape themselves to fit the expectations of this video.

Step Two: "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it"

For a song that starts off with 7 repititions of "All the single ladies", it sure does put a lot of emphasis on the not only the importance of marriage, but the roles it entails. Beyonce touts not needing "permission" and being able to "act up" because she is single, but does that mean that she would otherwise be expected to seek permission and behave accordingly if she was married? It's almost as if Beyonce thinks being independent and being married are mutually exclusive attributes. This is epitomized in her line "Pull me into your arms, say I'm the one you own."

For current times, this song seems quite old fashioned. It presents marriage as a goal for women, and and tells them "if your significant other doesn't want to be married now, exploit yourself until you find a someone who does."

Why Anti-Patriotism is not the same as Anti-American

The US is the greatest nation on Earth....isn't it? I mean, we have the best schools, the best military, the best hospitals, the best cars, the best freedoms. And this is something we should all be proud of! God Bless America...right?

In my opinion, yes and no.

Now, it would be ridiculous for me to pretend the United States isn't special. Unless you count the European Union as a collective country, we have the largest economy in the world. But does this mean an American life is worth any more than a French, Morrocan, or Iraqi one? If so, how many Frenchmen would you have killed in place of one American?

Emma Goldman proclaims,

"We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people... Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. ...Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that it will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations.

Such is the logic of patriotism."

In this passage, Goldman speaks to the most disturbing aspect of patriotism: the need to conquer. Many interpret patriotism and being "American" as being the best and making sure everyone knows it. This is not and has never been a sustainable culture.

So what is the solution to this seemingly unintuitive conclusion? In a term: Global citizenship. Let us take into account what is best for the world long term, not for the US short term. If you want to get technical, the US would actually be most efficient, wealthy, and innovative in a global environment (see Game Theory).

We do have a lot to be proud of and we should celebrate our innovations and discoveries. But we need to recognize that these are not American accomplishments tailored exclusively for the benefit of Americans. These are human milestones we have reached together; these are milestones from which everyone should prosper.

Patriotism: A Menace to Society by Emma Goldman:http://goo.gl/RTg5

Game Theory: http://goo.gl/YPUl