Peter's Publisher

Icelandic and English Language Use in Iceland

2017-08-01T01:59:00.001-08:00

Icelandic is a beautiful language, and it's amazing to learn it hasn't changed too much from the Old Norse spoken by Vikings. Icelandic is also, however, an incredibly difficult language to learn.

While other languages descended from Old Norse like Swedish and Norwegian have evolved and simplified greatly, Icelandic retains a complex grammar that's very tough for most English speakers to wrap their minds around. Icelandic verbs are conjugated for tense, mood, person, number, and voice, and then nouns are inflected for gender, number, and case. In other words, we English speakers generally expect verbs to change very little (we change, it changes) and we expect nouns to always stay the same (save for a simple -s for most plurals and -'s for possessives). In Icelandic, those words are constantly shifting, and they do so in a multitude of often-irregular ways.

Given these daunting difficulties, it's understandable if any prospective visitor to Iceland gets a little worried about language use on their trip.

English provided with Icelandic—even on top of a mountain
(Heimaklettur, Heimaey, Westman Islands)

Those worries should last about thirty seconds—or however long it takes you to read to this sentence. Prospective visitors to Iceland should note that absolutely no knowledge of the Icelandic language is required to travel around the country. In nearly all circumstances—or, at least, nearly all situations typical tourists might find themselves in—English is spoken or information in English is provided.

English seems to be accorded such an equal status with Icelandic around the country that the really remarkable places are the few that don't give it that status. One of those places my wife and I found during our visits to Iceland was the IKEA outside of Reykjavík, which presumably doesn't care too much about catering to tourists. (And if you've been to IKEA anywhere else in the world, you understand how the store works anyway.)

Signage that's trilingual (with German)
and quadrilingual (with French) is common

Over the course of our trips, my wife and I have spent nearly thirty days in Iceland. In all that time, we met perhaps two Icelanders who couldn't speak any English, and both of them were older people who weren't working in the visitor industry. That is to say—we went out of our way to try to talk to these non-English-speakers. On top of that, there were probably less than half a dozen times when we really would have wanted to read something, but it was only written in Icelandic.

All that being said, learning a little bit of Icelandic is a wonderful way to better enjoy your travels in Iceland. "Hæ" (pronounced "hi"), "takk" (thanks), and "bless" (bye) are extremely easy to learn and use with anyone you meet. You can also easily use "já" (pronounced "yow") and "nei" to answer basic questions you're asked—and sometimes it'll even trick Icelanders into thinking you speak Icelandic!

Despite it's bewildering grammar, Icelandic also has some great traits that English would do well to learn from. The most obvious to spot is that Icelandic retains two different characters to distinguish the two "th" sounds we also have in English: ð (Ð in uppercase, but that's rarely seen) represents th as in "that," while þ (Þ in uppercase) represents th as in "thing." Þ is only ever used at the beginning of words, and there are no words that start with ð, but it's still great to distinguish the sounds. I þink ðat it would be worþ it for English speakers to use ðese letters too. Don't you?

Rename Schoenbar Middle School

2017-08-01T00:11:00.000-08:00

John Shoenbar never deserved to have a school named after him.

Back in January I went to the Ketchikan City Council and proposed that Ketchikan's flag should be revised or replaced. Now I'd like to offer up another suggestion for the community that no one will probably pay any attention: Schoenbar Middle School should change its name.

There are only two schools in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District named after people—Houghtaling Elementary School and Schoenbar Middle School. Houghtaling was opened in 1961 and named after longtime school board member and local education supporter Bert Houghtaling. The middle school’s name was selected a few years later in 1964. According June Allen, the name Schoenbar was chosen because, ironically, the decision makers at the time did not want to name another school after a person—so they named it after its location on Schoenbar Road.

Naming the middle school after Schoenbar Road, however, effectively named it after John Shoenbar.

This recent KRBD story really exposes how unworthy John Shoenbar is of having a school named after him. According to all the facts we in Ketchikan know about the man, he was a dishonest con artist who swindled investors and didn’t contribute anything of value to the Ketchikan community.

Now, I understand that our middle school has been named Schoenbar for over fifty years, and I know many people in my community, including me, are happy to have been students at Schoenbar Middle School. I personally do not have any suggestion of a new name for the school, and I think it would be presumptuous for me to make one. I also would hope that no one’s offended or affronted by my comments. There may be people out there who are really attached to the Schoenbar name and think it holds the most value simply because it's been the school's name for so long.

However, I do think it would be an amazing opportunity for our education community—if Schoenbar’s students, families, and staff are interested—to work on finding a new name that would honor someone or something more meaningful than an early 20th-century con man.

Fighting Southeast Alaska's Youth Drain

2017-06-09T00:19:00.001-08:00

A few months ago, I read this article about a presentation by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough's new manager, Ruben Duran. Near the end, the article states the following:

I have to admit, this statement annoyed me a little. As a 26-year-old raised in Ketchikan who returned to living and working here as an adult, I believe there's a shortage of people my own age on the island, not people my parents' age. It seems to me that Ketchikan should prioritize attracting Millennials—young working people who will counterbalance the increasing number of residents who are retirement age or older.

Over the last few years, media outlets have highlighted how Southeast has become the oldest region in Alaska, even calling the phenomenon a "silver tsunami." (See here and here.) Apparently, the biggest factor behind this trend is that older people are now better able to keep living in Southeast, rather than being forced to move elsewhere out of necessity, as often happened in the past. Obviously that's a great thing. My grandparents have stayed in Ketchikan since they retired, (living here continuously since 1954!), and I'm incredibly happy they're here.

Nevertheless, it is a real issue for a place like Ketchikan (and small towns across the United States) if a large segment of the population is retired or approaching retirement and there aren't as many younger working people around to keep the community's economy strong. High school graduates in Ketchikan are drawn away in large numbers to Anchorage and Fairbanks, as well as Seattle, Portland, and other urban centers down south—not just to go there for college, but to live and work there permanently.

A newly-released study from state economists tracked the life choices of around 6,000 of the 7,000 young Alaskans who graduated from high school in 2005. For the purposes of this post, I focused on where these people ended up residing. As of 2014, around 70-75% of the class of 2005 graduates who never went to college or went to college in Alaska still live in Alaska. Meanwhile, only around 30% of those who went to college outside Alaska still live in Alaska.

Unfortunately, there's no regional or community breakdown within this study, so it doesn't let us in on the particulars of Southeast Alaska or Ketchikan's situation. I decided to conduct my own—entirely non-scientific—survey of where Facebook friends I went to high school with ended up living. I counted 115 friends that I attended Ketchikan High School with, coming from the graduating classes of 2007 through 2012, now aged about 23-28 years old. There were ten people whose residence I really couldn't determine, so I was left with 105 total (almost one of those "if the world were 100 people" things).

Here's the result:

Again, this little survey of mine is entirely anecdotal, and probably not 100% accurate. Nonetheless, it does show large portions of Ketchikan's youth leaving their hometown, moving "up north" to elsewhere in Alaska (mostly Anchorage) or "down south" to elsewhere in the U.S. (mostly Washington and Oregon). Personally, I was surprised that the number living in Ketchikan was as large as 39%, but that group is probably overrepresented among my current Facebook friends, since I live here myself.

Of course, nothing that I'm saying in this post means that I judge or resent anyone who leaves Ketchikan after growing up here. I completely understand the many, many different reasons that young people move away, and my wife and I could have very easily been in the same boat. As it is, I feel very lucky that we both found great job opportunities here after college.

Still, I continue to believe that it is a commendable and precious thing for young people to stay in or return to their hometown, contributing to the community that they're most deeply connected to. This New York Times piece, "Why I'm Moving Home," outlines some general arguments for the value of Americans returning to their hometowns—in particular, fighting the brain drain that hurts small towns and contributes to our nation's continuing polarization along the lines of class, education, and the rural-urban divide.

As for me, I don't think I can sum up my own feelings better than I did in this post on my teaching blog: "Why I am a Teacher in Ketchikan, Alaska." It's extremely meaningful to me that I am able to work in my own community and contribute to the place I love most in the world. I know not everyone has that privilege, or that desire. Nevertheless, community leaders in Ketchikan should be doing as much as they can to allow and entice young people to stay in, return to, or move to our town.

It is a nice idea for Baby Boomers to come to Ketchikan to retire, and there's plenty of value to that—but Ketchikan needs young people! For anyone doing their part to fight Southeast Alaska's youth drain, please know you are appreciated.

Leave me a comment below with your thoughts.

J.K. Rowling is Ruining Harry Potter's Legacy

2017-03-24T17:50:00.001-08:00

source (actually a pretty good article ranking the books)

Like so many Millennials, reading the Harry Potter series was a memorable and even vital aspect of my childhood. My parents read me the first three books out loud at bedtimes after they first appeared in the U.S. (Prisoner of Azkaban was and remains my favorite book in the series.) My family bought Goblet of Fire immediately when it was released, and I remember working extra hard to read it on my own, even though I was only nine and the thick book dwarfed my hands. I awaited the release of the fifth, sixth, and seventh books in turn, and the darker, more complicated plots of each subsequent book perfectly mirrored my own adolescent development, culminating in the release of Deathly Hallows (taking place when Harry is seventeen) when I was sixteen myself. It is no mistake to say that my peers and I grew up with Harry Potter, and Harry Potter grew up with us.

Part of the beauty of Rowling's Harry Potter series is that it is not a legendarium. It does not create a massive, intricately detailed universe à la Tolkien's Middle Earth, complete with gods, myths, histories, poems, songs, maps, languages, and cultures, all deftly embedded in the plots of the novels. Instead, what Harry Potter offers is a complete childhood experience—the opportunity to witness the full development of a small group of characters overcoming tremendous trials year after year until they have grown into strong adults who save their world. It's not a Bildungsroman, but rather a Bildungserie—perhaps the best example of a heptalogy that we'll ever see written (especially if George R.R. Martin can't pull his shit together).

Nothing could ever destroy the potential impact that reading the Harry Potter heptalogy can have on young children and teenagers. Nevertheless, the Harry Potter stories' legacy could be tarnished if it's repeatedly used to prop up misguided new projects—projects that fail to reflect what makes Harry Potter so great. Unfortunately, Harry Potter's legacy is threatened, and it's being threatened by the author herself.

seven years, seven horcruxes
—Harry's story had to be
complete in seven books

I don't remember when I first read that J.K. Rowling promised not to write another Harry Potter book after the seven in her heptalogy, but I do remember what I felt—immense relief. Reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows brought me an incredible sense of satisfaction and closure, the realization that an epic saga spanning my childhood would finally come to a meaningful resolution. It was a meaningful demonstration of the lesson that all good things must come to an end. Because reading the Harry Potter heptalogy is a complete childhood experience, a complete Bildungserie, it absolutely must come to an end. If Harry's stories continue on into his adulthood, the experience is lessened and the reader is betrayed.

Since Deathly Hallows was published, J.K. Rowling has kept to the letter of her promise not to write another Harry Potter book, but she has broken that promise in spirit. In 2015, Rowling approved the publishing of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, the script to a stage play (not a book, right?) written by Jack Thorne, based on a story developed by Thorne, John Tiffany, and herself. I had no desire to read the play when it came out, and the wisdom of my decision was confirmed when I witnessed friends who had rushed to read it express frustration and disappointment. However, I still had little idea what the actual plot of the story was—not until I watched this video. I'm glad I did watch the video (the full thirty minutes), since it plainly illustrates how Harry Potter and the Cursed Child was a ghastly misstep: The story not only defies established principles of the Harry Potter universe, but also tramples over highly developed character traits and critical moments from the heptalogy that longtime fans value deeply.

I don't know what Rowling was thinking when she decided to do the Cursed Child project, and I don't know what her thoughts have been after it was so panned by Harry Potter fans. Regardless, the experience proves that authors should exercise extreme caution with putting out sequels or spin-offs of a complete and widely celebrated story. Rowling didn't show that caution with Cursed Child, and the world probably would have been better off if it'd never seen the light of day.

Perhaps even more threateningly, there are now supposed to be a series of five films based on the character Newt Scamander, author of the in-universe textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them that Hogwarts students use. (That entire sentence should set off alarm bells for anyone who worries about stories built on flimsy premises.) The first film—Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them—was released in November to positive reviews, but in general those reviews were positive because of the entertainment value of the film—not its storytelling.

This review does a good job of highlighting ways in which Rowling failed to put together a coherent, compelling narrative: Virtually all the characters were either underdeveloped or unnecessary, the premise of the conflict was questionable, and the film was chock-full of sparkling distractions that contributed little meaning to the story. I mean, for a movie named Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, the fantastic beasts were astonishingly tangential to the plot.

It seems Rowling was focused on trying to build a relevant story around themes of discrimination and demagoguery—and while I certainly don't think that goal is an unworthy one, Rowling's preaching wasn't particularly well done. The author definitely fancies herself as a political commentator, and there's nothing wrong with that; I'll admit she's launched some great tweets over the last few years. However, Rowling's best work in promoting her values was in the more organic, measured manner of the Harry Potter series. Turning her new spinoff movies into transparent morality plays makes for neither good art nor effective messaging.

three of a kind?

I walked away from watching Fantastic Beasts with the strong feeling that these movies will turn out much like Star Wars Episodes I-III or the Hobbit film trilogy—a shallow, poorly-constructed run of prequels far better at making truckloads of money than doing justice to the original stories that gave them that earning potential. Maybe the upcoming movies will prove me wrong, but I think I have some compelling reasons to fear the worst.

So, why has Rowling launched these projects when they risk tarnishing the legacy of the beautifully complete Harry Potter heptalogy? There could be a number of different reasons. For one thing, Rowling's non-Harry Potter works probably haven't been as successful or satisfying as she would have hoped: Her first adult novel, The Casual Vacancy, received significant critique, while her subsequent mystery novel published under a pseudonym, The Cuckoo's Calling, had positive reviews but failed to sell until its author's identity was revealed. Perhaps Rowling increasingly couldn't see as much of a future for herself in real-world-based adult fiction as she expected.

I suspect it's more likely, however, that the main reason Rowling's gone back to the Harry Potter universe is that she loves it too much to stop. And of course, that's pretty understandable. Who could blame her for wanting to write more about her wonderful, magical world adored by millions?

Ultimately, though, I have to wonder—what value does Rowling's promise not to write another Harry Potter book really have when she decides to produce Harry Potter-universe plays and movies instead? It's apparent now that she's a much better novelist than a screenwriter or playwright collaborator. I think we'd be better off if she just came out and broke her original promise. Far more than a crazy play or a spate of shallow Hollywood blockbusters, a new series of books would have much greater potential to live up to Harry Potter's legacy—or, at the very least, not diminish it so much.

Note: By no means did I discuss all of Rowling's recent activities in this post. In particular, the way she has incorporated Native Americans into her "Magic in North America" writing published on the Pottermore website is absolutely disgraceful. That issue deserves a separate post, and the one from Native Appropriations is well worth reading.

Revising or Replacing Ketchikan’s Flag

2017-01-05T23:29:00.000-09:00

I made the following proposal to the Ketchikan City Council this evening, and KRBD Radio mentioned it in this article.

Revising or Replacing Ketchikan’s Flag

Any city can benefit from having a distinctive, well-designed, and widely recognized flag. A city as special as Ketchikan deserves to have a great flag—a distinctive symbol that will succinctly express some aspect of our identity and elicit pride in our community. Updating and promoting the current municipal flag or adopting a new design is a unique chance for the City of Ketchikan to boost community spirit as well as generate economic opportunities.

Ketchikan's current flag

The current flag of the City of Ketchikan was designed by Daniel Sheets in 1999. It is not a bad flag; it sports distinct Ketchikan colors and a single, easily identified symbol of our community—a salmon. However, this flag is not widely recognized or used, either by the City or by members of the community. It is not featured on the City website, nor flown anywhere around town, (except, apparently, at the Visitors Bureau), nor is it featured on any of the countless pieces of merchandise sold here that bear the name “Ketchikan, Alaska.”

There are two options that could remedy this situation. One is to revise the current flag—which could benefit from a few changes—and then promote it:

First, the words “Ketchikan, Alaska” should be removed. Many municipal flags—and some state flags—suffer from the misconception that a flag should bear the name of the place it represents. A flag is meant to be a graphic symbol; using words defeats the purpose entirely.
Second, the salmon on the flag should be redesigned in order to be more easily identifiable, reproducible, and marketable. The salmon does not need to serve as some sort of logo or mascot for the city, but it could be rendered in a more generally appealing way that residents and visitors alike would happily sport on clothing or use in other ways.
Third, updating the flag will be meaningless if it remains unrecognized and unused. The City can take immediate steps to put the revised flag into wider official use, establish it as a familiar symbol of our community, and spark businesses to take advantage of it as an economic opportunity.

one idea for a new Ketchikan flag (my own design)

The other option would be to adopt a new flag, one with a bold new design that could immediately attract attention and admiration from residents and visitors alike. The Council could solicit ideas for a new flag, and if nothing better than the current flag were submitted it would be harmless. Anyone considering designs for a new flag should, however, keep in mind five key principles of flag design:

Keep it simple—so simple a child could draw it from memory. (A few great flags do not follow this principle, but a simple, easily reproducible design increases the chances for a flag to be marketable and frequently used.)
Use meaningful symbolism.
Use two or three basic colors. (Again, there are some great flags violate this principle, but in general it is a highly effective guideline.)
Do not use lettering or seals of any kind. As mentioned previously, a flag that uses lettering has either failed in its symbolic purpose or has unnecessarily complicated its design and reproducibility. Additionally, it is important to note that while some highly effective flags take one or two elements from a seal and utilize them boldly to great effect, simply using a seal for a flag is usually a bad idea: Seals are usually complicated, difficult to reproduce, and difficult to identify from a distance.
Be distinctive.

The potential costs of either revising the current flag or adopting a new one are minimal. Meanwhile, the potential long-term benefits of having a well designed, widely recognized, and frequently used flag are limitless. Visitors to Ketchikan see many memorable things here, but they lack an official symbol to represent us. Businesses here use the name of our city on countless pieces of merchandise, but they would benefit from having an easily identifiable and reproducible symbol to utilize. People in Ketchikan take a lot of pride in our community—our culture, our history, our unique identity. We deserve to have a distinctive, inspiring flag that represents us, a symbol we can be proud of that can be flown and displayed everywhere in our city.

Trump's "Surprise" Victory and the Bernie Factor

2016-11-13T02:43:00.001-09:00

I rushed to publish a bunch of election-themed posts on this blog the night before Election Day, (actually Election Day morning), and one of them was this one: My Electoral College Prediction: 329 to Clinton, 209 to Trump.

I didn't spend much time thinking about my prediction, but simply used the assumptions from polling websites like FiveThirtyEight about which states were "safe" and then guessed that Trump would win Ohio while losing North Carolina—only two changes from the results of the 2012 Romney-Obama election.

2016 election results, with Michigan and New Hampshire
still not confirmed and Trump flipped states darkened (source)

That's pretty hilarious (or bittersweet) to look at now, considering the election result—almost the inverse of my predicted Electoral College score, with Clinton expected to take 232 and Trump 306. Trump won with a wide margin by taking states that pollsters considered "safe" or "leaning" for Hillary—Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan—primarily through low turnout among Democrats and greatly increased support from lower-income voters and white voters without college degrees.

In retrospect, however, there were some people who predicted that this was exactly how Trump would win, and in many ways we should not be surprised at the result, even if the pollsters were.

Filmmaker Michael Moore made the best prediction I know of, with his piece "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win." He correctly pointed to Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as the hotspots to watch; he summoned the image of the "angry white man" to explain the reaction of many white people to major cultural changes in our country—a phenomenon that definitely helped elect Trump; he pointed out how Hillary Clinton's candidacy was a very bad choice for the Democratic Party—very much borne out by the low turnout; and he pointed out that many people cast votes to express anger toward a broken political system or throw a wrench in the works.

In short, many, many Americans wanted change in our government and saw Donald Trump as a preferable agent of that change over Hillary Clinton—or perhaps as the only possible agent of change, if Clinton would bring none.

a simple yet effective statement from Bernie Sanders from
after the election showing how he would have won

That's where Bernie Sanders comes in. For many of us who supported Bernie Sanders in his campaign for the Democratic nomination, one of our first reactions to the election results was to reflect on how easily Bernie would have defeated Trump. Bernie's offered a clear vision for change to lower income and middle class Americans, and he offered praise for aspects of Obama's presidency but criticized many others (a point Clinton attacked him on). Very importantly, Bernie never campaigned in a way that put down conservatives and Trump supporters; as matter of fact, he repeatedly made sympathetic statements, showing concern and understanding for why they might feel how they did. (Also read this piece he wrote after the election.)

The results of this election show that the attacks from Hillary Clinton and her surrogates against Trump and his supporters did a great deal to galvanize them. Even if Trump really was the least-qualified presidential candidate ever, even if many of his words and actions should have disqualified him from the presidency, and even if he endangered or will endanger certain groups of Americans, none of that justified generalized attacks on his supporters—and it was a losing strategy anyway. Bernie Sanders wouldn't have taken that road, and all the sympathy he expressed for downtrodden voters would have been felt as genuine, unlike anything that came from Hillary.

the Democrats' presidential candidate wasn't offering
much inspiring change that mattered this year (source)

Additionally, Trump's victory was certainly backed by feelings of economic loss and marginalization that Clinton did little to effectively assuage. (Trump offered to "Make America Great Again" while Clinton offered "America is Already Great.") Meanwhile, the message of economic justice and revitalization was central to everything Sanders did and said. Articles by Thomas Frank and Glenn Greenwald do a marvelous job of outlining how people living under neoliberal regimes in America, Europe, and elsewhere are ready to lash out—and how the Democratic Party selected the perfect representative of the neoliberal order in nominating Hillary Clinton. For many Americans still seeking "hope and change," Clinton did not offer it.

I and many others have little doubt that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump if he had been the Democrats' nominee. Who knows how many more Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania voters he would have won—along with voters around the country—who instead voted for Trump, a third-party candidate, or merely stayed home. I hope this defeat sends shockwaves through the Democratic Party in particular, toppling corporatist Clinton supporters and paving the way for real progressives to take charge. Donald Trump may not have run a great campaign, but he found a clear path to victory and appealed to voters in ways that Hillary could not. Now we all have to live with him as our next president, and keep working for positive changes whenever and wherever we can.

My Electoral College Prediction: 329 to Clinton, 209 to Trump

2016-11-08T01:28:00.000-09:00

It is a little after 1:00am on Election Day morning in Alaska, so it's time I published my prediction for the results of the presidential election before any real results arrive this evening. Using the great tool at http://www.270towin.com/, here is my prediction:

I don't pretend to have any special skill in making this prediction; I made my guess rather quickly, just based on what I've been seeing in the news lately and my gut feelings.

Clearly, I believe Hillary Clinton will win in an Electoral College landslide. The popular vote may be much closer, but she should almost certainly become our next president. You may note that this guess is almost exactly the same as the result of the 2012 election, with the only exception being that President Obama took Ohio in 2012 and Mitt Romney took North Carolina, while I believe Hillary will take North Carolina and Trump will take Ohio. This difference gave Obama three more electoral votes (332) in 2012 than I'm predicting Clinton will win.

I won't elaborate much on my choices, but my gut tells me there won't be any stunning upsets of Clinton winning red states only recently suggested to be in play—states like Arizona, Georgia, and even Alaska. However, I do think Clinton will win every swing or battleground state besides Ohio.

In less than twenty hours, our nation will likely know the presidential election results. I'm excited to see what happens, and I promise I won't take down this post, even if I end up embarrassingly wrong. Post-election analysis will definitely follow on this blog!

Crook vs. Fascist: France 2002, USA 2016

2016-11-08T01:06:00.000-09:00

In their 2002 presidential election, French voters were forced to choose between Jacques Chirac, a man at the center of numerous corruption scandals later convicted on several counts, and Jean-Marie Le Pen, a rightwing demagogue decried for spouting racist views. Protestors across France were noted as saying they had to "vote for the crook not the fascist."

Now that we've come to the end of the 2016 US election season—the unbearable, over 18-month-long election season—I'm really just surprised I didn't see more comparisons between America today and France fourteen years ago. There are a few pieces out there on the similarity, (one of the best is this one), but none seem to have gained attention in the US media.

how Le Pen beat socialist Jospin in the first round to qualify
for the second (French presidential election, 2002)

Le Pen's victory in making it through the first round of the French election and Trump's victory in the Republican primary both came as huge surprises many people. Both victories were fueled by white citizens who felt threatened by immigrants and economically marginalized. Neither man espoused extreme free-market policy positions, instead promoting a paternalistic and nationalistic vision of taking care of their country. Both men spewed hatred toward minorities, repulsing many voters.

At the same time, every single American has to admit that Hillary Clinton is a crook: She is clearly, indisputably a dishonest woman, if not a lawbreaker as well. It doesn't matter how many unjustified attacks she has weathered (and will continue to weather, after she becomes President): Clinton has lied throughout her political career, breaking promises and betraying the people's trust wherever she saw fit. The facts are in the record, and even Hillary's aides complained about her problem with honesty in emails published by WikiLeaks.

It remains to be seen whether Clinton's lies and potential lawbreaking will ever catch up with her, as Chirac's did in 2011 when he was convicted (though the prison sentence was suspended). Nevertheless, it seems clear that Clinton will win the election with many voters supporting her as the "lesser of two evils"—the crook, not the fascist.

There are, of course, many differences between these two elections in two quite distinct electoral systems. France has a diverse multiparty system, and Jean-Marie Le Pen was only ever leader of his own party, le Front National—a party that has yet to control French government. Donald Trump, meanwhile, was able to seize the nomination of the nation's most powerful political party (considering Republican dominance of governorships, state legislatures, and Congress). In addition, over 80% of French voters chose the crook over the fascist in 2002, while the race between Trump and Clinton promises to be far, far closer.

Thankfully, the US electoral system—flawed though it is—does not actually force voters to choose between the lesser of two evils, as does France's two-round voting system. Instead, Americans have the option of voting for third party candidates. It turns out we don't have to choose between the crook and the fascist after all, even if we know one of them will win the presidency.

Media Abdicate Responsibility On Ballot Selfie Laws Violating the First Amendment

2016-11-08T00:25:00.000-09:00

Laws banning ballot selfies—or any photos people might take of their completed election ballots—are absolutely, undeniably unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, most media outlets don't seem to care about that clear legal reality; they've decided to simply sell the story "Uh oh, look! You're not allowed to take ballot selfies in these states!"

Just look at the results for googling "ballot selfie":

Most of these articles—or at the very least, their headlines—follow the premise that states banning ballot selfies have legitimate laws that readers (and Justin Timberlake) need to fear and obey. The writers therefore abdicate any journalistic responsibility of informing readers how the laws are obviously unconstitutional and should be actively opposed. Some mention later in their articles how courts have ruled some states' laws unconstitutional recently, but if that information is buried well into the article, where many readers never arrive.

The only article I've seen that bucks this trend was written by Mark Joseph Stern, a Georgetown classmate of mine. Mark firmly proclaims that bans on ballot selfies are unconstitutional, detailing the recent court cases with that finding and tearing apart the faulty arguments supporting the bans.

2012, my first presidential election
(one of many ballot photos I've taken
over my seven years as a voter)

Most essentially, taking a photo of one's ballot and sharing it with others is no different from simply sharing how you voted with your words. Everyone has the right to a secret ballot, but we also have the freedom to say whatever we want about how we vote. Freedom of speech, if we truly believe in it as an expansive American ideal, must as a matter of course contain the freedom to take photos of one's votes.

As for me, I unknowingly violated Alaska statute 15.15.280 "Prohibiting the Exhibition of Marked Ballots" multiple times since I started voting. It says "a voter may not exhibit the voter's ballot to an election official or any other person so as to enable any person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot." Somehow, though, I doubt that anyone in Alaska has ever been prosecuted for breaking that law.

On Election Day tomorrow, I now plan knowingly violate AS 15.15.280: I'll take a photo of my ballot, then exhibit it to other people enabling them to ascertain how I marked it. I daresay the state is not going to come after me, and if they do they'll lose in court. I hope every state with a ballot selfie ban gets sued or changes their statutes. Maybe after that the media will finally admit how unconstitutional these laws are.

Speak Truth to Power; Don't Cover for the Powerful

2016-11-08T00:18:00.001-09:00

I meant to make this my "election season resolution," but now that it's already Election Day, I'd better make it a resolution for at least the next four years: I don't want to say anything that covers for the powerful. I want to speak truth to power in whatever little ways I can.

(source)

"Speak truth to power" is a phrase often used by activists on the left, but it's a meaningful act no matter what your politics are. All it means is that we should confront the lies of those in power by speaking out and speaking the truth. All of us should feel compelled to speak truth to power, and we should feel good about doing so.

The problem is, we're surrounded by people who do the exact opposite. So many people—family and friends, writers and pundits in the media—actually spend their time covering for the powerful. They create and spread talking points that justify wrong actions. They promote apologia for how those in power have to do what they have to do, no matter how bad it is.

Most if not all of these people probably don't intend to cover for the powerful.

We all know how this works, too: Republicans defend Republicans at any cost. Democrats defend Democrats no matter what. It often takes an indisputably horrible, indisputably true scandal for people to stop covering for someone on their "team," and sometimes even that doesn't work. If you feel like a leader is being persecuted by partisans on the other side, that can lead you to defend them all the more virulently, regardless of what seeds of truth might lie in what the other side is saying.

To take one example, I've definitely felt more sympathetic to President Obama over the past eight years because of unfounded attacks he's been subject to. However, many of his actions as President merit serious critique. Now I have to ask myself—how worthwhile was it for me to spend time defending him on such counts, instead of focusing my efforts on the real wrongs he perpetuated and perpetrated? Would it made any difference whatsoever if I hadn't rushed to his defense in political discussions? Could it have been much more impactful to keep zeroing in on his genuine problems?

During this election, I saw many friends rush to defend Hillary Clinton because of how she's often attacked, but at this point I wonder—does Hillary really need anyone to defend her?

I know I'm certainly not innocent of covering for the powerful. I think it's almost impossible to write about this subject without being hypocritical. That's why I'm making a resolution, not claiming I'm guiltless. I'll strive my best to I hope you'll join me:

I don't want to say anything that covers for the powerful. I want to speak truth to power in whatever little ways I can.

My Lifetime Language Learning Plan

2016-09-19T22:14:00.001-08:00

origins of the languages in my plan

Some time ago, a friend posted on Facebook about choosing a new language to learn. He said he was aiming to learn seven to nine languages in his life, so he needed to be careful about what he chose to spend time on. I was struck by his words because I'd never really considered that I should consciously limit the number of languages I'd try to learn. Now I think about it all the time.

It makes sense, of course: Growing up, we all realize in one way or another that everyone has limits to their knowledge of different languages. If you intend to learn several languages over the course of your life, then, it should help to plan deliberately and conscientiously how to meet those goals. I love languages, and I do intend to keep learning many throughout my life—so it's about time I made a plan.

First, though, I found it useful to read this short article. It brings up several interesting and important points to consider, as highlighted by a number of hyperpolyglots—speakers of large numbers of languages.

Ken Hale, hyperpolyglot and
language hero (source)

There's more to language knowledge than just "fluency" or "proficiency." Two of the hyperpolyglots in the article have their own ways of expressing that one can acquire a deep knowledge and familiarity with certain languages. Ken Hale, a hero to me for working so hard to promote endangered indigenous languages, apparently said that he could only really "speak" English, Spanish, and Warlpiri—because he could fully understand the cultural implications of that speech—while he could merely "talk" in other languages. Kató Lomb, meanwhile, wrote that "I only have one mother tongue: Hungarian. Russian, English, French, and German live inside me simultaneously with Hungarian." She could also speak, read, and translate several other languages, but those five lived inside her.
Once you start speaking multiple languages, it becomes impossible to count. As seen in the point above, counting the number of languages you "speak" or "know" can end up requiring all sorts of qualifiers. How large a vocabulary do you need to have? How fluent do you actually sound when speaking? What proficiency can you show in tests? In the end, saying "I speak four languages!" just won't cut it: You have to be descriptive about your experiences and abilities in every language you are familiar with or attempting to learn.
Confidence is key, but maintaining use of many languages takes a lot of work. Deciding to learn a second language—and then another, and then another—takes plenty of confidence. You need to be confident in your ability to learn—as many people are not—and confident that you can see the task through. To quote Kató Lomb again, "Be firmly convinced you are a linguistic genius." At the same time, however, learning languages isn't merely an "if you believe it, you can achieve it" situation. Not only does language acquisition itself require lots of work up front, but maintaining skills in multiple languages is a lifelong commitment. Almost all of the hyperpolyglots in the article learned their languages as part of their career, either in academia or elsewhere, and spent untold countless hours maintaining their abilities.

With all these considerations in mind, I decided to create my own lifetime language learning plan. As part of this plan, I knew I had to be descriptive about what level of proficiency I'd like to acquire in each language, and how I plan to do it. I also know there's no real way to count the number of languages I'll spend time learning in my life, since language lovers are always learning bits of new languages. However, what I could do was count off languages I hope to actively devote myself to learning and that I plan to reach some level of proficiency with. Lastly, I know I will also need to stay realistic about how much work and time it will take to improve my knowledge of these languages. It's subject to change at any time, of course, but this really is a lifetime plan:

my current learning on
Duolingo

English — I think I'm pretty lucky to be a native English speaker, since learning such a vast and irregular tongue as a second language must be frustrating. Native English speakers are also given great access to learning languages in both the Germanic and Romance language families, the former through grammar and basic vocabulary, the latter simply through a huge volume of imported vocabulary. I can't imagine a scenario where I'd lose my knowledge of English, so I won't worry about practicing.
French — I would describe my French as somewhere around "working proficiency." Take a look at my blog posts in French if you want a sense of my clunkiness. My abilities are undoubtedly a little quirky, as I'm way better at reading news articles and history papers than children's books. I'd like to improve in the future by reading things like those children's books, maybe watching some TV, and also working to understand more of my French music. I don't expect I'll try to take my French speaking to a near-native speaker level unless I end up living in a Francophone country, but I do wish to maintain my proficiency and I know there are plenty of fun ways to do so.
German — German is third on my list because I know I absolutely need to learn more, and the sooner I do it the better. My wife speaks German really well—better than I speak French—and I loved learning a little German from her before we started dating. I still feel great whenever I get the chance to learn more of what she knows. First I plan to finish the German course on Duolingo, and then I'll need to take more suggestions from my wife—maybe do some workbooks she has, and then try to get into German children's books.
Tlingit — My desire to learn Tlingit is still summed up well by something I wrote over four years ago: "Learning Lingít: A Personal Wish and a Cultural Imperative." I do think I've made progress in my learning since then, primarily through picking out new things to teach my students, but my knowledge of Tlingit is still limited to a couple dozen phrases and a couple hundred words. I know I will keep coming back to live in Lingít Aaní, my home, even if I move away at times, so steadily advancing in my knowledge Tlingit will be a lifelong goal. My next critical step has to be taking some of the Tlingit classes offered by UAS, maybe even doing so this spring.
Spanish — The main reason I want to learn more Spanish is that I fully intend to see more of Mexico, and hopefully visit many other countries in Hispanophone America as well. (I totally loved visiting Mexico City and Oaxaca de Juárez, my only Mexico experience so far.) Of course, Spanish is also incredibly useful throughout the United States, but I won't pretend my primary use for it won't be travel. Ideally, I'd like to achieve a level of conversational Spanish that will carry me through any sort of tourist activity, from getting food to perusing museums.
Swedish — I am most hesitant to add Swedish to this list because I am least sure of how valuable it will be to me. My wife and I visited Sweden two summers ago and loved it, but I don't know how many more times we might be there in our lives. However, I do feel Swedish is a genuinely fun language to learn: It has some cool grammatical traits, it's relatively simple, I enjoy how it sounds, and it makes getting into Norwegian and Danish a breeze. I'd like to eventually finish the Duolingo Swedish course and then see where I can go from there, maybe using activities based in online communities like Lang-8.
To be determined — I do hope my wife and I will end up living outside the United States for some time, and if it's in a country where English, French, German, Spanish, or Swedish isn't the primary language, I'll need to add something else to this list. Even if we moved somewhere most people speak English, like Iceland or the Netherlands, I'd still want to pursue the native language. I believe language knowledge is an essential part of making genuine connections with a place, its people, and its culture. I put a lot of stock in that.

As you can see, I don't entertain any notion that I'll become "fluent" in six or seven languages. This list is a learning plan—not a fluency plan—and with some languages on the list I just want to learn enough to have nice conversations and be a knowledgeable tourist, not take a university course or pass as a native. I still know, however, that following this plan will require lots of focused effort. I think it's worth it, and I'm absolutely certain I'll have tons of fun learning languages for the rest of my life.

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think about making a lifetime language learning plan. If you make one yourself, share it!

The War on "Political Correctness" Is a War on Common Decency

2016-08-04T02:55:00.001-08:00

"Political correctness" is a buzz-term that draws millions of haters. It's not a new phenomenon, either. The concept has been lambasted for decades, in the United States and elsewhere, accused of attempting to quash free expression and truthful discourse in favor of sugar-coated, politically convenient language. If you search around online, you'll undoubtedly find far more sites devoted to attacking political correctness than defending it.

Donald Trump: tackling the real threats to America

Spoiler: Political correctness doesn't deserve all the hate it gets.

When politicians criticize "political correctness," they're just using it as what one author calls "the mother of all straw men."

In the end, being politically correct is mostly about just being a polite, decent person. It's about being conscious of the words you use and open to changing your language to be more widely acceptable and respectful. Some people hate that, apparently, and Donald Trump's been waging a constant war on it.

Several months ago, some guy named Dan Bilzerian expressed his support for Donald Trump by stating, "In an age of pussified political correctness, you have to respect the people who remain unfiltered."

Bilzerian actually has it completely backward. It is exactly the people who speak without a filter (people like Donald Trump) who show no respect toward others and deserve none in return. The reason people speak with a filter is because they acknowledge the perspectives and emotional responses of others. "Political correctness" consists of efforts to choose one's words in a respectful, considerate manner. Those who reject it simply want to say whatever they want regardless of its effects—a pretty infantile and selfish sentiment, really.

Take it from Bernie!

For example, in the quote I cited above Bilzerian uses the word "pussified"—sexist language that associates femininity with weakness. (And yes, there's no denying that direct association; the claim that pussy relates to the word "pusillanimous" is utterly false.) No doubt he wanted to make completely sure everyone understood how politically incorrect he is by using that term. If Bilzerian was conscientious enough to be concerned with the implications of sexist language in our society, however, or polite enough to consider how he might offend women, he could easily avoid never using such a nonsensical and unnecessary word.

It's important to note that Americans accept all sorts of "politically correct" language every day: We no longer refer to black people as "colored" or "Negro," and all but a lunatic fringe agree that no non-black person should ever use the "N-word," doubtless the racial slur with the most violent and hate-filled history in America. Virtually all Americans accept the consensus on these words in how they speak because they acknowledge that it's the polite and respectful thing to do. Not even Donald Trump dares to be politically incorrect with these words.

I fully acknowledge, however, how easy it may be for people to get annoyed by criticism of old words they've always used. If for years you found it was perfectly normal and acceptable to call someone a pussy, then it may sound ridiculous or even insulting to hear someone say that the term is sexist. If a teenager uses the words "retard" and "retarded" all the time in their daily life without any negative responses from friends or family, they may get confused or ornery when I tell them those words are inappropriate in my classroom.

Eastwood (shown with son) wants
to say whatever he wants, society
be damned. (source)

Clint Eastwood voiced appreciation for Trump and bemoaned how certain things "weren't called racist" while he was growing up that are called racist now. Eastwood apparently explains these changes through blaming "the pussy generation" (funny how the word keeps coming up)—not any lack of perspective or education on his part while growing up, or any natural developments on the part of other people in the type of language they were willing to tolerate. Regardless of how it happened, though, Eastwood evidently doesn't feel compelled to change the way he talks—and perhaps that's pretty natural. I don't feel very compelled to argue with old people.

By the same token, I also see how people can get annoyed or even angry at the appearance new terms they don't understand or want to accept. Talking about "privilege," for example, is incredibly useful for considering one's advantages in society—but I think there are still a fair number of Americans who feel judged when this word is used, so they reject its use entirely or tune out of any dialogue that includes it. The concept of "trigger warnings" has come into the spotlight more recently, and that idea's been so widely lambasted from what I've seen, I'm not sure it will gain much traction in common use.

Despite being 75% of their name,
PETA doesn't like the word "pet."

That's actually one of the most important points to realize about political correctness, though: Many word uses that a particular group might want to make politically correct never make it to that status. PETA, for example, truly believes that "pet" is bad word and alternatives like "companion" should be used instead. Some people reject the word "women" and go for "womyn"—or other alternate spellings. In my opinion, neither of these positions makes much sense, and it seems only some very small groups disagree with me. Effectively, talking about "animal companions" or "womyn" isn't an example of political correctness at all right now, and it never will be unless some larger portion of society agrees that our language should move in that direction.

As with all words in our language, usage reigns supreme. All of us use some politically correct language—even Trump, Bilzerian, and Eastwood—because we buy into the idea that those terms are the polite and normal ones to use. Political correctness "wins" when no one thinks there's a controversy anymore. If there's any language usage issue you want to take a stand on, whether it's still saying "pet" or never using trigger warnings, all you have to do is convince others your position makes sense. Who knows—maybe ten, twenty, or thirty years from now, everyone will be using words like retard and pussy more than ever, and my old criticisms will be crushed into oblivion by the weight of popular usage.

Here's my final advice:

Have a filter—a filter for those words that you know can be hurtful or disrespectful. Be "politically correct," at least to the extent that you acknowledge what most all of us can agree is appropriate and inappropriate language. Consider what you say because it's the decent thing to do—and it makes for a nicer, more respectful society.

Addendum:

I've written on topics related to political correctness here several times before, if you're interested in seeing more: The posts include a list of favorite politically correct terms, the word "freshmen," Washington D.C.'s NFL team, plus most recently, the Confederate battle flag and the Wade Hampton Census Area.

Challenge:

If, somehow, you've read all the way to the end of the blog post and would like to leave me a negative comment, I offer you the following challenge: Debate me on the issues—preferably with openness and civility. Don't just disregard everything I've written and bash me personally because I support political correctness. To do so would be to do exactly what many haters claim political correctness does—minimize those who use a term you don't like.

You're Free to Vote Your Conscience!

2016-07-30T03:43:00.001-08:00

An enormous number of Americans do not like either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, the major parties' 2016 candidates for U.S. President. Most of these Americans will probably end up voting for either Trump or Clinton anyway, or they'll stay home and won't vote at all. Those who ultimately vote for Trump or Clinton will justify their choice as "tactical voting," a chance to avoid the greater disaster they think the other candidate will bring, or in other words, a vote for the "lesser of two evils."

Believe it or not, though, you probably have no real reason to vote for a candidate you dislike. For the vast majority of Americans, "tactical voting" won't make any difference whatsoever in the outcome of the election. Instead, you are perfectly free to vote your conscience and choose the candidate that you most admire and agree with, even if they have little chance of winning the race. You won't have to hold your nose and vote for the "lesser evil" after all!

Check out this map I made to see if you live in an orange-colored state and are free to vote your conscience:

Think back to your high school American government course. Hopefully you learned about the electoral college, and if you remember the details you'll know exactly what this map means. If you do know all about the electoral college, please skip the following italicized section. If you want more explanation, read on:

Designed during the writing of the U.S. Constitution, the original intent of the Electoral College was to allow states and state legislatures to indirectly elect the President through choosing electors—a select number of men who'd vote for the state's preferred candidate. Each state was allotted electors equal to their number of members of Congress—so every state has a minimum of three, and the rest receive more roughly according to their population size. Eventually, all of the states concluded that they would choose their electors (or really, award their electoral votes) through a popular election, and today all but two of the states (Nebraska and Maine) still award all of their electoral votes as a single bloc—"winner-take-all." Riffing off our founders' idea, the country made steps forward toward popular democracy, but the presidential election remains an indirect one.

This system of allocating electoral votes through state-by-state elections means that most states are "safe" for one political party or the other in the presidential election. A clear majority of voters in that state will favor one party in every election, meaning that all the state's electoral votes will go to that party's candidate every time. All of the orange states above are generally considered "safe" for the 2016 presidential election (see 270towin.com): As long as most voters follow the usual partisan patterns in their state, the winner of their state's electoral votes is all but predetermined. The choices of individual voters in those states are irrelevant to the result of the contest—a depressing idea, in one sense, but entirely liberating in another.

I wish there was no Electoral College. If we had a nationwide popular election for our President, the vote of a Democrat in Utah would count just as much as a Republican's in Rhode Island, and we'd live up to the democratic concept of "one person, one vote." Ideally, we'd have a two-round or other runoff voting system, which would accommodate voting your conscience and tactical voting. Until then, however, we need to understand the electoral system that we have, and take advantage of the opportunity it gives most of us to confidently vote our conscience.

Go ahead and research past presidential election results in your state. If you live in a longtime swing state like Florida, Ohio, or New Hampshire, you'll probably see some nail-biters that will convince you that voting tactically is the only option. I don't begrudge anyone choosing between Trump or Clinton in a swing state, even if they're both horrible candidates. I'd probably do the same. If you live in most states, though, you'll see five, ten, twenty-percent margins or more separating the top two candidates election after election, representing tens if not hundreds of thousands of votes. In such states, all arguments for tactical voting are bullshit.

Don't let anyone bully you by saying "a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump!" or "a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary!" I know many people with an anti-third party bone to pick will keep making such claims from now until the election. They're wrong—and they either don't understand the Electoral College or they vastly overestimate the power of third party candidates (which doesn't say much for the candidate they're supporting).

Personally, I am very happy that there is no logical reason for me to vote for Trump or Clinton. I'll be voting for the candidate I most agree with and respect. I hope you do, too.

Addenda:

In case you need further convincing, even Ross Perot's campaign in 1992—the most successful outside presidential campaign since 1912, in which Perot garnered nearly 20% of the popular vote—is generally accepted as still not having changed any state results.
I will not abide the tired old slander that voters for Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 election for Al Gore and handed the victory to George Bush. Calling this claim a myth is far too generous; it's a deliberate smear of a national hero (and third-party voters) that deflects attention from the culpability of the Supreme Court and Gore himself in the election result. Read this thorough debunking on all counts if you must, but don't discuss that crap with me.
Lastly, some bright people may have come up with a modern-day way to ensure you can cast a third-party vote guilt-free, even in a swing state. Check out burnmyvote.org, a website where you can sign up to pledge that you will not vote for either of the two major parties. The trick is that you also have to say which of the two major parties you'd vote for if you had to—and the website will then match you with someone else in your state who would have voted for the other party. Instead of cancelling each other out with tactical votes, you free each other to vote your conscience!

Please leave me any comments, questions, or criticisms below (except about Nader in 2000!).

Is the Fourth of July Really "Independence Day"?

2016-07-03T16:39:00.000-08:00

We Americans all celebrate the Fourth of July, but how many of us take the time to consider the real events the holiday does or does not commemorate?

Here are two reasons the Fourth of July may not really be our "Independence Day":

July 4th 1776 is not actually the day Americans declared the United States independent.
The day that the independence of the United States was declared seems much less important than when the United States became independent—that is, the day Americans truly secured their independence, rather than just declaring it.

First, let's just get the facts straight: The American Continental Congress voted to declare independence from Great Britain on July 2nd, 1776. Yes, the Founding Fathers of the U.S. officially decided that they wanted an independent country on July 2nd. July 4th was only the date when the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence as an official statement. We Americans may love the Declaration of Independence as a document, but we have to be honest about what we're celebrating: Did we want to celebrate the day our country's forefathers actually declared their independence, or the day they adopted the specific words they wanted to use to make their position known?

Second, regardless of whether you choose July 2nd or 4th, should that day really be called our "Independence Day" anyway? I'd argue no. The United States was not a functional, free, and independent country at any time until several years after 1776; Americans were embroiled in war! They were fighting to gain and secure their independence, and there was no guarantee they'd win. In fact, there were many reasons to believe the American rebels would lose. After all, they were up against what was probably the mightiest military in the world at the time, and many American colonists were still loyal to the Crown throughout the war.

What day truly represents the moment when the United States was independent, then? I'd say we have to choose September 3rd, 1783—the day that British and American representatives signed the Treaty of Paris, which ended the war and granted the United States Britain's official recognition as an independent country. The first article of the treaty is as follows:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

That may not sound as inspiring or poetic as the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, but in terms of what they meant for America's future, they may well have been a lot more powerful. The Declaration of Independence articulated a group of rebels' reasons for revolt; the Treaty of Paris gave a nation its full liberty as its former ruler forever conceded any claim to those lands.

No doubt, the Fourth of July will continue to be our national celebration day, but when September 3rd rolls around, be sure to remember all the events that truly gave our nation its independence.

West Coast vs. East Coast City Choices, Round Two

2016-06-30T01:46:00.000-08:00

Wherever you might live in the United States—north, south, east, west, or middle—it's important to know whether you're a West Coast or East Coast person.

If you haven't done so already, please take round one of the poll right now. This second round will settle things once and for all. Choose which city you'd prefer to live in out of the following pairs to determine whether you're West Coast or East Coast. (Keep track of the number you choose on each side.)

*Note: Again, these cities are not meant to be perfect counterparts to each other, just interesting choices. Not all of the cities are on the coast themselves, either, but they're all part of the West Coast or East Coast regions.

So, are you a West Coast or an East Coast person? Leave a comment and let me know.

The Final Clinton-Obama vs. Clinton-Sanders Map

2016-06-08T02:10:00.001-08:00

In March I posted a map I created overlaying the state-by-state results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with the 2016 Democratic primary between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. There are four colors: dark green for states that went Obama-Sanders, light green for states that went Clinton-Sanders, light blue for states that went Obama-Clinton, and dark blue for states that went Clinton-Clinton. Now I've updated that map for the last time:

Every state has had its chance to vote now. Only D.C.'s primary remains, and as much as I love the District, it's pretty clear that the results will be irrelevant to Hillary Clinton securing her party's nomination. I consider my map complete.

To be sure, this map does not display the most important data in a presidential primary—not which candidate won each state, but how many delegates the candidate won.

Nevertheless, I find it intriguing to examine how the 2016 primary map compares with that of 2008. My map clearly shows how the majority of states—31—stayed on the same side of the "Clinton vs. not Clinton" divide between 2008 and 2016. President Obama did not endorse Bernie Sanders' candidacy in any way, of course, but it seems clear a large number of his 2008 supporters chose Sanders in 2016. I'm sure an even larger number of Clinton's 2008 supporters chose to vote for her again in 2016. (I wonder if anyone's done polling to explore what those numbers might be.)

The map also highlights, however, the few states that "changed sides" by voting for Sanders this year after voting for Clinton in 2008, and the fairly large number of states that turned to Clinton in 2016 despite going for Obama in 2008. You might say that the large amount of light blue compared to the small amount of light green pretty well explains Hillary's clear victory this time around.

Here's the final tally:

16 states that voted for Obama in 2008 voted for Sanders in 2016.
6 states that voted for Clinton in 2008 voted for Sanders in 2016.
13 states that voted for Obama in 2008 voted for Clinton in 2016.
15 states that voted for Clinton in 2008 voted for her again in 2016.

percentage of African Americans in each U.S. county
(source)

I find it interesting that 20 out of the 24 states west of the Mississippi did not switch sides, with 13 of those states going Obama-Sanders and 7 going Clinton-Clinton. In fact, every "disloyal" state actually lies in the eastern half of the United States. (Yes, even Oklahoma lies fully to the east of the geographic center of the U.S.)

Perhaps the biggest story of Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary victory really is the support she received from African American voters. After all, the conglomeration of counties where black Americans are most concentrated overlays perfectly with the astonishing light blue strip of states from Louisiana to Delaware. The majority of black voters supported Obama in '08 and then supported Clinton in '16; as a demographic group, they made the largest change. Sanders may have received much greater support from younger voters than Obama did, and he may have received more support from many rural white voters than Obama did. Still, it wasn't enough for his campaign.

I do have a couple lingering questions I'm curious about, and if you have any insights, please leave a comment:

What explains Rhode Island flipping from Clinton to Sanders while neighboring Connecticut flipped from Obama to Clinton?
Clinton beat Obama in Oklahoma by a sizable margin in 2008 (over 20 points) but then lost pretty big to Sanders (over 10 points). The results in West Virginia were even more dramatic—a 41-point Clinton victory in 2008 but a nearly 15-point loss to Sanders in 2016. What ties these two states together?

Let me know if you like my map, or leave some suggestions below for future blog posts.

Unpopular Opinions on Revolutionary History: The Easter Rising and the American Revolution

2016-03-27T21:57:00.002-08:00

Today is the 100th Easter since the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland, when republican revolutionaries rallied to fight for independence from the British. The actual dates of the rebellion were April 24-29, but Easter's come a bit early this year, and Ireland has chosen to commemorate the centennial now rather than in a month. It's doing so with unprecedented ceremonies, as it should. The Easter Rising was brutally crushed, but it was a critical moment that soon led to the rise of the Sinn Féin republican party, the Irish War of Independence, and ultimately Irish independence in 1921.

On Twitter a few days ago, I noticed people were upset about coverage of this history from RTÉ, Ireland's national broadcaster. I never got the chance to see any video of the coverage in question, but here are some of the relevant tweets:

Clearly, criticizing or calling into doubt the justice of revolutionaries' struggle for national independence is an unpopular position to take, especially in media coverage from a national broadcaster. Ireland was occupied and colonized by the Kingdom of England and later the United Kingdom for over 750 years, so the rebels of the Easter Rising certainly had a very good case to fight for independence. The history of Ireland is, indeed, one of the longest and most complex histories of colonialism in the whole world. Perhaps that's the main reason the Irish may have such a conflicted time analyzing their past. Nevertheless, it is shameful for anyone to aim for a "balanced" approach in their portrayal of past when the distinctions between the oppressors and the oppressed in those events couldn't be more apparent.

The idea expressed in the last tweet picture here also caught my attention, and it is undoubtedly true: Americans and French do not spend much time, if any, questioning the justice in their national revolutions. No media organizations, certainly, would spend the Fourth of July or Bastille Day casting doubt on the righteousness of the revolutionaries. One factor, certainly, must be how distant the U.S. and France are from these eighteenth revolutions: Far more time has passed for the historical figures and events to be woven into an unquestioned national mythos.

However, thinking about this comparison has led me to conclude that I should take a stand as an American in expressing some unpopular opinions about my country's history. (They must, at least, be unpopular opinions in the United States, if not elsewhere in the world.) I've been actively forming these opinions for years while studying history, but I don't think I've ever directly expressed them before. Here they are:

Ireland's battle for independence, and the struggles for independence fought by many other peoples around the world, were far more noble than that of the United States.
If the American Revolution had never occurred, or if it had failed, the world today would probably be a better place.

The Patriot portrayed the British as devils, while the rebels,
of course, were unquestionable heroes (source)

I'm not sure what kind of response I'll get from stating these opinions—whether I'll get hateful comments, or just get ignored. I don't think I'll write an entire essay arguing these points, at least not at this time, but I will share some of my thoughts that underlie them. I would welcome anyone to comment below and start a discussion, especially if you disagree with me.

Regarding my first unpopular opinion, the position that the cause of the American Revolution was less noble than that of other independence movements clearly hinges on various value judgments. Nevertheless, it seems like a pretty solid case that people fighting against blatant violence, exploitation, and oppression (from Ireland to Algeria to India) were more justified in their struggles than colonists who seceded from their mother country because of a buildup of popular resentment derived mostly from taxes.

Everyone knows that most of the leaders of the American Revolution were sons of privilege, and the Revolution conveniently raised their status from that of parochial gentry (as viewed from London) to rulers of an independent nation. It's not as if George Washington, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson was living a hard life, their livelihoods and liberties trampled on by George III. The same goes for most American colonists, even those much less wealthy.

Americans justify the revolution by noting that the Crown taxed (or attempted to tax) colonists without giving them representation in Parliament. Most people in Britain had no representation either; they were women, or they were men who didn't meet the hefty property requirements to vote. What's more, American colonists had almost none of the tax burden. The colonists essentially started a war rather than pay their fair share to the King in funding the national debt for Britain's wars—the largest of which (the Seven Years' War) was fought largely to defend the colonists themselves.

Colonists were justified in going to war because they were taxed without representation. Meanwhile, those colonists robbed and slaughtered indigenous peoples without mercy. Meanwhile, those colonists stole Africans from their homes and worked them to death without much of a second thought.

Indeed, that leads me to my second unpopular opinion, more significant and more difficult to argue than the first: I posit that the world would probably be better off had the colonies never rebelled, or if British forces had defeated the rebels. Of course, this argument depends on counterfactuals, or "what if" questions that create alternate histories.

(I've discussed alternate histories and counterfactuals many times on this blog, including Christian Japan, Napoleonic Britain, Napoleonic Germany, disease-immune Native Americans, and even A Game of Thrones.)

Obviously, there's very little that is objective or provable when it comes to counterfactuals, and a value judgment like the world being "better off" nearly 250 years after an event is also very tenuous. Nevertheless, I hope you'll consider the following:

the Proclamation line could have stayed
stronger for longer (source)

The British Crown was far more eager to respect treaties with indigenous nations in North America than the American colonists and the later U.S. government were. The most profound example of this is the Proclamation of 1763, in which George III actually forbade colonists from crossing the Appalachians to invade and settle Native lands. Many colonists greatly resented this Proclamation, and it was undoubtedly a factor in the Revolution. Remember, the American revolutionaries were fighting for freedom!—including the freedom to attack Native peoples and take their lands. Even if there was no American Revolution, I don't doubt that colonists would have inevitably defied the Proclamation and pushed westward, perpetuating genocide and settler colonialism. Still, anything that would have slowed settlers' destruction of Native peoples would almost certainly left more indigenous cultures and people alive and thriving today.

Slavery in the colonies likely would have ended far sooner, even if Americans had gained representation in Parliament. The British abolition movement might have been even more powerful, had it more tightly spanned the Atlantic between England and New England. If the secessionists of 1776 had failed, southern slave owners additionally would have been far more wary of trying to split from the mother country, even if it abolished slavery. The British Empire abolished slavery in 1838. Just consider the possibilities for African Americans' history had they been freed nearly thirty years before the Emancipation Proclamation.

There's more. If Britain had retained all its American colonies, its imperial expansion elsewhere may well have been slower. To cite one example, the impetus to produce cotton in India, Egypt, and other parts of Africa would have been minor or nonexistent had the southern American colonies more smoothly transitioned from slavery to share cropping cotton in the early nineteenth century without the "cotton famine" produced by the American Civil War. Not to mention, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have escaped violent deaths had the Civil War never occurred. Without the loss of American colonies pushing it to invade other continents, Britain may well have been far more involved in meddling with Latin America (no Monroe Doctrine!) than it became in Asia and Africa. The possibilities for a world without the American Revolution are limitless, but I believe, on balance, it might have seen less death and destruction.

I hope that if you took the time to read all of these musings that you'll share your own thoughts in a comment below. Please feel free to chastise me if you think I'm way off base or shamefully un-American. I'll look forward to the discussion.

Not All Native History Is "Ancient"

2016-03-27T01:05:00.000-08:00

Moctezuma Xocoyotzin, early modern leader—not "ancient"
(actor Cristian Esquivel, source)

The Aztec Empire—was it "ancient"?

I hope your answer is no, because no empire formed less than 600 years ago qualifies as an "ancient" one. If it does, I guess we need to start calling Leonardo da Vinci an "ancient" artist and scientist.

(Leonardo's life, by the way, was fully contemporaneous to that of the Aztec Empire, and he died the same year that Cortés landed in Mexico.)

On two occasions this week, I saw the word "ancient" used in reference to indigenous histories that are anything but. The first example was what you just read: I saw someone refer to the Aztecs as "ancient" and it just made my head spin.

In fact, there's been a rather popular fact spread around the internet lately and featured in all sorts of memes and lists of facts that will "blow your mind." Here's the most precise version I could find:

(source)

And it's true! Oxford very much predates the Aztec Empire—but why would this simple fact (obvious to anyone who's made a cursory study of both English and Mexican history) blow anyone's mind? Is it because people associate European universities with modernity, and indigenous empires with antiquity? Why would they, when that idea is so demonstrably false?

Believe it or not, the second example I saw of indigenous history described as "ancient" was even more ridiculous. This article is nearly two years old, but I never saw it before this week—"Looking for clues to an ancient massacre in the Aleutians." When I first saw the headline, I figured there must have been an archaeological find with bodies and weapons indicating violence from thousands of years ago. There are sites like that in Alaska, such as this one in Yup'ik territory.

Russians and Aleuts—not ancient history (source)

On opening the article, however, I was sorely disappointed: It addresses the massacre of Aleuts by Russians in the 1760s, less than 250 years ago. If that's "ancient," then apparently George Washington is now ancient. (He was in his 30s in the 1760s.) I don't know if I've ever seen so much stupidity in a headline before.

I will note, however, that the word "ancient" is used only in the headline, and it's probably not the author's fault. I don't know whether someone at the Alaska Dispatch News is to blame, or someone at the Dutch Harbor Fisherman, where the article was originally published. Still, I can't imagine how anyone with an education or a basic familiarity with the English language could conflate anything in the 18th century with the "ancient."

The use of the word "ancient" in reference to history is not subjective or open to any sort of interpretation. You can quibble a little about the dates, but the traditional and long-enduring division of European or "Western" history into the ancient, medieval, and modern is clear: Ancient history ends with the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century. Medieval history stretches between Rome and the Renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries—the "rebirth" of ancient knowledge (a fallacy, but a romantic one)—which began the early modern era. The division between "early modern" and "modern" is more tenuous, but irrelevant to this discussion.

With that clear, traditional division that virtually everyone should be aware of, there is no way that an indigenous empire of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries or a massacre in the eighteenth should possibly qualify as "ancient." To be sure, a distinction between ancient and medieval history is less obvious in the Americas than in Europe; depending on the region, scholars divide history between periods named "classical," "postclassical," and so on. Nevertheless, we know of many different ancient peoples in American history, from the ancestral Puebloans (previously called "Anasazi"), to the Olmecs, to the Teotihuacanos (whose city fell, it seems, just a century after Rome).

Calling all American history before the arrival of Europeans "ancient" isn't just intellectually lazy, but insulting. There are enormous differences between the indigenous histories of thousands of years ago and those of just several hundred years ago, leading up to the Columbian Exchange and the Great Death.

Just as America's indigenous cultures are incredibly diverse, so too are their histories. If someone thinks they're all the same and could be categorized under the same historical period, they need to get an education.

Clinton-Obama 2008 vs. Clinton-Sanders 2016: The Map

2016-03-17T13:27:00.002-08:00

Many political commentators have made connections between the current Democratic primary and the one in 2008, fought between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. After all, one of the candidates in each race is exactly the same person (even if her political experience and some of her positions have changed in the intervening years).

One thing I haven't seen, however, is a map showing how well Clinton has done compared to her race in 2008, and how well Bernie Sanders has done compared to Barack Obama.

So, I decided to make my own. Here it is:

The states that first catch your eye will probably be those in light blue: These are the states that Barack Obama won in 2008, but Hillary Clinton won in 2016. They include Iowa, Illinois and Missouri (though Bernie Sanders lost by the tiniest of margins in both Iowa and Missouri), as well as a broad swath of the South from Louisiana to Virginia. This means Clinton "flipped" much of the South from 2008 losses to 2016 wins—and it's clearly mostly due to black voters who supported Obama in 2008 but now voted for Clinton. As I addressed in my last post, this overwhelming support from the South constitutes the majority of Clinton's success so far in the primary.

Clinton has now won five states outside the South, three of which also voted for her in 2008—Nevada, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Meanwhile, Sanders has won nine states total, all of them outside the South. Six of these states also voted for Obama in 2008, going consistently against Clinton—Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Vermont and Maine. Sanders was, however, able to "flip" three states from 2008 Obama losses to 2016 wins—New Hampshire, Michigan, and Oklahoma.

I'd be very curious to see some analysis of why these three states flipped. Obama, after all, had some clear advantages in 2008 that Bernie Sanders does not, so what factors explain Sanders' ability to flip the previously Clinton-supporting states? In Oklahoma, for example, Clinton beat Obama by over 20 percent of the vote in 2008, but in 2016 Sanders beat Clinton by 10 percent! Someone needs to explain that one to me.

I will update this map as the primary continues. It may not be that exciting if Hillary's nomination really is as inevitable as many people think. If, however, the West is much less supportive of her than the South and enough voters are still willing to fight for Bernie, this race may continue to be very interesting.

What If We Let the South Choose the President?

2016-03-16T16:13:00.001-08:00

I haven't blogged here at all yet about the 2016 presidential election, but the primaries for both parties are at very important turning points right now, so I thought it was about time.

There are now three candidates left in the race for the Republican nomination—Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich. Trump has a sizable lead, and he most likely will become the Republican candidate. No one really expected that months ago, but his ability to excite voters with his nationalist rhetoric has been pretty powerful.

via Wikipedia

If you look at the map of the Republican primary so far, you can see the South has gone overwhelmingly for Trump, with the exception of Texas, Ted Cruz's home state. The only way Ted Cruz has a shot is if he wins the majority of the West in the upcoming primaries, and perhaps if Kasich is able to pick up a win or two in the Northeast, cutting Trump's advance. Given the results so far in states as diverse as Massachusetts, Illinois, and Nevada, though, that seems unlikely. Trump's appeal has been broad; voters just haven't seen a presidential candidate like him before, and many Americans love it.

In the Democratic primary, most of the states that have voted so far are the same as in the Republican one: All of the southern states have voted, but not much of the rest of the country.

via Wikipedia

Hillary Clinton won every state in the South. Elsewhere, however, Bernie Sanders won nine states out of fifteen, came in close to Hillary in Nevada, and came extremely close in Iowa and Missouri. Clinton's strength among Democratic voters in the South was overwhelming and undeniable. Elsewhere, however—in swing states and more liberal states—Bernie Sanders has been winning.

Many people are saying right now that Hillary Clinton has clearly won the Democratic primary: She holds the majority of pledged delegates so far, and she's won a large majority of the states that have voted so far. However, nearly half the states in the country haven't voted yet, and the South has made up the vast majority of Clinton's support.

If people think Hillary Clinton's already won the Democratic nomination, I think it's fair to ask this question: What if we let the South choose the President?

Here's who would have been elected President in the last six elections.

1992: George H. W. Bush (Sorry Bill Clinton, you won some of the South but not enough.)
1996: Bob Dole (Sorry again, Bill, you never would have been President.)
2000: George W. Bush in a landslide (though maybe President Dole would have run for reelection)
2004: George W. Bush in an even bigger landslide
2008: John McCain (Obama only won Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.)
2012: Mitt Romney (Obama did even worse, losing North Carolina.)

And finally, what would almost inevitably happen if we let the South choose the President this time as well?

2016: Donald Trump

I hope you'll agree we still need to hear the voices of primary election voters in the rest of the country. I will be voting in the Alaska Democratic primary on March 26th, and if you haven't had a chance to vote yet in either primary, do it!

Are Spoilers Actually Good?

2016-01-21T23:24:00.000-09:00

The new movie Star Wars: The Force Awakens was released about a month ago, and it's made nearly two billion dollars so far. In fact, it made a billion dollars faster than any movie in history.

(source)

It would seem that anyone who cares about Star Wars must have obviously seen the film already. Not me. I do care about Star Wars: I watched Episodes IV-VI as a kid and loved them, and watched Episodes I-III as they came out while I was a preteen and teen. (I mostly loved them, too, but later—like most fans—realized they had some significant failings.)

Instead of watching The Force Awakens, though, I accidentally spoiled one of the major plot points for myself, and then the internet spoiled another for me. However, now that I think about it, I'm actually happier knowing the major surprises of the movie without having seen it, and I can wait even longer before I take the time to watch it. Perhaps—and hear me out on this—spoilers actually a good thing.

First, let me try to explain how boring I am: I've never really liked watching films or TV as much as I think my peers did. I watched movies more often when I was younger, for sure, but now I pretty much only ever watch them when my wife wants to, or when I need to watch one for teaching, which is only once in a blue moon.

I also don't read much fiction. I only read two works of fiction last summer—Heart of Darkness (as I wanted to understand references to it in non-fiction works about Africa), and Serena (because my wife strongly recommended it). I haven't finished a fiction book since. Right now I'm reading two books—The First North Americans: An Archaeological Journey, and Wanderings: Chaim Potok's History of the Jews. That's the kind of reading I almost always enjoy most.

Now that you understand my strange preferences a little better, you may begin to see where the spoilers come in: My wife is a voracious reader of fiction, and often when she reads an interesting book she'll tell me some of what it's about. If it's a book she finds particularly compelling but I don't expect I'll ever read it, she'll tell me even more of what happens.

Yeah... I don't ever plan on watching this.
(source)

For example, she read all the Hunger Games books. I figure I'll never read them. (The way they're written really turns me off, for one thing.) So, after she finished Mockingjay, I asked her how the series ended. When I watched the movie Mockingjay, Part 2 with my brother and sister, I already knew the twist—and to be honest, I was happier that way. I think I was more invested in watching the story unfold when I knew the ending because I had invested so little in the story myself. (I didn't even watch Mockingjay, Part 1, and maybe I never will!)

When it came to The Force Awakens, things unfolded a little differently. There is no book version, of course, and none of my friends actually talked to me much about the movie after they saw it. Instead, my greatest exposure to the movie was online, surfing community sites I enjoy like Imgur. I was exposed to many, many references to different aspects of the film, and that often sparked my curiosity about those particular things, leading me to follow links to all sorts of information.

Who is Kylo Ren? Now I know. (source)

Eventually, this habit spoiled one of the major plot lines in the film for me: I wanted to learn more about what sort of name "Kylo Ren" was and where he might be from, so I looked up his Wookiepedia article (spoiler alert for the link, obviously). Soon after, when I was playing the addictive game agar.io, I saw that one of the players was named another spoiler in the film (in the spirit of the people who told everyone "Dumbledore dies!" after reading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince).

With the key points of the film's plot spoiled for me, I felt a little weight lifted off me: Now I was in on the same story as everyone else, and there was a lot less pressure (or reason) to go spend a lot of money seeing the film in the theater. With just a bit more waiting, I can watch the film whenever I want—and I can do it much more cheaply. Perhaps this sounds crazy, but I think I've read dozens of articles about The Force Awakens now, including many spoiling the plot—and I've probably enjoyed reading those articles just as much as I will watching the film, whenever I get around to it.

Spoilers can be a good thing: Sometimes they get you more involved in a story you had little interest it; sometimes they let you in on a story you're mostly just curious about; and sometimes they relieve the pressure when it seems everyone's rushing to experience a story right away. I know they're not for everyone, but I love my spoilers. I hope more people start appreciating them.

"Christmas Christians" and Reasons to Go to Church

2015-12-25T00:40:00.003-09:00

a church in July—I wonder what their
attendance is then? (my photo)

Christmas has me reflecting on all the church services around the world that must be happening, with millions and millions of people in attendance. It's amazing to think that, even though some Christians recognize Christmas on different dates, December 24th and 25th must be two of humanity's most celebrated days—maybe the most celebrated.

Of the millions of people attending services this Christmas, many have undoubtedly gone to church infrequently over the past several months. Maybe the Christmas service will even be their only one this year. The Wikipedia article Lapsed Catholic lists a number of amusing terms for such people:

I know it's not just Catholics who do this. Many Protestants and other Christians only come to church a few times a year, too, and we may well call them all "Christmas Christians," in recognition of the season.

Despite sharing a focus on a few special dates in the calendar, Christmas Christians certainly don't all have similar beliefs or reasons to go to church when they do: Many must be fervent believers in Christianity, but have a variety of reasons they avoid church—whether it's discomfort with the environment, conflict with the congregation, or perhaps the busyness of the rest of their lives and the ease of skipping an obligation like weekly church attendance. Other Christmas Christians must have doubts about their beliefs, or even disagree in some ways with their church, but find occasions like Christmas important for reconnecting with their faith and church community. (If you're a "Christmas Christian" yourself, please leave a comment with your story!)

Some other Christmas church-goers are not Christians at all—that is, they've stopped believing in Christianity, but continue to attend church sometimes. For a few years of my life, from my last years in high school to my first years in college, I was one of these people.

Here were my reasons to be a Christmas church-goer, even as a non-believer:

Family: My relationship with my mother and other family members led me to see church-going on special occasions as a nice thing to do, for their sake. Or, perhaps, I saw missing special church events as an unnecessarily hurtful thing to do—not worth the conflict it might create. I expect there are many people from Christian families around the world in similar situations, especially teenagers and young adults.
Music: I legitimately love to sing hymns. I still do, even though I never get the chance to do so. I was raised on the hymnbook of United Methodist Church, and still keep a copy on my bookshelf. My wife was raised on praise music in the Catholic Church, and still loves that music too. It's no surprise we do, given that all these songs were designed to be catchy and appealing, whether written by the latest Christian rocker or Charles Wesley 200 years ago.
Food: One of my favorite and most significant taste-memories of childhood is the taste of bread and grape juice. (Yes, the UMC uses grape juice in communion, and Welch's got its start in the church.) I've even tried to replicate the taste at home, but it's not the same. Besides that brief but yummy taste of communion, my church regularly had other treats on offer after a service, and I'm sure larger congregations put out even more appetizing spreads.

me in 2011 at my last Christmas service

Of these three reasons to go to church—even as a non-believer—only two of them still exist for me today. After my few years being a Christmas church-goer and not being fully open about my lack of religion, I finally came out as an atheist to my mother and stopped going to church altogether. I still might miss music or food from my childhood in church, but relieving those memories certainly isn't worth making a dishonest claim of being a believer. Once I was fully honest with my family, I felt a weight lifted from my shoulders. While it's interesting to consider the millions of people who do, I don't think about going to church anymore—even on Christmas.

Note: I do not share these personal thoughts in order to disrespect anyone's beliefs or religious practices. Instead, I'd love to have some thoughtful conversations about reasons people go to church, whether you attend regularly, infrequently, or never plan to again. Please leave a comment!

I Resent Learners of Fictional Languages

2015-10-03T16:58:00.000-08:00

Let me start by saying that I understand learning a fictional language is a hobby. Many people have hobbies that don't seem to have any particularly useful purpose. I'm sure I have hobbies that some would judge to be a waste of time, and I certainly have plenty of knowledge (including knowledge of fictional worlds) that many would judge to be useless.

Nevertheless, I resent learners of fictional languages. I resent those who learn fictional languages not because I believe their pursuits are harmful, but because they clearly have aptitudes that could be put to exceptionally greater uses.

made up Klingon weapons (source) vs. the knife and sheath
of Tlingit leader Sheiyksh VI (source)

Klingon, a fictional language from Star Trek, is especially infuriating to me because of the connections people draw between it and Tlingit, the endangered language of my home. Though it seems unfounded that the creator of Klingon based it on Tlingit, he certainly did draw from Native American languages he had studied, including the Mutsun language, which went extinct in 1930. Many people have put massive amounts of effort into studying Klingon, becoming fluent in it, translating famous literature into it, and even composing an original opera in it.

My heart aches when I think of the difference that could have been made to real languages—languages with real history, languages that undergird real, endangered cultures—if those skilled, passionate language learners and linguists had put their time to better use. Around the world, languages—and whole language families!—are dying, dying largely because of how their speakers' communities have been marginalized and dominated by other cultures. All of those languages could use all the help they can get.

Leduey (center) with Eyak learners.
(source)

One inspiring story is that of Guillaume Leduey, who started learning the dying Alaska Native language Eyak when he was 15. He had interests in other languages, to be sure, but the time and effort he put into Eyak meant that when he later visited Alaska, he actually began to teach the language in order to help revive it. Eyak's last Native speaker died in 2008, making the language officially extinct, but people like Leduey—and all the Eyak people now making an effort to learn their ancestors' language—are breathing life into it again.

I'm so glad someone's looking out
for them, you know? (source)

What if Leduey had spent his time and ability on learning Klingon, Elvish, or Dothraki instead of Eyak? It's entirely possible. Then another poor, dead, indigenous language containing invaluable human tradition and history would be even more likely to stay dead.

People often compare linguistic diversity with biodiversity: The world is losing species of animals all the time, just as it's losing languages. Learners of fictional languages are like passionate and skilled conservationists who, instead of protecting species in need, decide to build nature preserves for unicorns and squirrels. It might be a lot of fun for them, and fun for people who visit, but it's really a crying shame.

Unsecured and Freely Available Guns Kill People

2015-10-01T23:55:00.000-08:00

Unsecured and freely available guns kill people. It's a scientific fact.

Crazed people commit acts of violence around the world. There are few places, however, where crazed people have freer access to firearms than the United States. Firearms allow violent and mentally unstable people to become far more dangerous.
Gun accidents have killed hundreds and thousands of Americans, and many many fewer would have died if guns weren't so ubiquitous and unsecured here. An average of 62 children under age 14 have died every year due to gun accidents for the past several years in the U.S., most of them in their own homes, most of them because adults did not secure their firearms.
Studies show that suicides are far more likely to be completed if there unsecured guns in the person's home. Just a lock on the gun case makes suicide less likely to happen—and no, you can't say "Well, a suicidal person will just find another way," because suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts don't work that way.

It's a disgrace to humanity that so many Americans can't face up to these facts and admit that something must be done. Doubtless, thousands more people will die from guns in attacks, accidents, and suicides in the United States before anything will change.

Peter's Publisher

Icelandic and English Language Use in Iceland

Rename Schoenbar Middle School

Fighting Southeast Alaska's Youth Drain

J.K. Rowling is Ruining Harry Potter's Legacy

Revising or Replacing Ketchikan’s Flag

Trump's "Surprise" Victory and the Bernie Factor

My Electoral College Prediction: 329 to Clinton, 209 to Trump

Crook vs. Fascist: France 2002, USA 2016

Media Abdicate Responsibility On Ballot Selfie Laws Violating the First Amendment

Speak Truth to Power; Don't Cover for the Powerful

My Lifetime Language Learning Plan

The War on "Political Correctness" Is a War on Common Decency

You're Free to Vote Your Conscience!

Is the Fourth of July Really "Independence Day"?

West Coast vs. East Coast City Choices, Round Two

The Final Clinton-Obama vs. Clinton-Sanders Map

Unpopular Opinions on Revolutionary History: The Easter Rising and the American Revolution

Not All Native History Is "Ancient"

Clinton-Obama 2008 vs. Clinton-Sanders 2016: The Map

What If We Let the South Choose the President?

Are Spoilers Actually Good?

Top 5 Posts of 2015

"Christmas Christians" and Reasons to Go to Church

I Resent Learners of Fictional Languages

Unsecured and Freely Available Guns Kill People