Category: philosophy

bookmark_borderYes, forcing people to get medical procedures is immoral

Posted on by Marissa

In these times of totalitarianism, one thing I am grateful for is that I am not a college student. The conditions that college students are subjected to in an effort to prevent the spread of Covid are beyond ridiculous. As journalist and commentator Megyn Kelly pointed out, using Johns Hopkins University as an example, the rules imposed on students are truly immoral. 

Unfortunately, many people disagree that the measures imposed by Johns Hopkins and other colleges and universities are immoral, as evidenced by tweets like the one below:

Contrary to what the above person claims, requiring people to undergo medical procedures in order to attend school is, indeed, immoral. People have a fundamental right to make their own medical decisions, and requiring people to receive a vaccine or undergo Covid testing – let alone both – in order to go to college violates this right. Colleges should have no such thing as a “Vaccine Management System,” as Johns Hopkins refers to in the above letter, because which vaccines (if any) students receive is none of the college’s business.

Additionally, to require a specific type of mask, or two masks, is excessive. Places have a right to require masks, but one mask is plenty, and people should be able to decide which type of mask to wear. 

So, yes, it is immoral that a school would “embrace science and take every precaution to keep students safe,” because by embracing science and safety, Johns Hopkins (along with all colleges and universities that take similar measures) is rejecting basic human rights. 

To answer the question of why someone would allow students to take an unnecessary risk, the answer is simple. People have the right to take whatever risks they want, so there is a fundamental moral obligation to allow others to take unnecessary risks. Each individual person gets to make his or her own determination of which risks make sense to take and which do not. No person has the right to tell others that they are not allowed to take a risk because it is “unnecessary.”

I fail to see how respecting students’ basic rights constitutes “ignoring” what one learned. Does the above tweeter really think that unless one forces one’s own preferences and risk tolerance onto others, one is ignoring what one learned? Does he actually think that the purpose of getting an education is to violate the rights of other people? Silly me, I thought that the purpose of education was to gain knowledge, and possibly to share that knowledge with others. Sharing knowledge with others is not the same as telling them which actions they should take, let alone requiring them to take certain safety precautions in order to be allowed to attend school. The job of professors and college administrators is to share knowledge so that students can use that knowledge to make their own decisions.

In conclusion, it does not constitute “ignoring what you learned” to respect others’ rights, and it is utterly nonsensical than anyone would claim that it does. Violating the rights of other people is not a requirement for making one’s education worthwhile as this person seems nonsensically to be claiming; it is immoral. Respecting people’s rights to make their own medical decisions is a basic moral obligation, which far too many colleges (and companies and organizations and government entities) are failing to meet.

bookmark_borderMy message to those who are “traumatized” by January 6

Posted on by Marissa

Over the past year, numerous people have stated that they are “traumatized” by the protest that took place in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021. Social media posts like the below (via @BeingLibertarian) abound. I find it to be incomprehensible, unreasonable, and unjustifiable for anyone to react this way to a futile protest against the installation of an authoritarian government. 

In reality, the installation of Biden’s authoritarian government, not the protest against it, is a true reason to be in shock, crying, throwing up, and traumatized.

The people who claim to be “traumatized” by the January 6 protest are people who have gotten their way on essentially everything over the past two years. They have nothing to be traumatized about, nothing to be shocked about, nothing to be in tears about, nothing to throw up about, and nothing to be upset about.

Here is my message to anyone who is upset about the January 6 protest:

Every name, every flag, and every holiday that you dislike has been removed, and every statue that you dislike has been destroyed. The Constitution has been shredded and fundamental rights trampled in order to fulfill your demand for complete safety from a virus. Also due to your demands for safety, the electoral system was changed in a way that favored your preferred candidate. Because of those changes, the totalitarian dictator that you support became the winner of the presidential election.

After all this, you are in shock, crying, and throwing up because some protesters entered the Capitol building? You are traumatized and to this day haven’t recovered? Really?

To those traumatized by the events of January 6, I ask you to attempt an exercise in perspective-taking. I ask you, how the heck do you think people on the other side of the political spectrum feel? How do you think we have felt over the past two years, as your side has gotten its way on essentially every policy issue and we have gotten our way on nothing? How do you think we felt learning that Biden was declared the winner of the election, and seeing an endless stream of your nauseating posts taunting and insulting us and crowing with vicious joy about the narrow victory? How do you think we feel about the all-out war that the Biden administration has relentlessly waged against our fundamental rights? 

Turning to an issue that is very personal to me… how do you think I feel about the fact that every statue, place name, flag, and holiday that represents my identity and my values has been obliterated? How do you think I feel given that my interest in history is the most important thing in my life? How do you think I feel knowing that I now have no choice but to live the rest of my days in a society in which everything I love has been erased? How do you think I have felt over the past two years as I have watched everything that makes my life worth living be destroyed?

I was shocked and traumatized when I found out that the Christopher Columbus statue that I used to walk past every day had been brutally beheaded. I have cried and felt sick to my stomach more times than I can count seeing image after image of statues representing my values and my identity being smashed to pieces, set on fire, cruelly hacked with sledgehammers, and lynched from streetlights.

These are the things that are truly traumatic. Along with those who share my views, I am a person who can truly say, after nearly two years of being ridiculed and insulted, having my rights violated, and watching the people I love and admire being smashed to pieces in statue form, that I have not recovered.

You have gotten your way on essentially 100% of policy issues, violating people’s rights and destroying what makes their lives worth living in the process. The few people who had the audacity to protest against all this were immediately and ceaselessly condemned, attacked, and arrested by the hundreds for the crime of expressing political dissent. But apparently that still isn’t enough for you. You seem to believe that you have the right to a world in which every single person shares your viewpoint, a world in which everyone willingly sacrifices their rights and freedoms for safety, a world in which everyone is content to see irreplaceable works of art viciously destroyed. The mere existence of people with dissenting views causes you to be in shock, crying, and throwing up. The fact that people actually had the guts to stand up to you for once is enough to make you feel traumatized and like you will never recover.

To say that this is a ridiculous reaction is an understatement. Anyone who claims to be traumatized by the January 6 protest is an intolerant bully with no sense of fairness, logic, or justice and no regard for the rights or perspectives of other people.

bookmark_borderHospital capacity is not a reason to take away freedom

Posted on by Marissa

Over the course of the Covid pandemic, one of the main arguments for violating people’s rights is the desire to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. In my opinion, however, concerns about hospital capacity are not a valid reason for taking people’s freedoms away. By their very nature, rights must always come first.

This might sound hard-hearted or insensitive, but sometimes the demand for things exceeds the supply, and this is simply a part of life that people need to deal with. When an institution, organization, or business is experiencing more demand for its services than it can supply, it is up to that institution, organization, or business to either increase capacity or come up with a system for managing demand. One way to increase capacity is by building field hospitals or deploying hospital ships, as many cities and states did during the beginning of the pandemic. Another way is by asking staff to work more hours, or intensifying efforts to recruit more staff. Some examples of managing demand include using a first come first served system, prioritizing people based on how severe their condition is, drawing names from a hat, or using another randomized method to determine who will receive services. Whichever methods are used, one thing remains constant: any of these methods of managing capacity is a better solution than violating people’s rights in an attempt to reduce demand.

For some reason, many people have the attitude that for hospitals to be over capacity is something that must be avoided at all costs. It follows that controlling people’s behavior in order to reduce the amount of people who become sick is permissible (or even necessary, in some people’s opinions). But this way of thinking is backwards. People’s rights must come first. People have fundamental rights, which include the rights to make our own medical decisions and to move about freely. People must be allowed to freely decide whether to get the Covid vaccine or not, whether to do Covid testing or not, which activities to engage in, which people to get together with, which businesses to patronize, and which locations to visit. Whatever demand for hospitals’ services results from people’s collective decisions, is the demand that results, and hospitals need to come up with a system for dealing with that. Just like any other business or institution, it is the job of hospitals to manage capacity issues if and when they arise. Doing so might require making difficult decisions. Preventing difficult decisions from needing to be made is great if possible, but it does not supersede people’s rights.

It is also worth mentioning that making non-vaccinated people go to the back of the line for medical services is, in my opinion, a permissible option if hospitals are at or over capacity. This solution would address the concerns about non-vaccinated people becoming severely sick and needlessly taking hospital capacity away from people who “deserve” it more. And it would address these concerns in a way that does not violate the rights of non-vaccinated people. Why not have a policy that people who opt against vaccination are doing so at their own risk? Under such a policy, people would be perfectly free to either get the vaccine or not. If someone becomes severely sick from Covid, they would have the option of either showing proof of vaccination to move to the front of the queue, or remaining at the back of the queue if they have not gotten the vaccine or do not wish to disclose their status. Given that this would solve the hospital capacity problem without violating anyone’s rights, there really is no justification for forcing people to get the vaccine (or banning them from occupations, places, or activities unless they get it, which is essentially the same as forcing them). The thought process seems to be that it is somehow more cruel to move non-vaccinated people who become severely sick to the back of the line than it is to force all non-vaccinated people to do something they do not want to do. But this is false, and this way of thinking is paternalistic and illogical.

For things to exceed their capacity is part of life, and there is no reason for hospitals to be treated differently than any other institution, organization, or business. It is morally backwards to argue that hospital capacity should determine which activities people are allowed to do. Although preventing hospitals from becoming overwhelmed is a worthy goal, it cannot be allowed to dictate how much freedom people are granted. Respecting individual liberty is more important than anything else. Rights come first, and everything else, including concerns about hospital capacity, come second.

bookmark_borderJanuary 6, 2021

Posted on by Marissa

One year ago, Ashli Babbitt was killed by a police officer while protesting against the installation of a totalitarian government.

Starting immediately, and continuing without pause up till the present moment, Babbitt and her fellow protesters were attacked and personally insulted – with a brutality, viciousness, and utter unprofessionalism that was nothing short of breathtaking and sickening – by those whose job is to be neutral.

Worse, hundreds of Babbitt’s fellow protesters were arrested and jailed for the crime of engaging in political dissent.

The way that the January 6th protest was handled and reacted to by the media establishment and the political establishment represented an all-time low for both establishments.

I use the term “January 6th protest” deliberately.

The events of January 6, 2021 were not a riot. They were not an insurrection. They were not an attack. They were not a coup attempt. They were not an act of domestic terrorism. They were a protest.

Even if the events of January 6 were an insurrection, the fact that someone would use this as an insult is proof of that person’s authoritarianism, moral bankruptcy, and cowardice. The United States is a nation founded upon the idea of rebelling against authority. Whatever word you use – whether it be rebellion, revolution, uprising, treason, sedition, or insurrection – fighting back against authority is something that Americans should value and celebrate, not use as an insult. Anyone who contemptuously pontificates about the “assault on our democracy” by “traitors” or “insurrectionists” is a mindless, morally bankrupt coward who values compliance with authority more than liberty, individual rights, human decency, or justice.

The actions of the Biden administration over the past year have proven that Babbitt and her fellow protesters were 100% correct and 100% justified.

From today onwards, I will think of January 6th as the day that Ashli Babbitt was unjustly killed. I will remember Ashli as a veteran, a patriot, and a brave person who put herself in harm’s way to stand up for what she believed in.

January 6th is Ashli Babbitt Day.

bookmark_borderNothing says “resistance” like taking away bodily autonomy

Posted on by Marissa

Check out this new possible candidate for the dumbest tweet ever, in which someone with the word “resisting” in their username addresses fellow “resisters” and then proceeds to express sentiments that are the antithesis of resistance:

Let’s go over everything wrong with this.

  1. Withholding Social Security benefits from those who choose not to get the Covid vaccine is morally abhorrent.
  2. Requiring people to prove that they’ve gotten the vaccine in order to vote is even more morally abhorrent.
  3. Requiring people to prove that they’ve gotten the vaccine in order to vote is utterly hypocritical, given that people on the left-hand side of the political spectrum have spent the past two years loudly and repeatedly condemning the idea of requiring an ID to vote as racist and anti-democracy.
  4. People who choose not to get the vaccine are not the same thing as “anti-vaxxers.” Choosing not to participate in something oneself is not the same as being against the thing entirely.
  5. Expressing one’s opposition to something is not the same as “freaking out.” Using the term “freaking out” presumes that the person in question is acting unreasonably, but it is entirely reasonable and correct to oppose conditioning receipt of Social Security checks upon undergoing a medical procedure.
  6. This shouldn’t even need to be stated, but hating socialism does not require that one happily go without Social Security benefits after having spent years paying into the system. This is particularly true when the denial of SS benefits is based on a personal medical decision and therefore unjust and discriminatory. Those who oppose the Social Security system think that people shouldn’t have to pay into it in the first place. They don’t think that people should have to pay, and then be unfairly and discriminatorily denied the benefits that they have paid for. Given that the SS system exists, people have no choice but to receive SS cards at birth and have deductions taken from their paychecks. There is no inconsistency in opposing this system while also expecting to receive the benefits that one has paid for, given that the system exists.

In conclusion, it is beyond despicable to suggest that people who have done nothing wrong be punished by having their right to vote or their Social Security benefits taken away. I simply do not understand why so many people are so cruelly and viciously intent on browbeating, bullying, pressuring, and coercing others into getting a vaccine that they do not want. It is disturbing that such mean-spirited, nasty, discriminatory, and intolerant sentiments are so widely and so strongly held. A world in which eligibility for benefits, or the ability to vote in elections, is contingent upon undergoing a medical procedure is a world in which life is not worth living. To suggest that this is in any way a good thing is completely unacceptable, and to suggest that people ought to be fine with this because they “hate socialism” is moronic. The fact that a human being would actually tweet such sentiments is a sad commentary on the state of humanity, and the fact that said person characterizes him/herself as a proponent of “resistance” makes things even worse. The only thing this person is resisting is other people’s right to make their own medical decisions… which of course makes him/her the authority and his/her opponents the true resisters.

bookmark_borderVaccine mandates are the opposite of diversity and inclusion

Posted on by Marissa

Many people who support vaccine mandates have cited, as a reason for their support, the fact that the mandates keep non-vaccinated people out of their cities. For example, when I have expressed my opposition to the city of Boston’s requirement that people present proof of vaccination in order to enter restaurants, bars, theaters, and gyms, people have responded by telling me that I had better stay out of “their” city, and that people like me are not welcome there. When mandate opponents declare their intention to stop visiting restaurants, bars, theaters, and gyms in Boston, they are ridiculed by those who assert that the entire purpose of the mandate is to keep people like them out anyway.

On a moral and philosophical note, comments like these are wrong. There is simply no valid reason to dislike, exclude, stigmatize, or look down on people who opt against vaccination. People have an absolute right to decline medical interventions, and in no circumstance is the decision to get a medical procedure morally superior to the decision not to get one. Any government policy whose purpose is to “keep out” people who have done nothing wrong is unjust and discriminatory, and anyone with human decency would oppose such policies, not cheer them on.

On a personal note, these comments are hurtful. I have always considered Boston my city just as much as anyone else’s. Although I do not live in the city itself, I have lived in the suburbs of Boston all my life. I am a fan of all the Boston sports teams, have a Boston accent, and consider myself to be from Boston. I worked in Boston for many years. Since childhood I have enjoyed visiting museums, attending Bruins, Celtics, and Sox games, enjoying special events in the city, and eating and drinking at its restaurants and bars. As I became a young adult, I learned how to navigate on the “T.” Exploring the different Boston neighborhoods and taking photos of the buildings, statues, and landmarks became one of my biggest hobbies.

But the city has changed. Over the past two years, it has become increasingly apparent that Boston is no longer a place where people like me are welcome. The statues, monuments, and holidays that honor my culture and reflect my values have been abolished and removed, replaced by those honoring other people’s cultures and values. And now, because I believe in privacy and medical freedom, I am barred from participating in public life. People, many of whom are likely younger than me and who likely have lived in the Boston area for less time than I have, are telling me to “stay away” from “their” city and are bragging about policies designed to “keep out” people like me. 

The destruction of the Christopher Columbus statue, the abolition of Columbus Day, and now the requirement that people show proof of vaccination in order to go about their lives – each of these losses was a punch to the gut. The city that I loved, and that I considered a part of my identity, is no more. Now, when I hear or see the word “Boston,” I feel sick to my stomach. Something that once filled me with joy and pride now makes me feel visceral disgust.

I wrestle with the question of what is the best thing to do about this unfortunate situation. Should I hold out hope that the mandate will eventually be repealed, and pray in the meantime that it does not spread to additional types of businesses or other cities and towns? Is there a chance that Boston might one day return to being a city where I feel included as opposed to hated? Should I identify myself with the specific suburb than I live in, as opposed to the Boston area? Or should I move to a different state or perhaps a different country, where people of my values, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and medical status might be more welcomed?

The answers to these questions depend on how the situation unfolds: whether courts uphold vaccine mandates or strike them down, whether or not mandates spread to the Boston suburbs, and whether or not they are repealed as covid numbers decrease. As someone on the autism spectrum, it is difficult to have my future up in the air. When I bought my home, I operated on the assumption that it would be where I would live for the rest of my life. When I started my job, I assumed that I would continue with it until I reached retirement age. The possibility of having to uproot myself and establish a new life in a completely new location is daunting. But it may be the only option if I wish to once again have a life that is worth living. Existing in the Boston area, where my history and culture are condemned as racist, where human dignity is not valued, where individual rights are ridiculed, and where I am treated as an outsider despite having lived here for my entire life, is not tolerable for me.

The discriminatory and exclusionary sentiments of vaccine mandate supporters are even more objectionable when one considers the fact that, to a large extent, these are the same people who have so vocally supported the ideas of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion in other contexts. When it comes to the pandemic, however, these values are thrown out the window. Demanding that everyone make the same choices as you is the antithesis of diversity. Condemning people for their personal medical decisions is the antithesis of tolerance. And eagerly calling for people to be kept out of “your” city is the antithesis of inclusion. 

It is my opinion that those whose opinions dominate our public discourse do not truly believe in diversity, tolerance, or inclusion at all. Instead, they only value people who are like them, and believe that anyone who is different deserves to be shamed, ridiculed, and punished. This way of thinking is similar to that of popular kids in middle school who bully and exclude anyone who dresses differently, talks differently, or thinks differently. I never expected that as an adult, I would once again be living in a world dominated by a mentality that people used to mature out of by the time they reached high school. How pathetic that those who hold positions of power in our society are no better than middle school bullies.

bookmark_borderOn safety versus the right to do whatever you want

Posted on by Marissa

“Those people think that rights mean they can just do whatever they want.”

“You are saying that people’s freedom to do whatever they want trumps people’s freedom not to catch a deadly disease.”

“You value the right to do whatever you want more than other people’s safety.”

Statements like these have been repeated ad nauseam since the beginning of the covid pandemic. Those who express these views apparently consider the ability to do whatever one wants unimportant. In other words, people have essentially been “pooh-poohing” the concept of being able to do what one wants. Anyone who does value this freedom is attacked as selfish, entitled, and/or irresponsible.

In my opinion, this way of thinking is incorrect. The ability to do whatever one wants is extraordinarily important. Without it, in fact, life would not be worth living at all.

In order to appreciate the importance of being able to do what one wants, it is necessary to distinguish between two different concepts.

First, I agree that there is a sense in which it is not realistic or reasonable to simply do whatever the heck one wants. For example, if you have 10 dollars, and an item that you want costs 15 dollars, then you cannot buy it. You will need to either save up more money, buy a cheaper item, or go without. Similarly, you cannot steal from people, and you cannot go up to someone and punch them in the face. These are things that pretty much anyone would agree with. Additionally, there are numerous situations in which people have to do things that they don’t exactly want to do, but which they choose to do because they are necessary in order to achieve the person’s goals. For example, if you have a job, you need to show up for your shift, do the duties that you are assigned, and wear the uniform or follow the dress code. If you want to become, say, a pilot, you will need to learn how to fly a plane. You can’t just decide that it would be fun to be a pilot and start serving as a pilot without actually learning how to do so. If you want to lose weight, you will likely need to exercise. Everyone should accept that they cannot violate the rights of others, and that they might have to do things that are unpleasant in the pursuit of their goals.

But there is a second sense of not being able to do what one wants, or having to do things that one doesn’t want, that quite frankly no one should accept. This concept includes things that you don’t want to do, and in your judgment don’t make sense for you to do, but you are being made to do them by someone else. For example, say you bought a house in which the previous owner had set up an illegal apartment, with a second kitchen. You have no intention of allowing anyone other than yourself to live in the house, and have no intention of using the second kitchen, but it’s not hurting anyone by existing, and you’d rather not spend the money to have it taken out. But the city tells you that you must have the second kitchen ripped out, because its existence violates the local building codes. That is an example of being forced to do something which you don’t want to do and which doesn’t make sense for you to do. In my opinion, this is something that you shouldn’t have to do. The city is violating your rights.

By requiring people to undergo medical procedures – namely covid vaccination and/or covid testing – as a condition of being allowed to work, go to school, or enter public spaces, governments and institutions are similarly violating people’s rights.

When you are a child, you generally have no say in what medical procedures you do or do not get. When you go to a doctor’s appointment, the doctor might say that you need to get three shots today, or they might say you don’t have to get any. You don’t think of the shots as something that you are choosing, or as something that is beneficial to you; you just view them as an unwelcome intrusion into your life that you have no control over. When the shots are done, you leave the appointment knowing that at least that is behind you for now, and you don’t have to worry about it for another year.

The whole point of becoming an adult is that you never have to think of medical procedures – or any other activity, for that matter – in that way again. You might choose to get medical procedures that are unpleasant or even painful, because you determine that the benefits are worth it. But you should never get a medical procedure because someone else told you that you have to. That defeats the purpose of being an adult. The only time that you should get a medical procedure, or do any other activity, is when you think that it makes sense for you.

Unfortunately, many people who hold political power in today’s society believe that it is completely fine for people to be deprived of their freedom to do whatever they want. These people think that it is right to place safety above people’s rights to make their own decisions, and they think that anyone who disagrees with them is selfish. But this is false. People who deny others the ability to do what they want are treating adults like children. They are taking us all back to the days when, as little kids, we were subjected to whatever medical procedures the doctor decided were appropriate. That was a way of existing which, upon turning 18, I assumed I would never again need to experience, and which no adult should ever need to experience.

Today’s politicians may be creating a society with less risk of catching deadly diseases, but in doing so they are creating a society in which the very thing that makes life worth living is gone. Without the ability to set one’s own goals, to choose one’s own priorities, to weigh risks and benefits, to make tradeoffs, to determine what makes sense for oneself, and yes, to do whatever one wants, then life is not worth living at all.

bookmark_borderSecond Amendment rights are for everyone

Posted on by Marissa

I saw the below quote by Rep. Louise Slaughter on social media recently, and I was struck by how wrong (in my opinion) her understanding of rights is. 

(H/T Firearms Policy Coalition)

To put it simply, the Second Amendment does not only protect people who “want all the guns they can have.” It protects everyone.

The Second Amendment guarantees everyone the right to bear arms. People who have no interest in guns or weapons – a group that clearly includes Rep. Slaughter – are protected by the Second Amendment just as much as those who love guns and weapons. And this logic applies to all rights: the fact that a person has no desire to exercise a particular right does not mean that the person does not have that right.

Contrary to what Rep. Slaughter claims, everyone has a Second Amendment. Slaughter clearly does not value the rights that the Second Amendment guarantees, and would not mind losing them. But that does not make it okay for her to take them away from everyone else.

bookmark_borderThis is what real privilege looks like

Posted on by Marissa

Today is December 1, which means that we have reached the end of Native American Heritage Month. Throughout November, various media outlets, companies, and brands acknowledged and celebrated Native American heritage in various ways.

For example, the Starbucks app had a section on its home page honoring indigenous employees.

The Microsoft Edge browser introduced an Indigenous Heritage Month theme.

And all month long, Comcast had a special section in the main menu on the TV dedicated entirely to Native American related programs.

What you wouldn’t have been able to tell from consuming mainstream media or going about your day in mainstream society is that the previous month, October, was Italian-American Heritage Month. Unlike with Native American Heritage Month, neither Starbucks nor Microsoft nor Comcast acknowledged Italian-Americans at all during our designated month. Nor, to my knowledge, did any mainstream media outlet, company, or brand. With the exception of an Italian flag being raised at Boston City Hall Plaza on October 1, I did not witness any recognition of Italian-American Heritage Month by any entity other than Italian-American organizations.

There is nothing wrong with the fact that so many companies and organizations celebrate Native American Heritage Month. But in my opinion, there is something wrong with the fact that they do this while ignoring Italian-American Heritage Month. To acknowledge one group’s month but not another’s is discriminatory. It sends the message that indigenous people are more important than Italian-Americans. Companies and organizations should treat all cultures and ethnicities equally. Either acknowledge and celebrate all cultures’ designated months, or none.

Making this inequity even worse is the fact that an increasing number of cities and states are abolishing the observance of Columbus Day on the second Monday of October and replacing it with Indigenous People’s Day. This in addition to the fact that the day after Thanksgiving is celebrated as Native American Heritage Day in the U.S., and August 9 is designated as International Day of the World’s Indigenous People by the United Nations.

I have heard it argued that Italian-Americans should be okay with the obliteration of Columbus Day because they still get the entire month of October. But indigenous people already have the entire month of November, as well as specific days in November and August. Why do they deserve a third holiday more than Italian-Americans deserve a single one?

It could also be argued that for all practical purposes, Italian-Americans don’t even have a month at all, given that our month is almost entirely ignored by mainstream society. Additionally, with Columbus Day – the reason for designating October as Italian-American Heritage Month in the first place – being obliterated throughout the country, it becomes hollow and meaningless to celebrate a month when one is no longer allowed to celebrate the reason for its existence.

Essentially, indigenous people get a month plus three holidays to celebrate their heritage, while Italians get nothing.

Adding insult to injury, indigenous people also receive additional benefits through government programs solely because of their ethnicity (for example, the Lifeline emergency broadband program provides an extra $34.25 per month for internet service to people living on tribal lands).

It is clear that our society values some cultures more than others, an inequity that has grown even worse in recent times. Privilege certainly exists in our society, but not in the way that most people believe.

bookmark_borderThanksgiving thoughts

Posted on by Marissa

It has been a dark and demoralizing couple of years. The things that I value most – individual rights, liberty, history, tolerance, and diversity – have been under attack in various ways across the country and world. But there are a few signs of hope, indicating that possibly, just maybe, the tide might have begun to turn. In the spirit of Thanksgiving, here are a few things that I am thankful for:

The Christopher Columbus statue in Fairfield, NJ

The vicious campaign against Christopher Columbus over the past year and a half has been nothing short of sickening. At the hands of intolerant mobs of protesters and equally intolerant politicians, statues of the brave explorer have been torn down and in some cases violently destroyed, his name has been erased from schools and other places, and his holiday has been obliterated. However, defying this horrible trend, the town of Fairfield, New Jersey unveiled a brand new statue of Columbus on October 9, 2021. The statue, located outside the Hollywood Avenue Recreation Center, was commissioned by the Fairfield chapter of UNICO and was unveiled at a ceremony featuring pro-Columbus speeches by the mayor and other Italian-American leaders. Recent events have been so demoralizing that I believed another Columbus statue would never again be created, and that the only possible outcome was for the number of statues to inevitably decrease bit by bit until it reached zero. The brave decision to create a new statue of Columbus gives me hope. 

Continue reading “Thanksgiving thoughts”