Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

RetroGunslinger · 05-04-2008, 04:33 PM

So, I wrote a rather shitty essay for English a while back (one of those night before, finish in an hour even though it should take two weeks, type of deals) and posted it on my myspace blog out of sheer boredom. I check my myspace today to find there's a response. First, here's the essay, with the prompt it's responding to, to use as reference:

Quote:

Consider the following points of view. Which do you support? Explain your position using specific references, observations, and reasoning.

"The United States should remain an island of plenty in a sea of hunger. The future of mankind is at stake. We are not responsible for the rest of humanity. We should not accept responsibility for all humanity. We owe more to the hundreds of billions of Homo futurans than we do to the hungry millions--soon to be billions--of our own generation."

"The Island of Plenty" Johnson C. Montgomery

"We live surrounded by a sea of poverty. Nevertheless, this sea can decrease in size. Our work is only a drop in the bucket, but this drop is necessary."

Mother Theresa

An Island in a Bucket

Arguably the most important issue facing the United States is that of the national debt. This rapidly increasing problem is fueled by political interests such as war and both national and international poverty. By throwing our money into the arms of poor, more-or-less useless countries, we as a nation are sinking into poverty ourselves. We require selfishness to survive.

While it is true, as stated in "The Island of Plenty" by Johnson C. Montgomery, that "we are not responsible for the rest of humanity", being humane is still important. Unfortunately, the only way that we can help others financially is if we are economically secure—something that is almost beyond reach at this point. We are "surrounded by a sea of poverty" as Mother Theresa said, but her line of thought, that our "drop in the bucket" is "necessary" is severely flawed and following it could weigh down the U.S., forcing it to sink into its own depths. By withholding our support in international poverty, we would be one step closer to being secure.

Further, if private organizations focused more on national poverty and less on book burning and superfluous political and social scandals, then the U.S. government would have less to worry about. Call it a "drop in the bucket". At this point, given the miracle of learning to talk instead of to bomb, the government could focus on securing the national debt. This in turn would lead to eventual economic equilibrium and allow the U.S. to once again focus on aiding our fellow man. While this most certainly sounds like a nationalistic standpoint, it's really only being reasonable; there's a reason that we are divided into countries, and frankly, if a nation can't stand on it's own two feet, then that's their problem—for now.

So, like following a dead vein up a homeless man's arm, we find the injection point: war. Quite possibly the most foul, immature act that humans can engage in, it has brought entire nations down to the point that suicide appears to be the cause of death (note: Roman Empire). Every day, millions of dollars are spent on the War on Terror, or whatever the politicians are calling it, and what can we show for it? A few imprisoned Muslims, a lot of dead people, and a debt that could strangle a T-Rex. The likelihood of recovering at our current junction is beyond even Philip K. Dick's imagination, and this is just adding wood to a forest fire. Once again, however, it is just a "drop in the bucket" to stop war and learn to deal. Now, realization may hit: what about all of those irate religious fundamentalists? Well, they need to get it through their heads that violence isn't the answer, and we have got to stop antagonizing them further. They want a million-mile sandbox to call home? Fine. They can have it; and if we have to shove a nuclear missile down their shirts to get the point across that they need to leave us alone and go pray, then so be it.

In the end, I have to agree with Montgomery that we should remain an island of plenty in a sea of hunger because it's all that we can afford to do. It is not our fault as the United States of America that there are poor people all over the world, dying of hunger and the violence brought on by tyranny. Stressing the point, I have also pointed out that we should stop caring about other nations that can have no positive effect for us, and since war is something that can only detract from a nation, it should be eliminated along with the need to save the homeless of the world. We are a nation, we are human beings, and we need to start acting like it.

Now, I don't like this essay, I think it's horribly written but it's English 4 CP, so I honestly don't care about writing well as I can still get a 96 with this shit. Anyway, here's the response from my blog:

Quote:

Okay, sorry ahead of time b/c I'm about to sound like a bitch. Yeah, it is our fault that "poor people all over the world, dying of hunger and the violence brought on by tyranny. " Why? Because somewhere along the line our country became a fuckwith imperialistic one. Thus, we became a "power nation" and ever sense Americans sit on their lazy fat asses taking advantage of the actions of assholes before them who, ironically enough, were a lot smarter and more deserving of the excess they indulge in. So...we exploit other nations, primarily within our industries, and keep them from rising above poverty. And you're contradicting yourself, "we should stop caring about other nations that can have no positive effect for us". Well, these poor little nations DO effect us. Because we all live on one great big shared planet called Earth. We rape their lands, further exploiting them, and destroy the fucking planet, which effects everyone.

And, eh, I'll leave the whole acting like human beings thing for everyone else. It's not all it's cracked up to be. Humans are idiots with no sensical, rational system of survival. We think we have it all figured out, we think we're progressing, we think we're more advanced and practical than the animals. Nope. Survival of the fittest man, it works. The well equipped survive, the weak don't. Everything within the animal kingdom happens for a logical reason, to benefit each individual species. And mutual relationships, they're pretty sweet. Humans are stupid and selfish and backwards. In the human world a weak, ignorant, asshole can somehow climb to the top. Progressive, I think not.

<3 Sorry for being such a bitch.

Now, I have two questions:

1. Am I missing something, or does this sound like a pile of Hippie crap?

2. How would you respond to something like this, because frankly, I don't know where to begin?

I realize my essay is of no political genius and could be dismantled by anyone on this forum, but it seems like my friend has actually made herself sound worse than me.