A Merry-Go-Round of Hypocrisy

In schools today, it is commonly accepted that the theory of evolution is true, and teachers everywhere tell their students that this theory is the explanation for our existence. In the defense of the separation of church and state, teachers are forbidden to teach other theories, such as creationism.

Ironically, a debate of a similar nature went on eighty-five years ago in Dayton, Tennessee at a time when, conversely, it was illegal to teach the theory of evolution. A young biology teacher named John T. Scopes, looking for a chance to defend his point, openly admitted to teaching the theory of evolution to his students, and was quickly arrested. He, together with his defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, and The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hoped that this would be their chance to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee Law. Their chance proved unsuccessful, and Scopes was convicted. And so the first amendment was disregarded, for the Tennessee law was a law directly abridging freedom of speech. John T. Scopes should have had a right to make his students aware of the theory of evolution as another view—not forcing his students to believe it, degrading them if they did not believe it, but simply presenting it.

Many people today, and for that matter, many people in this class, will argue that Scopes was a martyr for evolution, a man unconstitutionally treated and wholly misused. These same people will argue that creationism should not be allowed to be taught in schools today. What is the difference then? They are not, then, defending freedom of speech, but only their own beliefs. A common argument is that teaching creationism breaks the wall of separation between church and state. This argument is commonly parroted by uninformed students, who, if they would research the topic for themselves, would quickly discover that the separation of church and state means something very different. The separation of church and state doesn’t mean that religious beliefs can’t be presented in a school, which they are today, since evolution is just as much a religious belief as Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism. When Jefferson, who was not a Christian himself, wrote the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom in 1786, regarding it as his second greatest achievement, he stated this:

An excerpt from the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom:
I. Well aware:

•That all attempts to influence it by temporal [civil] punishments or burdens or by civil incapacitations [lack of fitness for office], tend only to…[produce] habits of hypocrisy and meanness and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate [spread] it by coercions [force] on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;

•That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical [religious], who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion [rule] over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible [ones], and, such, endeavoring to impose them on others, have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

•That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than [on] our opinions in physics or geometry;

•That truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, [for] errors [cease] to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Clearly, when Jefferson wrote of The Separation of Church and State, he didn’t mean that it was wrong to teach about religious beliefs in public, but wrong to force people to believe these teachings or adhere to a particular religion chosen by the government. Today we ride a merry-go-round of hypocrisy—we defend Scopes and we rage on creationism, then we belittle Scopes and praise creationism. Round and round we go, holding tight to our own stubborn beliefs, and forgetting completely about Freedom of Speech and the true meaning of Separation of Church and State.

Liberty and Justice for All

Although both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. De Bois had widely differing views on blacks’ best strategy for gaining equality in society, they were both great American leaders and made significant progress to their causes. This is essential to remember lest we undermine the change to which they devoted their lives.

When analyzing the philosophies of both Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. De Bois, it is important to consider that these men came from vastly different circumstances. Booker T. Washington was born into slavery in 1956 to a slave mother and a white father, who was a nearby planter. W.E.B. De Bois, on the other hand, was born in 1968, a free man to an African American mother and French Huguenot and African American father. Experiencing the difficult and oppressive life of a slave, Booker T. Washington did not gain the status of a free man until he was nine years old; therefore he understood the meaning of slavery in a very different way than De Bois ever could. In addition, Washington lived through the Civil War, while De Bois was born three years after it ended. These differences alone must change these men’s views of their culture and their place in society. Obviously, neither men lived easy lives in an easy time, but they experienced different hardships and different cultures.

Booker T. Washington’s beliefs that blacks must educate themselves, take up the trades, and seek the respect of the white man to earn equal rights is not far off from the beliefs of Fredrick Douglass, the renowned abolitionist. He, like Washington, urged that blacks should join society by trying to add something of value to their community. W. E. B. De Bois also believed that blacks should educate themselves and be active in society, however he did not share Washington’s “don’t rock the boat” theory. He pledged that the only way that blacks could ever gain equal rights with whites was to demand and fight for them. Although the text presents these two men’s views as opposite, it seems that they both may have truth in them. I suggest that though the men’s views are different, they are not complete opposites. Some of these differences were created by the enormous changes that occurred in the culture during the time of their birth. Because he was born a slave, Washington assumedly experienced great fear and bondage as a child. Whether or not he was treated fairly by his owners, the status of a slave still constitutes that the person does not belong to him or herself. When he was a slave, it is probable that he operated under the rules of playing fair with white people; if you rock the boat, you get hurt. This may be the origin of his later political views.

However, without the work of men like W. E. B. De Bois—men of action and leadership—the road to equal rights for blacks would have been an exceedingly sluggish one. It wasn’t until 1910, when De Bois was already 40 years old, that he founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He had spent his entire life under racial prejudice and persecution, so it is unsurprising that he felt it was time for action. Action begets change. It is significant to remember that our country was founded by men, like De Bois, of action, who took enormous risks for the sake of America, who had faith that change was possible, and who weren’t afraid to step on toes to win their objective.

Therefore, I would argue that De Bois led the more effective reform for racial equality. We owe a great deal to men like Washington for his work towards racial equality, but without men such as W. E. B. De Bois, America would never have become the country that it is today—truly a country with liberty and justice for all.

Splendid to the End?

"Where I’m from, we believe all sorts of things that aren’t true. We call it history." —Wicked

This quote absolutely describes the Spanish-American war. When we study the Spanish-American war, we swim in murky waters and truth is a very rare, very valuable hidden treasure. At this time in history, there were many different groups who wanted to go to war for vastly different reasons. The imperialists wanted America to become a world power and believed that going to war with Spain would lead to further expansion for the country. Various groups of industrialists, traders, and investors hoped that gaining an alliance with Cuba would open doors for international trading and easy access to foreign goods such as sugar. On the other hand, there were many people who believed that the Spanish were acting downright inhumanely and unjustly and who felt that we should go to war because it was the moral thing to do. Obviously, these reasons were in direct conflict with each other. To add to this menagerie of desires, goals, and contradictions, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, two of the country’s most wealthy, powerful, and manipulative men, controlled, almost exclusively, the newspapers of the day. Like the Muckrakers of the magazines, they succeeded in boosting circulation by printing shocking and sensational stories that played with America’s hearts to win their agreement. Between them, they had more power of the people than all of congress put together.

When you take this basket of contradictions, it’s difficult to decide if we were justified in going to war with Spain. Surely, at the start of the ordeal, there was a large amount of people who truly wanted to help the Cubans. America understood their plight as one similar to their own only a little more than a hundred years earlier. And it wasn’t only those in power who saw this as an important moral cause. When America called for soldiers at the beginning of the war, over one million men volunteered to fight—men of the masses. When one million men volunteer their lives for their country, there is certainly more at stake than a bit of sugar. They have to be energized and excited into action by a cause, even if the cause they think they’re fighting for is half-way made up by a rich newspaper man. But how do we know? There was nobility in our decision to go to war with Spain. Like grains of sand, this nobility was mixed with selfishness, ignorance, and pride, but there was still nobility in it. After the war was over, McKinley announced his intent to make Cuba, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, a part of the U.S. This was a significant departure from the original plan. America proceeded to occupy these territories for the next few years, controlling their governments, and even using tactics terribly similar to those of Spain when putting down rebellions. America crossed the line from liberators to oppressive rulers. Something that had started off as, at least in part, a noble and just cause, had turned into a very different sort of mission—one which was directly in conflict with America’s identity as a democratic nation of the people. We were justified in going to war with Spain, but what happened after Spain is a whole new ocean of murky waters.

A Replica of Peace

We waited. We watched. We pledged peace until the last possible moment. When America entered the Great War in 1917, we were the only world power that still had energy to give. The other nations involved in the war, including France, Germany, Japan, and Russia, were exhausted by 1917—their resources disappearing fast and their peoples’ hopes fading into oblivion. Because of this, the U.S.A. had a decided advantage when it jumped into the tussle. America joined the war for various reasons, contrary to Wilson’s declaration that we were going to war in opposition to oppressive governments—joining, along with France and England, Russia, a country ruled by a cruel and iron-fisted dictatorship, which is certainly a funny paradox. During the first few years of the war, we had ties to England that strongly compromised our proclamation of neutrality. First of all, America was selling goods the British. Because England had blockaded Germany’s ports, America was unable to trade with Germany. However, America did not put up a great fight to this fact, as they were enjoying the economic benefits of selling to England. This rubbed Germany the wrong way. America also had developed a strong enmity towards the Germans since the German submarine, or “U-boat” blew up the Lusitania, a British passenger liner which, unbeknownst to its passengers, was carrying a large store of munitions. However, the American passengers on board had been warned by Germany not to travel on British vessels during wartime. Regardless, America was furious at Germany and wanted to avenge the over-hundred American casualties. As England was America’s mother-country, there were already established roots to their culture, with a shared language, inherited religious traditions, and similar customs of all kinds. For all of these reasons, England had slowly crept from its seat of neutrality towards the defense of the British and the Triple Alliance.

When America declared an Alliance with England, France, and Russia, it must have come as a glorious aid—a miracle to know that help was on its way. President Wilson must have felt that America was a sort of savior to the Triple Alliance, and he must have expected that if they were victorious, as they surely would be, England, France, and Russia would be greatly indebted to America and would want to repay it as soon as possible.

When the war ended, America, who had experienced the least damage to its economy and people, had established itself as a significant world power. Wilson brought his 14 points to the table, probably expecting that England and France would be ready to accommodate his demands for a League of Nations immediately. He was dead wrong. The Prime Minister, David Lloyd George of Great Britain and Premier Georges Clemenceau of France were reluctant to give in to Wilson’s 14 points, including his desire to assemble a League of Nations. Clemenceau’s view was, “God gave us the Ten Commandments, and we broke them. Wilson gives us Fourteen Points, We shall see.” Although Britain and France did have a sense of debt to America, they had an even greater sense of wanting glory and justice for what they had gone through during the war. Wilson called for “Peace without Victory”, but after a long and bloody war, Britain and France weren’t ready to settle down, forgive Germany, and forget the past. They wanted justice, and so they felt heavy resignation toward Wilson for demanding his 14 points and asking them all to kiss and makeup.

If the other countries in the Triple Alliance had been more compliant to Wilson’s 14 points, the events of the next 15 years might have been significantly altered. However, what Wilson partly failed to realize is that laws can never accomplish peace. People accomplish peace. The League of Nations, which was a great establishment to the world, is only a regulated imitation of a community devoted to peace. Most importantly, without every man deciding personally to act justly, respect his neighbor man and his neighbor country, and strive for the good of others, there will never be peace.