Walt Whitman and Ayn Rand

     The poet Walt Whitman first published his volume Leaves of Grass in 1855.  The book contained only twelve poems in its first printing, one of which was "Song of Myself".  I am really glad we covered this in class because it is one of my favorite poems by Whitman.  It is a celebration not only of oneself, but of the world around us and the ones who people that world.  This poem does not draw distinctions between good or evil, but seems to say that all good and all evil can be encompassed within the individual.

     Although Walth Whitman was a promoter of democracy and equality among men, his poetry celebrates the freedoms and talents of the individual above all.  Many of the verses I have read have reminded me strongly of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, who is one of my favorite authors.

Ayn Rand is a novelist and a philosopher who coined and promoted the idea of "objectivism" in her books.  A few of her well known writings are The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  In both of these, she teaches that love must be earned, wealth deserved, and that reason is the highest calling and aim of mankind.  The novelette Anthem is short but moving, and there are many similarities to Whitman's "Song of Myself".  Though these two authors were from different countries and time periods, and though they believed in different politics, their writings in many ways parallel each other.

Whitman states in verse 20 of "Song"....

"I know I am solid and sound,
To me the converging objects of the universe perpetually flow,
All are written to me, and I must get what the writing means."

 

Conversly, in Chapter 11 of Anthem, Ayn Rand writes...

"Whatever road I take, the guiding star is within me; the guiding star and the lodestone which point the way.  They point in but one direction.  They point to me."

In the same chapter, Rand states that "my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it.  My happiness is not the means to any end.  It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose."

Again, there is a parallel to Whitman's "Song of Myself", in verse 20.

"I do not trouble my spirit to vindicate itself or to be understood...
I exist as I am, that is enough,
If no other in the world be aware I sit content,
And if each and all be aware I sit content."

From verse 24 of Whitman's "Song"...

"Divine am I inside and out, and I make holy whatever I touch or am touch'd from...
If I worship one thing more than another it shall be the spread of my own body, or any part of it."

Along those same lines, Rand states that "Many words have been granted me,...but only three are holy: 'I will it!'....This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!" 

I could continue the parallels all day, but hopefully I have proved my point.  It makes me wonder if Ayn Rand ever read Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself".  To end, if you are interested in the philosophy of Ayn Rand, I am including a clip of an interview from 1959 that at least summarizes objectivism and will give you some idea of how Americans felt about Rand and her philosophies then.  If you wish to watch the entire interview, you can find it on you tube.

    

Uncle Tom's Cabin and Racism

 

 

     The novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, follows the lives of two slaves in pre-Civil War Kentucky.  Though originally written to further the abolitionist cause, the book caused a sensation when published because of its high emotional values and racists policies, as it continues to do today. Although slavery was abolished here in America, it is still a touchy subject.

     In Uncle Tom's Cabin, Stowe details such things as children being taken from their mothers and slaves that are covered with scars.  Never should any human being be subjected to such treatment, and the awareness that the book raised helped move the issue of slavery into the wide eye of the public.  Though it was written more than 100 years ago, there are still issues that are relevant today.  For instance, in the first chapter the slave trader Hayley comments "These critters an't like white folks, you know; they gets over things..." This was response to the topic of selling a boy away from his mother.
   

 This racist remark can be well applied even today.  Over the years, people have tried to believe that black people had no souls.  They were marked as an inferior race for centuries.  Here in America, the Civil Rights Movement changed the public view drastically, but only after much persecution and sacrifice. 

Racism is something we probably will always have to deal with, unfortunately.  One of my friends was caught off her guard by a very racist remark by a complete stranger just the other day, simply because she has a black boyfriend.  There are bigots all around us, and even some religious groups that still preach the sinfulness of intermarriage between the black and white races.  The Mormans in particular have taught since the founding of the Mormon church that the African race is inferior and that their black skin is the result of a curse from God.

Brigham Young

 Second President and Prophet of the Mormon Church:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses, 7:290; emphasis added)

 

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be (ibid., 10:110; emphasis added)

 

http://christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm      Granted, the Mormons consider themselves a Christian group, and in more recent times have accepted black parishoners. Yet to this day, they do not allow black people to enter into the priesthood or the temples of their churches, and intermarriage is forbidden.  Those that do mix bloodlines are excommunicated as Mormons.  This is just a small case in point to show that although we have come a long way towards equality among the races since Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom's Cabin, we still have a hard road ahead of us to actually achieve that equality.  To erase racism from the earth, we must start with teaching our children to think differently than our ancestors did, because racism is learned, not inherited.

 
    

Hawthorne's 'The Birthmark' and Frankenstein

   

     There are many similarities between Nathaniel Hawthorne's story 'The Birthmark' and Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'.  They both feature pure, vivacious women, mad scientists, and strange assistants.  I have been trying to find out if Hawthorne actually read 'Frankenstein' and perhaps modeled his story after it, but I could come up with nothing to confirm this idea.  I think probably so, simply because of the number of similarities.

     However, Aminadab, Aylmer's assistant, was an original creation.  I came to this conclusion because, after much research, I found out that in Shelley's novel, Victor Frankenstein doesn't actually have an assistant.  The well-known helpers that we as an American public have become familiar with were only popularized in the movies.  Which is a shame, as that was the most important similarity I noticed in the reading.

     In 'The Birthmark',  Aminadab, Aylmer's "under-worker" seems to represent man's physical nature.  A weird man endowed with "vast strength" and "indescribable earthiness," he understands how Aylmer's attacks on Georgiana's body spell doom. He remarks, "If she were my wife, I'd never part with that birth-mark".  Aminadab understands early on that the attempted removal of the mark will probably kill Georgiana, yet in the end when she does die, he laughs.

    In the popular movie versions of 'Frankenstein' we have been exposed to many different assistants, such as Fritz and Igor.  All of them possessed some of the strength and earthiness Hawthorne describes in 'The Birthmark'.  Some were funny, some were scary, but I have had to expound on my original theory.  Perhaps the "under-worker" most people are familiar with today came from a compilation of the two stories.  For sure, the basic plot of 'Frankenstein' has evolved today to be synonymous with the mad scientist and his strange assistant.  The story just isn't the same without that character.  My personal favorite is Igor from 'Young Frankenstein' (See clip below).  So I guess I have Nathaniel Hawthorne to thank for bringing a classic character to life.  Way to go, Hawthorne!

    

Ben Franklin and the Philosopher's Stone

 

 So, I was reading "The Way To Wealth" by Benjamin Franklin and came across an anecdote that I really liked.  He wrote "Get what you can, and what you get hold; 'Tis the stone that will turn all your lead into gold."  This is obviously a reference to the philosopher's stone.  The definition according to Wikipedia follows.

The philosopher's stone (Latin: lapis philosophorum) is a legendary alchemical substance said to be capable of turning base metals (lead, for example) into gold (chrysopoeia) or silver. It was also sometimes believed to be an elixir of life, useful for rejuvenation and possibly for achieving immortality. For many centuries, it was the most sought-after goal in Western alchemy. The philosopher's stone was the central symbol of the mystical terminology of alchemy, symbolizing perfection at its finest, enlightenment, and heavenly bliss. Efforts to discover the philosopher's stone were known as the Magnum Opus.^[1]

 

                                                                    

Of course, the stone is probably the most well known today, at least for Americans, as the sorcerer's stone in the Harry Potter books

by J. K. Rowling.

 

We haven't exactly had a tradition of alchemy in this country, and anyway, alchemy had pretty much died out by the time North America was settled.

In case any of you are wondering, one definition of  alchemy in the New English Dictionary is

"a form of chemistry and speculative philosophy practiced in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and concerned principally with discovering methods for transmuting baser metals into gold and with finding a universal solvent and an elixir of life."

 

Of course, Franklin wasn't writing about this stone.

Ben Franklin's alchemy was all about saving money.  Who needs a substance to turn lead into gold when you can turn pennies into gold just by socking them away?  Which brings me to to the second definition of alchemy according to the New English Dictionary, which is "any magical power or process of transmuting a common substance, usually of little value, into a substance of great value."  This definition definitely applies to Ben's idea.  I can say that because to me (a world-class shoe shopper) saving money is magical.  While reading this I started wondering if there were any modern day nuts out there who were still trying to make the philosopher's stone, and so I looked it up on you tube.  Out of the many that I watched (I couldn't help it; I was amazed that people would still even try), the following is by far my favorite.  It's short, so check it out.  I think Ben Franklin would approve.

 

 

 

 

The Historical Leniency of Homosexual Relations

     When I was reading John Smith's writings from the third book, I came across something peculiar.  Smith states that "...a daily portion of biscuit, which the sailors would pilfer to...exchange with us for money...or love."  I have to imagine that this statement is referring to homosexual relationships, as they were all men, obviously.  I have grown up in a time when the military has had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the navy, army, etc.  I can remember seeing on the news how soldiers had been dishonorably discharged as a direct result of their sexual orientation.  I have even heard stories about drastic measures taken by government officials to "weed out" homosexual soldiers.

                                                   Franklin D. Roosevelt

                                            http://www.omg-facts.com/view/Facts/49767

Only in the past few years have equal rights been extended to gay citizens and their partners.  Historically, however, homosexual relationships have been excepted as commonplace.  In the ruling classes of old Europe, espescially, homosexuality was considered the "cool" thing to be doing.  Many military leaders of the past had gay lovers, such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.

                                                                     Julius Caesar

 

Alexander the Great

by Rembrandt

 

So although I was shocked by this, homosexual tendencies have historically been overlooked.  When you take a bunch of men and ship them far from home with no food and no women to entertain them, I guess that sometimes happens.  However, many prominent figures have either been bisexual or had plenty of access to food and women.  I think it is interesting that for centuries, sexual orientation did not matter much (consider the Greek and Roman cultures, for instance.  See link).  Only in America was homosexuality something to be ashamed of.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/wojtkiewicz/wojtkiewicz2.html

 

Discovering the Americas

     What is it about Europeans (and by this I mean white people in general) that makes them think they are so superior?  I was recently watching an episode of Hell on Wheels (AMC - a really excellent show if any of you ever get a chance to see it) in which a conversation takes place between the Indian Chief of a local tribe and a pioneer trying to build a railroad.  The pioneer tells the Indians that they are here to offer the Indians a better life; to give them food and land in exchange for their cooperation.  To which the Chief replies "better than what?  I have food and land and a comfortable living.  You cannot give us something that is already ours.  Are you God?  Do you own everything you see?"
     A lesson may be taken from this.  Coming from a Native American heritage myself, it is always hard for me to read abouth the conquest of the Americas.  Throughout history, Europeans have automatically assumed that their ways are the best ways.  Las Casas, though his heart was in the right place, was no different in this than the tyrants he railed against for the killing of the natives.  In his case, his religion was better.  To Columbus (whom I personally think was a fool that should NOT have a holiday dedicated to him) everything about the Indians was inferior.  From their clothing to their sleeping arrangements, they were poor, ignorant people meant to be taken advantage of, people who would trade gold for broken glass.
    Just once, I would really love to see what would happen from a white man's perspective if Europeans were treated the same way.  They say what comes around goes around.  So watch out, all you white people!!!  Interest has been building on this account for a very long time.
     The lesson?  Our ways are not always the best ways.  Just because someone doesn't dress or worship or live like we do does not make them inferior in any way.  And this is something just about everyone I have ever met could work on.