Guest Blog: American Underdogs

Today's Underdog: America (wait, what?)

Hey, this is Brian over from Repeating History here to share with a little story about an underdog. So sit back, relax, and hold on tight, because heeeere we go!

The American Revolution is the ultimate underdog story.  The scrappy, ragtag bunch of colonists band together to fight for justice and freedom and beat the big, bad empire by virtue of a fantastic leader, some clever tricks, and the fact that they were fighting for the right reasons.  Then again, I also just described the plot of Little Giants, if you substitute "neighborhood kids" for "colonists."

George Washington Incarnate

However, as Austin already mentioned in a previous post, America may or may not have been the underdog in that conflict.  The Americans fought with French equipment, benefited from French training, and had the French navy wipe out the British naval advantage by fighting them back in England.  Essentially, the American Revolution was a lot like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; both were essentially used as proxy wars between bigger powers.

Like the Empire and the Rebellion

But this is a blog about underdogs, so I'm not going to talk about that any more.  I only brought that up because it's what everyone immediately thinks of when Americans are mentioned as the underdogs.  But the real underdog story came not from war, but from peace.

You see, a few years after the end of the Revolutionary War and the establishment of the United States, a little spat called the French Revolution broke out.  At first, Americans were on the side of the French.  The idea of throwing out an inefficient monarchy and replacing it with a constitutional republic seemed to resonate with them.  And the first few years were great, but things soon went downhill.

In 1793, France was at war with the majority of Europe, and things weren't going especially well for them.  So they turned to America and asked for our assistance.  France had some legitimate arguments that we owed them, namely the fact that they had essentially given America independence, but lots had changed in a few years.  Because of the increasing radicalism in France, America wasn't even sure that they should recognize the new revolutionary government, let alone go to war for them.

"Hold on, you never said anything about fighting all of Europe."

So in the end, we did what the image above suggests: backed out.  George Washington issued the Proclamation of Neutrality, which recognized the revolutionary government but stated that we would stay out of the conflict.

So how is this an underdog story, you ask?  Well, think about it from the perspective of George Washington: the country you're currently in charge of is less than 20 years old and just implemented its newest system of government just over 5 years ago, and now the world power that essentially gave your country its independence (and that you completely stiffed on paying back wartime loans) is in trouble.  How many people would turn to one of the most powerful countries in the world and say, essentially, "Thanks for all the help in our war, but we're just gonna stay out of yours"?  And how many would have that reaction set them onto the path towards becoming the most powerful nation in the world?

The fact that this worked was even more shocking than the fact that the US even tried it to begin with.  To be fair it almost led to war soon after, but that got straightened out pretty quickly.  In the end, this move was like running The Annexation of Puerto Rico to steal the game from the Cowboys (or Texans).  It just goes to show you, sometimes the most shocking plays from the underdog come when you least expect it.

Resolving the Paradox: Tolerating the Intolerant

Today’s Underdog: Tolerance

Should we tolerate those who are intolerant of others? This simple, provoking question is actually deeply troubling, at least to me. When we consider tolerance of other cultures, lifestyle choices, races, gender, ideology, often the conclusion is that increased tolerance is imperative, the American way, the moral apex of society. And though controversy arises when discussing gay marriage and similar challenges of tradition, the majority of Americans do indeed support such modern ideas. We must tolerate others. All men are created equal, one nation, freedom and justice for all. Yet when it comes to my opening question, we run into significant trouble.

For example, violence erupted in Dresden a few years ago when anti-fascist protestors set out to block neo-Nazi marches. These protestors were very committed to protecting Nazi-free Germany, promoting tolerance above all. Yet, when it came to stopping those they deemed enemies of tolerance, they took to violence, and created a difficult to resolve controversy.

Thus, we return to the question. Is it contradictory, even hypocritical, to be intolerant of other people based upon their ideological preferences regarding tolerance? Where do we draw the line? When do people become murderers and pedophiles in the context of societal connotation, forfeiting the right to be tolerated, the right to be equal, to be regarded as a citizen? Where is this line, seemingly chalk-drawn amidst a rainstorm, which is supposed to determine who we tolerate, and how we avoid the contradiction of developing increased acceptance?

Maybe an answer can be found in religion. The nations of the West (West Europe, US) have created this concept of universal moral codes, truly drawn from Christianity. A set of right and wrongs that neatly split the world in two. Other cultures have logically formed different moral codes, which in being tolerant, we can accept as equally “right”. For example, Singapore relies on much stricter rules than many other nations, at least the Western ones. But these rules, which proclaim the death penalty for individuals caught trafficking drugs and harsh punishment for spitting gum on the streets, aren’t designed to change the culture of the region, but rather to reflect the culture in which they were born. In other words, rules that seem strict to many outside the country are no different than the rules created elsewhere to enforce culture’s moral code.

However, regional moral codes, reflective of their regional cultures, often conflict, and in these situations, once again tolerance becomes an issue. If our guide to tolerance hinges on the moral code crafted through religion and culture within the region of origin, then globally, our guide to tolerance must rest on some sort of “universal” code, one which as of yet does not exist. Will careful work allow the combination of the common features of multiple moral codes, from the American code to that of Singapore, in order to form a more universal system? Will globalization naturally lead to a convergence of culture creating a moral code in and out of itself? Tolerance is an underdog, or rather the resolution of its paradox is one, for in attempting to move towards increased acceptance, we face increased risk of becoming hypocritical. As we approach the asymptote of absolute tolerance, these questions will become increasingly important, as we seek to determine the exact coordinates of our limiting boundary, and aim to provide the equality Americans hold so fundamental.

Running Over Expectations

Today's Underdog: Latipha Cross

Latipha Cross's story is heartbreaking. It seems she can never catch a break, so to speak, as her life has faced event after event leaving her to question her existence. Yet through it all, Latipha has succeeded, flourished, and shown us that an underdog may not be expected to win, but always has a chance. She shows us that adversity is only a hurdle. Put a little extra effort in, and you'll jump right over it.

Latipha Cross's story is really incredible. Abandoned by her mom at a young age, her sister killed when  Latipha was only six, and abused by her foster parents, Latipha faced difficulty after difficulty. As a sophomore, she ran away from her foster parents. Now homeless, Latipha's only place of comfort was on the track. Latipha didn't run away. She ran forward. And soon she was a track star.

But nothing could come easy for Latipha. Her biological father abused her, physically and sexually, and the next day she had a meet. But Latipha didn't run away; she ran forward. She ran the best meet of her life. The next year, as a junior in high school, Latipha was diagnosed with melanoma. But she continued to run. In fact, while recovering from melanoma, still in treatment, Cross set a state record in the 400 meter. Colleges started calling, and an education after high school, something she never imagined, was possible.

In her senior year, Cross was diagnosed with lymphoma. Defending her state title in the 400, Latipha lost by 0.3 seconds, collapsing at the finish line. Now running for Eastern Michigan, Latipha has finally found a home, or a second home to the track. She keeps running. Always forward.

Latipha Cross was an underdog. She still is. Abandoned, orphaned, abused. Two cancers. And yet, despite all of this, a state record. A scholarship. A home. What can we learn from her story? That no matter how down we are, no matter how heavy the odds are stacked against us, no matter how unfair life seems, we are still in control of our fate, of our potential, of our future. We just have to keep running. Forward. Over the hurdle.

Green-Washed

Today's Underdog: The Environmental Movement

Green this. Green that. Green everything. It's like the world has had someone puke green all over the place. The reason I choose this ugly metaphor is to emphasize how what seems like a green world is actually something far less positive. There's a term for the marketing tactics used by companies, whereby they convince consumers their products are green, even if they may not be, to sell products. It's called green-washing. I'd argue that our whole world, from politics to the private corporate world, has been green-washed. We think we are helping the world's environment, but we may not be doing all we can. Thus, the environmental movement of the 21st century is still an underdog, for their positive messages are being lost in green-washing and other rhetoric. As we explore this concept, we will start by discussing a way of thinking, the eco-critical lens.

Eco-criticism calls for us to question the canon of literature, in the process evaluating depictions of nature and exploring concepts like green-washing, as done earlier in this post. A helpful quote that epitomizes this criticism is, "it's not language that has a whole in its ozone layer," a quote by Kate Soper. Eco-criticism calls for us to stop debating the language, and examine the situation's reality. So let's use this lens and apply it to our current lives and the environmental movement, in the process exploring how it's an underdog.

Name five famous environmentalists. Ok, now name five energy or oil companies. Which did you have an easier time doing? I found the latter much easier, and I imagine many of you did, too. Ok here's another flash survey. Do you buy plastic water bottles? Turn the lights off when you leave a room? Turn the water off when you brush your teeth? Once again, the majority of Americans would say no. Yet, we think that buying packages or cars that advertise themselves with the Lorax or the color green (like Honda) makes us extremely environmental. An ecocriticist would tell us to look deeper. Look way deeper.

For one, consider our literature and movies. It seems like they are bringing the ideas of the environment to the front page. What could be bad about Wall-E? I challenge you to look deeper. What if Wall-E is making a dangerous connection? While it may seem a stretch to see the movie as equating environmental destruction with obesity, it is a very real connection that has consequences. The challenge is that any time either environmental concerns or health concerns are brought up, they are connected as one in the same, potentially hurting each other's causes. Similar arguments have been made about the new Lorax movie, including an argument that it makes people believe environmental sustainability in cities is impossible. While these arguments may be drastic examples, the rely on ecocritical readings to show how we may be the victims of green-washing, assuming everything green is really green.

So how does this relate to our underdog? Very simply. When we are green-washed we don't see what is truly green, allowing the real voices of the modern environmental movement to be swallowed by Hollywood and companies. Here's one last good example. This commercial spoofs clean-coal, explaining how there isn't such a thing. So don't be blinded by green, and consider what is truly environmental. Let's all help the underdog win.