Letter on Racism

Dear Readers,

                It has come to my attention that some people lack an understanding of what racism is. They claim to be victims but say they are justified in their similar actions. This is not right. There are two kinds of racism. The first is hatred of another person based on his place of origin or heritage. The lesser of the evils is judging someone based off a stereotype, however, this can lead to the former.

One of the most common lies is that racism is based on the color of one’s skin. Japanese and Koreans have their distastes for each other even though both would be considered “yellow” to some people. Israelis persecute Palestinians. Whites are notoriously racist toward each other. Germans and Russians persecuted Polish. In parts of America, people who were not Anglo-Saxon where mistreated, hence the development of ethnic enclaves. Just as bad is Africa, a land with an unfortunate history of civil wars and animosity. So I plead with you, my readers, to avoid thinking the evils of racism are based on skin color alone lest you do injustice to everyone in the world.

One cause of the first and more evil kind of racism is another kind of racism that falls under the umbrella of stereotyping. I can argue that stereotyping on its own is not evil when used properly. I know this might sound wrong to you, but listen to my case. Stereotyping is a cultural shortcut for our brains. It helps us realize there are people who are different from us and what they consider respectful differs from our own understanding. Unfortunately, we really take it too far.

We have an unnatural desire and need to stereotype everyone that we strip away their humanity. Humans are complex beings and can act in any number of ways. When we limit them to only one set of responses, we are committing a sin against them. We do this to our own countrymen who share our culture when we ask, “Where are you from?” I think it is safe to bet that if they grew up in the same culture as you, it’s a very offensive question because it’s the second cause of hatred.

We have a fear of being the minority. Minorities are historically persecuted for very unjust reasons. No one should be persecuted for simply being. However, the irony is that the idea of minority and majority is a social construct. Everyone is a minority is some way or another. However, we hold on to the idea that we are a majority is some way and we don’t want to lose it. This is why White Anglo-Saxon Protestants persecuted Polish Catholics. Even though they were the same skin, they were still losing the “majority” and feared they in turn would be wronged, which is the third cause.

This is current situation of Racism in the world. Someone was offended somehow by someone they consider a representative of a people. An example of this is terrorism, but a better example is war. This is a tricky one to deal with because of Nationalism mixing with Heritage. Even though someone is very much your fellow countryman, we fear the tie that connects him or her with our enemy. It’s very sad that we had to turn to practically concentration camps to protect those people. Unfortunately, this cause is not limited to war. This is the current cause that continues to add fuel to our current problems.

I ask you, my readers, to consider how we can put an end to all of this hatred and spread the peace to all kinds of persecutions without doing any injustice towards a single human being. I have two thoughts that might help. The first is to remember there are good people even in a bad area and they deserve your respect. The second is that we are all people. We like certain people because we have something in common. That is why “like” also means “similar.” Racism focuses on how someone is different from us, but seeing people as human focuses on how they are like us. The third is that violence does nothing to help and only adds fuel to the fire of this evil. So if we let the fire burn all its fuel, then it will die. I believe if we remember these three ideas, we will make significant progress. If we quench this evil, then we deserve it.

N.D. Moharo

Friendship

Dear Readers,

            One thing I value greatly is true friendship. A good friend is hard to find. From my experience, I have come to conclude that one person only has around 3 to 5 real friends. This does not mean that everyone else is horrible, but only a handful will treat you as a good friend.

            Something my dad would tell me is that he was proud of my choice of friends. I didn’t always pick good ones, but the malicious ones never really lasted longer than a week or two. The ones that just weren’t really friends lasted longer, but they never got me into deep trouble. The thing I learned is that, despite there being only a small few you can truly trust, you can still be respectful and friendly to all the others. You just need to keep in mind how much you really can depend on them.

            You probably have heard “be careful who your friends are.” The reason you might have heard is “because they may get you into trouble” but there is a deeper reasoning. I tell you to be careful with who make friends with because “a friend is another self.” Before, you became friends based off a common interest. As you hang around your friends, you become more like each other, either adapting or strengthening the habits and ideas that define you.

            There are two ways in which someone is considered a good friend. The first is the one does the same things as you or respects your wishes. The second is a good person who will criticize you when needed, who helps you out, supports you in your time of need, encourages you to do the right thing, and will risk his life for you. The best friends fall under the second category. It isn’t necessary that you enjoy all the same things, but that you both look out for each other’s well-being and virtue.

             So I write to you, my readers, to encourage you to find a true friend, but even more so to be a good friend. We may not always be able to find a good friend, but we can set the example to be one. After we show the world what it means to be a good friend, then more will appear.

N. D. Moharo

My Idealogy

Dear Readers,

                I write to you to explain how my mind works. Some have commented that I appear to be conservative, though conservatives probably would not accept me either. I do not consider myself liberal or conservative but third ideology that takes from both.  If I were tasked to give a definition for what one thinks of the other, I would say a conservative is “paranoid” and a liberal is a “fool.” These represent the extremes of those ideals and how each party views the other.

                I caution against this view, for while it is true to some, not all fall under these scopes. If I were tasked to define each party according to their own view, a conservative would be “concerned” and liberal would be a “risk taker.” Both of these definitions fall within a realm of reason and both are necessary for the world. Thanks to the concerned, people are safer and many live. Thanks to the risk takers, there is progress. But when taken to the extreme, the world becomes hell. When the concerned become paranoid, people die. When the risk takers become fools, progress is lost. We should do our best to avoid giving power to these two extremes.

                My ideology is something I would like to call “Realistic Idealism,” however I believe that has been taken by someone and I do not grasp if their ideas are the same as mine. So as a result I simply describe my thoughts as “Idealism with relation to Reality.” An example of this is I believe everyone is capable of doing good deeds, but I know that not everyone will do them. 

                One of my core ideas is to true everyone with a basic human respect. Unfortunately, I’ve found this means different things to different people so that is a topic for another time.  However, I hold it is important that we stay far away from hate. While I may find something morally wrong, I will not hate someone for disagreeing with me. For example, if you were to say pornography was good and makes you happy, I will not hate you, but simply request you do nothing pertaining to it when around me. If you ask my opinion on the matter, I will give it while trying to avoid condemning you. If you say killing a perfectly healthy and innocent baby is okay, I will definitely not vote for you, but I’m not going to burn your house over it. I would prefer a civil discussion because that is the ideal way for humans to interact.

                So I ask you my friends, for unless you purposely attack me in some way, I hold nothing against you, to consider what it means to have an ideology. Then I ask you to consider your own views and see if they are consistent not only with itself, but with what is good. I believe that if we think about it more and civilly converse with others, we can make progress in our political world if not our everyday life.

N.D. Moharo

Concerning Mercy and Achievement

Dear Reader,

                I’m attempting a different style of writing. While I try to write essays, I feel like the formalities for proper essay-writing interfere with my purpose for writing. When I am so concerned about making sure that things are written properly, I sometimes lose focus on actually explaining what I mean. I cannot say this will be better, but I can have hope it will be. I hope that by writing these opinions as a letter, there is somehow added a human aspect.

                My first concern is one I have thought about just recently and that is how we view Mercy. It’s a weird concept that can only exist in an unfair world because it creates an imbalance, but for good. When a poor man, who was rich but squandered all his money on wicked deeds, begs a hardworking man for money, it is the honest man’s choice to give it and ask for nothing in return. This is an example of mercy.

                However, if the poor man finally finds a job that pays well and the other man comes and suddenly demands his money back, has not the previous act been nullified? While in some cases, it might be considered fair, it is usually not so. For the man, when giving the money in the first place, did indeed say he required nothing in return. Even if the man simply did not say anything, it should be expected that nothing should be returned. Unless the money is specified from the start as an investment, it should be considered a gift.

                Now again, we might argue that if the same amount money is taken away, it is fair, because the poor man did not earn that original amount. But think, who would that mentality help? Certainly not the poor man. It is one thing to be given a gift. It is completely another thing to earn your wage. Mercy should never be used to overlook accomplishment. For how does it help society if our mentality permits us to not value our achievements? Now if the poor man gave away the gift on his own, then he should be considered greater than the honest man before him. For it is a good deed for a rich man to give to the poor, but when the poor give to the poor, it is a great deed.

                So my readers, I ask you to let your acts of mercy be so. Likewise, let your gifts stay as gifts. Do not give into the idea, “I gave it to you, therefore I can take it away.” For once you give up ownership of something, you give up your right to it and this is for the best. For is it not better that we give rather than take?

N.D. Moharo

Placing Blame in the Wrong Places

    There's something about modern humanity that can drive me crazy. Sometimes, I listen to someone complain about something, whether it is religion, politics, etc. but they never realize they don't know what they are truly complaining about. Our current world is so divided that they like to use the same arguments against each other, thinking the other is to blame.
    An example is the idea of open-minds. I heard a liberal complain the other day that the problem with religion is, "Religious people are okay with your beliefs as long as they are the same as theirs." Now, those who hang out with conservatives also know that phrase, but they use it against liberals! So the real problem is not a specific group; it's a problem with our modern human nature. This relates to the idea of "things claiming to be opposites really just being the same thing." Republicans and Democrats may have different platforms, but the people who actually get elected pretty much do the same thing: raise taxes, squabble, attack the other party, and say it's the other party's fault they can't do anything even when they are the majority.
     Another example is when dealing with religious wars. When the Thirty Years War gets brought up, I just have to roll my eyes. I wrote a paper on that war, trying to figure out how we can refer to it as a war of religion. The answer I got was that you can only call it a religious war if you generalize what the opposing sides had in common. However, when you look at the details of the war, it was very political with little regard towards religion. There were likely some people who fought for their personal beliefs, but the people who started the war, led the armies, and ended the war did not care about religion as much as loss of power. Yes, there are religious fanatics, but when you look closely, they are not truly following their religion, despite their self-proclaimed beliefs.
     My last example still has to do with religion. Some people say they hate God because religion is so evil and full of hypocrites. There are two things wrong with this comment. First, you can't blame the idea of a god for the problems with religion. These are two separate things. The purpose of religion is to give praise to a being called God. It's mankind's attempt to "give to God what belongs to God." Now anyone who uses religion for their self-interests in the world cannot truly represent religion in its proper form. The second has to do with another purpose of religion, and that is to instruct the immoral. "Those who are well have no need for a doctor." Religion is there to try and make people better, which it does for quite a few. Just hearing some of the conversion stories of famous saints is proof of that.
    In order to be a good atheist, it's my personal belief that you need to study Theology. You cannot say, "God does not exist" without having a good understanding of "What is God?" A common mistake people make concerning religion is thinking everyone believes in the same god. Yes, it's a little more complicated than that, but when you talk to people of the same religion, they don't agree on the idea of what it means to be God. The purpose of theology is to study the idea of God. For example, it's not right to believe that God will never let anything bad happen to you. I can certainly say it's easier to tell someone that their idea of God does not exist than to say there just isn't one.
    In today’s world, we are supposed to be civilized, but with our quick misconceptions and rash arguments, we probably look like barbarians. Let us put aside are violent tempers and take time to understand fully what we are arguing against. For me, I find it best to let the rage calm before I finally address the topic. Otherwise people will think I’m attacking them personally and not listen. Sometimes I just have to avoid people I know get too angry over the topic lest I get dragged into anger as well. The best thing we can do is listen and be courteous to each other. Maybe then we can place the blame where it belongs. Let the Truth set us free from strife.