Uncommon Sense

By: ACG

I have this saying that I really like… If you want everyone to always agree with you, then you’ll have to live alone in a room filled with mirrors. It may sound somewhat harsh, and that is because it is. The harsh reality is that we are human, nothing more, nothing less. And one of the realities that come with being human is that we are all different. We look different, we have different ideas, different opinions, different experiences. These differences are all part of the beauty of being human. Yet, they are also the catalysts for some of the horrors that ensue. There are billions of people in this world, and so while we are all different, the degree of separation varies from person to person, or group to group. Logically, it is safe to assume that there are people in this world who are so alike that the average person could not tell the difference between them, just as sure as there are people in this world who are so different from each other that bringing them together would be a recipe for chaos. Yet our differences, just as much as our similarities, are critical ingredients to a fulfilling life. And while I do not claim to have the perfect recipe for a life worth living, my hope is that the theories and ideas contained herein will open your mind to a whole new perspective.

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine states “We [the colonies] are sufficiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united.” Paine goes on to elaborate on this point, but I choose to elaborate in a different manner. See, Paine’s argument focused on the relationship between the population of a nation and the size of its military force(s) and prevalence of commerce. But here I seek to elaborate on what I believe is the most obvious effect of population growth… that being the consequent and inevitable divide among the population itself. Eventually a population may grow so large as to outgrow its government, just as religions have grown so large as to outgrow their original doctrines. Hence the Great Schism and subsequent divisions within Christianity, for example. This, I dare say, is one of the biggest problems with the US political climate today. We can barely ever agree on anything. This is a direct and rather obvious result of a nation too large and simultaneously too diverse in ideologies and goals to be led by a single government. Yes, there are nations in this world that are significantly larger than the US in terms of population. But to say that my argument is flawed because China or India is larger than the US is to present a fallible rebuttal. For as populous as these nations may be, none can boast a degree of diversity comparable to that of the United States. We put so much effort into progressing as a civilization, discovering new technologies, systems, and ways of operating. It is no wonder we have such a large population of citizens who have such progressive mindsets. Yet, on the flip side, there are so many who bear the opposing regressive mindset. And these two will not stop clashing. Sure, perhaps the best solution lies somewhere in the middle, but if this is what it takes to get there – blind hate, violence, war, bloodshed – then I suggest the alternative cannot be worse.

Let’s get back to the example of Christianity. This is a religion that has grown so immensely that certain sectors of Christianity are all too distinguishable from others. When you look all around you in nature, this is the natural course of progression isn’t it?... that species that grows too large in number or is too widespread will undoubtedly experience divergent evolution, many times evolving to become better at utilizing the resources available to them or to access or adapt to a new or alternative resource - the same is true for a threat but we are talking about resources here. For the farther apart they grow, or the more widespread they are, the greater the variation in their experiences and their environments, and as such, their needs begin to vary as well. And with varying needs and varying goals, they continue to deviate from each other as they grow to adapt and survive in their varying ecosystems. These deviations often lead to irreconcilable differences which should serve as markers or indicators to identify when a partition of the population has become necessary. After all, you would not expect a Peruvian Inca Orchid to have the same chance of survival in extremely cold climates as you would an Alaskan Malamute. The difference in their “coat” is a telltale sign. Unfortunately, people are programmed to become so overly patriotic that we fail to heed to these signs. We believe that division is bad because our leaders say it is, because they hunger to reign over as vast territories, only ever seeking more, never less. The rulers of empires only ever seem to believe that great power comes with an abundance of wealth, territory, and other worldly possessions. So, we corrupt ourselves with the desire for power and control and we cower at the thought of division because we fear it is a sign of weakness and a loss of control. But I would argue that it takes a smart and brave, albeit daring, leader to identify and admit when their own country has grown beyond the control of a single government, when it needs to be divided so that it can continue to prosper. Indeed, it takes a truly patriotic leader to put the wellbeing of the citizens beyond their own ambitions or those of the empire. Because should the empire be allowed to grow out of control, it will undoubtedly fall, surely by violent means, and inevitably sacrificing the blood of the innocent as it crumbles. So yes, it takes a truly bold leader to spare the blood and life of millions, curtailing the futile ambitions of the empire, and changing the pattern of history.

I do realize that any argument in support of any kind of secession can quickly become a controversial topic. After all, the US has fought two major wars with secession as a core reason. We gained our independence in one and upheld the union in the other. But that proves my point, doesn’t it? Wars were fought. People died. And why? Because Great Britain wanted to maintain control over the territory? And later because a country divided wanted to actually divide? Why do people need to die for such, dare I say, ridiculous reasons? Admittedly I downplay the full details of the disagreements that fueled these wars. But I do so only to keep focus on the argument. We praise our leaders, especially the ones who get us through wars like those, perhaps deservingly so. But at the same time, let’s not be as sheep. Let’s actually offer some criticism as well. Maybe I harbor unrealistic utopian ambitions, but convince me, if these leaders were such great leaders, such great politicians, then why couldn’t these conflicts be worked out without bloodshed? If your answer is that my naivety prevents me from realizing that diplomacy is not as easy as I would suggest, then you’re simply helping to bolster my point of view. When I choose to vote for a leader, I would like to think that I am voting for the person who won’t simply take the easy way out. I’d like to think that our leaders are the greatest among us and as such are able to make use diplomacy more effectively, making it a more feasible option. Because, let’s be honest, ware is easy. Anyone can start a war. Great leaders are those who can avoid war all together.

So, I refuse to dismiss diplomacy as being unrealistic in any scenario. I do, and we should all expect more or our leaders instead of having them expect more of our blood to be shed. Why should I not ask what my country can do for me if I should also be asking what I can do for my country? After all, a country is infinitely more powerful than any one individual, so why shouldn’t I as an individual be asking both questions instead of just the one? As a Black man, should I not first ask that my country accepts me for who I am before I ask what I can do for my country? Should I not ask that I not be criminalized simply because of the color of my skin before I offer my talents to my country? Shouldn’t I have some sort guarantee that I can walk down the street in peace? How many Black people was it that fought and died in both the wars that I previously referenced, yet here we still are today, begging for acceptance, begging for equality, begging for freedom, and dying for the lack thereof?

But I digress. What I’d like to ask is this. What sense does it make to live in a society where for a minimum of four and up to eight years at a time, you must suffer yourself to be governed by a regime that you are in almost complete disagreement with and one that you do not and/ or cannot support? Is it a necessary evil? No, for what is a necessary evil but simply an evil nonetheless? Democracy was never meant for large populations, and as a population grows, so must it divide, naturally and by their system of governance, for that is the only way for democracy to maintain its intended purpose. Government by the people cannot survive if the people are too divided to agree on what is best for the community. Therefore, the only hope is to divide into smaller, more manageable territories, more united fronts that may continue to strive in the absence of excessive conflict. And I say the absence of excessive conflict because I am not so na?ve as to believe that conflict can be completely eradicated. I can at least be realistic in that admission.

To quote Ice Cube in Barbershop: The Next Cut, “At the end of the day, we can’t expect people who don’t know nothing about what’s going on around here to come in here and solve our problems. We gotta fix our problems ourselves.” So, how can any one person effectively stand for, represent, and speak from the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions? It is simply not logical, for they will fail in every effort that they are successful. To clarify, each time that presidents, in their decisions, fail to represent you in the manner in which you would like to be represented, they would have conversely successfully represented your neighbors’ interest. I dare say that in that particular scenario, the only person to have failed is you, for you made one very critical and conscious decision to be a part of a system that does not effectively represent your beliefs or interests. Historically, this has been the case in perhaps every regime that ever existed. It has been the very reason kingdoms and empires fall. I propose that we take this opportunity now to learn from our history so as not to repeat the failures of our ancestors. Let us urge our government to concede that they cannot effectively control such a large and populous territory. For though we may be stronger in numbers, too many cooks will truly spoil the broth. A better saying is that we are stronger when united, but as Thomas Paine also rightfully alluded, the larger our population grows, the less united we become. I will add that the less united we become, the more violence and destruction we foster within our own ranks. The uneasy political climate in the US today is just a glimpse of the dawn of such destruction, and if we do nothing, it will come. On the other hand, if we do the wrong thing, if we resort to violence as we always do, we shall sooner face our destruction.

But let’s say we do nothing, how then do we answer to our gods, to mother nature, and to our future generations who shall inherit our failures? Are we that selfish as to care so little for our descendants when we ourselves have inherited so much from our ancestors? Are we so blind as to disregard the examples set by the greatest among us, and instead walk the path that clearly leads to our imminent destruction? How do we fight to preserve our future? Violence, such as in war or rebellion, is no answer, solves no problems, nor does it earn any victories or successes. It instead turns mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and possible pioneers of a better future into mere carcasses. Yet some will say we must fight, for peace is never achieved peacefully. But if we must fight, let us fight with our hearts, for love is as brutal as it is beautiful. Let us fight with our minds, for knowledge is as devastating as it is fortifying. Let our arsenal be our knowledge, and let our only weapons be our words and our resistance to flawed ideologies and to corrupt, polluted, or diluted systems.

But how do we deviate from the desire to resort to violence as the solution to our disagreements? How do we change our approach? Who do we hold responsible? Let me offer this perspective and give you the opportunity to make your own decision. Modern politicians and governments, as brutally as a storm, flood the minds of men with truths, half-truths, and untruths, effecting confusion and chaos on our neural highways, inevitably fostering an age of radicalism across the spectra of what may be considered right versus wrong, good versus bad, humane versus inhumane, and most critically, truth versus untruth. The shape of the modern mind has been so inflicted that any idea without structure or support can become theory, and any theory without proof can become law, even in the presence of doubt. Any law, therefore, as malleable as metal, can be shaped to the desire of man, rather than being a steadfast and universal truth. Again, I look to religion to present an example. The Church of England (or Anglican Church) was in part born out of one “king’s” desire to change the law for his own selfish benefit. Now, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the changes that were made, it demonstrates the brittle nature of the people, the laws, and the systems that we allow to govern us. Although a more concerning realization may be that it exposes the malleable nature of religion itself. Can we trust that today’s sermons are still derived from the word of God when man has done his fair part to mold it to his own liking? But I digress.

Ask yourself, can you truly put your faith and trust in the government that represents you today? Think, at the time of America’s birth, politicians, men of status, and even those without, scribed and published pamphlets delivering profound opinions and ideologies. While I am certain they had their faults, they hid them well. Now today, a President writes tweets whining about the scrutiny he endures at the hands of the free press and the people over whom he presides, as though scrutiny was not an original intent of democracy. I only fear that if we shall continue on this path, that like many civilizations and empires before us, we shall fall to the pages of the history books, headlined by the ever so popular scripture “how the mighty have fallen.” During election season, the only thing louder than the people’s cries for change is the volume of the lies and false promises offered in response. And because we refuse to learn and to realize that switching back and forth between political parties does not represent change at any meaningful level, we continue to cry again and again, four years at a time. My only intent here is to alert us to this fact, to educate us, and to present an alternative for change.

We are not flawed because we are different, and we are not flawed because our differences may sometimes divide us. In fact, I’d argue that our differences are meant to divide us, but just as much, they are meant to bring us together. For those in disagreement, ponder this. Do you think that similarities always make for an amicable relationship between similar people? Have you never seen similarities divide people, even tear them apart? There is none better when comparing similarities and differences. They both have the intrinsic ability to strengthen our bonds, providing a medium to improve our lives. I submit that we are flawed because we are too many to be one, too many to be truly united as a single entity.

As it is not in my nature to be overly longwinded, I shall conclude. The United States is comprised of fifty states that are well capable of flourishing on their own as fifty individual nations. I am not proposing a dismantling of the unity that exists among the states, for there is yet strength within that unity. I am simply proposing that the strength that exists within that unity is, at the moment, compromised by the size of the population, the breadth of the nation, and the clear and present divide among its people. I propose a preservation of the unity, but a preservation as independent nations rather than as states of a single nation, giving the population the opportunity to group themselves into smaller factions and thus, by dividing the population, we reduce the extent of the ideological division among them and bring forth positive growth and progress towards building a better future.