A Cup of Tea with Thoreau and Machiavelli

I imagine Thoreau and Machiavelli sitting down for a cup of tea together as an utter disaster. Machiavelli would attempt to lay down his power by striking fear into Thoreau, maybe by offering him sugar for his tea and then dumping the whole thing into his cup. Thoreau then pushing his chair further away from the table in order to literally distance him self from the power and of course refusing to pay the bill at the end of this gathering. These two philosophers may not get along if they happened to know each other, but would their philosophies do the same? The similarities between Thoreau and Machiavelli's philosophies are purely structural--focusing on the relationship between the people and their leader; however their arguments are entirely opposite--how to govern your people correctly versus a how to guide on standing up against your government.

A government would not exist without it's people, so controlling the people with out upsetting them is a challenging task. This must be why these two philosophers chose to write on this subject. Thoreau wrote a guide for the people under the control of the government. His belief is that the people should control the government; it is a disgrace to him witnessing citizens experiencing a problem with their government, but merely putting up with it and moving on. He touches on his goal to change this in Civil Disobedience, specifically the end of the quote. "Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtable its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform."In Thoreau's philosophy he focuses of the everyday citizens end of the relationship with government argument. Contrary to Thoreau is Machiavelli who's main focus is on the governing power. He teaches us how to properly govern your people. Though Machiavelli is a little more dark in his approach, he has many steps in his process to make sure your people listen.  He talks about this relationship with the people while beginning to explain the use of cruelty to govern in The Prince. "Therefore a Prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty..." This small excerpt is a demonstration of his philosophy based on the government end of the relationship argument. This is how Machiavelli and Thoreau are alike: they both focus on the relationship between the people and their leader/government.

As you can pick up from my similarities argument turning from similar into not so similar, Machiavelli and Thoreau and very different in their philosophies. If I were to go on about all of the differences between the two this blog post would turn into a novel; so I will only touch on a few. Starting with Thoreau, who has a guide on being the people of the government and not letting them get away with injustice. To break it down he endorses reform, in his words he wants you to "Let your life to be a counter-friction to stop the machine." If you see a problem with our government or our world, he wants you to stand up for it and not be afraid to do everything in your non-violent power to end it. Even using himself as an example of being a nuisance to the government by not paying his taxes and being sent to prison for it. With Machiavelli, he has a guide as well, but instead to the governing of these people. He want's to maintain order in the nation. He feels that the best way to attain your power is by using fear and cruelty, but not so much that you are hated. Here he talks about how a good leader has to be deceiving. "Therefore it is necessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them." Machiavelli seems to throw away his morals when it comes to being a good leader while Thoreau works off of his morals. This is where they are different, in morality, which end of the government is more important, and rebellion versus maintaining order.

Thanksgiving Bonding

Break. Thats I can ever think about when thanksgiving comes along--well besides the delicious feast that I often times find my self dreaming about beginning in the early spring. I have been working non-stop through the beginning of the school year and having these extra two and half days off are all I look forward to since the first day of school. I finally get this prolonged time to relax, I can even take a day to do things for my self instead of worry about a new project or school work. Oh but wait it gets even better, not only do I get these days off, but my brother and my friends return home from college. All I think about leading up to this day of thanks are the memories of my brother and I watching movie marathons and catching up because this is the only day neither of us have an excuse to leave. I always go back to the first year it happened, sibling bonding. Besides the other fond memories I had of us getting a long for maybe an hour or so, I always enjoyed the warm sensation that tingles through your body as you bring back that one particular childhood memory. It was one thanksgiving day where we weren't fighting or anything (shocking), it was peaceful, and for the first time ever--Patrick came to me and asked me to hang out with him. It resulted in watching numerous episodes of South Park from his DVD set and telling each other about our lives until we were called down to help with dinner. It may seem silly and not much but it was the beginning of what began a sibling friendship and closeness that most siblings don't get to enjoy, or just often times a lot later in life.

U.S.-Pakistani Relationship Portrayal in The Reluctant Fundamentalist

            The U.S.-Pakistani relationship has never been a very good one. It only got worse after 9/11 when the American people became racist and began to get aggressively disrespectful to any Middle Eastern looking men and women. This was displayed in The Reluctant Fundamentalist in numerous ways and most interestingly through the eyes of a Pakistani. Because Hamid depicts the balance between the harsh racists and the more open-minded American’s such as Erica so well, it creates a primarily accurate portrayal of the fragile U.S.-Pakistani relationship as it was then and now.

            Hamid portrays two different types of American psyches following the 9/11 attacks. He illustrates the negative racism that occurred to many. This was shown when a stranger approached Changez, the main character, in a parking lot and “made a series of unintelligible noises—“akhala-malakhala,” perhaps, or “khalapal-khalapala”—and pressed his face alarmingly close to mine.” (117) The stranger’s friend then pulled him away telling him it wasn’t worth it, but as he was leaving the stranger yelled “fucking Arab.” This obviously angered Changez because he was Pakistani, not Arab and it was clear the man was making fun of his native language. This was very common at the time because the attack struck fear into so many civilians, which resulted in many of them channeling it into racism. Hamid also shows us both ends of the spectrum. He has Erica, who Changez crushes on, which is a very accepting young woman that is actually supportive of his homeland. Erica often tells him how she so much enjoys hearing stories of Pakistan. In fact Changez wears his long white cotton traditional Pakistani styled shirt to a dinner at her house because he knows how it would please her. Hamid made Erica as an accurate portrayal of America’s society that was accepting and understood that not every Middle Eastern man or woman was a terrorist so there wasn’t anything to be afraid of.

            Although Hamid was successful with most of the depiction of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, he still had some flaws. The main inaccuracy that I saw was Changez smiling at the attacks of 9/11. I know that these attacks did make those who weren’t so fond of America happy, but I don’t believe it would make those who became a product of America happy. Changez went to school in the U.S., worked in the U.S., and lived in the U.S. so I do not believe it would make someone smile the way he did at the falling of the towers which is in fact the area where he lives. Because this character is a symbol for a Middle Eastern native living in America during this rise of racism, it would also be wrong for this symbol to live up to these racist people’s expectations.

            Overall Hamid’s portrayal of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship was very accurate, so much so that it is still relevant to today’s current relationship. Although the number of racist based crimes and racism have gone down dramatically, there are still people out there who are very racist even to this day. That is why most Middle Eastern men and women chose to look very American. Similar to how Changez was asked by his boss to shave his beard because it was making people uncomfortable. This beard that is looked at as traditional in his native country was now looked at as an image of terror in his current country. Sadly this is often still the case today. Since the attacks happened so long ago people aren’t as scared and worried. We have evolved to become more civil and understanding like the novel illustrated with Erica, the symbol for America’s society.