Reconsidering White Privilege

The murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and the subsequent acquittal of the perpetrator George Zimmerman sparked a conversation that had long been abandoned: race relations in the United States. At the time, I hoped that the aftermath of the Martin tragedy would, at least, serve to revitalize this important national debate and allow people to examine their own beliefs, as well as our institutions and how those impact race-relations and racism in modern America. Unfortunately, the opportunity to talk about race was forgone for reasons I do not quite understand. Most probably the news media moved on to another controversial and sensational issue, and the mainstream forgot and went on with our lives.

But not everyone forgot, and so Michael Brown’s death at the hands of a police officer in Ferguson, MO, set the conversation aflame. Much has already been written and said about Ferguson and Eric Gardner’s death in NYC, as well as about the protests that follow. Therefore, in this post I do not wish to dissect race-relations in a general sense or pen what has already been articulately stated by those far more steeped in this matter than I. Instead, I want to focus on what has become a household term: “white privilege.”

The operational definition of white privilege I will use in this post is taken from Mount Holyoke‘s website:
“White privilege is a set of advantages and/or immunities that white people benefit from on a daily basis beyond those common to all others. White privilege can exist without white people’s conscious knowledge of its presence and it helps to maintain the racial hierarchy in this country […] White privilege is about not having to worry about being followed in a department store while shopping. It’s about thinking that your clothes, manner of speech, and behavior in general, are racially neutral, when, in fact, they are white. It’s seeing your image on television daily and knowing that you’re being represented. It’s people assuming that you lead a constructive life free from crime and off welfare. It’s about not having to assume your daily interactions with people have racial overtones.”

Of course privilege is complicated. White women, for example, may enjoy the benefits of whiteness but still face discrimination and violence because of our gender. Poor white folks are also at the bottom of the rung, suffering from poor access to basic needs such as quality food and proper healthcare. Privilege, therefore, is compounded by race, gender, orientation, religion, physical and mental disabilities, wealth, and the list surely goes on. All of that does not nullify the fact that black folks and other people of color are subject to racial profiling, job discrimination, etc.,

My issue with the term white privilege is twofold. I find it hard to understand why we view equality before the law and basic human dignity as a “privilege.” Those things scholars and cultural commentators say white folks have are things we take for granted, because we should. The use of the term privilege to describe aspects of everyday life is confusing, and (in my humble opinion) contributes to the rejectionist attitude many have about this issue because they cannot come to terms with the idea that not being randomly frisked by a police officer is a “privilege”. The very word “privilege,” therefore, makes it difficult for those who have it to contend with it.

This leads me to the other problem I am having with the term: it focuses on white people instead of race relations. While those who use “white privilege” claim it is not belligerent or meant to offend whites, the reality is that it does. Constantly bombarding white people with this enormous guilt, the guilt of enjoying what we consider essential rights enjoyed by all, is pejorative. It also takes away from what’s really at stake here, which is not what whites have but what others don’t have. We should be discussing the absence of equality and how to bring about reform and true progress, instead.

One of my literary idols, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie said in an NPR interview that, “So I realize that there is white guilt in the U.S., but I don’t think it’s very helpful. I don’t know if that makes sense. I mean, I think that maybe what American blacks and American whites should take away from the table is the idea of personal responsibility.” She is absolutely correct: feeling bad about the skin you were born into is no help to anyone. Making whites hyper aware of our excess rights, which are actually just rights, leaves black folks no better than they were before. Whether or not we acknowledge that being white is advantageous will not prevent the next Trayvon or Eric from happening. Talking about the inequality people of color experience and coming up with creative ideas on how to alter the reality, will.

This is not to say white privilege is a term devoid of truth, but it seems that it is too alienating, too polarizing, too guilt-inducing; so much so that it pushes away potential allies and focuses the national debate on the wrong thing. Let us instead discuss the experiences of non-whites, research their roots, and discuss ways to address the disparities do that we can all be part of a better, more equitable world.

It’s Time to Rethink Gun Laws

Firearms legislation has been a hot issue over the past several decades in the US, and has grown ever more debated and relevant this past year.

Last summer, I was in my apartment in Manama, Bahrain, when I learned about the shooting at the Dark Knight Rises premiere in Aurora, Colorado. The assailant murdered 12 and left 70 injured.  Later that year, amidst the frenzy of finals, my peers and I heard about the infamous Newtown shooting that claimed 28 innocent lives. Later, George Zimmerman’s trial reminded us all of the tragic consequences capricious, wanton, gun use. As if that is not enough, last Friday an Australian student was shot dead in the middle of the day in Oklahoma by a group of minors, who thought killing a man was a way to relieve their boredom. These are merely a few of the abundant examples of gun violence in our country.

Friday’s tragedy, or rather travesty, has prompted Australian Deputy Prime Minister to make the following statement: “People thinking of going to the USA for business or tourist trips should think carefully about it given the statistical fact you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than in Australia per capita per million people.” (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma)

Indeed, the chances of dying in a shooting in the US are pretty high. In 2012 alone there have been at least 14 mass shootings, according to the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/us-mass-shootings-2012/.

As an individual who is dedicating her career to the peace, security, and prosperity of the United States, I cannot stand for this. Something has got to give.

Following George Zimmerman’s acquittal, President Obama stated that we should ask ourselves “if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence.” The answer is evidently a resounding NO. A no that how now co Christopher Lane his life. How many more will it take for us to wake up and smell the coffee? It is time to take action.

The evidence supporting stricter gun control is overwhelming. Countries like the UK and Australia have created and enforced stringent gun laws and as a result have suffered far less violence in their borders. And yes, I would consider their respective societies perfectly liberated.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment alone does not constitute justification for perpetually maintaining our ridiculous gun laws. Like other, outdated, rules the 2nd Amendment was authored at a different era, a different context. At the same time, the framers of the Constitution thought it sound to allow slavery; we certainly do not abide by that ruling anymore. Certain aspects of it, such as freedom of speech, are immutable. But others must be examined in their proper historical context. Clinging to mere word is much like reading Hemingway without knowing he participated in WWI. It is a reading that lacks depth.

In summation, I implore our law makers to work towards drafting new gun legislation. Legislation that fits our needs today, in the 21st century. Legislation that addresses the evil of gun violence, which plagues our nation.

Sacred Pages: A Review

This weekend some friends and I went to see the new Sacred Pages: Conversations About the Qur’an exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts. After experiencing it for myself, I have to say, if you live in the Boston area do yourself a favor and go see this exhibit. It’s fantastic.

Here is why I loved it:

1. It’s beautiful. The exhibit features pages from antique Qur’ans crafted in Iran, North Africa, and everywhere in between. Created in diverse region and different eras, each Qur’anic page was uniquely crafted, written in various, gorgeous, forms of calligraphy. The beauty of the calligraphy and designs is alone enough reason to go and view the show.

2. It puts the Qur’an (and therefore Islam) in context. Lets face it, Islam has been getting a bad rep, especially in the last decade. The prejudice is fueled by widespread ignorance about how diverse, nuanced, and complex Islam is. A lot of this has to do with the fact that most people here about the Qur’an and Islam only when Bin Laden types cite portions of the sacred text to justify their evil deeds. Those of us who study Islam know that citing bits and pieces of the Qur’an without providing any sort of context is misguided at best. Therefore there is a clear need to educate people the religion of Islam, and this exhibit really helps. How? Each page on display was favorited by a member of Boston’s Muslim community along with an explanation of what the verse or the holy book means to them. This, in turn, shows that the Qur’an has more than one meaning and the this meaning is more often than not personal, spiritual, and profound; it humanized the religion and shows its true colors, which most people sadly do not get to see.

3. It is thought provoking. I have found that encounters with sacred texts, whatever religion they pertain to, get me thinking. These scriptures are rich with philosophy and spirituality, therefore in reading them I find myself in need to evaluate the truths they propose. Whether I agree with the values or ideas I encounter, I learn something about myself and my inner world is enriched.

So, what are you waiting for?

My Problem with the Rolling Stone Cover

Everyone has heard by now about the (in)famous Rolling Stone cover, featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the fire it has been drawing (in case you need to catch up: http://popwatch.ew.com/2013/07/17/rolling-stone-boston-marathon-bomber-cover/). From ordinary citizens to Mayor Menino have criticized the magazine for glamorizing the young terrorist and his acts.

On the other hand, some have argued that it is important for the public to know Tsarnaev’s story and therefore Rolling Stone is not in the wrong here.

I was born in Brookline, and for the past 4 years Boston has been my home. My mother matriculated from BU, my father lived here his whole life, and many of my relatives still reside here. No matter how much I curse the MBTA, I love Boston and it has been a huge part of my life. Furthermore, before moving here, I lived in Israel- a terrorism stricken land. For years, Boston has been my personal safe haven.

On April 15th, 2013 Dzhokhar and his brother destroyed that safe haven. More importantly, they murdered three innocent people, and maimed and traumatized hundreds of others. What they did, whatever the reason is beyond deplorable and I hope they burn in hell, pardon my French.

Despite my profound personal hatred for the Tsarnaev brothers, I agree that Dzhokhar’s story needs to be heard. It is important for scholars of terrorism, myself included, to understand what motivated people to commit such atrocities. Furthermore, I concur with one of my former classmates, who explained: “The cover photo itself, in my opinion, also effectively forces us to reconcile Tsarnaev’s horrible crime with his boyish looks and laid-back affect.” (http://registan.net/2013/07/18/rolling-stones-tsarnaev-and-public-outrage/). Indeed, we need to understand that looks have no impact on an individual’s ability to commit heinous acts, such as terrorist attacks, and terrorists do no look a certain way, as many people still believe. To clarify, this is not paranoid, terrorist-on-every-corner, statement; instead, this is to say that, contrary to popular misconception, not all terrorists share physical characteristics of choice of garb.

Still, I take issue with what Rolling Stone did. For one thing, I cannot help but believe this is a huge publicity stunt, albeit a cynical outlook. Certainly, the editor knew a controversial cover would be the talk of the town, which sells magazines. In that sense, I feel like these folks are cynically using a national tragedy to make a buck. Maybe I am wrong about their intentions, but that is kind of how it comes off (at least in my view).

Another thing I find disturbing is the fact that the Tsarnaev interview on the cover story, and Dzhokhar is made to look like a dreamy rock star on it. I have read enough fashion magazines in my life to know how much effort, in make-up, hair, and styling, goes into making celebs look good on the cover. To think that Tsarnaev got the VIP treatment after what he did, when the heroes of the tragedy get this spit on their faces, is hurtful.

It is also an unfair and unrealistic portrayal of Tsarnaev. The excess of glam-up done to create this cover does not show him as ordinary looking, which he is, but as a celebrity. If Rolling Stone was trying to demonstrate that anyone, no matter how “normal” looking, could turn into a murderer, they could have added regular photos of him as part of the article instead of sprawling him on the cover after a Ryan Gosling makeover.

Not only is the magazine providing a false depiction of Dzhokhar, they are also validating his actions. What it is telling terrorists and criminals is “hey, if you don’t die while committing heinous acts, you will be a superstar!” That is not a message I am comfortable with.

The bottom line is that this story had great potential. Ann Rule wrote a biography of Ted Bundy, Josh White of the Washington Post interviewed Lee Boyd Malvo (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-29/local/35495518_1_malvo-and-muhammad-lee-boyd-malvo-sniper-shootings), there is nothing new about authors and journalists getting into the heads of monsters and publishing their findings. It is not only normal for us to want to know why, it is necessary. Analyzing criminals’ motives and road down the path of evil can help us comprehend and possibly prevent crime. The difference between legitimate, professional work on such cases and what Rolling Stone did is presentation. The editors could have found a more tasteful and respectful way to advertise the story, thereby making it spark meaningful conversations about terrorism’s roots rather than empty controversy.

Justice For Trayvon, and America

I want to start this post with a confession: I am angry about how the Martin murder trial turned out. It pisses me off that a killer, who clearly demonstrated he has no qualms about using lethal force, has been set free while a 17-year-old is six feet under.

That being said, there are some things we as a nation can take away from this tragedy to try and improve our laws and society. This post will propose that the events leading to Martin’s death were propelled by racism, and justice could not be attained due to flaws in the legal system.

First, how race is involved in the case: Trayvon Martin, armed with iced tea and skittles, was walking in George Zimmerman’s gated community. At this point, Zimmerman reports Martin to the police as a “suspicious person” (see: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts). Now, here is where racism comes into the picture; it is hard to believe that if Trayvon was white that Zimmerman would have even considered him to be anything unusual. One of my Facebook contacts put this aptly in saying that both Martin and Zimmerman are victims of a society where racist notions remain prevalent. Fueled by racial profiling, which happens all the time, Zimmerman was more inclined to believe that Martin was up to no good. In that sense, Zimmerman is a symptom, not the disease. 

This is something we must address. It is time we all stop pretending we are a post-racial society and start being one. Initially, my reaction to the verdict was that we need to talk about race; I rescind that statement- we need to change the paradigm. It is time we desist from thinking in “us” and “them”, we are all Americans. We are all human beings. If what we look like does not matter, let us cease from acting like it does. Perhaps that requires some talking, some addressing of the issue, but as long as we continue to talk about race as if it is matters or is even real and consequential, we are all contributing to the problem.

Now, after reporting Trayvon’s presence in his neighborhood, Zimmerman was told by the police to go home. Why he disobeyed, is truly beyond any of us. Furthermore, what exactly occurred between him and Martin will forever remain a mystery.

What is not a mystery is the other level of injustice in these events: the way Florida’s laws are written. I am no legal scholar, but it seems that the “Stand Your Ground” law is an open invitation for people to seek out violent altercations. According to the law, even if one initiates the act of aggression, he may respond with lethal force if “such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant” (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/).

This set an impossible standard for the prosecution! Florida’s Attorney General had to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not feel that he was at risk of harm. Of course, bringing hard evidence of someone’s threat perception is nearly unattainable. Thus, although we know for a fact that Zimmerman instigated the events, and that he shot and killed an unarmed minor, the law deems him not guilty.

Hence, I would argue that the trial itself was not motivated by race, nor did the jury acquit Zimmerman due to some bias or bigotry. They were simply applying the law. But the law is horrifying.

I firmly believe in self defense; but self defense ought to require the defender to be attacked without provocation. But this is clearly not the case; Zimmerman stalked and approached Martin, Zimmerman instigated a fight, and then when Martin fought back he killed him…. Zimmerman was looking for a fight, and he got one. Somehow, it seems unfair that he walks away unscathed.

This irresponsible law is not just an offense to Trayvon, or the African-American community, it is an affront to all of us. As it stands, Joe can throw a punch ant Jim, and then shoot Jim when the latter tries to hit him back, if he believes himself to be in danger.

In conclusion, I do not think Trayvon’s murder is a “black” issue. Yes, his murder had racist overtones, but the injustice belongs to all of us. We should all be upset about what happened and aspire to bring a measure of justice to these events.  It is my hope that we learn and grow from this experience. Trayvon Martin will never get justice, but can bring him and his loved ones closer and peace if we address the issues that led to his death and to the outcome of his murder trial, and preventing the next tragedy.

From the Heart

“When you are not with me, I sometimes resemble a fish put live in a skillet,

writhing its little cooking time left, or the empty eyes of graffiti faces, or

a house with no one home. Other times, my love for your soul spreads out over

the city like music. Quadrant to quadrant the jeweled tambourine feet move, palace

to ghetto. The cultured, the craftsman, the slave, all begin to hum and sing this.”

– Tambourine Feet, Rumi (translated by Coleman Barks; appears in The Glance, Penguin Compass: London, 1999).

I read this lovely, gem of a poem while working out at the gym today. At first, it made me think of those people in my life who I yearn for dearly and who are far from my reach. Thinking about my own love, made me think about the concept of love in general and what Rumi might have meant in this poem.

I cannot possibly know for sure, having never met Rumi, but I believe the beloved in this poem is G-d. This is based on the fact that Rumi was, among other things, a great Sufi mystic and spiritual guide. Reflecting upon this thought, I realized something else- my love for people on Earth is by no means divorced from love of G-d or Ethereal; in fact, they are one and the same!

All things on Earth, people, plants, and animals, are all manifestations of the Divine, and therefore love and appreciation of creation is love for the Creator.

This means that really, we are all connected: cutting down forests is cutting away our spirits, beating a dog is hitting our hearts with a stick, and harming one another is extinguishing our souls. And all of these are an offense to the Divine.

DOMA, Democracy, and Rights

About a year ago, I promised myself to stay away from discussing highly divisive social issues, which in my view have become polemical wars instead of intelligent debates. However, there is one aspect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to knock down DOMA that I feel compelled to write about.

Before I go into this, I would like to clarify a few things. Per my own position, I support LGBQT rights. Quite simply, two adults wishing to enter a marriage contract of their own free will are not hurting anyone, be they two guys, two gals, or man and woman. Though I hold this belief strongly, I am also passionate about the Constitution and the right to freedom of opinion and speech. Therefore, while I utterly disagree with those opposing same-sex marriage, they have a right to their convictions.

Thus, this post is not about whether the Supreme Court’s decision was “moral” or not. At the end of the day, morality is an individual, emotional issue and not something I plan to pass an elaborate judgement on here.

After the decision came out, I spoke to individuals who criticized it not for its content, but because in striking down Prop 8 the Supreme Court took away the people’s rights. Those making this argument claim that on such a charged issue, it is not for the judicial branch to make the final call, but for the people. In fact, they claim, the Supreme Court acted undemocratically.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this claim.

A true democracy is not simply mob rule, or the implementation of the majority’s will. A viable democracy, among other things, is also founded on the pillar of protecting minorities. Let me provide a hypothetical to demonstrate this point: if tomorrow, the majority of non-Jews in this country decided Jews could only live in New York and LA, would we be okay with that? Should such a bill be lawful merely because the masses think it so? If you find this suggestion repugnant, why not the ban on same-sex marriage?

Innocence

I used to dislike novels like The Catcher in the Rye, which discussed the idea of innocence lost. In a way, I have always felt myself a serious person, one not so worried about growing up and being ushered into the adult world. In fact, I had a hard time sympathizing with characters that wanted to stay childlike and innocent, I really just did not get them- growing up, being exposed to the meaner things of life, and losing our innocence are all just parts of our natural journey. This is just how it is.

As a teen reading Holden Caulfield’s fear of adulthood and analyzing it as fundamentally erroneous, I actually think I was profoundly sober and rational. Indeed, I still stand firmly behind my conclusion (albeit far to premature). Yet, this weekend, a random thought challenged my own harsh judgement towards the loss of innocence fears.

I was in a park with some friends, we had been walking around so I laid down on the soft grass and stared at the night sky. It was a hot summer day, so the view was especially clear, the stars perfectly visible. As my mind started to drift, I remembered that when I was little I believed stars were the souls of those who passed away. I would look up, and “find” my uncle who died after a 7 year long coma.

Thinking about it now, in my 20s, I realize how naive and innocent I was as a kid. And I kind of miss that, the ability to believe wholeheartedly in dreams, silly as they may be. My childhood notions about the stars especially resonated with me, after losing my beloved grandmother last year.

My grandma was like a second mother, a person who loved me unconditionally and cared for me, and a paragon of kindness and generosity who instilled positive values in me. I lost her last year after not having seen her in a year and a half. I miss her terribly and so there is a part of me that wishes I could believe she is a star, just a sunset away.

 

Female Tropes, Progressive Hopes

This morning, my Facebook newsfeed featured an article discussing the “manic pixie dream girl”, by Laurie Penny (reference: http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/06/i-was-manic-pixie-dream-girl). Intrigued by my friends’ interest in the piece, I read it and was challenged to think about the portrayal of women in mainstream culture.

Ms. Penny argues that female characters often get not only a secondary role, but are largely underdeveloped as human beings. In the case of the manic pixie dream girl, the character is merely there to help the male lead figure out his life and place in existence, maybe help him embrace the beautiful things in this world. As Penny concludes: “Men grow up expecting to be the hero of their own story. Women grow up expecting to be the supporting actress in somebody else’s.”

There is a lot of truth in what Penny is saying about how women, or rather girls, are depicted in cultural outlets. She is also correct to assert that “Stories matter. Stories are how we make sense of the world”; as Oscar Wilde aptly put is in The Decay of Lying “life imitates art.” I could not agree more- what we imagine is so incredibly important to who we are, how we live, what we aspire to.

However, I would argue that Penny’s article is somewhat anachronistic. Not to say that all misogyny is gone from the world, or even the United States. Far from it. But I would argue that as far as depictions of women go in literature, television, and film, we have already come a long way. Take, for example, my all-time favorite show: Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. The show’s lead is not just a hero, who comes to the rescue of her friends and even boyfriend, but also a complex person with a lot of flaws. And this is a show my generation, or at least parts of it, grew up with. In other favorite shows we also see female leads who are not defined by their relationships with men, like Olivia Benson in SVU, or Olivia Pope in Scandal (I mean, her romantic relationships matter, but they are not the single driving force in the show, nor do they put her on a pedestal)- and these are very much mainstream shows.

Depending on the content and aim of the show or book, we will see varying portrayals of women. In shallow movies, the purpose of which is entertainment, you are likely to see girls without a whole lot of personality, faults, or quirks. But the truth is there are abundant counterexamples, and enough realistic depictions of women that I can sleep well at night.

Thoughts on Academia

I have been a resident of Boston, a lovely and historic city, for about four years now, not to mention the summers I have spent here during my teenage years. Yet, it never occurred to me to go and really dig in to the city’s history, see everything there is to see, like I did in Bahrain, Morocco, or DC. Reading David McCullough’s 1776 truly made me realize what I was missing out on. In the book, I came across the Longfellow House, the estate George Washington occupied while battling the British forces in New England. Though it did not surprise me that he took residence here, it was not until reading that book that I fathomed how I can connect with the country’s history in my own back yard.

Being an American history enthusiast, I set off to Cambridge the first chance I got to get a tour of Washington’s Boston headquarters. Crossing the beautiful garden on a marvelously humid New England day, I was awed by the stunning colonial architecture of the Longfellow House.

Once inside, I signed up for a tour, eager to hear all about Washington and the days of the Revolution. Much to my surprise, the guide immediately stated that the house’s namesake, poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807-1882), not 1776, would be the focus of the jaunt.

I abashedly profess that I knew little if anything about Longfellow before that day, despite the fact that he was the most popular poet of his day and one of few poets to make a fortune off of their poetry. At the end of the tour, the guide finally talked Longfellow’s role in academia, or lack thereof. As it were, many members of the literary community, of the ivory tower, do not see it fitting to include Longfellow in the literary hall of fame; academics criticize Longfellow largely because of his popularity! I have read scholars who believe his to be a minor poet, unworthy of substantive analysis or research.

As a recent graduate and a self-appointed scholar, I was deeply saddened to learn Longfellow’s work was thus reviled. At that point I had not read any of his poems, however, I found the notion of dismissing an artist because of their popularity in life repugnant. In essentially saying that if an artist is liked and understood by the general public they are unworthy, academics are saying that high quality art belongs only to the educated! How vile and elitist!

In Longfellow’s case, such an assumption does a great disservice both to the man and those of us today who are interested in American poetry. Having divorced Europe, the Americans had to find their own voice not only in politics but in culture as well. Longfellow was at the helm of forging a uniquely American culture, writing about the land, the natives, and contemporary issues such as slavery. Thus, I would argue Longfellow was a highly important and influential cultural figure. Moreover, his popularity in itself no doubt can tell tales about cultural trends, ideals, and the interests of people in that period. Therefore, studying his work can deliver important historical insights. For example, I was surprised to learn Longfellow wrote about Native Americans, including them in the cultural heritage of the United States; what does that mean about how Americans then viewed the Native culture and their relationship with America’s pre-colonial occupants? In addition to raising such questions, Longfellow’s work made me ponder the following: we often think of “our” culture dominating and even replacing the native one, but perhaps there is a considerable native influence? I do not have any answers to these questions, but I would certainly be interested in investigating them. Yet, the fact that studying Longfellow is snubbed by academics means that young scholars are unlikely to pursue such research, and that is a shame.

In addition to stealing cultural and historic treasures, the ivory tower’s criticisms of Longfellow have an ever more inimical implication, which I mentioned before: art is the exclusive property of the intelligencia. Art is a beautiful and glorious gift that should be shared with the world. If someone is talented and creates approachable work, they ought not to be shunned but praised for bringing more people closer to the transcendent, for provoking the masses to think about complex social issues or the human condition. In sum, it is time for the ivory tower to share the wealth and for scholars to open their minds, and think critically about their own antiquated and banal notions.