Our society has always faced divisions and divisiveness. What we face today is nothing new and has been brought to the surface by recent changes in public policy, as well as the election of Donald Trump. The country, though previously divided by events such as the Civil War, women’s rights movement, and gay marriage legalization, is now facing a great divide in light of recent events which were implicated as part of the election of, and policies set in place by Donald Trump. For example, currently Americans are split down the line on the issue of funding the proposed border wall; opposed, in fact, to the extent of a government shutdown for thirty-five days. It is not merely the wall that we are fighting about though, but the issue of public safety and citizen equality. In essence, Republicans are concerned that if we do not increase border security there will be a threat to the safety of American citizens; whereas Democrats are more concerned that without helping others, we are not that great of a country.
Robert Leonard brings up a riveting perspective in his essay Why Rural America Voted For Trump, regarding that the core philosophies of Democrats and Republicans are so intensely different, that it will be near impossible for the two to come to a resolution. He stated that Republicans see people as instinctively bad, while Democrats see people as instinctively good. I can see his point, and find it rather true. I would argue that most people I know, both Democratic and Republican, see that all people are good and bad.
Given results from the popular vote in 2016, we can see that the country is almost perfectly evenly divided into two parties, “Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote. Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.” (The Splinter, McDonough). J.D Vance brings up an excellent point that I believe is a key component to the divide. In his essay Hillbilly Elegy, Vance mentions an interaction with a classmate who clearly did not understand the views, struggles, or experiences of “the other side.” I believe that one major cause of the divide we are experiencing today is the lack of understanding, or refusal to learn and interpret the views and ideologies of others.
However, this divide has been obvious since 1776, starting with the Revolutionary War and the divide between the colonies and Great Britain. The country was ominously divided then and has been since. Though we have moved on from fighting about whether or not we should support declaring independence from Britain and form our own country, we have moved on to different and perhaps even more controversial topics of debate. For example, there was a dangerous divide between the north and south during the Civil War and the fight to end slavery. As well as the issues in the sixties around fighting for civil rights and equality. There have been many different sectors of division through the last few centuries, and outside of our country, dating back to the beginning of mankind and basic civilization.
Some may argue that America has gotten better since the ‘80s. In fact, during his speech at Howard University, President Barack Obama spoke about the improvements made in America since he graduated in the ‘80s. Others may declare that since the divide is so defined now, it is the beginning of a new type of divide; one that is more severe and exclusive of minorities. Though this is a valid point, I do agree that there is currently more discrimination against Hispanic individuals, than there is against African American people; whereas during the pre-civil rights movement time period there was profoundly more discrimination against African Americans than there was against Hispanics. Overall I would tend to disagree with that statement given that there has always been some level of discrimination against some marginalized group of people, and that discrimination has almost always shown itself with violent hatred and unsavory reactions to the mere existence of the minority.
Furthermore, I would integrate an argument played by Michelle Alexander in her book The New Jim Crow; Alexander uses an example of a young man who was incarcerated to illustrate her idea that the criminal justice system is racially swayed. In her introduction, Alexander states “Today, Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in America, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole,” though Alexander brings up a good point about racial inequality in the justice system, she fails to mention the context of Cotton’s incarceration, being that he mugged and shot a seventeen-year-old boy. I do think that Alexander has a valid point in her argument, however, failing to mention why Cotton was labeled a felon excludes the hard facts of the situation, and thus passes as deceiving. There is surely an issue with racism in the courts, and that is not okay, but using that specific case, and failing to explain the context, leads me to be weary of the rest of what she says. However, she does bring up a riveting point about how racism in prisons is a big problem. There are a number of cases of police brutality that never get justice, and there are a ton of innocent black men who get sent away. However, regardless of ethnicity, I personally believe that a person guilty of a violent or malicious felony should not hold the same rights as those who are not.
I would argue that since that divide has always been here in one form or another, it is still the same divide but wearing a different mask. I personally do not believe that we will ever be able to completely rid ourselves of that divide, because it is something that fuels us. I think that without protests, without activism, without disagreement, and even without violence, there would be no variety and therefore there would be no interest in bettering the standing of our country and its relationship with the world. I feel that civil unrest is necessary to breed progression, and given that there is no end to progression, removing the civil unrest could potentially bring a halt to the advancement of the country.
Regardless of the larger scale divide throughout the country, we can fight and resolve the divide on a smaller level, higher education. Gabriella Moro (Minority Student Clubs: Segregation or Integration) informs us about the self-segregation that is taking place in the very colleges that pride themselves as carriers of diversity. She states that having specific racial or ethnic groups on campus could be preventing diversification within the student body. Others argue that these culturally based groups create a safe and inclusive environment for minorities. I can see both sides of the discussion, and I discovered a resolution. I think that these clubs are beneficial for minorities, but also create a level of segregation on campus. By requiring all culturally based clubs to meet with each other once a month, we could create an environment where diverse students will interact with one another.
Danah Boyd makes a very enticing point to which I almost full heartedly agree with. Danah states that we can reach diversification if we make the effort. She claims that humans as a general, tend to self-segregate (i.e. the Mean Girls lunch table arrangements). She also states that institutions like colleges and the military are essentially enabling this relatively socially destructive behavior. For example, she reminds the reader that military personnel have dropped substantially since the ‘80s, and declares that this is in relation to the privatization of combat teams. The military is hiring private organizations to supply them with already trained, professional soldiers. Their reasoning behind this comes from their understanding that these pre-formed teams have the trust in each other that is needed to be successful on the combat field; however, Danah argues that because these soldiers are all so similar and already know each other, they never have to experience the diversification that comes from randomized troops. Danah also states that nowadays more and more college students are researching incoming freshman, finding who is the most similar to themselves, and asking to switch roommates with that person. This is voiding young adults of gaining the ability to communicate and work with a diverse field of individuals. I do agree with Danah that diversity is lacking and we should try harder to make it a priority, but I would argue that there is a certain je ne sais quoi located in the security of normality. So, I do think that we should definitely practice a more diverse lifestyle, but I don’t think it’s bad to have friends you “fit in with.” I feel that having that sense of normality can make the rest of life less draining and scary. But I can see both points, and honestly, I can’t say I am 100% for either.
However, I most certainly think that though there is a divide, each segment of the divide gets solved as they come. For example, one group may be fighting for equal work equal pay, and eventually win, but two years later another group will need to fight for better job opportunities for immigrants, and they must fight that battle until they achieve their goal. I think conclusion is needed, and the need to solve problems as they come will always be in a roller coaster of frequency and severity.
I believe that there has always been a divide to some extent. That divide may become larger or more defined at certain periods, or it may become smaller and less problematic, but overall, it is always there. Without disagreement there is nothing to agree on, without division, there is no point of democracy, and without hate, there is no need for love. I would certainly love to see a world in which there is no turmoil and everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya. I know that logically that is not possible. In history, we can see that there has not been a single moment without disagreement and division. From the Revolutionary War, to women’s rights, to civil rights, gay marriage, and abortion laws, there will always be something to divide us. I think that is necessary, I feel that if everyone agreed on everything, there would be no real point to a governmental system, voting, or legislation. I think that just like differences of opinion in a relationship help keep conversation alive, differences in opinion throughout the country help keep democracy and humanity alive. I do not think there is a way to resolve the divide we have, and honestly, I hope no one comes up with one. I feel that division is important. Without it, there is no real point in unity.
Works Cited
Alexander, Michelle “The New Jim Crow” Graff, Gerald, et al. They Say/I Say: With Readings. Fourth Edition. W.W. Norton, 2018. Pp 230-247
Leonard, Robert Why Rural America Voted For Trump Graff, Gerald, et al. They Say/I Say: With Readings. Fourth Edition. W.W. Norton, 2018. Pp 279-285
McDonough, Katie “Here Is the Final Popular Vote Count Of the 2016 Election Just in Case You Want To Feel Bad” https://splinternews.com/here-is-the-final-popular-vote-count-of-the-2016-electi-1793864349
Barack Obama Howard University Commencement Speech Graff, Gerald, et al. They Say/I Say: With Readings. Fourth Edition. W.W. Norton, 2018. Pp 296-314
D.J Vance “Hillbilly Elegy” Graff, Gerald, et al. They Say/I Say: With Readings. Fourth Edition. W.W. Norton, 2018. Pp 251-267
Double Sided 