Canadian Days: Friends at the Hostel

One of the most enjoyable aspects of staying at a hostel is meeting people you wouldn't normally meet. During my entire stay in Canada I stayed in a hostel and I made friends from around the world. I was even apart of a group of friends that hung out all the time--and almost all of us belonged to a different nationality. But one lamenting thing about hostels is the friendships you make in them tend to be short lived. This is for two reasons: 1. Most people only stay a couple of nights in hostels. 2. Once you go back to your native country you tend to be seperated by a vast distance from the people you befriended, which makes keeping up with them difficult. Since most people stay in hostels for a short period the friends I had was constantly shifting and changing. When one person would leave a new arrival would take their place.

One of the first people I befriended was a guy named Johnny, who was from Manchester, England. One night Johnny talked me into dancing on the dance floor at a club, which is a remarkable achievement, and anyone who knows me will understand what I mean. By nature I am a shy person, and I've always dreaded dancing in front of people. I feared--and I still fear--that my dancing skills would make a fool of me. People were egging me on to dance, and I expressed concern that I would look like a fool because of my mediocre dancing skills. "If you can dance real good then you probably have too much time on your hands," Johnny told me. That got me out on the dance floor. But Johnny took off to ski in Vancouver a couple of days later, and I never saw him again. A couple of weeks later I met a girl from Scotland in the hostel. She smiled at me and said "Hello. I'm from Scotland. My name's Jennifer. People call me Jen." This was the first thing that happened to me that day, and it was as if she was telling me she was going apart of the group of friends I had, and she eventually was. But unfortunately--like all people who stay at hostels--it came my turn to leave. This was not an easy to do. Right after I learned a hold was put on my credit card my friends approached me on a street corner smiling at me; they were glad to see me. But I had to break the hard news--more than likely I would be going home because I couldn't use my credit card. I could tell they wanted me to stay, but under the circumstances I thought the best thing to do was to go home since I had no job, little cash, no credit card and because three months of my six month work visa had passed. It was awkward, and I wish I could have stayed. When I left one thing that did run across my mind was who I wouldn't befriend because I was leaving.

Canadian Days: How I Got Rejected From Every Job I Applied For In Toronto

"But that one moment, that one line 'screamin' from beaneath the waves' crystallized this vision and became proof that the inner struggle, though unwinnable, is the only fight worth fighting."*


After I chucked up my job as a dishwasher I set my sights on Toronto.** Finally, I'd be leaving the dishroom, and what was better I'd be in Canada's cultural center instead of Danville. Unlike Danville Toronto had something to offer to everybody, and I was looking forward to finding a job that had something to do with what I liked instead of cleaning slop. I have always preferred working in a CD store, or a book store, or a movie theater if I had a low-paying job because music, books and movies are the things I'm interested in. In Danville it's hard to do this because the unemployment rate is high and because we only have one CD store, two book stores and two theaters. But I was sure I'd have plenty of opportunities to find employment at those types of businesses in Toronto since it was a big city; it was bound to have more employment opportunities. And I didn't worry about my six-month work visa being a problem either. My experience working low-paying jobs is that the turnover rate is high, and I was certain it was likely an employer would be willing to hire me for a short period of time. I could not have been more wrong.

Most of my time in Toronto was spent trying to find employment, and I did everything I could to get employed. At first I tried the walk-in method. I'd walk around the city in the bitter Canadian cold submitting my resume*** at different places, and I was usually told they weren't hiring or wouldn't hire me because of my six-month work visa. I remember one time when I submitted my resume at a Second Coffee the manager smiled, looked at my resume and noticed I was from the United States. My hopes went up. "Finally, maybe I've found a job and I can stay in Canada," I thought. Then I told him my work visa was good for four more months. That smile quickly disappeared and he sternly told me "Sorry, we can't do employment like that." Although I was getting rejected at a rate I had never experienced before I stubbornly persisted with the walk-in method. Surely in a big city somebody had to be out there who was willing to hire me. If I just stick with the walk-in method I'm bound to find employment. I finally changed my mind after I got blisters on my feet after playing soccer in a gymnasium. All that walking had worn my feet out, and I spent that night hobbling around the hostel I was staying at.

The next method I tried was looking for employment online. At the SWAP office**** I'd spend hours sending out resumes around the city, hoping that someone would take a chance on me. This was effective. I was able to get employers to interview me, but the result was the same--rejection. And I was rejected to the point of absurdity. I did find a business that was looking for a temporary employee to work the cash register, and the interview went well; and I was told they would contact me about the job. Again I got my hopes up. Maybe this would be the job that would keep me in Canada for the duration of my work visa. But when I didn't hear anything from them for several days I called back to check on my resume. The manager informed me the store owners had decided to ask back the girl they had fired.

After this I decided the sending-out-resumes-online method was not working. The only thing that was left to try was temping. One of my roommates, who had a five-month work visa, did this and he was able to find employment soon after he arrived in Canada. I had given my resume to a temp agency a couple of days after I arrived in Toronto, but I didn't hear anything from them, and I even submitted my resume twice. This time I decided to submit with a different temp agency. After about a week the agency did find me a job, but my cell phone was recharging when they tried calling me, and it was one of the few times I recharged it during the day. This was probably the biggest mistake I made while I was in Toronto. But that same day my credit card got canceled because of potential fraud use. At that point I had spent about three months in Canada--half the duration of my work visa. So since I had little cash, no job and now no credit card I decided to go back home.

Going back home was like an anti-climax; I had high hopes of finding employment in Canada. But hardly anybody was going to hire me because of my six-month work visa. Most employers figured if I was just going to be in Canada for six-months I wasn't worth hiring; and a six-month work visa was the longest visa I could obtain because of the SWAP agreement the United States and Canada have. I don't know why it's like that because having a six-month work visa makes finding employment hard. It's like fighting an up hill battle that can not be won. But somebody told me it was like that because the U. S. and Canada share a border; they're two countries that are close to each other, so they don't want people from the other nation taking jobs away from their citizens. But I have no regrets about going to Canada--even if I was bound to fail finding employment. I met alot of great people in Toronto and had a great time. If there is anything I learned from falling flat on my face in the bitter cold it's if you don't take any risks you won't get anything out of life, even if you fail.

*Liner notes from the Echo & The Bunnymen boxed set written by Wayne Coyne

**How I was able to have the legal right to seek employment in Canada is explained in "Restaurant Days: Routine Dishwashing."

***SWAP (Student Work Abroad Program) is the Canadian program that allows U.S. students to work abroad in Canada for up to six months.

****Most businesses in Canada only accept resumes, even if it's for a low-paying job.

Restaurant Days: Working the Grill at Wendy's

Another aspect of restaurants I have experienced is the fast-food restaurant. During the summer of 2004 unemployment was on the rise in Danville, and it was difficult finding a job anywhere. Wherever I went employers told me either they had no applications or weren't hiring. It was frustrating because there isn't alot of things to do in Danville. For most of that summer I spent most of my time trying to find ways to kill time until I returned to college. This mostly consisted of watching movies, lounging around, doing nothing and being bored. But when my dad was in a grocery store he saw an old acquaintance of ours, who I will call Tim. Tim and I used to play baseball together, and was now managing a Wendy's. My dad told Tim I was looking for a summer job and Tim told him to tell me to apply at his restaurant. He had a job for me if I wanted it.

A few days later I found myself working as a grill operator at Wendy's. It was not a job I relished. I had always hoped to avoid working in a fast-food restaurant because I don't support fast-food. I'm health conscious, and I had always maintained the only way I would ever work in a fast-food restaurant was if I needed the job, which was my situation at the time. Also, since I'm somebody who's attracted to things on the fringe of American culture I have always sought to avoid cliches, and a young person working in a fast-food restaurant is one of the most cliched images in America. It's so cliche it inspired someone to coin the term "McJob." But despite my objections flipping burgers in a fast-food restaurant was going to be my reality until I returned to school. I would indeed be joining the ranks of thousands of young people working a "McJob," and I didn't look forward to it.

Of course working fast-food was exactly how I expected it to be: fast paced and not a whole lot of fun. I had five duties as a grill operator: grill burgers, grill chicken, cooking potatoes, bringing the cooked potatoes up-front and bringing whatever people told me to get out of the fridge up-front. Since the purpose of fast-food is to serve ready-made food on demand I often had to do more than one thing at once, and this is the most aggravating aspect of working in a fast-food restaurant. Often when I was grilling somebody would demand I go in the back and get potatoes, or cook more potatoes, or get something out of the fridge. And I had to do all this as fast as possible so I could get back to what I was doing before. But this was often further complicated because once I finished some task--which I completed as fast as I could--somebody usually demanded for me to do something else, which further distracted me from my primary job; and the longer I stayed away from my post the more likely something was going to overcook. This--having to do more than one thing at once--creates alot of stress in a fast-food restaurant for everybody, and it is easy for people to get aggravated. One time when I was told to get something in the back one of my co-workers wondered where did the grill operator go with annoyance.

Another distasteful aspect was being a grill operator felt like being put through a fast-food boot camp. I suspect--although I don't know for certain--that the grill operator position is used as a way of testing first-time employees if they can handle the fast-paced nature and stress of a fast-food restaurant. This is because the grill operator is the most important job in fast-food culture. Most of the meals ordered at any fast-food restaurant will be burgers and chicken sandwiches, so a first-time employee needs to have some experience in this area. But since grilling food is the most important job at a fast-food restaurant it is the most challenging. As a grill operator you're taught to cook multiple burgers at once, and at any time you might have more than eight burgers on the grill. More than eight would seem like it would suffice customer demands at anytime, but this is erroneous thinking. During a busy time all those burgers on the grill won't be there for long; sometimes everything on the grill will disappear within five minutes. Sometimes people order double burgers and Wendy's also sold triple burgers. So if a person orders two triple burgers six burgers will disappear from the grill. And when anything disappears from the grill you have to replace it to keep up with customer demand. So if your not fast--or can't get fast--you will have a difficult time working the grill, and doing this for hours is exhausting, no matter how fast you are. The job also presented alot of mental challenges. All the raw burgers were soaked in blood, which meant getting my hands soaked in it. Every time I had to put my hands in blood I'd tell myself "It's just blood; it's not going to kill you." Also, soaking my hands in blood would remind me that what I was cooking something that was once alive and had been butchered for human consumption. At times this made the smell of cooking burgers and chicken seem nauseating. Also, cooking the remains of those animals required using grease, which presented another mental challenge. When I flipped a burger or flattened it with my spatula, the grease often splashed on me, burning me. I would stand there wondering what if that stuff got in my eyes? I imagined it would hurt alot, and maybe if it was hot enough I would suffer permanent eye damage.

I didn't stay for long at Wendy's. I stayed for about five or six weeks and then went back to college. Out of all the jobs I've had--and I have had alot of jobs--being a grill operator was the least enjoyable. I did appreciate what Tim did for me, but it doesn't surprise me that I didn't enjoy the job. It was filled with long, exhausting, boring hours and it was at odds with my personality. A friend once described me as being "sort of arty," and I have to agree with her. I've always found working at a record store, book store or theater appealing--things that have something to do with creativity. But working at a restaurant--any sort of restaurant--has little to do with creativity, unless you're a cook. And if there is anything I've learned from working in restaurants it's the sole purpose of any restaurant is to feed the public because sustenance is a basic human need, and for the most part that's all there is to restaurants.

Restaurant Days: Up On the Front-Line

At the restaurant I worked not only as a dishwasher, but I also got to work on the front-line for awhile. Working on the front-line was as different as can be from a dishwasher. It was much more interactive and it included more responsibilities. I took customer orders, fixed their drinks, refilled the silverware dine, got plates from the back, prepared tea and lemonade and fixed to-go salads and fries. In the back all I did was wash dishes, stack potatoes, take the trash out and occasionally bus a table (usually on the weekend when things were busy). Also, in the back I was sheltered from the patrons; the only way I could have any contact with them was if I bused a table or went outside to get a drink from the drink machine.

This, of course, meant both positions had advantages and disadvantages the other didn't. Although working up-front wasn't as monotonous it was more stressful, especially when things were busy. Danville is a church-going city and its a restaurant-going city too; we southerners love to go to church on Sunday and then chow down on a delicious meal afterwards. So on Sunday around noon people would pile into the resteraunt, and if you worked up-front this was a nightmare. When the steady stream of people would start to come in I knew I would be working incredibly hard for several hours straight with no rest. All I could look forward to was "being in the thick of it"--frantically trying to get customer needs met as quick as possible and trying to coordinate with my co-workers, which sometimes resulted in confusion. Going through this was like an intense workout, and I was always glad to get through it in one peace and always breathed a sigh of relief when things let up.

The advantage of working at the dishstation is obvious. It was less stressful; washing dishes was a simplier--but more disgusting--job. Also, since the back was sheltered from the customers I didn't have to worry about complaints. One time when I was working up-front a woman who ordered coffee fliped out on me because I touched a coffee mug around the rim. She reacted as if I was some sort of dispicable person walking the earth. But the back could get monotonous to the point of utter mental exhaustion. All I did was clean dishes, take trash out and stack potatoes while being surrounded by slop. It was almost like being trapped in some sort of insane existence, and I often longed for something to break the monotony. Another downside about being a dishwasher was getting wet and having direct contact with germs, which made me prone to sickness. While I was at the resteraunt I got sick three times within four months. Life up-front was a cleaner existence, and if I had to pick between the two--life as a dishwasher or life up-front--I would definitely chose up-front. This may surprise some people because it was more stressful. But it had the advantage of being clean and not being wet all the time (hence not getting sick as much); and if I had a preference I'd rather be clean and not wet all the time, which to me is a more sane existence.

Restaurant Days: Restaurant Culture

Taking a job as a dishwasher is not what alot of people would have expected me do after graduating college. At the university I distinguished myself academically. I was my department's 2005 Dean's Scholar--which is the highest academic award an undergraduate can achieve--and I belonged to three honor societies. Most people would have expected me to take a much coveted job. I remember when I told a friend I was washing dishes he gawked in surprise. But another reason why I took the job was because of my hero George Orwell. When Orwell lived in poverty in Paris he too took a job in a restaurant, and he described his experiences in detail in "Down and Out in Paris and London." I was curious to find out if what he wrote was correct about the culture of restaurants, and I found out that Orwell was right.

Orwell once wrote if you knew what went on in the back of a restaurant you would pause before eating there, and I couldn't agree with him more. Humans have a rich psychology; just thinking about something is enough to affect our behavior, and all restaurants know this. When you go to eat at a restaurant you expect to get good service and to have a good meal. You don't think about dirty dishes in the back because if you did you'd think twice about eating there, and most restaurants go to great lengths to conceal the back. The back stands in stark contrast to the front. The front of a restaurant is filled with sleek delicious looking meals and clean waiters. But the back is filled with slop filled plates and bits and pieces of food that weren't eaten. It is a disgusting site--like a pile of squashed insects that have had their organs and bodily fluids spewed all over the place. This is not what you want to think about when you are eating.

Orwell also accurately conveyed the hustle and bustle of a restaurant. All restaurants want to be punctual; they don't want to keep their customers waiting for a meal. As a result there is a culture of scowling in restaurants. What I mean by "scowling" is getting on someones case to get something done, and to get it done properly. For example, if a waiter thinks a cook is being too slow the waiter will complain to the cook to speed up. This is because the waiter knows if the cook is too slow the person who ordered the meal will likely complain about it to the waiter, who isn't responsible for the cooking. In a restaurant so much scowling takes place its almost as if everybody is on edge; the slightest thing can be enough to set someone off. When I worked at Wendy's a woman lost her temper because a co-worker was let off a few minutes early. Also, alot of scowling takes place at restaurants because of the fear of being robbed, and restaurants tend to be targets of robbery, especially after hours.

But Orwell did not describe everything I experienced in restaurants. One thing I've noticed about restaurants that he didn't describe is that the people working there often need the jobs. This is never mentioned in a restaurant, but many of my co-workers were content with their jobs. For them it wasn't something temporary, as was my situation. It was a job that would last for an indefinite period of time. Also, it is easy for co-workers who have different responsibilities in a restaurant to have conflict. This is largely because if something isn't being done by somebody it will affect someone else. There were many nights during closing when a particular cook would get on me about doing something that had to be done before the restaurant closed. Basically, he was telling me in so many words if you don't do what your supposed to do then I can't do what I'm supposed to do. And if I can't do what I'm supposed to do we'll never get out of here.

Restaurant Days: Routine Dishwashing

When I got back from England last summer I faced a dilemma: get a job at a newspaper or seek employment in Canada. When I was in England someone gave me the brochure for BUNAC, a work abroad program for college students and recent graduates, and I qualified for a Canadian open work visa that lasted six months. I opted to go to Canada because I wanted to continue working abroad (in England I had interned at a record label) and because it might have been my only chance to go to Canada; and I had wanted to visit that country for a long time. I decided to leave for Canada the following January. That way I would have enough time to plan things out; I didn't want to rush into it. But that left me with alot of free time on my hands, which isn't a good thing in Danville, Virginia because there isn't alot of things to do here. So I decided to get a job to keep me busy until I left.

I found employment as a dishwasher at a popular restaurant in Danville. This was a complete turn around from the previous job I had. In England I spent my time doing online marketing for Fat Records, a breakbeat* label located in south London. My days there were spent trying to make as many friends for them for their Myspace web-site as I possibly could, and being saturated in breakbeat music. My co-workers would play that stuff all day long. Everyday I'd sit at a computer, surfing the web looking for the homepages of people who loved breakbeat music, while the breakbeat played on in the background. Now I'd be in the back of a restaurant cleaning the remnants of meals.

Washing dishes was exactly what I expected it to be too--disgusting. It is a monotonous job filled with nothing but cleaning slop and getting wet. At the restaurant we had a platform where all the dirty dishes would pile up, and this stood is stark contrast to the sleek, delicious-looking meals that were being served to the public. Back at the dish station you'd see all sorts of disgusting liquids oozing and dripping from plates. Looking at this was like looking at a squashed insect; all sorts of pieces of left over food would be left on those plates--as if somebody had destroyed something that was once living, and all that was left were misplaced organs and nasty liquids. The dishes usually stank from the mixture of different liquids too, just like a squashed insect.

After the dishes were put on the platform we had to knock off any left over food into one of two trashcans (one of which was under the platform). Those two trashcans would fill up with all sorts of disgusting stuff--half eaten chicken legs and steak, wet napkins, gravy, peas, ranch dressing, etc. After awhile a mound of slop would accumulate, and looking at this often made me think "What if you ate that stuff," which is what I didn't want to think but I couldn't help it. You would think that just looking at that stuff would be enough to make anyone not think about eating. But sometimes my co-workers would snatch pieces of food off the dishes--particularly food that looked like it hadn't been touched--and eat it while being surrounded by slop. I interpreted this as simply being apart of dishwashing culture, although I wouldn't do it. Then we'd stack the plates on a tray, spray the plates off with a hose, send the tray with the plates through a huge washing machine and after the plates went through the machine we'd put the plates on a tray for the people up-front to bring up front. This is what I would do for hours on end for little appreciation and for little reward. Sometimes when I was stuck in this monotonous routine I'd think to myself "I will be so glad when I get to Canada."

*Breakbeat music is a sub-genre of techno

Some Unique Canadian Things

Earlier this year I spent some time in Canada, a country I had wanted to visit for a long time. I qualified for a six-month working holiday visa, and stayed in Toronto for three months before coming home. I wasn't able to find employment, unfortunately, but while I was there I discovered that the question "What defines Canada?" is dubious to some Canadians. When I was in Toronto I stayed at a hostel, and one of my roommates was Canadian. When I asked him what made Canada unique he groaned. "Oh, God...," he said with annoyance. Also, I had read Canadians tend to be sensitive to the question. This was reinforced when I saw Douglas Coupland's "Souvenir of Canada," a documentary about what he thinks are things that define the Canadian character. At the beginning of the film Coupland states that he had been thinking about what made Canadians Canadians for a long time--as if it were a perplexing problem. Although I was only in Canada for short time I do believe there are things that are uniquely Canadian. Here are some of them below:

• Poutine (Fries covered in gravy and cheese)



• French and English are official languages in Canada



• It has a French speaking province (Quebec)
  


• Canada is sparsely populated
  


• Alot of Canada is wilderness



• Most people in Toronto are polite



• The seasons tend to exist in the extremes



• Most Canadians live within 200 miles of the Canadian/U.S. border
  


• Canada is the second largest country in the world



• Alot of movies and television shows are filmed in Canada, particularly in Toronto and Vancouver
  


• Timothy's Coffee, Tim Hortons and Second Coffee



• Hockey



• David Cronenberg



• The Tragically Hip



• The pervasiveness of the term "eh"



• The CN Tower

There's no doubt the list can be extended beyond this, but since I was only in Canada for a short time my knowledge of the country is limited. But I wonder why some Canadians consider the question "What defines Canada" to be dubious. If I were asked what defines the United States a number of things immediately come to mind: it's the world's only great power, it exerts an enormous amount of cultural influence, it likes to innovate, it's a big country, it's a very religious nation, etc. The list of things that define the U. S. seem endless. But it might be because Canada shares a common culture with the U. S. I know there are things about Canada that are peculiar to Canada (like poutine), but I know if most Americans went to Toronto--which is Canada's cultural center--they would say its no different than the U. S. Since the U. S. is the only great power in the world and historically has been a huge innovator all the western nations are bound to be influenced by it, especially Canada since it shares a border with it. But ironically this attitude--being sensitive to the question of what defines Canada--may be another thing that is uniquely Canadian.

The Good Life and Self Magazine

If there's a philosophical question most people are concerned with it's What is the good life? Out of all the questions that have been asked in life--and there has been quite alot of them--this one has been given more thought than any other, even more than the question of God. The reason why is obvious: we pursue happiness by nature--and everyone can relate to the never ending quest to achieve it.

But no one has ever been able to give a definitive answer to this question because what makes each one of us happy varies from one person to the next. But that hasn't stopped people from trying, especially popular culture. My mom has a monthly subscription with Self magazine, a magazine aimed at young professional women. I don't know how my mom got a subscription with this sort of magazine because she's senior aged and wouldn't be interested in the subjects Self focuses on. She was probably thrown into a certain demographic that was likely to like the magazine. But the focus of the magazine is how to be happy; it's loaded with articles about how to improve relationships, sex, fashion and fitness. These are the four major themes of the magazine, and although the editors and writers at Self may not know it this is what it promotes as the good life, and I have no doubt many young women are influenced by these ideas.

Whenever I peak at Self I can't help but feel a sense of alienation, which doesn't surprise me. After all, it is a mainstream women's magazine, and reading it is like walking through a woman's universe. But whenever I feel this sense of isolation I have a sense of feeling alienated from the culture at large. Self magazine is concerned with alot of things I don't relate to, but I know alot of young professional women do. The only thing I do relate to in the magazine is its emphasis on health and fitness. Sometimes I have wondered if Self's values are superficial. But everything about the magazine is not bad. The attention given to creating healthy relationships is a good thing, especially today. Americans are earning more than they did in the 1960s, but rates of depression have also risen since then. Also, its emphasis on sex--and sometimes I do wonder if the magazine is a bit sex obsessed--is seen as relationship enhancing. It doesn't surprise me that the magazine makes a connection between sex and relationships; most women in western societies tend to value relationships and try to cultivate relationships more so than men. Whenever an article appears in Self about sex it assumes the people reading it are in a loving, committed, long-term relationship, and are comfortable talking about it. This too might not be a bad thing. But if I had a daughter who was interested in such magazines I'd tell her to tread carefully because relationships, fitness, sex and fashion aren't all there is to happiness.

Thoughts On Free Will and "Gattaca"

A couple of months ago I read James Rachels' "Problems from Philosophy," an introductory philosophy text for college students. Rachels' discussion of free will--which covers two chapters-- was one of the subjects that interested me the most. This is probably because it ties directly into sociology, a subject I am greatly interested in. The debate over free will is very important because it has implications for western thought. Individualism is a core belief of the western ideology; all western institutions emphasize it. Democracy emphasizes individual rights. Judeo-Christian religion emphasizes the individuals relationship with God. Western legal systems hold individuals responsible for their actions. Traditional marriage is seen as being between two individuals, a man and woman, etc. If it turns out we don't have any free will or we don't have as much as we thought then a core assumption will have to be reevaluated, and a reevaluation might affect all our institutions. This debate might be the most important philosophical debate of 21st century.

Rachels' book suggests the more cognitive studies that are done the more it is suggested we might not have as much free will as we would like to think or any at all. He cites numerous studies for this view, but the most famous was an experiment conducted by Jose Delgado. In Delgado's study he showed you could make humans do certain things, such as lifting an arm or looking over a shoulder, by stimulating certain parts of the brain with an electrode ray. People just found reasons why they did what they did after the action. This suggests that certain processes in the brain at least influence us to act in certain ways. Also, we know social forces shape people, and this is were sociology comes into this debate. It only takes a little reflection to realize had you been born in another culture or had been born during a different era in history you would be a different person. This is because social forces play a major role in shaping us as people. For example, if you're a sports fan in England it is likely you would be interested in soccer because this is the sport that most people value in England. But if you are a sports fan in the United States it is likely you would be disinterested in the sport because most Americans don't value soccer; there's a bias against it in the U. S. You would probably follow baseball, football and basketball. We also know a person's personality is a determining factor in what they are going to do. If someone goes to the movies and is a horror fan would it be surprising if he or she chose to see a horror movie? Or if somebody likes music would it surprise you he or she worked at a CD store?

These arguments may be hard for most westerners to grasp because we are accustomed to thinking that individualism is true, and individualism assumes free will. Western ideology states there are certain natural rights everybody has, and one of these core rights is freedom to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe on other peoples freedoms. But the possibility of no free will seems to turn this upside down. A better way of understanding what I am saying is the movie "Gattaca." The movie is set in a future where humans have mastered the ability to manipulate genes. Before birth most humans are given genes that will give them certain talents, and from birth these humans are groomed for certain occupations. The "Gattaca" universe assumes everyone has a limited amount of free will, and it illustrates how our institutions might be affected if we concluded we don't has much free will as we previously thought or none at all.

But one thing I have noticed about Rachels' discussion of free will is the term is mostly left undefined, and this may be a problem for most people who engage in this debate. Out of all the theories Rachels discusses only Compabatilism attempts to define free will, and it defines it as an uncoerced choice. All the other theories leave it vague, or at least in Rachels book it is. Since free will doesn't have a clear definition when people engage in this debate they may be shouting past each other. There is much more that can be said about this debate, and my blog entry is by no means the final word.

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and History

A couple of weeks ago I finished reading Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," a pamphlet that helped stir the American colonists to rebel against England. I had been wanting to read Paine's pamphlet for some time for several reasons. Last summer I saw the History Channel's series on the American Revolution, and one thing the History Channel does well is bring history alive. The History Channel is far more informative than what most grade school history classes teach. It usually goes into more depth and the issues and people during a particular era are presented as being more complex than what is usually thought. In grade school you tend to get a simplified version of history, which in the case of the American Revolution is: it happened because the Americans were taxed without representation. I had a suspicion there was more to it than that; it seems to me simply feeling unfairly taxed wouldn't be enough for most people to fight a war, so I decided to read a "primary source" of the conflict, which is a good way of getting a broader and better understanding of the controversial issues of the past. I also got interested in "Common Sense" because Paine is a largely forgotten figure of the American Revolution, mostly because of his unpopular views on religion, and I have always been attracted to things that have been marginalized to the fringe of American culture.

In the United States "Common Sense" is largely remembered as propaganda, and it was. Paine clearly intended his pamphlet to persuade the colonists to rebel against England. But propaganda is an inaccurate word to describe the pamphlet. Propaganda carries the connotation of trying to persuade by appealing to people's emotions. The image of a propagandist in popular culture is someone raving, pounding their fists and shouting at people why they should embrace a particular cause. At times "Common Sense" can be emotionally charged, particularly against monarchical rule, but it has more right to be remembered as political philosophy being used as propaganda. Paine thought more like a philosopher than a propagandist, which isn't surprising since he was Deist (which emphasized rationality). His pamphlet is a thorough examination of the arguments for and against American independence. He not only provided his own arguments for independence but he anticipated and responded to the rebuttals, which is what all good philosophers do.

Paine's primary concern in "Common Sense" was monarchy. He detested it, and for him monarchy was exactly what the Revolution was about. Being unfairly taxed--which is what the Revolution is mostly remembered for in the U. S. today--was a trifling reason to fight. In Paine's eyes it was a symptom of a bigger problem that had plagued humanity throughout history. He made many powerful arguments against monarchical rule that have become common sense (hence the title of the pamphlet) to Americans today. But at the time government without monarchy was the contentious issue of the day, the same way that the war in Iraq is the contentious issue of the early-21st century. Americans were divided about it, and the outcome uncertain. Paine's main assumption about monarchy--which underlies all his arguments against it--is it puts too much power in one persons hands and this allows a king or queen to take advantage of other people. He or she can take someones land and give it to someone else or keep it for his or herself. They can make their subjects produce a certain amount of goods for monarchical use, even if its used for nothing more than for luxury. Also, monarchy is based upon hereditary secession. This allows certain people to have an automatic position to rule at a future time, but it allows people who are not fit to rule to rule. Another problem with monarchy is monarchs often know little of the world because they've lived the comforts of a privileged life, which often means being sheltered from the way most people live. At the time of the Revolution England did have a checks and balances system against the monarchy, but Paine believed it did little good. The problem with the checks and balances system was its assumptions were in contradiction. It presupposed a king, and any system that assumes the existence of a king presupposes the king is wiser than the people. But a check on the king presupposes the people are wiser than the king! Also, the checks and balances system was like a machine, and the king was the biggest and most important part of the machine. The people and parliament played a smaller role in it, and as a result the king often got his way. For Paine these were the reasons why the Revolution was a just cause--to end monarchical rule around the world. The American Revolution was an event unprecedented in world history, and was the beginning of a more just form of government that did not include monarchy.

Today few Americans remember the Revolution for these reasons. We are more likely to remember the war as a war against unjust taxes, which is a simplified version that overlooks the primary reason why the war was fought. In the U. S. there is a tendency to think of historical events in simplified terms, and I think there are several reasons why. Most Americans don't think of history as being practical. Being knowledgeable about history isn't something you go out and get a job with, and this attitude is reflected in the school system. Most school systems emphasize history the least out all the subjects taught. When I was in grade school this was obvious. The other subjects were usually taught before history, and there was a tendency to divide students into groups according to how advanced they were in a subject--but not with history. Also, over time we become removed from the reasons for something that happened in the past, and over time alot can be forgotten and left to historians to remember. There is also a tendency to think of history as a collection of events that happened in the past. This is a faulty way of thinking about history because it saps the meaning out of it. For example, this sort mentality would just see Gutenberg's printer as just an event rather than something that allowed information to be spread more quickly. The problem with having a simplified view of history is people tend not to appreciate what others in the past did for them. Most Americans wouldn't know who Thomas Paine was, mostly because he is a marginalized historical figure, but if it wasn't for him and people who were willing to fight against the English, Americans might not be enjoying the freedoms they have, and it is likely the world would be a different place. A better way of understanding the faults of thinking that history is unimportant is this thought experiment. Imagine you are transported 200 years in the future, and you encounter an American who considers himself to be an average American. When you explain what life is like in your own time he responds "I couldn't tell you much about the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq or George W. Bush, whoever he was. And why should I care?"