Some Thoughts on “Cancel Culture”

The term “cancel culture” has long been used as a sort of bogeyman against the left. A warning that people, places, and ideas that were once part of public life could be removed at a moment’s notice. But is this necessarily a bad thing if those same icons are responsible for generating harm in our community?


I don’t often like to think about the old pieces I wrote for the Fordham Observer while I was a student. Regardless of whether they are looked at for their quality of writing or the strength of the arguments they make, I like to think that I have developed enough such that those old pieces are no longer indicative of who I am as a writer. Still, I suppose it is only natural that current events cause moments of reflection from time to time, and in my case these moments request that I reckon with the positions I hold today compared to those I held the better part of a decade ago. 

One piece I wrote was centered around the debate of whether or not “controversial” figures deserved public dedications. It’s an argument that pops up frequently, especially around Columbus Day, and the Fordham community was no stranger to dipping their toes into the squabble. The piece in question was necessarily a defense of Columbus the man, but rather a broader argument that an increasing number of historical figures will fail to meet the progressive standards of the present and thus should be seen as people of their time.

[Read More]

What This Victory Means

The question of who won the 2020 U.S. presidential election has been asked and answered. Now comes an even more troubling question; what now?


The U.S. presidential election was only just last month, and yet it feels like something that happened well over a year ago. Perhaps this is just due to how COVID and quarantine have impacted the way we experience the passage of time these days, but it is more likely that this discrepancy is thanks to the absolute whirlwind of a news cycle we have had in the weeks since it happened. 

What is, or should be, the major story here? I’ve spent a long time trying to figure out how to even begin to frame my thoughts that have sputtered forth from this absolutely tumultuous tempest of a month. Even the headline “Biden defeats Trump” seems far too simplistic to accurately convey what actually went on here. That was the outcome, thankfully, but it’s worth reminding ourselves of the chaos it took for us to get here. 

[Read More]

The Mail is a Crucial Service and Needs to be Treated as Such

Support over the United States Postal Service has now become a partisan issue, but that is not to say there is merit present on both sides of the argument. In a time where American citizens must risk their health, and those of their neighbors, just to exercise their right to vote, supporting a system that would facilitate them doing so in a safe manner should be second-nature. But now that very system, one Americans routinely rely on for prompt delivery of bills and medications, is under siege by the Trump administration. It may be weird to say, considering how often we like to joke about the antique qualities of the USPS, but if we are to win the fight for our democracy, we must also be willing to fight for our mail.


Snow. RainHeatNightFascism. Nothing stops the mail.” 

These were the words featured prominently in front of a black backdrop on an image circulated by the American Postal Workers Union. At the bottom of the image was a link directing viewers to a section on the APWU’s website entitled “save the post office,” containing multiple informational resources regarding the post office’s dire need for stimulus funding in order to continue operations as well as avenues that visitors could use to show their support. 

And who currently stands between them and the money they so desperately need? As it always seems to be the case when it comes to battles over preserving the integrity of our democratic institutions, that man is of course Donald Trump. 

[Read More]

The Groan-Worthy Nature of Kanye West’s 2020 Presidential Bid

As if this year couldn’t keep itself from being any more ludicrous, American singer Kanye West has entered the 2020 race for president of the United States on the “Birthday Party” ticket. Is this a joke? A meme? A publicity stunt in poor taste? None can say, but if the 2016 election is any precedent, there is more than enough reason to take this bid very seriously, and in so doing, tailor our responses accordingly.


We are only halfway through 2020 and yet the year itself seems intent to stubbornly refuse to cease its detour into the realm of the absurd. Singer Kanye West has decided to take the “opportunity” of the July 4th holiday to announce his own candidacy for president of the United States. His announcement came in the form of a tweet, in which he declared his “platform” to be based on realizing “the promise of America by trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future.” He capped off the announcement with the establishment of a new hashtag; #2020Vision. And because 2020 is 2020, virtually no-one reading the news of this announcement knew what to make of it. Was it serious? Was it a trollish statement aimed at causing unrest on the internet? Was it a bizarre attempt at promoting an upcoming Kanye West album? Or was it a sinister conspiracy devised by the Trump campaign to siphon black votes away from Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden? 

The scary thing is, as “funny” as a Kanye West presidency might appear on its surface (Make America Yeezy Again, anyone?), we’ve been here before, and the results of that “joke” turned out to be disastrous for the country as a whole.

[Read More]

Statues are not Historical Records

The renaming of military bases after Confederate generals. The removal of the Confederate battle standard from state and city flags. The vandalism of statues commemorating individuals with racially-problematic histories. These are just a few of the many controversies involving America’s grappling with its troublesome history that have escalated in recent years. A common thread through much of the discourse, at least as far as arguments on the right are concerned, is that the “mobs” pushing for radical change in how history is represented are engaged in a campaign to erase said history. Here is why that perspective is incorrect.


When I was very young, the major thing I understood about the Civil War was that it was fought over slavery. Most of the major contexts surrounding the war were lost on my young mind, but first and foremost I understood that owning black people was wrong, and the south was wrong for thinking they could do just that. Was it a simplistic understanding of history? Was it reductive in the sense that it compressed years of national tensions down into a single issue? Absolutely, but the most important thing that limited understanding accomplished was that it still placed historical attention on the sole issue that deserved it. 

How we think about history is just as if not even more important than what we remember. It is one thing to seek to gain a more holistic view of one of the most pivotal moments in American history, but how that information is framed has a dramatic impact on what we do with the knowledge that we obtain. 

[Read More]

The New York Times and the Ethics of Platforming Fascism

On June 3, 2020, and in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, The New York Times published an opinions piece written by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton calling for military force against American demonstrators. While the piece in question was rightly eviscerated for its blatant fascist undertones, The New York Times itself did not escape criticism for allowing itself to become a platform for such dangerous rhetoric. Not everyone deserves to be handed a megaphone, but what is the responsibility of a news platform when the person demanding attention sits amongst the top levels of your nation’s government?


Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas openly supports a full authoritarian military takeover of the streets of the United States. He accepts the reality that this will inevitably lead to a large number of severely wounded if not outright dead protestors, and because of the nature of what is being protested he is fully aware that this means that African-American U.S. citizens, more than any other ethnic group, will be disproportionately counted amongst the victims. 

Cotton’s position is cruel, disgusting, and downright un-American. It is not something we should ever accept hearing from a sitting U.S. senator. Before we can discuss the merits of his arguments, or the ethics behind platforming them, we must first contextualize the discussion by characterizing them for what they are, and we must be unequivocally clear in doing so. 

They are extremely dangerous and have no place in United States politics. 

[Read More]

Please Don’t Protest That Way. It’s Very Inconvenient for Me.

The murder of George Floyd has kickstarted a worldwide discussion on the intersectionality between institutional racism and police brutality. However, to some, their primary focus of concern is not on what people are talking about, but on how they’re talking about it. Politics is now an inescapable part of our daily life, and these same vocal critics believe themselves justified in asserting a right to ignore crucial political movements and prevent them from encroaching on their otherwise-peaceful daily lives. Is there any merit in this perspective?

The short answer is ‘no.’ For the long answer, keep reading.


Lin-Manuel Miranda, the creator of the incredibly popular musical Hamilton, has always been very vocal about his political leanings. He has spoken out, both in public and to congress, in favor of debt and disaster relief for Puerto Rico, and he has worked both to improve and raise awareness of the situations immigrants in the U.S. find themselves in, even blasting Trump’s decision to end the DACA program in 2017. For Miranda, the line between his role as a creator and his role as an activist is non-existent, and anyone who is aware of what Hamilton is about should know this. Even if we avoided getting into minute scrutiny over Hamilton’s structure or themes, the fact remains that its mere premise involves the casting of people of color into the historical roles of the founding fathers; roles that, in any documentary that attempted an adherence to historical accuracy, would otherwise have been played by white actors. The message here is rather overt; the story of this nation’s founding, the story of America, is not one that belongs to white people alone. Every person of color that exists in this country today is just as American as the whites that founded it hundreds of years earlier. 

[Read More]

The Chinese Virus: A Dangerous Game of Blame

Coronavirus is here to stay, and to say it has us all a little on edge is more than just an understatement. However, in this difficult time it is important to remember that how we talk about the virus can potentially be as impactful as what we do about the virus. Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and this is a lesson that some need to take to heart more than others.


Language is a complex beast. Perhaps in an ideal world we would be able to use language in such a way that concepts and ideas could be shared from universal perspectives that are untinged by unfortunate contexts, but the systems we utilize for discourse don’t easily allow for this. Racial slurs are culturally harmful because, even if one says it for educational purposes or otherwise in the present, it is virtually impossible to divorce the term from its history of usage. Similarly, one cannot use terms like “socialism” or “communism” to talk about conceptualized forms of government without drawing a link to oppressive failed states that carve out their own places in international history. The swastika, once a symbol of peace and divinity in faiths like hinduism and buddhism, can likely never be discussed in that context again without acknowledging the massive genocidal elephant in the room. 

[Read More]

The Lesser Evil

As far as politics in the United States is concerned, the 2020 presidential election, just like the 2016 election, will force many to make a politically inconvenient decision. For many third party voters, far left progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters, the binary choice presented to them, the choice between either Joe Biden or four more years of Donald Trump, is so wholly distasteful that they may instead elect to reject the decision altogether. But does rejecting a choice absolve a voter of the responsibility that comes with that choice? And, if not, do the parties themselves not shoulder the majority of the blame for presenting such abhorrent options to begin with?


I do not believe it is a controversial notion to argue that, if one searched long enough, they would be able to procure a quote that could justify their own method of thinking. The source is less relevant, be it a speech, a film, a book, or a video game, the appearance of being profound is enough of a validation in and of itself. Therefore, if all art is not in some manner political, then it is at least serviceable as a lens through which politics can be rationalized. 

[Read More]