Joe the Lawyer's Personal Identity

Since Mr. Lawler and Mrs. Logan introduced our new unit about American identity and the search for one's self, I've given some thought to the dominant narrative of the North Shore, and how this affects individual's personal narratives.

Whenever I'm away from home and tell someone I go to New Trier and live on the North Shore, I always get the same stereotypical responses. "Ohhh, so you're like rich?" "Do you live in a mansion?" "Are there any clothes you wear that are NOT designer??" While these reactions seem laughably dramatized, I really have been asked these questions. While these are only stereotyped responses, they do say something about the community we're living in. Walking through the halls of New Trier, one can see girls toting Martha Vineyard book bags, guys sporting Lacoste polos. $300 designer jeans are worn and Louis Vuitton wristlets are the new pencil case. While these brands do not make us who we are, we are the product of the environment we grow up in. And it sure seems like we're being submerged in an environment shouting a clear message: success and happiness are achieved through money. 

In thinking about how the North Shore's dominant narrative affects the individual's search for identity, it would be easy to say that anyone and everyone who buys into brand's appeals for happiness and success is too busy thinking about what everyone else thinks to know who they really are. It'd be easy to say that one cannot possibly know their personal wants and desires, their goals and ambitions if they do not create their personal, unique narrative, but aimlessly wander their way into the footsteps of society's dominant narrative. It'd be easy to argue that because that argument has been argued before. But what if I were to propose that in some cases, individuals actually find their identity in a materialistic item. I won't deny that it's a rather shallow identity, but it's an identity nevertheless. The recent recession has affected everyone, even New Trier and families on the North Shore have had to cut back. Fathers have had to give up their Jags, mothers can no longer afford those Gucci sunglasses, and teens have to give up their $300 designer jeans. With that Jaguar, Joe the Plumber (scratch that, Joe the Plumber couldn't afford a Jag, let's call him Joe the Lawyer) Joe the Lawyer knew some things about himself. He knew what kind of a world he fit into it. He knew how he defined success and he recognized his self worth. However, once Joe the Lawyer has to give up his Jaguar due to financial circumstances, he loses a significant part of who he is-or at least a part of how he characterizes himself. 

This is a sad, yet seemingly accurate portrayal of how some on the North Shore define their identities. Of course, there are many that determine their identity on a much more personal and spiritual level, yet I have seen many indications in my home community that sadly seem to support my claim.

The Morality of NOT Going to War

For New Trier's student seminar: T.E.L.L., I taught a class called "How the Problem Started." In the 40 minute session, we focused in on two current crises, the civil war in the Congo and the conflict in India and Pakistan. I explained a brief overview of each conflict, and we then held a group discussion on what the U.S.'s role (if any) was in each conflict. Much of what we talked about applies to our current unit on war.

For sixteen years, the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo have endured a war linked to regional politics over precious minerals, interethnic tensions and power struggles. The Congo has become a severely civil war-torn country, most well known for its "silent war" against women and girls. According to Condition Critical, a humanitarian organization that gives aid to Congolese people, 1 in 2 women have been raped, victims of psychological warfare, at least once in their lifetime. Many females have been so sadistically attacked from the inside out, butchered by bayonets and assaulted with chunks of wood, that their reproductive and digestive systems are beyond repair. A video-clip I found interviews different rape victims and portrays just how terrible and seemingly hopeless the conflict has become.

Over the past few weeks, we've discussed in class how historically America has assumed the role of the father figure in the international community. We've seen this portrayed through political cartoons and have seen it through studying how the U.S. has acted in different wars and conflicts. So being the supreme super power we are, shouldn't America intervene once again in the Congo to save the day?

Well after reading the opinions of numerous authors on the Iranian conflict, I think we can all agree that it's never that simple. There are many different reasons why it would be difficult-not to mention controversial-for the U.S. to become involved in the Congo conflict. First, this civil war has been going on for a very long time. There are over 200 different ethnic groups inside the Congo's borders. Each group with it's own culture, values, and many with their own languages. Many of the groups interests are not aligned, yet they are all fighting to maintain a dominant position of power in the Congo. Sure the U.S. knows a little about this conflict. We've been educated about the general facts, but even the most distinguished scholars have only read about it. We're lacking the life time, hands on experience the people in the Congo have. If we're not living it, truly witnessing it, then how can we possibly begin to really understand the situation? How can we begin to help them form a solution when we can barely grasp the problem? Plus, the conflict is much more complicated than merely interethnic tensions. There are many, many other contributors.

So again, what exactly is America's role in this conflict? The possibility of invading Iran is a hot topic because Iran's situation severely effects us and the rest of the world. Our relationship with them is very fragile, not only do they have nukes but they also have OIL!! But the Congo on the other hand, aside from the fact that it is the deadliest war since WWI, their situation really doesn't effect us. Is it morally wrong for the U.S. to be essentially ignoring this silent war-not just against women and children but again the entire Congolese nation-or is it simply an inevitable causality (no pun intended) of a higher power with an agenda?