Why I Observe Columbus Day as an Indigenous-Blooded Woman

The DNA results are in.  Should any angry readers search frantically for my ancestry records, they would indeed find that I have quite a bit of Indigenous blood.  In fact, according to my father’s DNA test, I have more than enough to qualify for residence on most reservations, lest someone claim I am too removed from Indigenous people to comment on Columbus.  This fact is not particularly shocking considering my last name is Esquivel and half my family traces their origins to Mexico, where virtually everyone is ethnically Mestizo.  Still, it may come as a surprise to many that I do in fact choose to recognize Columbus day, and am saddened to watch Indigenous People’s Day be pinned against it annually.  

In principle, I am not opposed to Indigenous Peoples’ Day; in fact, I am quite sanguine about the idea of having a national day of recognition for Indigenous people.  Indigenous culture is central to North American history.  We would be remiss as a society to ignore or downplay its place in that history, and the abuses which have been suffered by Indigenous people at the hands of colonizers.  I resent the fact, however, that the push for such a day of recognition has been transformed into the club by which Columbus’s legacy is assassinated.  A “Columbus Day” and an “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” can and should peacefully coexist.  I do not observe Columbus Day as a celebration of the man’s character, nor are his personal sins or virtues of particular interest to me.  In the same way that I celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day despite allegations made against his character, I celebrate Columbus Day.  Both men changed the course of history, and our lives have been bettered because of their accomplishments.  

Columbus’s arrival to the Americas represented the commencement of American society.  No, Columbus was not the first man to “discover America”, but the semantics game does not succeed in watering down the gravity of what happened in October of 1492.  Columbus brought Western values to a land which never had the opportunity to experience movements such as the Renaissance or benefit from the academic progress of the Middle Ages or read Greek philosophy, all of which we are doing at Holy Cross on American soil thanks to Columbus.  This is not to claim that there is no beauty to be found in Indigenous societies as well; Westerners are still dumbfounded by the architectural feats of the Inca and tourists in Mexico pay just to have a glimpse of an Aztec temple outside of the major cities.  What could be better than Indigenous people and Europeans finally coming into contact with one another?  

Of course, it is not that simple.  With conquest comes bloodshed, and the Europeans who came to the Americas were in fact engaged in conquest, some malicious, some well-intentioned. This was the sad fact of virtually every society’s history at the time: European borders were created through ethnic and religious conflict, Indigenous tribes’ own land areas were won through violent conflict, as was that of the Mongolian Empire, the Islamic Empires, and so on.  Though today we see a decrease in such traditional man-to-man warfare, we observe similar patterns which are executed more quietly through the threat of nuclear force (think the USSR and modern China).  Thus, the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas was no historical exception.  

I still choose to observe Columbus Day.  I am eternally grateful that I was not born into the Aztec society of my ancestors.  Cultural relativism is a popular outlook in modern America, but I wholeheartedly believe that I enjoy life in an objectively superior society than that of my ancestors.  Had I been born and raised in Tenochtitlan, I would have watched several chests being slashed in order to harvest beating hearts and spilling blood for sacrifice to the god of the sun by now, had I not been the unlucky sacrificial victim myself.  Were I a member of a high-ranking family in the Empire, I may have had the privilege of engaging in cannibalism as a sort of reward for my noble status.  Were I from a low class I may have had to work as a serf or a slave, and would have been the first to starve during a famine or poor harvest.  

While it may seem as if I am simply berating the Aztecs and their brutal practices for the fun of it, it is not my intention to anachronistically hold them to my ethical standards — standards to which they had not been exposed.  I can, however, state with full confidence that I believe the society in which we find ourselves is exceedingly preferable to the one I just described.  Needless to say, I am thankful that a society arrived in the Americas to inform my ancestors that there is no need to sacrifice a compatriot to the sun god, because the sun operates independently.  Even a vast number of Aztecs seemed to agree with my evaluation, as masses willingly converted to the religion of their missionaries, namely Catholicism, which preached a dramatically contrasting message to the religion they had known for centuries.  

My gratefulness extends beyond my aforementioned points — I could not have been born without Columbus!  As stated earlier, the majority of Mexicans are Mestizo, meaning they are an ethnic combination of European and Indigenous blood.  Most Mexicans can rightly celebrate Columbus Day as a historic event which laid the groundwork for their own bloodline, not to mention the fact that Mexican society, a culture which I love dearly, traces its foundations to the arrival of Christianity on the continent.  A half-millennium later, I would be born, the product of a white mother and a Mexican father, in a society which gladly claims multiethnic people as its own due its philosophically enlightened foundations, an import made possible by Columbus’s landfall in 1492.

Still, ironically enough, Columbus finds himself being posthumously condemned by those who claim to hold the very values which his expedition brought to our continent.  As previously mentioned, I am not here to defend Columbus’s personal character.  The refusal to appreciate the historical importance of Columbus's landfall on the basis of ethical concerns, however, is unbelievable to me, as those criticizing him do not realize that their arguments are a product of a society which subscribes to the values Columbus had a large part in bringing to this side of the world. People ultimately fail to realize just how revolutionary the philosophical underpinnings of the West — brought to the Americas by Columbus — were and are in the face of world history.  Though certainly not carried out flawlessly by all who came before us, the Western value system has proven the greatest facilitator of social progress in history. We must appreciate Indigenous people and the value of their respective cultures, and we should not gloss over the human rights violations suffered by Indigenous groups at the hands of unjust men. I cannot help but celebrate, however, the fact that Columbus made landfall so that I could live the way I do today.  I therefore wish everyone a happy Columbus Day, and a happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day!

Blessed Karl of Austria: A Necessary Patron for the Modern Catholic

In our present age, our nation and our world are in constant turmoil. Our leaders lack virtue and true charity. The Church has become more powerless in society. Our time is very similar to that of Blessed Karl of Austria, the last emperor of Austria-Hungary, a truly Catholic ruler, father, and husband, who is the patron saint of world peace. The example of Blessed Karl should be the life that every Catholic should imitate, and in order to truly imitate his life we must learn more about him.

Blessed Karl was born into the royal Habsburg family in Austria during the summer of 1887. Karl was not supposed to become the emperor, as he was only distantly related to the reigning monarch, Franz Joseph. He was raised in a devoutly Catholic home, received a strong religious education, and was reared to eventually become a high-ranking political official. In 1911, Karl married Zita of the House of Bourbon-Parma, and they began a holy and virtuous marriage that produced eight children. Due to various circumstances, Karl was third in line for the throne at this time, and he was still very unlikely to reign until the assissination of the heir presumptive, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. After Ferdinand’s 1914 assissination in Sarajevo, Austria-Hungary entered into the First World War, Karl was next in line for the throne, and the Emperor — who had reigned since 1848 — was near death. Within two years, Karl ascended the throne in the war-torn empire. During his short reign of two years, Karl guided the empire through the conflict, and became a staunch advocate for a lasting peace. The Austro-Hungarian Empire lost the Great War, yet Karl deeply desired to keep his empire and her peoples together. However, the political headwinds of his days did not favor him, and nationalist movements grew throughout the empire. These movements and the Empire’s defeat led to the creation of new nationalist states — arising in the aftermath of the 1919 Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye — and Karl was forced to relinquish control in the administration of the state. As a result, he was left powerless, and eventually the new Austrian government banished him from their borders. After a few failed restoration attempts, Karl fled to the island of Madeira, Portugal where he became very sickly and died in 1922 at the age of thirty-four.

Now, this short biography of Blessed Karl is impressive, however, it does not entirely show the Christian virtues that we should strive to emulate, and it does not prove that he is a necessary patron for the modern Catholic. A deeper reflection into his marriage, suffering, peacemaking, and love of Christ show us that Blessed Karl is someone that we should ardently go to in our prayer.


Blessed Karl and Servant of God Zita’s Marriage:

Each Christian is called to a particular vocation in his or her life. Some are called to marriage, others the religious life or the priesthood. Whatever vocation we are called to, we are asked to fully live it to the best of our ability and for the greater glory of God. On the day after their marriage, Blessed Karl is reported to have told Zita that their job was to “help each other to get to Heaven.” Karl’s statement shows us the purpose of the marital vocation, and if we rely on his intercession and follow his virtuous example then we may be able to help ourselves and our spouse get to Heaven. Both Zita and Karl are currently undergoing the process of canonization, further attesting the holiness of their marriage. 


Blessed Karl’s Suffering:

Throughout his short life, Blessed Karl greatly suffered. He saw the downfall of one of the world’s greatest Christian empires under his command, he was exiled from his homeland, he had to send men to fight and die during the Great War, and he died penniless at a very young age from respiratory failure while in a foreign land. However, he did not grow depressed in his suffering. Instead, he brought it to Jesus, and he learned to bear his many crosses. For example, Karl’s last words, while his eyes were fixated on a crucifix, were “I can't go on much longer... Thy will be done... Yes... Yes... As You will it... Jesus”. Even in the midst of his final moments, his heart, mind, and soul was totally fixated on the Lord. When we are suffering, may we look to the example of Blessed Karl who dedicated all his sufferings to Christ.


Blessed Karl the Peacemaker:

Blessed Karl is the patron saint of world peace. Throughout his short reign as emperor, Karl strongly advocated for an end to the Great War and for global peace, much to the chagrin of the military establishment. Karl, who was personally opposed to the war when he was heir presumptive, was the only global leader to endorse every single point of the peace plan championed by Pope Benedict XV. In our own world, which is marked by much senseless violence, may we follow the words that Pope Francis offered about Blessed Karl and “call upon him as an intercessor to obtain from God peace for humanity.”


Blessed Karl’s Love of Christ:

Blessed Karl was only able to be a peacemaker, a committed husband, and suffer well because he was so devoted to Christ, especially His Most Sacred Heart. When reigning as emperor, he often made visits to the Blessed Sacrament throughout the day in between meetings. He had a deep love of Christ and the Church, and he sought to bring about the social reign of Christ the King in his empire. Karl attempted to accomplish this through an increase in the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Karl dedicated his entire family to the Sacred Heart, and he slept with an image of the Sacred Heart under his pillow. His love of Christ sustained him until his final moment. May we have the ability to follow the example of this saintly man, and devote our lives and our livelihoods totally to Christ. 

The life of Blessed Karl of Austria shows us that he was a man dedicated to living out his Christian vocation and his Catholic faith. In our lives, we should strive every day to do the same. If we follow the example of Blessed Karl, loving Jesus with all our mind, body, and soul, we will be able to deepen our love for our family, our nation, and our faith. It is my prayer that we all can follow his example, seek his intercession throughout our lives, and join him one day in heaven.

Laid Bare: The Reality of Pornography

Americans are generally wary of potential evils which could degrade the behavior, health, and thinking of their fellow citizens. This wariness is evidenced by the visceral responses of Americans to everything from communist infiltrators to narcotics. Yet, one threat has gone largely unaddressed, in spite of its near-universal accessibility, toxicity to the mind, direct ties to human trafficking, and detrimental effects on the family and public understanding of human sexuality. Rather, the evil of pornography has been praised and accepted in the news and by various public figures. However these individuals and organizations wish to frame it, few things are more abnormal, or pose a greater threat to the moral fabric of society, than pornography.

To understand pornography, it is necessary to understand its affects on the brain and body. Like most addictive drugs, pornography hijacks the brain’s reward system. When experiencing seemingly beneficial stimuli, neurotransmitters give feelings of pleasure, incentivizing engagement in the stimuli. Further engagement releases more neurotransmitters, fortifying particular neural pathways. Unfortunately, this reward system cannot distinguish between superficially and truly beneficial stimuli. When exposed to pornographic videos, the brain is tricked into believing that the person is engaging in intercourse, rather than watching videos of others doing the same. 

         

As the brain builds a stimulus tolerance, more stimuli is required to achieve the same amount of pleasure. Pornography provides an infinite amount of novelty as a result of the essentially endless supply of pornographic media available for free at the user’s fingertips. Also, since the novelty of pornography makes it a supernormal stimuli, which is shown to elicit a more intense response in humans and other animals than natural stimuli, pornography presents a more stimulating pleasure experience than real relationships.

As one might expect, this rewiring of the brain has disastrous consequences. Pornography leads to physical changes within the brain, with shrinkage of grey matter that is comparable to, or even greater than that associated with heroin use. On a psychological level, pornography usage produces low self-esteem, loss of energy and mood deterioration, and has been shown to weaken memory. Use of pornography even results in physical changes, such as erectile dysfunction. The rising use of pornography has correlated with a 600 to 3,000 percent increase in erectile dysfunction among young men, a phenomenon that most young men would otherwise not experience for another few decades of their lives. An entire generation of young men who are collectively impotent, placid, and losing grey matter by the day would be a crisis in and of itself. Yet, these immediate effects represent only part of the disastrous consequences associated with pornography.

The craving of novelty inevitably affects true relationships in devastating ways. For those who are in relationships with a pornography-consuming partner, they may see practices viewed by their significant other imposed in the bedroom — practices such as choking and spitting that would otherwise be rightfully considered degrading. Alternatively, the user may become bored and neglect their partner entirely, having built unreasonable expectations of sexual attractiveness and performance around their viewing habits. They then forsake human connection for artificial pleasure. Therefore, it should be no surprise that almost 56 percent of divorces involve pornography consumption, according to the research of therapist Dr. Jill Manning. 

While playing an active role in destroying families through divorce, pornography consumption is becoming alarmingly common among children. The average age of first exposure to pornography is eleven, with some being exposed even earlier. For many children, their first glimpse at sexual activity of any kind will be through the highly disordered lens of pornography. While most may be out of the reach of drugs, pornography is within reach of their keyboards, and the search engines are dealing.

The effects on those most intimately involved in the production of pornography — the actors and actresses — are equally grim. Actresses often come from backgrounds of sexual abuse, poor mental health, and financial instability that result in the pornography industry appearing as a glamorous alternative to their present state of affairs. While perhaps gaining some level of significant income initially, actresses are made to perform increasingly extreme material in order to continue receiving the same income. They are coerced into scenes in which they feel uncomfortable, or would otherwise never engage in.

Beyond exploitation, sexual trafficking and rape go hand-in-hand with pornography. One of the most glaring examples is the case of producers Michael Pratt and Matthew Wolfe, whose productions were widely circulated among pornographic websites. They lured unsuspecting women with promises of a modelling shoot, before coercing them into shooting pornographic videos, and sometimes sexually assaulting them. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. According to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, at least a plurality, if not a majority of the millions of videos on websites such as Pornhub are non-consensual, with videos depicting the confirmed rape of minors being monetized. Such was the extent of this content that the website was forced to remove almost half of its videos pending review. Onlyfans, held up by many as the paragon of individualized control concerning pornographic content, has also been linked by investigators to human trafficking, both as a way for traffickers to lure victims, and to profit from them.

The thoroughly terrible nature of pornography is only exacerbated by the attitudes of its proponents and producers. Al Goldstein, credited with normalizing hardcore pornography, stated that pornography was “a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream, its subversive character becomes more charged.” One might wonder how an industry with such consequences, wielded with the seeming intent of its producers to destroy the fabric of American culture, has been allowed to continue unhindered. Yet, this has not always been the case.

 For decades prior to a number of questionable decisions by a liberalized SCOTUS in the 1960s and 70s, pornography was considered obscenity, subject to regulation and outright bans. Obscenity, which is not protected under the First Amendment, is defined as material that is prurient, devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value, and violates local community standards. It is clear that pornography is indeed prurient, as it promotes excess sexual interest by rewiring the brain. Further, it would be difficult to assert that it holds any value except appealing to carnal desire, and violates local community standards depicting degrading and deviant sexual activity. Clearly, it is time for the court to reexamine this issue.

Grim as it may be, for those who have been affected in some way or another by pornography, there is hope. Physically and psychologically, it has been shown that the brain will rewire itself normally in the absence of pornographic stimulus. There are a variety of resources available for those struggling with addiction and recovery, including coaching, blockers, and information about quitting that is widely available. For those who struggle, know that you are not alone. Pornography can be fought... and beaten.

Social Media and the Abortion Debate

On September 1st, 2021, Senate Bill 8 in the state of Texas went into effect. This bill created a set of parameters that was able to circumvent the language used in previous judicial decisions that allowed greater access to abortion. Since this bill was sent to the floor of the Texas Senate, and even more so after it became law, social media sites like Instagram and Twitter have run amuck with various arguments and points that are widely held but lack reason. I will be addressing a few of those here.

Instagram stories, from my experience, especially in the wake of George Floyd's death, have become a breeding ground for coarse opinions and flashy-looking infographics. The activist infographic is commonplace on Instagram, where its creators make several slides and write, usually in a bubbly font and pastel colors, slogans and ideas (sometimes with supporting evidence). If you are unfamiliar with what I am referring to, the Instagram account @impact is a good example of this type of content at the time of this writing. A quick search on Instagram under #abortionrights finds the following arguments that I will be addressing here.

“Men shouldn't be making laws about women’s bodies.” This argument is used to invalidate any male’s pro-life opinion by saying that since abortion and unwanted pregranacy is an issue that only affects women, men lack the empathy and relevancy to govern and legislate this issue. This is in the same vein as those who believe that only those of certain races or backgrounds can speak on certain issues because of their lived experience. This is wrong and, in this case, sexist. Rather than address the arguments of the opposition, they try to invalidate them as being incapable of having a productive thought. This argument also completely ignores the 45% of women who support some restrictions to abortion and 19% of women who support a total ban on aboriton according to data collected by Gallup in 2021. These numbers are strikingly similar to male opinions on the subject, meaning sex plays less of a role in abortion opinions than implied by this argument. If men took a step back from the abortion debate and let women handle it, the outcome would most likely not change.

“The pro-life movement is rooted in racism.” I have seen this argument presented in many different ways. The most compelling Instagram infographic used sources from NPR, Politico, and The Atlantic to make their case. It is predicated on the idea that evangelicals in the 1980s were angry about desegregation and only picked up the issue of abortion in order to gain more votes and galvanize support for their agenda. To show the lack of relevance of this argument, one must only look at the modern data. The CDC reports that in the United States, black women had the highest ratio of abortions out of any racial group with 335 abortions per 1,000 live births as opposed to white women with 110 per 1,000 live births. Black women get abortions at more than 3 times the rate of white women. If an individual or group were racist, why would they seek a policy that aims to disproportionately save the lives of black babies? If this was truly the intention, those supposed racists would be in favor of abortion since fewer black babies would be born, leading to a demographic shift, with the final result being fewer black individuals eventually turning 18 and using their right to vote. In modern times, the pro-life movement seeks to save people of all backgrounds, debunking these all too prevalent accusations of racism, stemming from the arbritary claim of a racist past rather than any claims about the present.

“Pro-lifers are only pro-life until it is out of the womb.” This argument is usually coupled with the accusation that those who are pro-life are really only “pro-birth”, seeing that those who are pro-life are also generally conservative and reject the concept of large government welfare programs. This idea infers that in order to not simply be pro-birth, one has to support large government assistance and in turn support the use of a greater tax burden to accomplish that. The reason why this is false is because there is more than one way to assist people in need. Those on the right of the political spectrum find the best way is not to fund bloated and bureaucratic government agencies that mismanage funds, but rather to give their money to religious groups and private charities. They find religious groups like their church more appealing as a destination for their money because they generally know to whom they are giving the money and can hold them accountable, with the faith that the money will go to a good cause due to a common set of values. Private charities are similar in that they can be held to greater accountability than a bureaucratic agency. If a charity acts in a manner that does not reflect what individuals believe the charity should be doing, those individuals can choose not to give them money. That cannot be said about the government, which is held accountable to government officials who are laden with other responsibilities as well as limited by lengthy procedure. To respond to the claim, many pro-lifers find that private means are better than public means in assisting those out of the womb. The difference is that conservatives want to use their own money to support causes of import, while those on the left want to take others' money and allocate it as they see fit.

“Pro-lifers only want to control women’s bodies.” This claim seeks to invalidate any argument as it simplifies the situation into pro-lifers arguing in bad faith. Anything that a pro-lifer says can be discarded because they do not believe what they are saying, or have ulterior motives. Rather than addressing the ideas put forth, this argument simply assumes the opposition is evil and not worthy of debate. To come to this conclusion, one has to assume that pro-lifers do not actually believe that unborn babies are alive, and therefore rather than protect life, wish to control others. Contrary to this, pro-lifers do genuinely believe in what they say, and are only seeking to protect innocent human life. This claim is lazy at best and conspiratorial at worst, implying that there are vast swaths of the population bent on controlling women by all agreeing to lie about the same thing. I would never assume that a large group of people that I disagree with politically were being disingenuous despite them having legitimate arguments that suggest otherwise, and neither should anyone else because it does not lead to productive conversation and will never convince anyone who is governed by reason. It only seeks to breed division. 

Finally “it is none of your business” or “if you are against abortion don’t have one.” To believe someone is being murdered next door is none of my business? The vast majority of those on the left as well as many on the right believe George Floyd was murdered, but is that any of your business? Are white straight cisgender men not allowed to march for Black Lives Matter because they are not affected by alleged systematic abuse and not a part of their intersectionality umbrella? No, of course not. People support causes because they believe it is the right thing to do. Martin Luther King Jr., a man widely revered and quoted in America by both left and right, famously said, “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.” Abortion is an injustice, just like those on the left assert that systematic racism — which they believe to be enshrined in most, if not all, institutions — is an injustice, and it is every person’s imperative to fight for justice, even if one thinks it does not affect them. Abortion is murder, and I and many others are not going to sit by and let it happen.

This article, of course, does not get the opportunity to address the real substantive questions on abortion, such as when does life begin, Catholicism’s view on abortion, or the nuances of cases surrounding rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. These questions have all been answered before either by previous writers for The Fenwick Review or by other commentators on the topic. Here, I only sought to address the many lazy and coarse opinions spouted on social media that I see take away from the real debate. Additionally, not all those who are for abortion accessibility believe these views, as no group is a monolith. These flashy statements should be retired, so that we as a society can engage in a civil discourse that leads to the truth, rather than shouting matches and political theatre governed by emotions and fanaticism.

Debacle

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a debacle is defined as “a sudden and ignominious failure; a fiasco.” Few events in history encapsulate this definition as well as the sudden and ignominious resurgence of the Taliban, their reconquest of Afghanistan, the haphazard American withdrawal which left hundreds of U.S. citizens and thousands of Afghan allies to the mercy of ruthless Islamists, and the senseless murder of thirteen brave American servicemen at the hands of a suicide bomber. Yet, the word “debacle” still does not fully illustrate the true picture of the inexcusable 20-year failure in Afghanistan. This failure, of course, does not belong to the brave members of the United States Armed Forces who fought, bled, saved lives, and gave theirs in battle. Rather, it is a failure directed from the highest echelons of the Washington bureaucracy that can almost be traced to the conflict’s very beginning.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States oriented itself toward one common objective: find those responsible for the murder of 2,977 innocents on that day of infamy, and wipe them from the face of the Earth. After the Taliban refused to accept American requests for the extradition of Osama bin Laden and expulsion of al-Qaeda, Operation Enduring Freedom began on October 7, 2001. In a matter of months, the Taliban had been driven out of power, and al-Qaeda had been decimated. Disappointingly, in the aftermath of the Battle of Tora Bora, it became clear that bin Laden had slipped away and fled the country.

Despite having failed to meet its objective for the invasion, the United States would remain in Afghanistan for 20 years. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1386, the U.S. would join an International Security Assistance Force mandated to maintain security. The U.S. had thus been drawn in to assisting the creation of a new government in Kabul. This freshly created responsibility was further complicated by the launch of an insurgent campaign by the Taliban in 2003.

While undoubtedly a cliche, Afghanistan’s reputation as the “Graveyard of Empires” proved terribly accurate when it concerned the Taliban insurgency. The ISAF faced the task of eliminating an insurgent force from mountainous terrain, which blended in seamlessly with, and was often supported by, the civilian population. It certainly did not help matters that the Taliban continued to receive funding and training from the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. Inexplicably, the U.S. contributed over $5 billion in aid to Pakistan as the country continued to support the very terrorists killing our troops.

Exacerbating these already dismal circumstances, questionable strategic decisions put American troops in untenable positions. Outpost Keating represents one of the most egregious examples of poor decision making from the top. In 2006, it was posited that the creation of outposts in the Kamdesh region would project the credibility of the new government and allow for provincial reconstruction efforts. Outpost Keating was one of these bases, and it quickly became an object of concern for being isolated, indefensible, and unsustainable. On October 3, 2009, the outpost was attacked by the Taliban on all sides. Clint Romesha, awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle, likened it to fighting in a “fishbowl” or “paper cup.” Mere days after the battle - which cost eight American lives - the outpost was abandoned and bombed to rubble to prevent it from falling to the Taliban.

More egregious than its position, the outpost at Kamdesh also highlighted the incompetency of many members of the new Afghan military. Despite receiving $89 billion dollars in funding, the Afghan Army was wiped out by the Taliban within the space of a month. A cursory examination reveals why. 80 percent of recruits were illiterate, resulting in significant time being devoted to teaching literacy rather than combat. Corruption was also rife, with wages and resources allocated to the army being stolen by military officials. Aside from disappearing supplies, thousands of recruits were registered on paper who did not exist in reality. Worse still, members of the Afghan forces engaged in a wide variety of despicable criminal activity, including the practice of ‘boy play,’ the sexual abuse of young boys. American forces were told to turn a blind eye to this abuse, since it was a “culturally accepted practice.” Members of the Afghan forces would occasionally engage in “green on blue” attacks, which by 2020 had seen Afghan forces kill 148 coalition troops and wound 186. This was the force that coalition leaders expected to defend the country after withdrawal.

The Afghan government was not in a much better state of affairs. Apparently, 25% of the total Afghan GDP vanished through corruption in 2010. Billions of dollars in aid and donations simply vanished, undoubtedly lining the pockets of members of the fledgling government. This includes former President Ashraf Ghani, who apparently made off with $160 million as he abandoned his country to the Taliban. This exorbitant level of embezzlement was made possible by the speed and scale of funding given to the government, which prevented effective oversight to prevent the racket that developed.

Effectively, the United States had entered Afghanistan seeking justice, and found itself nursemaid to an incorrigibly corrupt government whose army was illiterate, underpaid, prone to friendly fire incidents, and whose officers were too busy stealing their soldiers’ wages and preying upon young boys to competently lead their men. Inevitably, there is little conceivable way that the United States could have extricated itself from such a situation without chaos ensuing. Even in this context, the ensuing withdrawal from the country proved nothing short of catastrophic.

The U.S. had a precedent for effective evacuation to look to. Preparations for evacuation had already been made prior to the Fall of Saigon in 1975, with the 8,000 American citizens and 200,000 at risk South Vietnamese identified prior to the evacuation, along with potential evacuation options. In a matter of days, the United States successfully evacuated its citizens, along with 138,869 South Vietnamese. However, this success would not see itself repeated in Afghanistan.

By contrast, while American intelligence pointed to a collapse of both the Afghan Army and government, the Biden administration dismissed the possibility of Afghanistan folding so quickly. On August 15, as President Ghani fled the country, the Taliban offered the U.S. control of Kabul, but Biden declined, allowing the Taliban to take control of the capitol. What ensued was nothing sort of catastrophic. Thousands rushed to the airport, pushing their way onto U.S. transport planes, some poor desperate souls holding onto the plane and falling to their deaths upon takeoff. The Taliban were given control of security checkpoints, likely contributing to the loss of thirteen servicemen. At present, hundreds of Americans and thousands of former interpreters remain trapped in Afghanistan, while tens of thousands of unvetted Afghans have been transported to the country.

To say that it is far too late to address the failure in Afghanistan would be an understatement. All that can be hoped for is to learn lessons for future foreign policy decisions; the United States should limit its involvement to its initial objective, and if this objective is not met, it should disengage. Unfortunately, considering the unchanging nature of the Washington bureaucracy, any hope that these lessons will be taken into account may well be wishful thinking.



The Most Holy Rosary

Since assuming my role as Co-Editor, I have had considerably less impetus to actually write articles, focusing, rather, on adjusting the layout of the issues or simply editing the work of our staff writers. The only piece I’ve written in over a year was the interview with our new President, which I conducted with my Co-Editor, John Pietro. But, I have been called out of that slump by a growing love of the Rosary. And it is towards such a love that I will exhort you during this month of the Rosary - not only for your spiritual benefit or my own (Our Lady promises to aid those who propagate her Rosary), but for the good of the whole Church.


Catholic tradition holds that the Rosary was bestowed upon St. Dominic by Our Lady in 1214 AD. Since then, it has become a staple of the order he founded, the Order of Preachers, commonly known as Dominicans. Popular devotion to the Rosary grew quickly, with particular help from the Christian victory over the Ottomans at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. It is reported that every man in the Catholic League’s navy carried a Rosary with him into battle, which halted the Ottoman advance into Europe. Pope Saint Pius V pronounced October 7, the date of their triumph, as the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. Centuries later in 1884, Pope Blessed Leo XIII would distinguish the entirety of October for the same celebration. In 2002, the Rosary changed for the first time since its inception, when Pope Saint John Paul II instituted a new set of mysteries - the Luminous Mysteries - to stand alongside the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious.


These sets of mysteries, journeys through the Gospels, form the centerpiece of the Rosary. As we count each “Hail Mary” we are called further and further into the life of Christ. For, the Rosary is not simply a nifty way to count out 50 “Hail Marys.” Rather, its main purpose is the contemplation of the life of our Lord. Pope Saint Paul VI makes it clear in his apostolic exhortation Marialis Cultus  that:

Without [the element of contemplation] the Rosary is a body without a soul, and its recitation is in danger of becoming a mechanical repetition of formulas and of going counter to the warning of Christ: “And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words” (Mt. 6:7). By its nature the recitation of the Rosary calls for a quiet rhythm and a lingering pace, helping the individual to meditate on the mysteries of the Lord’s life as seen through the eyes of her who was closest to the Lord (Marialis Cultus 47).

So, it is not the quantity of prayers which the Rosary leads us through that are the end of our prayer, but rather a means for contemplation. Too often the Rosary is scorned as stuffy, old-fashioned piety, meant for the stereotyped Catholic who recites prayer after prayer, never building a personal relationship with God. What Pope St. Pius suggests here is radically different — that it is through this repetition of prayer that we can properly meditate on the life of Christ and grow closer to Him. Indeed, this repetition expands our meditation over a course of time through its “quiet rhythm.” In this way, the Rosary re-presents the historical time in which Christ, through His Incarnation, dwelt and walked among us. And, through this re-presentation, we too can dwell historically with Christ, if only for a brief moment, though he lived among us two-thousand years ago.

Ironically, this time spent in praying the Rosary, the source and fullness of its beauty, also stands as its greatest hindrance. A fellow traveler of the titular Pilgrim in “The Way of a Pilgrim,” reveals how “we sinners are listless, are not willing to give even one small hour to God in thanksgiving, and barter the time of prayer.” This line immediately follows the short story of a monk who is saved from a disastrous accident by, “offering a prayer and remembering [his] rosary.” Despite the “special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary” Our Lady promises, we find excuse after excuse not to pray,  though it takes no more than 30 minutes. 

This aforementioned anecdote’s reference to a “rosary” is actually an idiom, meant for Western audiences, of what we might more accurately term a “prayer rope,” upon which is prayed the Jesus Prayer; “The Way of a Pilgrim” comes to us from the Orthodox Tradition. However, as Pope Saint John Paul II suggests, the Rosary, “corresponds in some way to the “prayer of the heart” or “Jesus prayer” which took root in the soil of the Christian East (Rosarium Virginis Mariae 5).” Such similarity illumines the Pope’s statements that, “If properly revitalized, the Rosary is an aid and certainly not a hindrance to ecumenism (Rosarium Virginis Mariae 4)!” The link between the Jesus Prayer and the Rosary reflects that of the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches; they are sister prayers and we are sister Churches. Not only do we share this similar tradition of prayer, but we share a great love of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whether under the title of “Our Lady of the Rosary,” or the “Theotokos.”

But, the Rosary’s ecumenical grace extends beyond this shared tradition. Though our Protestant brothers and sisters may disapprove of the Rosary as Mary worship,  Pope Saint Paul VI claims the contrary:

[T]he Rosary draws from the Gospel the presentation of the mysteries and its main formulas...In the harmonious succession of Hail Mary’s the Rosary puts before us once more a fundamental mystery of the Gospel — the Incarnation of the Word, contemplated at the decisive moment of the Annunciation to Mary. The Rosary is thus a Gospel prayer. (Marialis Cultus 44).

The Rosary hinges on scripture; it is inseparable from the life of Christ as recounted in the Bible. Understanding the Rosary as Biblical, we can encourage our Protestant brothers and sisters to join us in this contemplative practice, which draws us closer to Christ. We can assure them that, “although the repeated Hail Mary is addressed directly to Mary, it is to Jesus that the act of love is ultimately directed, with her and through her. (Rosarium Virginis Mariae 26)” The love of Christ is shared by all Christians, and as a means to grow in this divine virtue, may the Rosary, and the intercession of our Blessed Mother, guide the reconciliation of the Catholic Church with the Protestant Churches.

In light of this twofold grace - for ourselves and for our Church, I, myself a barterer of time, encourage you to devote yourself this month to our Blessed Mother through her Most Holy Rosary. We have been blessed at Holy Cross with a weekly Rosary, led by Dean Michelle Murray, Vice President for Student Affairs, on Tuesdays at 8:30am. Perhaps, you might strive to attend this each week. Or, you might form a group with several friends and push each other to pray daily, every-other day, or just weekly. I will extend my own offer to those of you on campus: I and a group of fellow students plan to pray the rosary daily through the month of October. If you would be interested in joining us, we will be praying Mondays-Wednesdays at 8:30pm, Thursdays at 9:00pm, Fridays at 3:30pm, Saturdays at 1:00pm, and Sundays at 12:30pm. We will meet in St. Joseph’s Chapel in the pews before the statue of Mary. I hope you will consider joining us, even just once this month. If you have never prayed the Rosary before, we’d be even more happy to see you! Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii, ora pro nobis.

Sweet Tea is Racist (Satire)

It is undeniable that the American South has a brutal history hot with the heat of racism and bigotry.  From slavery, to Black codes, to Jim Crow, to the modern Republican Party, the South has never treated persons of color with compassion or respect.  This racism is in the roots of Southern culture, and in order to free the oppressed South, we must destroy Southern culture.


Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Member of the Democratic Party, representing the State of New York’s Fourteenth Congressional District) said that Southern states “are not red states, but oppressed states.”  This means that it is up to enlightened Northerners to educate the South on what tolerance and love is.

In order to do this, Northerners must free Southerners from their intolerant culture since it is this culture that has created and bred racism for hundreds of years.  This means that Southern culture, from its food, to music, to traditional dances, to accents, to common phrases, must be purged from American society.

Let’s start with food.  Any food originating from the South is a constant bad taste in the mouths of persons of color, reminding them of the oppressive history and culture of the South.  That means that sweet tea, corn bread, banana pudding, hush puppies, shrimp, gumbo, jambalaya, fried chicken, collard greens, any and all bar-b-que, baked beans, anything made with Tennessee whiskey or Kentucky bourbon, grits, all cobbler, ribs, fried green tomatoes, red beans and rice, étouffée, and potato salad must be banned forever.  Also, any seasonings that originate from the South, like Tony’s, as well as brands, like Tabasco, Moon Pies, Blue Bell Ice Cream, Coca-Cola, and Zatarain’s Rice, must go as well.  It may sound trivial, but it’s for the good of society.  

The crusade against Southern food doesn’t stop there, though.  Some of it has successfully crossed the Mason-Dixon line to even here in Massachusetts!  The most jarring example of this is sweet tea.  Fast food chains like McDonald’s and Chick-Fil-A carry sweet tea, even in the North!  This means that McDonald’s and Chick-Fil-A are complicit in racism.  We have to boycott McDonald’s and Chick-Fil-A until they permanently abandon sweet tea and the racism it represents.  Don’t even get me started on Cracker Barrel…

Next is the plethora of Southern musical genres, all of which are founded in inequality and racism.  Country, ragtime, bluegrass, blues, jazz, contemporary Ch****ian, and Gos**l music must be banned.  Even though many of these musical genres are led by famous members of the BIPOC community, these genres were still founded in a place swamped with racism and are not immune from Southern whiteness.  Many of these genres were appropriated by Southern whites to make money off of BIPOC artists, and to combat this, we must end the genres altogether.  Songs like “Maple Leaf Rag,” “Rocky Top,” “Jackson,” “Uptown Funk,” “The Devil Went Down to Georgia,” “Old Town Road,” “House of the Rising Sun,” and many more must all be done away with due to their Southern roots and references.  

The next disgusting part of Southern culture is traditional dance, especially the square dance.  Squares are representative of white supremacy, and it is a reminder of the oppressive and toxic cowboy complex as well as toxic masculinity in general.  The square dance came about under the racist and patriarchal system of the South and forces gender roles upon everyone, making it non-inclusive.  We must end the square dance!

Next is the Southern accent.  Any Southern accent reminds everyone of the South’s racist past since they all stem from the ant******m age.  Whether it is from Appalachia, the Deep South, Louisiana, or the Piedmont, any Southern accent must be stamped out for the good of society.  Therefore, the federal government should subject all people with a Southern accent to proper American speech training.

This would include training in standard American English, the Boston accent, the New York accent, the Philadelphia accent, the Midwestern accents, and the West Coast accent.  All Southerners must choose one of these acceptable accents.  If any Southerner refuses to suppress their accent, they must be ostracized from society until they cave to peer pressure.  For instance, if a Southern student comes to the North, everyone must treat them like they are stupid, ignorant, and racist until they conform to the normal American accent.  This is called “accent positivity training.”

The last thing to eliminate is synonymous with the Southern accent.  They are common Southern phrases and sayings.  The worst of these phrases is “the Devil is beating his wife.”  Apparently said when it is sunny but raining, this saying promotes toxic masculinity and also promotes racism since Ch****ianity has been used to justify racism in the South so many times in the past.  

Here is a chart showing alternatives to these racism-complicit words and phrases:


All in all, all Southern culture must be stamped out in order to have an inclusive and safe environment.  This will protect all of us from injustices like sweet tea and hurtful phrases like “Bless your heart!”  If you disagree with these instructions, you are also complicit in the South’s continued barbaric and racist ways, and you too must be cleansed and educated on the right way to eat, dance, sing, and speak.



A Revised Title IX

Holy Cross’ mission statement asserts its desire to “build a community marked by freedom, mutual respect, and civility.” Freedom, an indispensable part of higher education, can only operate in a system that respects each individual’s right to defend him or herself from unjust accusations. When defense of one’s character is out of reach, the social environment is left on unstable ground. Mutual respect demands the same – respect for each other in our capacities to uphold our dignity in the face of criticism. Civility cannot exist when the threat of false incrimination without due recourse hangs over every individual. 

The College’s recent amendment to its Title IX policy simply does not comport with its stated commitment to such admirable qualities as “freedom, mutual respect, and civility.” The change being considered here may seem small, but a few words can be immensely powerful. In August 2020, the Department of Education under Secretary Betsy DeVos issued new Title IX guidelines that (among many other changes) required schools to only accept witness evidence in a sexual misconduct case if said witness submits to cross-examination. Given the stakes in such a case – which can range from a mere warning, to suspension, to expulsion (and an irrevocable stain, justly or unjustly, on one’s character) – requiring cross-examinations should be uncontroversial. 

The alterations to the College’s Sexual Misconduct Policy occured on August 20, 2021, and impacted Section 5, Subsection I, Hearing Process: Examination Requirement. Since August 14, 2020, the policy had stated that “if a Party or witness does not submit to cross-examination at the live hearing, the Determination Panel may not rely on any statement of that Party or witness in reaching a determination regarding responsibility.” The revised policy reverses this: 

The Determination Panel has the discretion to decide how much weight to give to statements or information provided by any Party or witness who did not submit to cross-examination at the hearing. The Determination Panel can consider the reliability of the statements or information, the reason the individual did not participate in cross-examination, and any other factors the Determination Panel considers relevant.

This alteration means that the College may take into consideration claims by witnesses without subjecting those claims to cross-examination. The significance of this is glossed over by giving the Determination Panel “discretion to decide how much weight” the witness’ comments should be given, but that does little to resolve the problem. Witness testimony can be entered into the record with no opportunity for the defendant to examine the accuser. Such a significant decision is left to the three-member Panel. One must wonder how the Panel can arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to the evidence’s validity without allowing cross-examination. While the parties in the case can submit questions for witnesses to the investigator(s) preparing the investigative report, the “[i]nvestigator(s) will exercise discretion [regarding] what questions to consider”, meaning some questions may never be raised. The parties are permitted to review the report and submit comments, but there is no guarantee that follow-up questions will be addressed by the investigator(s). 

The Title IX Office stated that the College was able to make the change due to a recent ruling by the District Court of Massachusetts that struck down the part of the Department of Education’s Title IX regulations that required cross-examination for witness testimony to be accepted. This ruling did not mean that colleges had to eliminate the cross-examination requirement – a point the Office admitted. It is, however, highly unlikely that many individuals will submit to it now that they have the choice. Why sit through a rigorous questioning if it is not mandatory?

      

The Title IX Office went on to say that “[o]ur approach allows for a greater amount of evidence to be considered by the Determination Panel, with the goal of reaching a just outcome.” It is true that a greater amount of evidence can be considered when there is no requirement to submit to cross-examination, but the quantity of evidence is of far less importance than the quality. If a school wants to adjudicate cases of sexual misconduct, particularly when the stakes for individuals’ (both the accused and accuser) reputations are so high, it should abide by the general procedures of a court of law. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the law knows that witnesses are subject to cross-examination. According to Article VI of  the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence (as released by the Massachusetts state government), witnesses are subject to cross-examination “on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility and matters not elicited during direct examination.” There is no way to reach a “just outcome” if the evidence under consideration is not subject to rigorous scrutiny. 

It must be recognized that the cases that are being brought before the Determination Panel regarding sexual misconduct are very difficult for all parties involved. Cross-examinations can be psychologically problematic; there is no denying that. In a free society, however, the interest of justice and truth must take precedence. False accusations do occur, and the impact can be devastating

It is also no secret that if the College was legally free to create its own policy, it would abandon the 2020 regulations altogether. In its 2019 letter to Secretary DeVos, the College’s Title IX Office joined with 50 other Massachusetts institutions of higher education to decry the cross-examination and live hearing requirements. Their stated concern is that these requirements would “discourage community members who have experienced misconduct from coming forward or deter them from participating in the process.” That may or may not be true, but to simply allow accusations to be made without any need to submit to criticism from the defendant denies him or her justice. The same letter asserts that the College is “committed to fairness and impartiality in all disciplinary matters”, but it is difficult to see how that fits with their distaste for common legal practice. Further, the Title IX Office states:

[O]ur community is unique. We are a small, mission-driven, purely undergraduate, diverse, and tight-knit community. We believe that the proposed prescriptive process not only removes our discretion to conduct our processes in a way that we believe is appropriate for our community, but also may compromise our ability to conduct a fair process.

Complaints like this defy reason: because the College is “small, mission-driven, purely undergraduate, diverse, and tight-knit”, it should not have to abide by basic standards of legal fairness? No matter how unique the community, these standards exist because they ensure equity. 

Going forward, all else remaining the same, it is unlikely that Holy Cross will revert to a Title IX policy that is in line with justice. Simply lamenting the change is not enough to force a rethinking. The only way that the Holy Cross community can hope to return the institution to one truly based in “freedom, mutual respect, and civility” is to bring its concerns to the administration. This article attempts to do just that. However, the burden is also on students, parents, and donors to compel the College to defend its decisions – not just in regard to its Title IX policy, but in any controversial policy shift. The community must remain hopeful, but it also must take an active role in defending what is right.