Odi et Amo

"Ōdī et amō. Quārē id faciam fortasse requīris.
Nesciō, sed fierī sentiō et excrucior" 

"I hate and I love you. Why I do this, you may ask.
I do not know, but I feel it happening and I am tortured"

        This poem is known as Catullus 85 and it was written by Catullus for his lover whom he calls "Lesbia" in his poems.* This poem holds a special place in my heart, for a few reasons. One reason, is that it was the first Latin poem I was able to translate and understand completely by myself. More importantly than that, it is an extremely beautiful poem that, despite being roughly 2,000 years old is still as relevant today as it was when it was written down first. This poem shows although our religion, culture, and mores may be different, things like love and how it makes us feel are universal. Who can not relate to having conflicting feelings about a crush or lover? 

        

    This poem, is short, simple but profound. Interestingly, it begins with "Odi," or "I hate" which is, a weird way to start a poem dedicated to a women you supposedly love. I think he decided to start with "Odi" to emphasize his conflicted feelings towards Lesbia. Then he says "amo" or "I love" with the "you" being implied. He does this to show he does not just hate her because she spurned him, he also loves her. It shows the complexity of his emotions and how vexed he is. He hates and loves her.  

    Next he says "Why I do this, you may ask." Here I think he is asking himself just as much as he is asking Lesbia. We have all been in a situation where for whatever reason, it makes us ask ourselves "Why do I have feelings for her/him?" Much like Catullus, we often find ourselves not knowing how to answer that question, and we may even find ourselves tortured by our unrequited feelings.

   If someone were to ever ask me "Why should we study ancient languages?" I would read them this poem. This poem is the perfect poem. "Odi et Amo" is brief, forceful, witty, profound and shows the universality of the struggle to find love. Everyone from before Rome was ever founded, to today has struggled with the same things. At least when it comes to feelings and how humans interact with one another there truly is "nihil sub sole novum." Whatever you are experiencing now, whether it be struggles in your romantic, professional, personal or familial life, someone else has experienced it and has gotten through it, and so will you. 

*Interesting fun fact, him calling his lover “Lesbia” is him referencing Sapho, a Greek poet who was considered one of the greatest Greek poets of the ancient world. Sapho was from the island of Lesbos and wrote love poems to other Greek women and is where the term “lesbian” comes from. Even though she wrote love poems to other women, her sexuality was debated by ancient scholars and is still debated by scholars to this day.

The Future of The Democratic Party

       A little while ago I wrote about the direction I think the Republican Party will move in, after Trump leaves office. (Please read it and tell me how wrong you think I am.) A just as interesting question, is what direction the Democratic Party will go in. And what better time to talk about this, then when the Democratic National Convention is ongoing? 

    I think the Democratic Party will continue to promote identity politics and policies which address that. Their candidates will continue to become more diverse racially/ethnically and in regards to their sexuality and gender identity. This will happen on the local, state and even national level. This has already happened to a degree with their candidates for the 2020 presidential primary and during the midterm elections both the primary and the midterms saw historic representation for minorities. I think this trend will accelerate as the country becomes more diverse, regardless of if they take the White House in 2020. Their strategy of becoming the party which focuses on minorities seems to have worked fairly well so far, so I see no reason why they would change strategies, unless there is a radical shift in the political alignment of minorities in the United States. But what direction will they go in economically?

    Economically, I think the Democratic Party will also move further left by adopting many economic-populist stances such as UBI (as popularized by Andrew Yang), Medicare for all (an issue Bernie Sanders has repeatedly pushed for), and maybe Social Security reform. There are some left-wingers who are for economic protectionist policies, but I am not sure how mainstream or popular those ideas are. Additionally, I believe that the Democratic Party will become more explicitly anti-Capitalism, or at the very least become more in favor of regulating Capitalism. The justification for this could be to combat climate change, to address racial justice/equity and healthcare reform to deal with an ageing population. 

    The biggest issues they will face in winning elections are two things: not driving away white voters and not moving too far left economically. If they go too far in regards to identity politics, they could alienate white voters, who otherwise would vote for them. Resulting, similarly to how Trump in 2016 won in many states that had previously gone Democrat. Another challenge they will face in winning elections is in going too far left economically. The US is comparatively more right-wing and Conservative on the economy than many other countries. So if the Democratic Party goes too far left on certain economic issues, they may drive away more moderate voters. However, this may not be as big of an issue as one might think, because as demographics shift both racially and by generation, economic views may also shift. Some polling suggests Gen Z and Millennials are more skeptical of Capitalism than older generations. Gen Z and Millennials still vote at a lower rate than older generations, so older generations may continue to hold a disproportionate sway over politics, even as they become a smaller proportion of the population. Shifting too far left on identity politics and economic issues too quickly could, despite demographic shifts result in losing elections due to alienating white voters and economically moderate voters.   

A Problem With YouTube Politics

      So I, along with probably many people in my generation primarily follow politics through YouTube, Twitter, Reddit and other social media sites. There are certainly negative aspects of getting the majority of your news that way, and I am not blind to those negatives. Regardless of the downsides, the internet as a whole is becoming increasingly important not only to politics, but life in general, particularly for my generation. COVID-19 and the restrictions on in-person meetings has certainly accelerated the importance of the internet for this election. 

   Oftentimes people like Kyle Kulinski (Secular Talk), The Young Turks (TYT), Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool and countless others on both the left and right will be extremely critical of "mainstream media" like The New York Times, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post and (if they are left wing) Fox News. Oftentimes their criticisms will be things like pointing out how biased the media is, or claiming the media is irrelevant, propaganda for any given party, or ineffectual. All these criticisms may have some truth to them, but those aforementioned media organization do a few things that those YouTubers do not, journalism. Despite the many flaws of the more "mainstream media," they do still do investigative journalism something that those YouTubers typically do not do. Additionally, channels like Secular Talk, TYT, and Tim Pool are fairly reliant on the "mainstream media" for content. They often use clips or articles from those organizations and give their opinions, which is why they are able to do what they do for a fraction of the cost what Fox or CNN spends. They really only do punditry which is often extremely reliant on the preexisting media complex. Don't get me wrong, I think that it is good that there are people who do not always agree with the more "mainstream media" and often push back and criticize them, but until they do more actual investigative journalism there still will be a need for the (however flawed) mainstream media.   

    

The Thucydides Trap

What is the Thucydides Trap? 

    The Thucydides trap is a concept first coined by Graham T. Allison, an American political scientist. The Thucydides trap is when there is an established power and a rising power whose political, economic, or military goals oppose each others. Oftentimes the two powers end up going to war due to their opposing interests. Although one might think the rising power and the established power would go to war directly with one another; however, the initial conflict is frequently due to local or minor powers bringing them into war through alliances. One example being the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. 

The Prelude to War:

     Athens began leading a coalition of Greek city-states, called the Delian League against the Persian Empire. After defeating the Persian Empire, Athens began to more and more explicitly dominate the Delian League and the members of the league became less of equal partners and more like vassals or subjects. Athens began using all the wealth they were receiving as tributes from Delian League members to build up a massive navy. While this is all going on, tensions began growing between Sparta and Athens. 

   Epidamnus was ruled by an oligarchy, but was facing a Democratic revolt. The oligarchs turned to Corcyra, the mother city of Epidamnus, while the democrats turned to Corinth, who was the mother city of Corcyra. Neither Corcyra nor Corinth were members of either the Pelopennesian League or the Delian League. Corcyra and Corinth were going to war with each other of Epidamnus and the Corcyrans asked Athens to help them out against Corinth because they felt the Corinthians were overstepping their bounds. Sparta then decided to intervene on behalf of Corinth which turned what may have been a small war between a few city-states into a devastating war which engulfed almost the entire Hellenic world.  

The Results: 

    Athens and Sparta, along with many other cities were completely devastated by the war and in many ways never fully recovered, but Sparta did win the war. Sparta dismantled the Athenian Empire and replaced the Athenian democratic government with an oligarchy loyal to Sparta called the "Thirty Tyrants." The Thirty Tyrants were eventually overthrown and Democracy was restored to Athens, but Athens was never really the same and less than a hundred years later it was subdued by the Macedonians. Ultimately, a dispute between a city-state and its colony became a major war which led to the dissolving of one of the largest political, economic and diplomatic powers in the Hellenic world.

Modern Implications

     Obviously the world of today is very different from the world of antiquity, but there are many similarities between the diplomatic situation of the ancient Greeks and of the US today. The US since the fall of the Soviet Union has been the sole world superpower, but times are changing. No empire has lasted unchecked forever. Just as Athens began being challenged by Sparta, the US has begun being challenged by China. China has been growing in influence and power since it opened up to outside trade in the 1980s. In fact, by some measures the Chinese economy has already surpassed the US economy. China has committed numerous human rights violations against its own citizens and against foreigners. China also frequently acts in ways that many other countries find objectionable on the world stage and oftentimes Chinese interests oppose US interests. China seems to be growing more aggressive year by year as it becomes more economically and militarily powerful, but will it ever lead to all out war?  

    Now one can say that the US and China will never go to war because both countries recognize that a conventional war would, at the very least, be extremely costly and that there would be no guarantee of victory, but what seems like an almost unrelated local conflict could escalate into an all out war between the US and China just like it did for Athens and Sparta so many centuries ago. Additionally, every single time the US fails to sanction or act against China when China breaks international law or opposes our interests, it makes it more likely that China will act in a similar way again. A few questions remain: What would happen if the US decided to intervene when China breaks international law or acts against our interests in Hong Kong or with how China is treating the Uyghurs? Should the US join organizations like the TPP which seek to limit China economically and diplomatically? Are there peaceful ways to effectively counteract growing Chinese power and influence? Should the US try to maintain its empire if it means war with China?  

Vaush is Wrong About Western Civilization

So recently, I have been watching this political YouTube and Twitch streamer called Vaush. He identifies as a "market socialist" and "anarchist." He primarily makes content reacting to and debating right-wing content creators. I obviously disagree with a lot of his beliefs but find him interesting to watch nonetheless because it is often good to hear counterarguments and different points of view. Recently I was watching a response video he made to Steven Crowder entitled What is White Nationalism? Steven Crowder Shows Us In this video he made several incorrect claims about history. 

Vaush makes the claim that “historians and anthropologists and political scientists agree that it [Western Civilization] means nothing” Then he goes to say that “it doesn't mean anything it literally means fucking nothing and everyone has a different definition.” His first point is extremely easy to rebut, I took two classes titled “Western Civilization I” and “Western Civilization II” respectively, if that alone is not enough to prove that “Western Civilization” is in fact a term used in academia then a quick sample of my university’s library should be sufficient to prove him wrong.

After a quick pursuing, one can see that there are books and articles from as recent as 2014 that use the term “Western Civilization” in an academic sense. Clearly this term is still very much in use by the academic community so his argument that the term does not mean anything is false. His next point is a bit harder to refute since he claims that “everyone has different definition.” Yes, oftentimes scholars will have differing definitions of academic terms, but there are generally numerous commonalities in how they define the term in question. In the case of “Western Civilization,” a few key commonalities in the various definitions are terms like Christianity, Europe, and Greco-Roman, philosophy, tradition, and culture. Despite there being various definitions of Western Civilization, one can have a general idea of what someone else means when they use the term.

            Then Vaush goes on to ask, “Okay so does that include the western portion of Russia does that include Turkey which is arguably almost certainly in fact in a part of Europe does that include those swarthy Greeks?” He goes on to say “Western Civilization has broadly speaking always meant, hey what do I consider white culture to be at the time. What, what can I claim white people have done, and back in the day it didn't include Spanish people, it didn't include Germans, it didn't include the Irish, it didn't include the fucking Welsh, it didn't include the Scottish. Back then white people or Anglo-Saxons were British people that's it. That was what white people were and everyone else was swarthy and French people [were considered white] and everyone else was swarthy as fuck.[1]”  Here he is trying to say that oftentimes Conservatives and right-wingers define Western Civilization as “white civilization” or “white culture.” He then points out the problem with defining Western Civilization as white civilization, since that definition would exclude many nations that at one time were not considered “white” but now are. So I can not say for certain if when Conservatives and right-wingers use the term “Western Civilization” if they really do just mean white civilization or white people, but academic definitions generally do not define it as such. His claim that “Western Civilization has broadly speaking always meant, hey what do I consider white culture to be at the time.” is wrong. Academics almost never define Western Civilization so narrowly precisely because the definition of who is and is not “white” has changed dramatically over time and ancient peoples such as the Greeks and Romans did not have the same conception of race we do. Defining “Western Civilization” as “white civilization” or “white culture” is just simply incorrect.

 

            Vaush then claims that “ye old, back in ye old Medieval Ages my friend, people didn't give a fuck about the West, the West didn't even mean anything back then because it was defined in opposition to the Orient.” Even if we grant that back in the Medieval Era, the West was solely defined as being in opposition to the Orient, it still means something. Even if you define something as in opposition to something else, it still by definition means something. His argument is just strange, terms cannot be defined as in opposition to something else? Even back in Medieval times, I would not grant that the West was defined solely in opposition to the Orient. There very much was a cultural continuity between the former Roman Empire and the Medieval Kingdoms that replaced it. The Byzantine Empire, or Eastern Roman Empire was still a significant presence in Medieval Europe and the Middle East until roughly the 1400s. Additionally, what would become Germany, France, Spain, England and Italy were all still extremely influenced by Greco-Roman culture and philosophy.  I am kind of getting ahead of myself though, his next argument more explicitly states his belief that there was not a cultural continuity between Medieval Europe and ancient Greece and Rome.

“There were no fourteen hundreds English peasants who thought like ‘oh yes I am part of the Great Western civilization which dates back to the Athenian philosophers.’ Nobody thought that way. It was only after the Enlightenment…only after… the 1700s that people started to think that there was an intellectual tradition being carried forward from the ancient Greeks but even then, that didn't carry through the Holy Roman Empire that didn't carry through the German barbarian tribes.”

Yes, it is true that English peasants from the 1400s probably would not have thought about being a part of the a cultural tradition which dates back to Athens, but European nobility and the church were certainly a part of an intellectual tradition which dated back to antiquity, whether they considered themselves a part of this cultural tradition, or not. Many of the great Christian theologians’ writings were undeniably influenced by rhetoricians like Cicero and others. Additionally, Dante’s Inferno which was written in the 1300s (predating the Enlightenment and Renaissance) has multiple explicit and subtle allusions to historical figures from antiquity and Greco-Roman mythology. Next, I am not sure if he means that the Enlightenment did not carry over into the Holy Roman Empire, or if the Greco-Roman cultural tradition in general did not carry through to the Germans. Nevertheless, both claims would be wrong. Even the name “Holy Roman Empire” implies that they thought of themselves as part of the Roman cultural tradition. In fact, in Medieval times, and beyond being thought of as the successor to Rome was extremely important. That is part of the reason why Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor, “Romanorum imperatorem” or Emperor of the Romans and later on Holy Roman Emperors were crowned as “Rex Romanorum” or King of the Romans (The Russians and the Ottomans, after the fall of the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire both claimed to be the successors to the Eastern Roman Empire).[2] Even within the Germanic speaking Holy Roman Empire, Latin was a lingua franca among the nobility and elite. In fact, many titles for nobility are derived from Latin terms and many titles of social classes were also derived from Latin terms. The German word for “king” is “Kaiser,” which is derived from the name/title “Caesar.” There was a social class in Holy Roman free cities called “Patrizier,” a word which is derived from the Latin “Patricius,” or Patrician. Furthermore, several cities in the Holy Roman Empire were known as “Free Cities” and had a Republican form of government, which is obviously derived from Greek and Roman government practices.

Finally, Vaush claims that “Yes, Western Civilization and white culture are either dog whistles or used by people who don't know they are dog whistles.” The term “Western Civilization” is not inherently a dog whistle. Can it be used by racists as dog whistle? Yeah sure, but it is primarily an academic term used to describe the cultural continuity from Greco-Roman antiquity to today. A basic understanding of history shows that there was unquestionably a cultural continuity from Greece and Rome to Medieval Europe and beyond. Even if for some reason we grant him that Medieval Europe was not a part of that cultural tradition, and it was only with the Renaissance and Enlightenment that the West rediscovered Greco-Roman culture, it is still utterly undeniable that the modern-day United States, Europe and many other countries and nations are a part of a cultural tradition that goes back all the way to antiquity. The two main forms of government today are Democracies and Republics, which have their roots in ancient Greece and Rome. If we are not supposed to refer to our cultural tradition which has its roots in Greece and Rome as “Western Civilization” than what should we refer to it as?

 

 

 

The entirety of Vaush’s unhinged rant about Western Civilization:

“how long that term dates back because historians and anthropologists and political scientists agree that it means nothing guys do you think Western civilization means anything it doesn't it doesn't mean anything it literally means fucking nothing and everyone has a different definition got Western culture originated in or are associated with Europe okay so does that include the western portion of Russia does that include Turkey which is arguably almost certainly in fact in a part of Europe does that include those swarthy Greeks in reality what people consider to be Western civilization is a product almost exclusively of their biases at the time because back and ye old back in ye old medieval ages my friend people didn't give a fuck about the West the West didn't even mean anything back then because it was defined in opposition to the Orient but that wasn't even a fucking thing back then the only thing that people cared about was their King their monarchy there were feudal societies the idea of a nation-state didn't even exist yet there were no fourteen hundreds English peasants who thought like oh yes I am part of the Great Western civilization which dates back to the Athenian philosophers nobody thought that way it was only after the Enlightenment only after the only after the the 1700s that people started to think that there was an intellectual tradition being carried forward from the ancient Greeks but even then that didn't carry through the Holy Roman Empire that didn't carry through the German barbarian tribes what is and is not Western civilization has broadly speaking always meant hey what do I consider white culture to be at the time what what can I claim white people have done and back in the day it didn't include Spanish people it didn't include Germans it didn't include the Irish it didn't include the fucking Welsh it didn't include the Scottish back then white people or anglo-saxons British people that's it that was white people and everyone else was swarthy and French people and everyone else was swarthy as fuck these terms change so yes Western civilization and white culture are either dog whistles or used by people who don't know their dog whistles which is the point of a dog whistle you're not supposed to know if it's a racist iteration or not.”

Link to the full Vaush video I am responding to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5Ooc5V7BWY&list=WL&index=2&t=2083s the part I am responding to starts around 33:00 minutes into it. 

---

[1] Here he is alluding to a conception of whiteness from around the 18^th century, which really only included the English, Germans, Nordic peoples (like Swedes, Danes and Norwegians) and the French. Strangely enough he thinks that this definition excludes the Germans, despite the Anglo-Saxons, one of the progenitor groups of the English, being Germanic in origin.

Also, Scottish people are by definition British. His claim that their conception of “white people” was limited to British people, but excluded Scottish people is utter nonsense. He just does not understand the terminology correctly.

[2] Additionally, Charlemagne had plans to marry a Byzantine Empress in order to fully complete the reunification of the Roman Empire, but the plan never came to fruition because Charlemagne died on campaign in the Balkans before the ceremony could take place.

Adaptations and Avatar: The Last Airbender

     So I have been wanting to write about Avatar: The Last Airbender for awhile now, but I just have not gotten around to it until now. Originally, I was going to write a review and talk about why I love it so much on the 15th anniversary of it release (February 21st 2020) but I procrastinated too much and the moment passed me by. I really love Avatar, it is one of my favorite TV shows and franchises ever. Even now as an adult I rewatch the series from start to finish every few years and I get something new out of each time. So, I should have been delighted when I heard that Netflix was going to make a live-action version of the original series, right?

     Well, I am cautiously optimistic about their adaptation. But I have a number of reservations and just do not think that Avatar really needs an adaptation. Animation was the perfect medium for the story of Aang and his friends. Animation is in many ways more versatile and flexible than live-action and CGI. Animation can be bright and colorful when need be, or more dark and grounded. Additionally, animation is cheaper than live-action and CGI, which means you can do more with less resources. Cheap CGI ends up looking awful and in a show that is full of magic, whether it be spirits, bending, cosmic events, or hybrid animals, getting the look of them in CGI right will be a massive challenge, both financially and artistically. Live-action is (rightfully or wrongfully) often seen as more serious or mature in tone to animation, but the tone of Avatar ranges very widely episode to episode and even scene to scene. The comparatively more flexible style of animation is far more suitable to the diverse tones of Avatar than live-action is. Furthermore, some of the humor in the show is based off of the exaggerated faces and expressions that are really only possible in animation. The aesthetics of the show are also heavily based off of and inspired by anime and Asian art, it may be quite difficult to translate an anime inspired aesthetic into a live-action setting. And those are just some of the surface-level problems that come from adapting Avatar to live action.  

  

   If you think my fears are unfounded, just look at this comparison between the two different Aladdin movies. 

   The original Aladdin is far brighter, colorful, funnier and just more fun than the 2019 version. Much of the humor of the original does not work as well in the 2019 version due to it just not translating well to the more serious live-action format and consequently was not even attempted in the 2019 movie. The 2019 version of Aladdin just comes across as an imitation of the original 1999 version. Netflix's Avatar adaptation will face similar problems as the Aladdin 2019 movie did. 

   When I heard that Netflix was planning on making a live-action remake of Avatar, I just could not help but think to myself that I would be far more excited if Netflix instead commissioned a new series set in the same universe by the original creative team behind Avatar: The Last Airbender. I am just not sure exactly what the point of adapting Avatar to live-action is. Are they trying to appeal to adults? Or have the show be taken more seriously?  The popularity of shows like Rick and Morty, The Simpsons, South Park, Futurama show that there really is not that much of a stigma around adults watching animated TV shows as long as the shows are high quality. Additionally, Avatar when it first aired, and afterwards received tons of acclaim from both audiences and critics alike. Even now after 15 years it still is brought up as one of the greatest animated shows of all time, despite kids being the target audience. I want to see more stories set in the Avatar universe, but they told the story almost perfectly the first time around, so I do not see the value in rehashing the same story but in a different and arguably less suitable format. 

TEACH RHETORIC IN SCHOOLS!!!!!!

One of the supposed benefits of a Democratic or Republican form of government is that arguments, logic, and reason help us decide which actions to take as opposed to force being the deciding factor like in other forms of government. This is something I was taught from elementary school and all throughout college. One issue I could not help but notice when reflecting on my scholastic career is that, at least public schools teach very little philosophy, logic, reasoning, and rhetoric. It was only when I sought out those types of classes in college that I began to learn about them. Yes, in high school we were taught about people like Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, but we were really only taught summaries of what they thought, and we never did much actual reading and analysis of their own writings. Why in a system of government that is supposedly ruled through words, persuasion or more simply, rhetoric are we not taught how to properly analyze it?

Maybe because today the word rhetoric almost has a negative connotation. It is almost always associated with a negative concept in media. A headline from Salon reads “A Field Guide to Trump’s Dangerous Rhetoric.” A headline from Fox News reads “Will Democratic Leaders Address Violent Rhetoric?” On both left-wing and right-wing media, rhetoric is frequently proceeded by a negative word, which causes readers to subconsciously link the word “rhetoric” with objectionable notions. I am not sure exactly when rhetoric became so consistently linked to nasty perceptions, but rhetoric in of itself is not a bad thing. The only people who should fear rhetoric are those who do not understand it, which is one of the reasons why we should teach it in schools.

Rhetoric defined simply is the study and practice of utilizing language to persuade others. Now obviously rhetoric, like all other tools can be used to harm or hurt others. For example, rhetoric can be used to convince someone to donate to charity or join a gang. If one does not understand rhetoric and rhetorical devices, then they are more prone to be persuaded by faulty logic and people who use rhetoric to manipulate others like oily snake-like used-car salesmen. If they are taught rhetoric, then they will be less likely to be persuaded by faulty logic. Additionally, rhetoric is present in many areas of society, perhaps most noticeably and importantly in politics. What are political campaigns other than barrages of visual, verbal, and written rhetoric at voters? If every voter better understood rhetoric than our politicians would all be masterful persuaders, whose speeches would be eloquent. If all our politicians were master persuaders, then debates would be more entertaining, persuasive, and informative. If voters and politicians all had an improved grasp on rhetoric, they would be able to also understand their opponents better and where they come from. Perhaps this would lead to more bipartisanship among voters and politicians. Additionally, if all our politicians were master persuaders then it would also follow that they would be more intelligent than the politicians who represent now. Why would there be any reason we would not want more intelligent politicians? If our politicians were more intelligent then would not the laws, they pass be better crafted? And would better crafted laws not serve all our citizens better? Clearly if every voter and politician better understood rhetoric our republic would only be improved.

If the prospect of a healthier republic is not appealing than perhaps a more pragmatic view can be more persuasive. Being able to understand and utilize rhetoric is a practical skill. Sales is essentially just a subset of rhetoric. Sales can be an extremely lucrative career choice. By having our students study rhetoric more, we could prepare them to be successful in a rewarding and high-paying career. Why would we not want to prepare our students to be successful at a profitable career? Additionally, even if our students do not want to go into sales, rhetoric can serve them in other areas of their professional and personal lives. Rhetoric can be employed by young professionals to negotiate for higher wages regardless of what industry one is in. Even if all the previous reasons do not persuade you as to why rhetoric should be taught in schools then perhaps my next point will.

A better knowledge of rhetoric and how to use would result in happier and healthier relationships for everyone. One of the most common reasons for breakups and disputes in interpersonal relationships is due to a lack of or inadequate communication. We can help alleviate this by educating our students to communicate more effectively and directly by teaching them rhetoric. If people understand rhetoric well, then they will be able to communicate with their friends, family, spouses, and love-interests more clearly and directly. This will lead to our students having improved interpersonal relationships. Why would we not want our students to have healthier interpersonal relationships?  

Teaching students about rhetoric and how to use it should be a priority in the American education system. Americans having a better understanding of rhetoric would consequently produce a more engaged voter base along with more intelligent politicians and potentially more bipartisanship. Those would all lead to us having a healthier republic. Additionally, it could set them up to be more successful in sales and getting higher salaries regardless of the industry they enter in to. Furthermore, it could result in Americans having improved interpersonal relationships. In this article I have proven that rhetoric should be taught more in schools.