There’s Only Ever One Side of the Story, Or Is There?

A facet is a single side to a person’s character, achievements, skills, interests, hobbies and/or other things.  The cube above represents the many sides of a person or event. History (and history books) are guilty of stripping down moments of significant events to fit their side of the story, or what that publisher and/or author is trying to teach you. Because of this, most students end up only knowing one side of  some of the most influential people in history.

What is the first thing that pops into your mind when you hear the word “Einstein”? I immediately think of the equation E = mcand then stop thinking about it. That’s honestly all I remember on Einstein, and I literally wrote an essay about him a few weeks ago. What about people who studied him ages ago, or haven’t even started studying him? In the end, most people only remember that he came up with the equation for mass-energy equivalence. I didn’t know that he had different affairs with multiple women until recently. And it’s not just Einstein whom we only learn one side of. There’s other impactful people in history who have the same fate. Did you know that Amelia Earhart worked as a nurse’s aide? The only thing I knew about her was that she was one of the first female aviators. And what about wars? If you live in the Southern part of America, it’s very likely that you’d learn different things about the Civil War than what the people living in the Northern part would learn.

This led me to ask myself, “Why does this happen?” I, soon, ended up remembering something I learned in Latin class last year: the stereotypical jock. The stereotypical jock has a lot of brawn but no brains and vice versa for the stereotypical nerd. They’re either smart and weak, or strong and stupid. You can see this portrayed in all forms of media, from books to movies. But, where does that stereotype come from?

The all brawn and no brains, or all brains and no brawn, stereotype can be traced back to the myths of Hercules (Greek: Heracles). According to those myths, Hercules was a demigod, who had super strength, but he did not enjoy learning. Because of this, Hercules ended up killing his music teacher with his bare hands. Hercules was an all brawn and no brains type of dude.

Since the Ancient World, some historians have only recorded one side of the story, the winning side’s story, which is not okay. However, studying different sides of the same story also does not make any sense. If you’re applying for college, or any other beneficial opportunity, the worst type of candidate you can be is a well-rounded candidate. Most colleges don’t care if you can’t sing to save your life if you’ve achieved something big and are looking to go into that field. College, especially, is all about defining you with just one thing: your selected major.

So, what’s better; people seeing all of your sides ,or people only seeing your best one? I’ll let you decide.

However, do keep in mind that the President of the United States of America has many sides. So do many other influential politicians. In fact, three Congress members resigned after stories about them being sexual predators surfaced. And it’s not just politics; stories of sexual assault have also reached the music industry. Melanie Martinez has been accused of raping her best friend. Now, do you still think that we should only focus on these people’s professional lives, or do you think that we should focus equally on their personal lives? After all, one’s personal life greatly impacts their professional one.

(Side note: the word facet comes from the French word for appearance, facette, which most probably comes from the Latin word facies, meaning face and appearance).

 

(edited this post on December 11th, 2017 to fit recent events)

Oxford Dictionary

Etymonline

“Dulce et Decorum est” by Wilfred Owen

“Dulce et Decorum est” is a well-known anti-war poem by Wilfred Owen, In this poem, Owen describes the shock of a gas attack and the effects they had on soldiers who were lucky enough to survive them. From a glance at the poem, you can see that the poem is broken into 4 verses and structured around three disturbing images. The poem itself is written in two parts (14 lines each); the first part is written in present tense, as if he’s one of the soldiers, and the second part is written as if he’s watching what’s happening from a distance. Owen’s effort to convey the horrors of war was successful because the imagery he used throughout the poem was solid.

Here is the poem:

In the first stanza, a group of soldiers are in no man’s land, trying to go back into the trenches. During the first few lines, the reader can easily picture the horrible conditions of the trenches; the soldiers were compared to beggars because of their physical and mental conditions. The second image, in the second stanza, is more disturbing; Owen writes about a soldier who fails to put his gas mask on, in a timely manner, during a gas attack. And last but not least, the third image Owen depicts is in the fourth stanza. In it, Owen illustrates how that dying soldier, and other dead soldiers, was/were treated by writing, “Behind the wagon that we flung him in,” (18). This shows that they were all tossed into a wagon and buried together, without a proper burial.

In the last two lines of the poem (28 and 29), Owen writes, “the old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori”. The last two lines are important because the title of the poem comes from it, and he rejects Horace’s beliefs. Horace was an Ancient Roman poet who wrote, in the Odes, “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (III.2.13). “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” can be translated as “It is sweet and proper to die for the fatherland”. Wilfred calls Horace’s glorification an old lie and tries to prove how choking, and dying, from a gas attack is neither sweet nor proper. He ends the poem with that, for a deeper effect, which worked.

Is It Sinister To Be Sinistra?

Throughout history, people did not consider being left-handed a good thing. In fact, some lefties were forced to start writing with their right hand. For example, one of my parent’s family friends is ambidextrous because the school he went to forced him to write with his right hand even though he was left-handed. Even today, some cultures view being left-handed as an unfortunate thing. In Europe, people used to call homosexuals left-handed. This transformed the word’s definition into something offensive. In Latin, the word sinistra, sinistrae (feminine) means left handed. Sinistra has the same root as sinister, which means inauspicious. In Ancient Rome, left-handed people were considered to be unreliable. However, surprisingly, left-handed soldiers in the Roman Legion were considered to be special because they could fight with different methods.

This is definitely still true today. When I serve in tennis, my ball normally ends up going around 40mph and deep into the service box. I also hit fast, flat returns with my forehand because my left-hand is strong and dominant. This helps me win most matches because it’s easier for me to aim at their backhand while they’re lost over which hand my forehand is.

Amoral, Immoral, & Morals

What Are Morals?

According to Google’s ‘pop-up’ dictionary, morals are a person’s principles that govern the way they behave and act. Most people have a basic set of morals. This might be because of the values their family or religion instilled into them while they were growing up. Many basic morals include no stealing, no lying, and equality.

However, some people can be considered to be immoral by society; this could include criminals, offenders, thieves, or others. People who are immoral are considered to have bad morals. This does not mean that they are lacking morals, but it does mean that their morals are twisted (in a bad way). Another thing some criminals, burglars, offenders, or other people, can be is amoral. Being amoral doesn’t mean you have bad morals, but it doesn’t mean you have good ones either; it means that you lack them. This is worse than being immoral because at least immoral people have morals.

I don’t think I have encountered anyone who is amoral which, in my opinion, is a good thing. But, while saying that, the number one example that pops into my head, when the word amoral is mentioned, are the Ancient Greek and Roman gods. For example, Jupiter/Zeus, king of the gods, always had affairs with women and didn’t feel any guilt at all. Hercules (Hercales) came out of one of his affairs and a lot of other children. However, this didn’t stop Jupiter from going out and having more affairs.

From my experience (on being in this world for the past fourteen years), I feel that the person cheating would at least feel guilty for cheating on their partner, especially if children came out of the affair. However, in the case of the Greek/Roman myths, none of the gods ever felt guilty. The following sentences are a few examples that prove my point. Juno (Hera) didn’t feel guilty for throwing (technically tossing) Vulcan (Hephaestus) out of Olympus when he was a baby. Venus (Aphrodite) didn’t feel bad about cheating on her husband with Mars (Ares). Polydectes didn’t feel bad about sending the son of the woman he wanted to marry (Perseus) away to complete an impossible task (decapitating Medusa). All of these examples can also be traced back to the earliest myths about Saturn (Cronus), too. Saturn ate his kids, the Titans, before Jupiter saved them.

It’s a good thing that myths are only myths because having a sense of morals is needed in order to be a good citizen and a contributing member of society.