words by george orwell and teddy roosevelt – dystopia

March 21, 2025

Author: rayela

Brazil 18years + Chicago 20yrs + Paducah since 2005 These have shaped my path and interests. I spent many years as an active artist (ceramics and textiles) but have focused on promoting the creative community online since 2010. My current projects are Artizan Made and this site, Creative PlaceMakers.

We are going through some strange times here in the United States. Many of us are having a hard time processing what has been happening, especially those of us who pay attention, who like to read, who believe in science, who love diversity and who see government as an imperfect tool that represents “we the people”. We generally strive to see the big picture where our “today” is informed by yesterday’s history. Now we have this:

“On Jan. 29 [2025] from the Office of Personnel Management, written by acting director Charles Ezell, this was sent out: Every agency has interpreted the memo a little differently, but at the National Science Foundation, they’ve compiled a list of words that will initiate a review to see if it’s allowed.” These dangerous words set off an alert and then the text is examined and possibly scrubbed. Huge parts of our federal websites have disappeared, especially if they refer to women and other minorities. See Gizmodo for full article. Mind you, this is the National Science Foundation!!!!

This list is a part of Elon Musk’s “doge” team’s effort to erase diversity, equity and inclusiveness from any governmental records or efforts. DOGE stands for the Department Of Government Efficiency. It has had full access to all of our private data, has fired or bought out over 100,000 government employees (the numbers keep changing because they have been firing, saying “oops!”, rehiring and then firing again.), and are even trying to sell off federal buildings in DC and ending government leases. None of the people who are doing this, including Musk, have been vetted by Congress. The DOGE team are mostly made up young tech guys who work for Musk. Republicans in Congress are supporting this and the Supreme Court is compromised. Our fragile Democracy is plunging into authoritarianism: a system where power is concentrated in the hands of a single person or a small group, who control people’s lives and suppress individual freedoms and dissent. (google)

Many of us feel like we have stepped into a weird dystopia that we have read about in novels or watched in movies. Of these imagined worlds, George Orwell’s 1984 ranks up there in describing the state we seem to be heading towards.

dystopia: an imagined state or society in which there is great suffering or injustice, typically one that is totalitarian or post-apocalyptic.

Totalitarian states and greed have always existed, but technology makes these impulses and movements powerful and dangerous on a different level. Dissent and a demand for justice have accompanied these movements, often led by visionaries who can paint a picture of a better world that is worth fighting for. Those of us who seek to improve our communities often end up in the middle of conflicts between the wealthy and the poor, the users and the abused. So, in this post, I hope to look at Roosevelt and Orwell as guides on digesting this moment in our American history. What we are seeing here is not unique. The Far Right is making inroads all over the world, at a time when climate change, global health, wars and migration threaten this beautiful planet.

dangerous words

activism activists advocacy advocate advocates barrier barriers biased biased toward biases biases towards bipoc black and latinx community diversity community equity cultural differences cultural heritage culturally responsive disabilities disability discriminated discrimination discriminatory diverse backgrounds diverse communities diverse community diverse group diverse groups diversified diversify diversity and inclusion diversity equity enhance the diversity enhancing diversity equal opportunity equality equitable equity ethnicity excluded female females fostering inclusivity gender gender diversity genders hate speech hispanic minority historically implicit bias implicit biases inclusion inclusive inclusiveness inclusivity increase diversity increase the diversity indigenous community inequalities inequality inequitable inequities institutional lgbt marginalize marginalized minorities minority multicultural polarization political prejudice privileges promoting diversity race and ethnicity racial racial diversity racial inequality racial justice racially racism sense of belonging sexual preferences social justice sociocultural socioeconomic status stereotypes systemic trauma under appreciated under represented under served underrepresentation underrepresented underserved undervalued victim women women and underrepresented

These are the words that DOGE is scrubbing from our Federal websites, universities and public arenas. Many of the big tech companies and corporations are following suit. I look at these words and think, “Well, hello there, friends!” They are familiar to me and to my understanding of the world.

Please notice that “women” and “female” are on the list, but “men” and “male” are not. Excuse me while my eyes roll around in my head….

have liberals become “too politically correct”?

I have to admit that this allergy to inclusiveness and justice may be partially our fault (those of us on the Left). Special interest groups and identity politics have tended to shove their preferences down the throats of the larger population. Who comes up with the latest political correctness? I speak Portuguese and Spanish and almost croaked when LatinX became the proper word for the Latino community. That smelled of dead fish to me. The X is hard to pronounce in Spanish and Portuguese. It doesn’t roll off of the tongue easily. I felt vindicated when I started seeing the Latino community reject LatinX as a descriptive word for themselves. They didn’t like it.

And, I take issue with the whole focus on pronouns. From one day to another, almost every liberal website that I visited had their staff bios indicating pronouns. It’s nobody’s bleeping business what pronoun I am! Feminism worked hard for decades to separate work from gender. It shouldn’t matter what gender a person is in regards to their work. I find it regressive and I cringe at the they/them usage for one person. It’s confusing.

At the same time, I do feel that people need to have the authority of self determination. Think about how Black people have been referred to in the last 100 years…. Can this generation even understand the language of their great grandparents? Sometimes, language from the “hood” can become so privatized that it is code, only for those who live in that area. If we listen to oldest recordings that we have from the late 1800’s, it’s often difficult to understand exactly what they are talking about. Language is constantly changing and in the end, I try not to invest much emotion in those changes. I find them to be a distraction. People want acceptance, to be seen, just as they are. Why not give them that courtesy? (If my foggy brain can remember the protocols….)

Airplane is a classic that is a play on words from the beginning to the end of the movie. Humor is an art that understands the psyche of the current ethos. When it is done well, it steps into the collective memory for a long, long time….

Yes, we may be distracted by all of the chaos of these first three months of the Trump Administration, but round 2, is giving me bad, bad vibes. I’ve seen so many sci fi and dystopian movies… Teddy Roosevelt and George Orwell keep popping into my head, for different reasons, but somehow they seem linked together. They are the heroes of this post. Both used words to warn and to empower. While we look at them, let’s just have the First Amendment at the back of our minds:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in simple terms, protects fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

teddy roosevelt

I first took an interest in Teddy Roosevelt because he visited the Brazilian Amazon in 1913. He wrote a book about it, “Through the Brazilian Wilderness” and it was a fascinating read. He had traveled to Africa and all over the United States and made comparisons of what he saw. My parents were Lutheran missionaries in Brazil (1962-1980) and I was a baby when they arrived. I found it fascinating to read about that time when so much was still unknown.

Roosevelt almost died on that trip. He contracted malaria and was carried up and down rugged terrain until they finally made it out of there. He did die from complications of the disease many years later.

His son, Kermit, was with him and his story is a sad one…. When they got back to the US and Roosevelt was elected President, he sent Kermit to work with the indigenous communities in Alaska. Kermit actually organized their artwork for exhibition for the first time, creating an income generating stream that would become extremely important for the Native people in Alaska. Unfortunately, he committed suicide while he was there. Many years later, the medical community believed that he suffered from seasonal affective disorder, where you cannot handle the short days and lack of sunlight.

Then, I read a book about Roosevelt and Taft, his vice President who later became President. They had a love relationship for many years which ended up in bitterness. Taft was an interesting character. He was huge. It is said that he was buried in a piano box. At the same time, he was light on his feet and loved to dance. He was the Ambassador to the Philippines and was the life of the party. All of the women wanted to dance with him. I’ve read other stuff about them, too. Here’s the thing: From the Independence on into the 1st World War, almost all of the American leaders were fans of the arts. They read, they danced, they spoke several languages, they travelled all over the place, went to the opera, supported plays and had a huge knowledge of history. They were not intimidated by words. In fact, they used them to excess…. There was a thirst for knowledge and a lust for life that we do not see much anymore. Instead, we see the “Dumbing Down of America”. Science is suspicious, travel is now dangerous, our kids can’t write in cursive and our popular culture is obsessed with vanity. Nails and eyelashes…. Consume as much as you can until you explode!

Teddy was also instrumental in the building of the Panama Canal. I heard an amazing audio book about the construction, “The Path Between the Seas” and it was quite the feat! Another bizarre parallel between him and Trump.

Roosevelt is one of my favorite Presidents. Note that he was a progressive Republican. He created our National Parks and advocated for the poor. But, he was a bully. Read about the Bull Moose Party that he created. Eye roll! He went on African safaris and hunted animals that are now endangered. He was a weakly child who pushed himself to health and he took the world by its horns and tried to tame it. Here is the ironic thing for me: I think he had many of the same impulses that Trump has. Yikes! Vomit! Ick, ick, ick…. But, the difference: he used his bully tactics to try to create fair opportunities for all Americans. And, he had a sense of humor.

Teddy had a pile of kids, including Alice Roosevelt. She was quite the rebel! His famous quote about her: “I can do one of two things. I can be President of the United States or I can control Alice. I cannot possibly do both.”

hahahahahahahahaha!

Note: My friend, Thomas Spaulding, works with racial justice trainings and he alerted me to Teddy’s racist view of White Supremacy and of his interest and support of Eugenics, which was emerging at the time. Ugh. History.com has a great article on how that affected his leadership. While Teddy had friendships with African Americans, he found the majority of them, along with Native Americans, to be lacking in intellect and fortitude. It’s one more mixed story of our past, where Whiteness is elevated to power and opportunity.

a long speech

Now, bear with me. I think this is important enough for me to spend the time on it and for you to let it sink in. Teddy is known for a speech, now known as the Man in the Arena, “Citizenship In A Republic”, delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on April, 1910. The speech is long and dense, lots of words. You can see the full account here.

I tried to cut a lot out of the speech, but it is still long. I kept seeing Trump, Elon Musk and wimpy elected officials in the subtext. Roosevelt is from another time and much that he says might sound sexist or condescending. But, I believe that the drive behind his ethos is one of goodness and justice. Many men seem to feel displaced these days, not quite sure what their role should be in our society. I think that Roosevelt shows at least one path, one where the pursuit of justice and fairness pushes us to action and clarity. Be not afraid!

Here we go:

Strange and impressive associations rise in the mind of a man from the New World who speaks before this august body in this ancient institution of learning. Before his eyes pass the shadows of mighty kings and war-like nobles, of great masters of law and theology; through the shining dust of the dead centuries he sees crowded figures that tell of the power and learning and splendor of times gone by; and he sees also the innumerable host of humble students to whom clerkship meant emancipation, to whom it was well-nigh the only outlet from the dark thralldom of the Middle Ages.

This was the most famous university of mediaeval Europe at a time when no one dreamed that there was a New World to discover. Its services to the cause of human knowledge already stretched far back into the remote past at a time when my forefathers, three centuries ago, were among the sparse bands of traders, ploughmen, wood-choppers, and fisherfolk who, in hard struggle with the iron unfriendliness of the Indian-haunted land, were laying the foundations of what has now become the giant republic of the West. To conquer a continent, to tame the shaggy roughness of wild nature, means grim warfare; and the generations engaged in it cannot keep, still less add to, the stores of garnered wisdom which where once theirs, and which are still in the hands of their brethren who dwell in the old land.

The pioneer days pass; the stump-dotted clearings expand into vast stretches of fertile farm land; the stockaded clusters of log cabins change into towns; the hunters of game, the fellers of trees, the rude frontier traders and tillers of the soil, the men who wander all their lives long through the wilderness as the heralds and harbingers of an oncoming civilization, themselves vanish before the civilization for which they have prepared the way.

The new life thus sought can in part be developed afresh from what is roundabout in the New World; but it can developed in full only by freely drawing upon the treasure-houses of the Old World, upon the treasures stored in the ancient abodes of wisdom and learning, such as this is where I speak to-day. It is a mistake for any nation to merely copy another; but it is even a greater mistake, it is a proof of weakness in any nation, not to be anxious to learn from one another and willing and able to adapt that learning to the new national conditions and make it fruitful and productive therein.

Today I shall speak to you on the subject of individual citizenship, the one subject of vital importance to you, my hearers, and to me and my countrymen, because you and we a great citizens of great democratic republics. A democratic republic such as ours – an effort to realize its full sense government by, of, and for the people – represents the most gigantic of all possible social experiments, the one fraught with great responsibilities alike for good and evil. The success or republics like yours and like ours means the glory, and our failure of despair, of mankind; and for you and for us the question of the quality of the individual citizen is supreme. … With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average women, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional cries which call for heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed.

It is well if a large proportion of the leaders in any republic, in any democracy, are, as a matter of course, drawn from the classes represented in this audience to-day; but only provided that those classes possess the gifts of sympathy with plain people and of devotion to great ideals. You and those like you have received special advantages; you have all of you had the opportunity for mental training; many of you have had leisure; most of you have had a chance for enjoyment of life far greater than comes to the majority of your fellows. To you and your kind much has been given, and from you much should be expected.

Yet there are certain failings against which it is especially incumbent that both men of trained and cultivated intellect, and men of inherited wealth and position should especially guard themselves, because to these failings they are especially liable; and if yielded to, their- your- chances of useful service are at an end. Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength.

France has taught many lessons to other nations: surely one of the most important lesson is the lesson her whole history teaches, that a high artistic and literary development is compatible with notable leadership in arms and statecraft. The brilliant gallantry of the French soldier has for many centuries been proverbial; and during these same centuries at every court in Europe the “freemasons of fashion: have treated the French tongue as their common speech; while every artist and man of letters, and every man of science able to appreciate that marvelous instrument of precision, French prose, had turned toward France for aid and inspiration.

There is need of a sound body, and even more of a sound mind. But above mind and above body stands character – the sum of those qualities which we mean when we speak of a man’s force and courage, of his good faith and sense of honor. I believe in exercise for the body, always provided that we keep in mind that physical development is a means and not an end. I believe, of course, in giving to all the people a good education. But the education must contain much besides book-learning in order to be really good. We must ever remember that no keenness and subtleness of intellect, no polish, no cleverness, in any way make up for the lack of the great solid qualities. Self restraint, self mastery, common sense, the power of accepting individual responsibility and yet of acting in conjunction with others, courage and resolution – these are the qualities which mark a masterful people. Without them no people can control itself, or save itself from being controlled from the outside.

Nevertheless, while laying all stress on this point, while not merely acknowledging but insisting upon the fact that there must be a basis of material well-being for the individual as for the nation, let us with equal emphasis insist that this material well-being represents nothing but the foundation, and that the foundation, though indispensable, is worthless unless upon it is raised the superstructure of a higher life. That is why I decline to recognize the mere multimillionaire, the man of mere wealth, as an asset of value to any country; and especially as not an asset to my own country. If he has earned or uses his wealth in a way that makes him a real benefit, of real use- and such is often the case- why, then he does become an asset of real worth. But it is the way in which it has been earned or used, and not the mere fact of wealth, that entitles him to the credit. There is need in business, as in most other forms of human activity, of the great guiding intelligences. Their places cannot be supplied by any number of lesser intelligences. It is a good thing that they should have ample recognition, ample reward. But we must not transfer our admiration to the reward instead of to the deed rewarded; and if what should be the reward exists without the service having been rendered, then admiration will only come from those who are mean of soul.

The truth is that, after a certain measure of tangible material success or reward has been achieved, the question of increasing it becomes of constantly less importance compared to the other things that can be done in life. It is a bad thing for a nation to raise and to admire a false standard of success; and their can be no falser standard than that set by the deification of material well-being in and for itself. But the man who, having far surpassed the limits of providing for the wants; both of the body and mind, of himself and of those depending upon him, then piles up a great fortune, for the acquisition or retention of which he returns no corresponding benefit to the nation as a whole, should himself be made to feel that, so far from being desirable, he is an unworthy, citizen of the community: that he is to be neither admired nor envied; that his right-thinking fellow countrymen put him low in the scale of citizenship, and leave him to be consoled by the admiration of those whose level of purpose is even lower than his own.

My position as regards the moneyed interests can be put in a few words. In every civilized society property rights must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily, and in the great majority of cases, human rights and property rights are fundamentally and in the long run identical; but when it clearly appears that there is a real conflict between them, human rights must have the upper hand, for property belongs to man and not man to property. In fact, it is essential to good citizenship clearly to understand that there are certain qualities which we in a democracy are prone to admire in and of themselves, which ought by rights to be judged admirable or the reverse solely from the standpoint of the use made of them. Foremost among these I should include two very distinct gifts – the gift of money-making and the gift of oratory. Money-making, the money touch I have spoken of above. It is a quality which in a moderate degree is essential. It may be useful when developed to a very great degree, but only if accompanied and controlled by other qualities; and without such control the possessor tends to develop into one of the least attractive types produced by a modern industrial democracy. So it is with the orator. It is highly desirable that a leader of opinion in democracy should be able to state his views clearly and convincingly. But all that the oratory can do of value to the community is enable the man thus to explain himself; if it enables the orator to put false values on things, it merely makes him power for mischief.

Of course all that I say of the orator applies with even greater force to the orator’s latter-day and more influential brother, the journalist. The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright. He can do, and often does, great good. He can do, and he often does, infinite mischief. All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it. Mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, vapid triviality, all are potent factors for the debauchery of the public mind and conscience. The excuse advanced for vicious writing, that the public demands it and that demand must be supplied, can no more be admitted than if it were advanced by purveyors of food who sell poisonous adulterations. In short, the good citizen in a republic must realize that the ought to possess two sets of qualities, and that neither avails without the other.

But if a man’s efficiency is not guided and regulated by a moral sense, then the more efficient he is the worse he is, the more dangerous to the body politic. Courage, intellect, all the masterful qualities, serve but to make a man more evil if they are merely used for that man’s own advancement, with brutal indifference to the rights of others. It speaks ill for the community if the community worships these qualities and treats their possessors as heroes regardless of whether the qualities are used rightly or wrongly. It makes no difference as to the precise way in which this sinister efficiency is shown. It makes no difference whether such a man’s force and ability betray themselves in a career of money-maker or politician, soldier or orator, journalist or popular leader. If the man works for evil, then the more successful he is the more he should be despised and condemned by all upright and far-seeing men. To judge a man merely by success is an abhorrent wrong; and if the people at large habitually so judge men, if they grow to condone wickedness because the wicked man triumphs, they show their inability to understand that in the last analysis free institutions rest upon the character of citizenship, and that by such admiration of evil they prove themselves unfit for liberty. … The closest philosopher, the refined and cultured individual who from his library tells how men ought to be governed under ideal conditions, is of no use in actual governmental work; and the one-sided fanatic, and still more the mob-leader, and the insincere man who to achieve power promises what by no possibility can be performed, are not merely useless but noxious.

The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impractical visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the embittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcoming, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things. Woe to the empty phrase-maker, to the empty idealist, who, instead of making ready the ground for the man of action, turns against him when he appears and hampers him when he does work!

We can just as little afford to follow the doctrinaires of an extreme individualism as the doctrinaires of an extreme socialism. Individual initiative, so far from being discouraged, should be stimulated; and yet we should remember that, as society develops and grows more complex, we continually find that things which once it was desirable to leave to individual initiative can, under changed conditions, be performed with better results by common effort. It is quite impossible, and equally undesirable, to draw in theory a hard-and-fast line which shall always divide the two sets of cases. This every one who is not cursed with the pride of the closest philosopher will see, if he will only take the trouble to think about some of our closet phenomena.

And now, my hosts, a word in parting. You and I belong to the only two republics among the great powers of the world. The ancient friendship between France and the United States has been, on the whole, a sincere and disinterested friendship. A calamity to you would be a sorrow to us. But it would be more than that. In the seething turmoil of the history of humanity certain nations stand out as possessing a peculiar power or charm, some special gift of beauty or wisdom of strength, which puts them among the immortals, which makes them rank forever with the leaders of mankind. France is one of these nations. For her to sink would be a loss to all the world. There are certain lessons of brilliance and of generous gallantry that she can teach better than any of her sister nations. … You have had a great past. I believe you will have a great future. Long may you carry yourselves proudly as citizens of a nation which bears a leading part in the teaching and uplifting of mankind.

how many dangerous words did you find in his speech?

Now, you have to watch a bit of this video. Same speech. The voice recording is so surprising as his voice pitch is so high, but from the comments that I read, this could have been because of the tech back then.

That’s it for Roosevelt. He was so much more than this, but I’m not writing a book…. This speech is relevant because of how he looks at property, wealth, the media and the responsibility of those who have been given more opportunities in life.

george orwell

1984 and Animal Farm were the two books I read by George Orwell when I was in High School in Brazil. Both are banned in many schools and libraries in the United States these days. It is so strange…. My father was an English Literature major in college and he had me reading Albert Camus and Tolstoy and many other authors when I was a teen. I read about the holocaust, about Native Americans, and so much more. Now, our politicians tiptoe around tough literature, running away from the difficult times in our history. How can we avoid making the same mistakes if we don’t know what has failed in the past?

I have not read more by George Orwell and it looks like I should. His Foundation has an extensive list of links here. The two books that I did read plus the movies about them shook me to my core. I graduated from St Olaf College in 1984 and moved to Chicago where I worked and lived in the inner city for 20 years. The movie “Brazil” is an interpretation of 1984. I saw it with some friends in downtown Chicago and when we left the theater, it was dark and ominous. The skyscrapers surrounded us as we walked quickly to our cars. We did not talk.

I never understood why it was titled “Brazil” and that made it even more depressing, but I found this video of Terry Gilliam talking about the movie and it was so interesting! The scary thing is that so much of what he said about his fears of where our society is going is coming true.

So many of the scenes still resonate with me, about how our lives have been boiled down to artificial moments of fake menus and warped senses of beauty. How driving out of the city shows a post nuclear world that has been blasted to smithereens, yet the highway has billboards on either side of a fake happy life…. Because this version is so nuts, it is unreal. The John Hurt version is terrifying and closer to the book. This clip shows a bit of how “Big Brother” and thought control took root in our imagination:

The dangerous words at the top of this post are part of such a purge of critical thinking or independent thought. The latest purge includes historical images and information about all military acknowledgements of people of color or of women who served this country. They are just wiping them out, like they never existed. Some of their choices show how dumb they can be. The “Enola Gay” was the airplane who dropped the nukes on Hiroshima. Nothing to be proud of, an obscene horror, but it is part of our history. Why it’s being purged? Because of the word “gay”. Eye roll. Again… The Dumbing Down of America.

The Enola Gay was named after the pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbets’s mother. It was a Boeing B-29 Superfortress, a long-range bomber, and it was specially modified to carry the atomic bomb, “Little Boy,” which was detonated over Hiroshima.

Roosevelt and Orwell were actually contemporaries…. I didn’t realize that until I started writing this post. I always though of Orwell as more recent, but although younger than Roosevelt, he was born in 1903. Teddy was born in 1858. This video gives a bit of background on the interesting life George Orwell led. For one thing, his real name was Eric Blair, which I did not know, and he was born in India. He had TB and eventually died of it.

There is only one paltry video of George Orwell and it’s not worth posting here. He is just walking with some classmates for a brief moment. No other records have been found. But, the BBC did a great bit on him with an actor who sure caught the spirit of Orwell! All of the words spoken in that biography do belong to George…. This first video is part of an interview. The settings doesn’t allow it to be shown on outside sites, so go here to see it. Quite tender.

Then, there is his final warning (same movie). It’s bleak and I feel like we are rushing towards it. The thing that I cannot understand is how people would willingly give up the simple joys of being alive and in community! Well, there we go….

just two more clips to look at

Charlie Chaplin and Frank Zappa, an unlikely pairing, and yet, through their art, they sought freedom of expression and took great risks in exposing themselves in this way.

Charlie Chaplin first, in the Great Dictator:

Adolph kind of ruined that moustache fashion, didn’t he? But, it does create an impact when talking about the Great Dictator!

Finally, I have long loved Frank Zappa. I actually don’t care much for his hard rock, the eternal electronic solos, but I do love how he uses words and I have watched many videos of his takes on American society and politics. The man was brilliant and he predicted how it would all go down. Christian Nationalism is a cancer in our society and Zappa saw this brand of fascism coming. It all started with Reagan and Zappa called it out. I was there to witness it. From one day to another, Reagan shut down social service agencies and cut all kinds of funding that benefitted poor people. Overnight, the city became flooded with homelessness. Most were VietNam vets. Halfway houses were closed and lost people roamed around in the streets, wondering where they belonged….

last words

These videos all show men intellectualizing about how they would like to bring about social change. They are also all white or Jewish. They resonate with me and ring the bell of sanity. We have many other people to explore down the road and will include lots of those dangerous words up at the top, including women, minorities, and creative activists who are working to change the world.

I don’t really know what the point of all of this is except to say that literature, writing, reading, the spoken word…. Those are all powerful forces for change. All of us who are propelled forward by a creative spirit should feel confident in our messaging because so many have come before us, preparing the way, and many more will step ahead and lead the way. We must be bold and shake things up! Use those dangerous words. Make them yours!

join us!

I launched this site before Trump was elected. I was aware of Project 2025 and of all the awful things he, Steve Bannon, and so many others were planning to do. I assumed that our majority would reject this vision for the United States and that Kamala Harris would be our first female President. There are many things that I find lacking in the Democratic platform, but for the last 50 years, they have reflected a commitment to the poor, to minorities, to science, to working with other countries, and now to climate change. None of the options we have are perfect, but all of us can do our part to reject totalitarianism and to make our societies safe places for people, animals and nature, whether we like them or not.

Creative PlaceMakers is a safe place for people who have a creative approach to problem solving, who support the arts, embrace diversity and who want a sustainable planet. Join us and use your dangerous words on our blog! We have 90 creative categories and you can pick 6 to represent your passions. Let’s make this a vibrant, fun and meaningful directory with a map full of people standing up for Democracy!