<p>What puzzles me is people whom are quick to post without knowing anything about David McCullough Jr. I’ve seen people mis-represent the subject he teaches, his background, his education, his upbringing…I mean it’s really odd to me that people feel ready to just ‘jump in’ with their opinion about something and decide to just ‘guess’ about where the speaker was raised, where he comes from… 2 minutes on the web will fill in a lot of blanks before you post about something or someone.</p>
<p>This just made my day. It is so true and I completely support him. Everyone should be able to graduate high school unless they purposely don’t try and give up.</p>
<p>
I agree that it is in the best interest of everyone if we cease to argue. I would like to briefly explain why I wrote what I did, though. You are right that I did more than present logic and evidence, as I spoke with anger to that post. I was riled up, unnecessarily but – I hope – understandably so, by the insinuation that Americans are better people than human beings that happened to reside in any other country. I do not believe in “American exceptionalism,” but rather in human exceptionalism; no one people is any more or less selfless/selfish, good/evil, et cetera than every other. It can and should be measured only at either the individual level or the human level. I also believe that people need to give more, not less, and so felt that the message of that post was a decidedly negative one, though I, regrettably, reacted in a negative manner.</p>
<p>I apologize that, if in my argument that Americans are no better than the rest of humanity I came across as saying that Americans are worse than the rest of humanity – I do not believe that. We were arguing over a point similar to this, but I suspect we were each arguing on a slightly different topic, which would explain why we did not understand where the other was coming from.</p>
<p>helluva lot better than the “go out there and change the world” speech I just suffered through last night.</p>
<p>Anyone remember the parent-teacher conference in the Roseanne Show?</p>
<p>Teacher: How would you describe your relationship with your daughter?
Roseanne: I’d say it’s typical.
Teacher: Typical, not special?
Roseanne: Typical.</p>
<p>“It’s one reason why like that English teacher if he was dumb enough to try delivering that speech at my HS, you’d come across as nothing more than a sheltered out-of-touch upper/upper-middle class suburbanite and ignored/mocked/pranked accordingly by the student body and alums.”</p>
<p>Thus proving my point once more. You seem to think your high school should loom so large that the thought of being “ignored/mocked/pranked” by them would be some sort of insult. Who cares? Your incessant posting about “what the students in my high school” think about this, that and the other thing is odd for an adult.</p>
<p>I don’t think cobrat has been out of college very long, so while still an adult, it isn’t that odd that they still would use their high school as a frame of reference, especially if their college experience wasn’t very memorable.
I’m sure they will gain new references with time and experience.</p>
<p>“I do not believe in “American exceptionalism,” but rather in human exceptionalism; no one people is any more or less selfless/selfish, good/evil, et cetera than every other. It can and should be measured only at either the individual level or the human level.”</p>
<p>I guess I still have one argument left in me. Perhaps the difference is the philosophy that our country is different than most. While we have our faults and struggles, all systems of governance are not equal. Certainly we are not the most exceptional in every possible way, but if you look at the course of history, past and present, there are very few countries that have ended up like ours. As a melting pot where people of different cultures and colors mostly get along. With a political system that we can vote in or out, a judicial system that is mostly fair, where people have a chance at upward mobility, don’t starve to death or live in serious poverty, health care is generally good, and many diseases have been eradicated. A place where can get a decent education and most are literate. Where people live to a relatively long age and have the freedom to speak, worship and act as they choose without fear of persecution, execution or jail. </p>
<p>This does not describe the vast majority of other countries, even today. While a handful of smaller countries manage to do many things better, quite a few are still ruled by dictators, religious theocracies, military leaders, or those who will crush anyone who speaks against them. There aren’t many countries where people have the freedom that we do, and that, I think, is truly exceptional.</p>
<p>And there’s no reason to apologize to anyone. Nothing wrong with disagreement.</p>
<p>Busdriver11, again, I don’t think you understand me. I’m not saying that the government of America is no better or worse than the government of Iran (for example), I’m saying that the people of America are no better or worse than the people of Iran (or whatever other country).</p>
<p>^^Then I misunderstood. I agree with you.</p>
<p><<<certainly we="" are="" not="" the="" most="" exceptional="" in="" every="" possible="" way,="" but="" if="" you="" look="" at="" course="" of="" history,="" past="" and="" present,="" there="" very="" few="" countries="" that="" have="" ended="" up="" like="" ours.="">>></certainly></p>
<p>Europe:</p>
<p>A bunch of countries stuck together on a long stretch of land, with very different cultures, ideas, philosophy, competing for resources. They can go to war for politics, resources, whatever they want in days, weeks, occassionally months (rare, unless you wanna attack Russia—very bad idea). Travel by land, reach where you need to go in days, weeks, maybe a few months (Russia–bad idea). Easier to deploy spies, information travels relatively fast because the countries are closer together. Not to mention posting men in other countries that they can relatively be easier to control.</p>
<p>The Beautiful United States of America:</p>
<p>Separated by a huge ocean from all the nations and countries that could even pose a tiny bit of threat. Let’s see. From 1776 to 1918, what kind of country would be stupid enough to wage war on the U.S.? They’re too freakin’ far away. Travel by water is way more difficult than travel by land. The U.S. could’ve called Europeans a bunch of pigs, burned their flags, and what is any country in Europe going to do? Send tens of thousands of men across thousands of miles of water to wage a war from home, and deliver orders that takes months to reach rather than weeks or days when they fight with other European countries? Deploy spies that are useless because, by the time they deliver their important information to their home country, it’ll be obsolete and useless. Not to mention the home-field advantage the Americans have that most European Generals never even saw with their own eyes, while every map of the European land has been pre-sighted from all the wars and **** they’ve done for centuries. The countries in Europe got enough crap to worry about in their own place.</p>
<p>The U.S. was very lucky to be separated by the sea from all the other warring, constantly alliance-shifting, conflicting countries on the other side. That allowed people in the U.S. to consolidate, develop, learn and reflect safely without constantly worrying about getting attacked and **** and using so much money dealing with foreign bullcrap.</p>
<p>If the U.S. was actually in the German area, and the Germans were here, on this continent, in 1776 till now, the Germans would be the ones being oh-so-highly-praised and dominant.</p>
<p>Sorry about my emotional and maybe provocative post. </p>
<p>Now that I’m calm, I want to add a few more points:</p>
<p>The U.S. also had virtually unlimited natural resources here that they can use, while those in Europe have been fighting over them for however long. </p>
<p>And I’m sure people in Europe would rather be attacked by Native Americans than to deal with others who are way more cohesive (Native Americans were divided in thousands of tribes; they weren’t united, so they were easy to pick off. Not the united peoples in those countries at Europe).</p>
<p>Of course, the countries that want to wage war on the U.S. can send another sub-king or sub-whatever to preside here and give all the orders. But wars… in war, things change very often, and often quickly, and I’m sure Your Highness over at their homeland would want a say in the matter when things change, but, no… months to get back to, say, France, and months to get back to U.S. Too late, takes too long. The King can come over here and oversee, of course, and leave his country without a leader. :-p</p>
<p>Actually, the above paragraph is useless. If any country sends tens of thousands of soldiers across to the U.S., their own country would be left open and then get picked off by others. The soldiers can then live in the sea, fish, commandeer other ships to live, though. :-p</p>
<p>Lucky United States of America, priding itself on oh-so-much-success in oh-so-short 200 years, forgetting that Lady Luck was a big, big factor. But, of course, U.S.A. can pay worship to themselves instead of thanking Lady Luck.</p>
<p>Too bad Lady Luck is mad at us now for not returning our love, and has plunged our country into deep doo-doo. And I thought vast majority of people in America read the Bible—ignore God, not follow his instructions, not returning love… And what does God do? Punish its people. Bring misfortune. Lady Luck… did the same thing.</p>
<p>This thread is getting too political and is waaaaay of topic.</p>
<p>Do we have any moderators on here?</p>
<p>I can’t stand the message that was given at graduation either Most of the kids at my graduation were simply unexceptional. It’s not inspiring to hear something that simply isn’t true.</p>
<p>Oh come on, vicarious, you’re far too mature to call for help from mom and dad. We discuss, we always get off topic, you can ignore what you don’t like, then we change it back to the original topic by talking about the original topic.</p>
<p>The point is, people want to hear something inspiring at graduation, as chaosakita says. At least the parents do, maybe the kids just want to get outta there, they’re sick of listening to speeches by now and just want to get on with their lives. The only way I can think of a speech like this being welcomed is if the presenter was extremely well loved, and said it in a humorous way. I can’t view the video, so that is difficult to tell.</p>
<p>Who cares about hearing anything inspirational at graduation? For pretty much everybody at my high school, graduating was a joke. Like somebody said in this thread, no, you would not want to hear this speech to high schoolers who have overcome serious problems. But I think for a large amount of students, including most of the ones at my school, graduating involves just being able to sit through class seven a day. Not really a big accomplishment. But I guess parents would complain if the truth was said? Oh well. I think it would be better if more people faced up to the truth and had a little less self esteem.</p>
<p>Emeraldkity: Thank you for that excerpt, very touching</p>
<p>As another poster said this speech wasn’t designed for every audience but for a particular audience. The fact that the words resonated with them is an indicator that it was a good speech. For me it was very different reading the excerpt than seeing the clip. The excerpt had a little sting the video was humerous. It is a speech intended to be listened to in a fleeting moment in time in its entirety to make a point and inslpire. HS commencement speeches aren’t usually played repeatedly and analyzed but the good ones are remembered for the striking points that they make. In order to do this the speaker may use techniques to get attention. I heard the messages about being not special and bubble wrap as satyre and preparation to get attention for the concluding message which I got as don’t make your choices for the trophy or accolades make them for their actual value in the world. And that all of us can do special thing, that isn’t the unique. The important thing is bringing the good you can into the world for the sake of what it is rather than the prize that it brings.</p>
<p>I am sure there were kids in that audience who didn’t live bubble wrapped lives and even those with helicopter parents who had their own real life struggles. I’m sure there were parents in that audience who nurtured their kids growth and in the process were accused of helicoptering. I hope and expect they could see the humor in what was being said and recognize it not as a snapshot but as a characature. </p>
<p>I’m sure this speech would be inappropriate at many schools but it seems it worked with this audience.</p>
<p>spectrum2’s comment that the “speech would be inappropriate at many schools but it seems it worked with this audience” is right, I think. Yet that bothers me a bit, if true.</p>
<p>As much as I did like the second half of the speech, I disliked the first part. The idea that insulting the audience is a good warm-up to a serious message would be alien to a lot of people of my time and place. Hilbert-space equivalent: Hey, you’re not even square-integrable! So if it works with its actual audience, we might be seeing some kind of social divide that runs deeper or differently from the red/blue states. (I live in a blue state.) </p>
<p>I am also uncomfortable with the idea of a man making fun of the traditional wedding ceremony, and suggesting that getting married while on the way to the refrigerator for a beer would be the male arrangement. It’s at the start of the transcript of the speech. I do get that it’s a joke. Of a rather low sort. It seems to me that McCullough might have thought a little deeper about the focus on the bride at the wedding–and it is not all about the patriarch of the family transferring the virgin bride to her husband, though some might cast it that way. In a marriage that produces children, the woman takes on a very solemn and essentially inescapable responsibility, which the man may or may not take on (while on his way to the refrigerator for a beer), all exceptions and counter-examples notwithstanding. So, gee, thanks, Mr. McCullough, for that extra reminder of inequality couched in a casual joke.</p>
<p>I thought the speech came up short on empathy, on multiple counts. I don’t personally know anyone who actually needs to be told that he/she is not special. Life experience is plenty good at conveying that. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the “exhortation” component of the talk was good, I thought. Still, I can’t imagine someone going to Paris to cross it off a list; and it would seem a little strange to me if someone could reach senior year in high school without realizing that actual accomplishments matter, as opposed to the lines on a c.v. or the trophies.</p>
<p>Note added in proof: I just noticed that in McCullough’s statement about going to the refrigerator during half time, he did not actually mention beer. I take it as implicit. But maybe the hypothetical male was actually rooting around for the foie gras.</p>
<p>
I would have thought the same thing until I started reading this website. Aren’t a huge percentage of the posts on CC formulaic lists of accomplishments (aka “stats”) and requests for commentary based solely on those lists? What gets me are that those lists often include the number of hours of community service, as if that’s something appropriately measured by time on the clock?</p>
<p>Also, I assume you’ve heard about the “Bucket list” craze? I participate on some message boards where threads are devoted to listing countries/states people have visitied. Like some sort of competition. If you can manage to cross the border into Portugal, and maybe take a quick ferry to Morrocco while you’re in Spain that’s three countries and two continents. Regardless of whether you actually got to experience anything. Believe me, there’s a lot of that out there.</p>
<p>But I think for a large amount of students, including most of the ones at my school, graduating involves just being able to sit through class seven a day. Not really a big accomplishment</p>
<p>For someone who is also holding down a job to support their family/ save money for school - yes, it is a big accomplishment.
For someone who has disabilities, which may be invisible, yes, it is a big accomplishment.
For someone whose parent lost their job/ left the family home/ is critically I’ll, yes,it is a big accomplishment.</p>
<p>One thing you will learn as you mature chaosakita, is that your reality isn’t everyone’s reality.</p>