In The News

The Little Things Are Big by Jesus Colon

The Little Things Are Big Essay Rebuttal, Oct 20, 2009

 

Not so, that is, are the little things big. That could be relational. Most little things are little and the big, they are bigger than the little things, but what matters is that some things we consider to be small are indeed quite big – and vice versa.

 

Jesus Colon has written a small narrative of a small event in his life which had touched him many years later. He does not mention it directly, but obviously since he is going back in time – “1955 or '56...a long time ago” – the memory of what occurred that fateful morning obviously has stayed with him. This writer, however, has found the story and Mr. Colon to be:

 

Cheap – he should have really focused on what the woman was thinking. Why relate a story – simply via one’s own perspective? What would have been interesting is what the woman was thinking. Having had several years to reflect on this narrative, we, the reader, would have been treated to an interesting story found only in the naked city. Now we ask why was all the time taken up concerning only what the author was thinking? Not a fare or balanced writer, you would say. By making her a living, breathing individual, Mr. Colon would have highlighted his subject’s suffering and taken the emphasis off of himself.

 

Inconsiderate – he does not consider that his reaching out would naturally be re-buffed and not so because of race. Would assisting the woman up the stairs had eased the pain she was having – possibly having a fight with her husband and heading out in the cold air to go live with her mother for a few days?

 

Racist – and sexist, yes. By showing his disdain for this woman’s suffering and by not including her narrative as part of the story, Colon shows himself to be a racist. You may call this “reverse racism”, where the color of the subject compels the storyteller to act or not act – while all the while making himself to be an innocent bystander – to which we could say – if only the subject was not of this or that color, then Mr. Colon would have come to her aid. You see, what Mr. Colon is trying to point out is, it’s the subject’s fault: being of such and such a color has caused him to believe his “courtesy” in assisting her would have been re-buffed. Mr. Colon is not only insecure in his race, his own insecurity has caused him to judge another race.

 

Secondly, he only shows his own nature and bent, as a man of Spanish descent, by always looking upon the opposite sex as being in need. Mr. Colon’s culture relishes the man – the Latino – as the hero, and the woman as the one in need – unable to take care of her own self. Let’s ask some simple questions: was the woman incapable of helping herself? Or, were the children Mr. Colons’ – to which he would be obligated to help? By believing the woman in question was incapable of helping herself and needed a man to help her up and down the stairs shows only that Mr. Colon is also a sexist.

 

The moral of the story, and here is where little things get big, is to be secure in who and what you are. Though the author of Little Things Are Big has put on “repentive lens”, decrying his sore racist and sexist viewpoints as standard litmus tests for helping others, it is important for us to know our strengths and weaknesses - so we can reach out to others in their time of need.

STIMULUS PACKAGE

Ve Have Ways of Making U Work

President Obama's Stimulus package seems to have put a lot of people on edge. From the not so many Republicans Representatives in the House who refused to vote for it, to the many economists who think that it will not do what it was meant to do, which to them is to create more jobs, our problem is that we have become more scientific about our inquiries and instead of working on faith - whereby we might conclude that it is a good thing and wait for the results - we would prefer to "see" something first before we actually let on to believing that it could have benefits. By the time the naysayers about this stimulus package get around to be proven wrong - no, not the naysayers who are presently employed, who of course are always wrong - but by the time the not employed or under-employed begin to beg off this miracle, they will already be working.

Why do the people have so little faith? It seems, as mentioned above, that we are easily swayed by those who have something - that to them what is coming our way is only a bad thing. If a truck with explosives is heading in your direction, they could not be found - no, they would all be in hiding. Yet, if a stimulus package designed to help us in improving our dire eco-straights is coming our way then they are the first ones out there striving to waylay its arrival. "It's not good for you" - they'll shreik, or "this won't really create jobs", to which we ask, "How so?" We must easily conclude that if close to a trillion dollars is let loose in our economy then it must be helpful in stimulating the economy in some way - wouldn't you think? Of course, as a nation we would be more so in debt - ah hah! There's the rub - and how much more in debt would we be if the stimulus package is rejected?  The answer becomes ludicrous: "less the amount we spend," as if money grew on the trees lining the driveway to the Capitol.

The people are beaten down; why beat them down further? Many are hard at work to prove that work is where it all is; if everyone is employed, or if fiscal policy is created so that everyone is employed, then there would be one happy consensus about the stimulus package. Ja! That is the thinking of many a modern economist - or every thinker of economics. The prediliction is to seek full employment for the nation's workers; the success of many a fiscal plan is gauged as to how many jobs are created. A popular book, called "The Great Inflation And It's Aftermath", by Robert Samuelson, disputes this. The economists of the day have simply become more political than our politicians, for they have gauged a fiscal plan against full employment - and find that if it falls short of employing every able worker than it has failed. Das Umph! Full employment is not the answer for American workers, but "fulfilling employment". This can be done, as the book above mentions, only if inflation is kept low.