“I Don't Like Your Examples” (2000)
&gt; The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;orwell.ru&#x2F;library&#x2F;essays&#x2F;wiw&#x2F;english&#x2F;e_wiw" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;orwell.ru&#x2F;library&#x2F;essays&#x2F;wiw&#x2F;english&#x2F;e_wiw</a><p>Substitute art with anything else, it&#x27;s still a political attitude. Politics relates to how we live together, or fail to live together, not something politicians do 24&#x2F;7 and citizens do once every four years. And even that wasn&#x27;t so (though it is) the author did point out that a lot of technical documentation <i>do</i> contain political examples, it&#x27;s just kind of invisible and acceptable (to some people) when it&#x27;s in support of the status quo, which even &quot;not touching X with a barge pole&quot; is. As the biography of Howard Zinn is titled: &quot;You can&#x27;t be neutral on a moving train.&quot;<p>People who think arresting and sentencing war criminals and other issues are radical far out ideas that upset them so much they can&#x27;t concentrate should write their own books. Is that too much to ask? Let&#x27;s say political examples distract people, and make their life worse by some laughable, but still measurable amount. What about the people who get <i>killed</i> by us living in a world where such examples are a valid criticism? They don&#x27;t even get to <i>read</i> the book and get offended. It all boils down to what class of problems you prioritize, people who read technical documentation not getting distracted or people not getting murdered. I say good on the author.<p>How many of the people who think the examples are &quot;bad taste&quot; or &quot;polarizing&quot; or &quot;controversial&quot; or other synonyms of doubleplusungood are leveraging the same criticisms in a more effective form? Dare I guess? At the heart of it, I think people really don&#x27;t like it when someone flaunts not having lost what they did indeed lose or never even acquired.<p>&gt; <i>When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners. As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occasions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father&#x27;s, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well. I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. &quot;In a few years,&quot; reasons one of them, &quot;I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good.&quot; Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don&#x27;t be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.</i><p>-- John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900<p>You may agree with that being words to live by or not, but you cannot tell someone who lives by them to not live by them and nudge them in the slightest. To get to that point, they likely fought harder battles than you can even imagine, since you avoided them. Don&#x27;t bring a soggy paper bag to a diamond fight is what I&#x27;m essentially trying to say.