Creativity: Theory and Application

The humor of Borat is simply naive, yet confident enough to entertain guests with a creative portrayal of a character visiting America from the far away land of Kazakastan. At first, you have to laugh at Sasha Cohen’s depiction of a character devoid of any universal manners. It is creative, how incredibly civil Cohen can depict an individual that constantly degrades women by associating them as nothing more than the submissives of his delight. Yet, even as Borat was firing off incredibly offensive conversation pieces to women in his travels, all the women in the theatre were laughing uncontrollably.

The main idea of this movie is Borat. He is in America filming a movie for his home country intended to teach his uncivilized people the ways of America. However, convoluted as his actual desires to flim an informative movie were, he changes his campaign after watching an episode of Baywatch, and moreover watching the every movement of Pamela Anderson. He falls in love with the movie star, and takes off from NYC to LA to ask her to marry him.

At this point, I started to wonder if this movie could really steep below that of JackAss 2 in vulgarity. This question will most definitely be answered later.

Borat’s humor is so incredibly unbelievably naive, that the audience laughs more as a necessity to not stand out than anything. I am not purposrting that the movie did not have some moments of truly unique humor, I just didn’t find it as overally hilarious as its record breaking numbers at the box office have indicated.

Creativiely, the movie is shot like that of a documentary, yet in truth being nothing close to a documentary. This type of filming is not uniquely creative, but well done in repetition of past fake documentary comedies.

I did find the scene of Borat’s rodeo experience as unique in humor and writing. Instead of singing the American National Anthem as planned, Borat begins to sing some made up indictment of American occupation in Iraq to the tune of our National Anthem. This scene was truly funny.

However, the movie relied on about 12 minutes of full male nudity to carry it through the middle portions of the story. Not only were the two male characters nude, but also extremely inappropriate and gross. And at one point, I think I wanted to leave due to a very grotesque moment in this unfortunate 12 minutes.

At this point, the movie lost me, I started to think about whether it was of value to be creatively grotesque and uniquely motivated to push societal limits. I worry that the intrinsic nature of unique behavior to be valued due to its dangerous tenant of societal degradation.

But in the same way that Borat’s exploitations are shamefully testing limits of good taste, they might also be creatively ensuring the very marketplace that is essential in value to be free.

In essence, Borat’s utter disregard for class and manners is not creatively ilustrating a film different than any other vulgarity on the market, but his very obnoxious testing of good taste is also beneficial in keeping a stretched marketplace for other ideas of radical change. Without the free expression of the creative obscene antics of those most liberal and conservative, our public realm of source and domain would be incredibly more limiting. So, keep on grossing them out Borat, for your antics might keep the public sphere unlimited enough to inspire some sort of radical transformation.

Clayton celebrated the thirteenth annual Saint Louis Art Fair this weekend, September 8-10, in the heart of the district’s downtown. Stretching three blocks long by two blocks wide, artists of all different disciplines showcased thier various pieces. Art booths varied in content from glass blowers to horse portraits.

Executive Director, Cynthia Prost, was reported in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, as estimating the sales for the weekend to climb to a total of around 2.5 million dollars, while attracting close to a half million visitors to the Clayton area.

During friday nights fair opening tent showings, I witnessed nothing short of a complete success. Artists were educating guests, which in turn meant more guests were learning about more Art, which I witnessed to finally manifest as pleased guests enamored with their recently purchased piece of Saint Louis Fair Art. All in all, I was very impressed with the organization of the Fair, and in general the atmosphere that surrounded the diversity in Art, People, Food, Music, and Fun.

In the end,the Art Fair’s official web site’s,www.saintlouisartfair.com, mission statement summarized a desire by Fair planners for an event that provided access to diversity and culture in Art. Well, the Fair not only provided access for visitors to view this diversity temporarily tent to tent, but from what I witnessed, the Fair will also be talked about in family circles as the weekend participants finally found the missing piece to thier personal galleries.

The worlds of movie making and political science seem to be entrenched with the same entry difficulties that discourage the non -connected.

In “Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?”, Jeff Smith heroically inspires a grassroots US Congressional campaign only to come up short to a name rather than a set of better ideas.

In 2004, Jeff Smith decided to run for the Congressional seat vacated by Dick Gephart. As an unknown entry, Mr. Smith, threw his name in a group not too unlike the starting line of a marathon; crowded and full of uncertainty. The 29 year old teacher, optimistic and full of energy, was not even favored in this race by his own mother.

Smith’s mom is seen commenting on the race in rare documentary form, tongue in cheek.

Mrs. Smith said, “You’re not running for anything; you’re running away from a stable job.”

Others quipped to Mr. Smith, “You’re too young. (And my favorite) You need to fix that lisp.”

But even with all this opposition to Smith’s running, Frank Popper – Director, producer, and editor of the documentary – saw much positive in filming the candidate’s grassroots rise to close runner up. Popper explains the transcendent qualities of Jeff Smith’s political style.

Popper remembers, “One day I was at a book-signing event downtown, and Jeff was working the crowd,” Popper recalls. “He said, ‘Hi, I’m Jeff.’ And I said, ‘I know who you are.’ He said, ‘Yeah, you and 35 other people.’” It was a 30-second conversation. I sat down and said to the woman sitting next to me, ‘I think I’m going to make a documentary about him.’ It was a gut feeling.”

The film’s political worth has been seen parallel with its worth in film in movie circles, specifically, the piece received the Audience Award for Best Feature at Silverdocs AFI/Discovery Channel Documentary Film Festival in June.

The arch of the film’s content follows Smith from the beginning selection of his campaign staff through its manifestation of a grassroots group to be reckoned. Set to the soundtrack of bluesy, city swooning tracks, St. Louis seems connected in the film by the unifying factor of local politics and their recognition of famous Missouri political families.

Viewers see Jeff run door to door trying to work any individual willing to listen before the peak campaigning hours end. Not just adept in the flesh, Jeff also works his cell phone as furiously as a wall street insider. Jeff’s calls are all connected by his most used phrase, “So, can I count on your support?” And then by the phrases, “Well, thanks again for your time.’ Or. ‘ Great I appreciate your support, do you think you could help contribute to the effort?”

In the film, Jeff’s campaign staff is seen working tirelessly stumping on Smith’s behalf. Taking a grassroots strategy, his staff made thousands of calls and planted hundreds of yard signs, both of which were filmed intimately in the documentary.

Popper stripped his directorial influence and shot what really happened; hard working political amateurs learning the ropes of a non utopian world of political science. In the end, when Jeff is seen wishing his hard working staff a bright future outside a coffee shop, the meeting ends with Jeff choking up and having to leave abruptly due to his emotional investment in his run for US Congress.

Much like Smith, Popper is finding film distribution to be as daunting a task as running for a federal election as an upstart unknown. The parallel between the two is as close to their relationship in the movie. It is ironic that a documentary about the ills of an entrenched political world is finding similar access issues to distribution in another closed society of film and television.

The ultimate issue for this documentary and its voice of just democracy is “Can Mr. Smith who couldn’t get to Washington yet, but did get to Jefferson City, land his documentary in Hollywood?”

When viewing the works of “artistic expression”, I sometimes find it hard to truly tune out all other stimuli thus creating a very rushed viewing. Frustrated attention deficits can occur from a range of details like that of other viewers, or internally as a personal dispreference for show, or even sometimes from a warehouse type gallery and its distracting disorganization.

Whatever the annoyance, I always remember the Milwaukee Museum of Art to visualize the calming overwhelming design of its main lobby. Every time I recall its place in my mind, I feel fresh in perspective. Even enamored as it exists as just a memory, I find great peace in retrieving the snapshots of the 30 foot high panels that so perfectly capture the beautiful panoramic tranquility of fluid running Great Lake waters.

Until Saturday, I had never found any match for the grand great lakes lobby in Milwaukee, almost ten years of travel here in the US and abroad still did not quite encapsulate the feeling of being alone in that representative basin of a boat in Wisconsin. And I had dined at the top of the Greek Isle Santorini during dusk!

Well, it is reassuring to know that I do not need to retrieve those Wisconsin memories anymore. Right here in St. Louis exists a building and a space philosophy that rivals nothing I have ever seen before in qualities of peaceful influence. In fact, the architecture of my calming dreams exists downtown as the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts. I’m absolutely sure that the art director of the Foundation could never put together a show more glorious than the very house that shelters the various exhibitions.

The transcendental beauty of timeless geometric shapes is in their simplicity. I guarantee sweeping metaphysical impacts to all who enter the museum which is ironically shaped like a rectangular gift. Once inside its heavenly tidings, the perfect design of its blueprint is analogous to the feeling the fabric of your most favorite blanket.

In the Tadao Ando architectural spaces of The Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts, a meditative quality exists within its encapsulating escape from clutter. After reading much theory about transformative creativity, it was just understood that Ando had witnessed his very own perfect cycle of creativity. He truly created a gallery in the clouds. It is almost an intuition that the guest feels when present inside another’s truly grand statement of just design.

Like a perfect breeze under a Fall tree, the Pulitzer is an expression in a vernacular of domain-breaking beauty.

The architect expounds upon his design as “basically just two simple rectangles.” Our designer illustrates a simple humility that seems key to transmit such visions of perfect balance. Arrogance is too shortsighted to visualize ideas manifest as a house capable of influencing the meditation to all who enjoy its shelter.

Ando continues his intent when he adds the caveat, “but as you enter this simple figure or box, you discover a space that is complex and rich. Once you’re inside, you learn things that could not be foreseen from the outside.”

The unforeseen contained inside can only be most defined as tranquil and sublime. Do know that the building is an inanimate structure of concrete, yet it exists like a comforting friend following beside the viewer; their bond silent and unspoken.

Some find peace in the free exercise of religion. Similarly, this place of minimalist worship is as touching as any alter I have experienced. I’m not speaking in hyperbole when I say the meditation I exercised was nothing short of self actualization. Everything present in my conscientiousness was absent once I breathed in the enormous welcoming moments of this declaration of destiny.

The Foundation maintains this unabridged meditative experience by choosing not to invade the inspiring space with disruptive accompanying footnotes to the modernist pieces of portraiture. To further elaborate the peace one should feel in the solemn company in Art, the gallery lends each of its’ storytellers the space necessary to remain expressively pure.

The whispers of modernist expression begin to take voice within the blanketing simplicity of Mr. Ando’s most famous gray walls. The architect explains his fancy with structural constitution, “Walls are the most basic elements of architecture, and in all my works, light is an important factor. The primary reason is to create a place for the individual, a zone for oneself within society.”

This most private zone of personal introspection finds solace in the intrigue of a few very gentle giants placed parallel inside the various altitudes of the “Lower Corridor”. At one right angle of this unfolding rectangle exists the magnificently detailed acrylic on canvas portrait, simply introduced to the viewer as Kieth, by photographic stylist, Mr. Chuck Close. This bust portraiture of a man’s face stands close to 12 feet tall and 6 feet wide, yet finds a technique capable of illustrating even the most accurate details of facial pore composition.

Chuck Close is an artist with an incredibly intriguing story of talent and perseverance. Mr. Close recreates all of his billboard sized, expressionless portraits from simple snapshots. Even more perplexing is the fact that Close in 1998, suffered a collapsed spinal artery, which left him almost completely paralyzed. A brace device on his partially mobile hand, and a sophisticated wheelchair, along with other aids allow him to paint these billboard perfections. His story is one of sheer amazement. It is only fitting his work finds peace in such a loving gallery.

The near silent ballet of playful lights provide just the slightest insightful nudge to lead the viewer to view a Pulitzer mainstay, permanently at peace as the color study between blue and black, thus appropriately titled Blue Black. This unbelievable structure I refer to as the Pulitzer minimalist totem pole, its undeniable clarity in message and simplicity provides further constitution for the already affected viewer that they are in the presence of greatness. It stretches to nearly the height of its intersecting slab of ceiling, these painted aluminum panels by Kelly Ellsworth serve all Pulitzer exhibitions as a mission statement to simple integrity, reflecting its shelter’s personality of a quiet thoughtfulness.

In between the stark contrasts of over sized simplicity and tactical wonderment, exist a Doris Salcedo collection of stainless steel free form objects, existing as the only true contours to perfect inoffensive Zen congruency.

Before being swept into the whimsical existence of viewing this truly interactive structure, this feature’s intent was to view the fundamental differences between classic portraiture and that of its modernist offspring.

Fortunately, for those who visit this show with similar questions, they can quickly find answers directly hanging on the walls of the Cube Gallery. Specifically, the juxtaposition in portraiture era is strikingly present in the imitative works of Cindy Sherman. As a collection, these photographs are at first glance, very classic in pose, color, and prop. Yet as the viewer begins to delve further into Sherman’s work, a very modernist theme of nude censorship becomes apparent as the link between classic and modernist portraiture. While classics are defined by an attempt to convey psychological insights, the modern portraiture focuses its photographic or satirical inquiries into a concern for the individuality or physicality of the human identity. These modernist intents are most found in the Sherman use of nude body suits in our modern portraiture, thus creating a collection of insecurity and false identity.

Cindy Sherman’s work also contains a specific balance in masculinity and feminism, her works are both introverted and extroverted. Each manifestation carries a full range of personality, her work illustrates the balance necessary to be unintrusively complex in creativity.

As our society continues to move closer towards a more progressive and advanced reality, creativity looks more like an emergent social process than just another form of individual entertainment.

The emergent social collaboration present within the Pulitzer Experience is like nothing I have ever witnessed before. In fact, since I was ever first instructed to read the writings of the American Romantics, I have always wished to be present in an environment that is possible of Emersonian Transcendentalism. This spiritual building is truly the ideal introspective stomping ground necessary to meditate as one with structural, and natural harmony. It is almost as if you can hear the words of Emerson and his transcendental belief in the One that connects the metaphysical and natural spirit in harmony as something celestial and transformative.

This Just In! The Pageant is the St. Louis Choice Award winner for “Best place to take a not so attractive date!” and “Least use of modern electricity ever!”

Without this knowledge in hand, I ventured into the Jim Gaffigan show expecting to be able to see a few obvious sights. First, another human being, other than the comic on stage, like the person sitting next to me would have been easy. I was in shock that “it” existed in the seat next to me yet was not discernible to the naked eye. I’m sure somewhere in the building, night vision goggles were being peddled.

Please donate money to the Pageant today!! Afraid of the dark? Conquer your fear today and enjoy Space’s own prime time act, the black hole, for no extra charge!

Or, how about a stage? I am still not convinced that Mr. Gaffigan isn’t a hologram. If it wasn’t for the fact that Mr. Gaffigan’s natural skin hue is that of an ultraviolet white, he might have been lost forever in eternal darkness.

“Bald, blind and pale. I’m like a gigantic recessive gene,” he says on stage. “My father was from Sweden and my mother was Elton John.”
– Rocky Mountain News, 1/26/06

Thankfully, his pale features radiated like a star in the theater’s cloak of blinding midnight darkness. His stature’s starry reflection was not the only feature celestial about Mr. Jim Gaffigan.

Among other hobbies, Jim finds himself very much intrigued with the phenomena of inertia.

“I’m kinda consumed with inertia. It’s like I’m always amazed at how you walk through an electric door and you feel a little bit empowered when you step and it opens. You’re like, ‘Well, I don’t mind if I do. Thank you electric doorman’!”
– Jim Gaffigan, comic

Originally from Indiana, the balding, fair-haired Gaffigan moved to New York in 1990, and after relentlessly working stand-up rooms around town, he got his big break in 1999 with a slot on Letterman. Not only was Letterman calling, but so was Conan, and Hollywood.

An off-beat production group, calling themselves Broken Lizard, contacted Jim for a bit role in the mega hit Super Troopers, Gaffigan’s scene became a cult favorite.

In the scene, Jim plays a motorist who gets pulled over by a state highway trooper, only to witness the officers that approach unable to end their sentences without muttering “Meow”, Jim begins to laugh at the abnormality and is scolded by the officer in what remains a cult comedy classic.

Albeit, a recognizable bit actor, Jim’s bread and butter is his ability to perform an observational type comedic monologue. As an example of Gaffigan’s comedic process, Jim finds humor in such products as Hot Pockets, and Cheeto’s; while also finding laughs with overtly concave statements like those he makes about his pregnant wife.

“My wife has gotten really lazy, or as she calls it, ‘pregnant.’” — Jim Gaffigan

He also jokes about laughing at the expense of punk teenagers who lack hand-eye coordination.

“Maybe it’s just me. But when you see a teenager fall off a skateboard doesn’t it put you in good mood?” — Jim Gaffigan

His musings about addiction are more unique for their timing in execution than in the joke’s substance alone.

“I watch a lot of T.V., I drink a lot of coffee, but you know what’s really addictive? Heroin.”
– Jim Gaffigan

Another favorite shtick of Jim’s comedy is his depiction of the slow and mentally unambitious. From reading to shopping, Gaffigan is really great at capturing stupidity.
“You ever read a book that changed your life? Me neither.”– Jim Gaffigan
Once I finally calibrated my owl like survival skills in the dark, I began to feel curious enough to direct my eyes toward the great white light. To depict a sample bit, the Iowa State Daily recounts a moment in Jim’s stand-up routine. Gaffigan spoke similar words in his St. Louis act at the Black Hole on 10/20/06.

“There is something to be said with presentation. I might look at a Hot Pocket commercial and be like, “How stupid do they think we are?” They’re just going to sit there and go, (sings) “Hot Pocket” and we’re going to be like, “Oh, that’s a good commercial, let’s go and eat that crap.” Obviously, it’s just a calzone or a Jamaican meat product, but they’ve just called it something else and used the worst description for the product. I feel like everything pisses me off, but I guess I’ve got it kind of good. I’m pissed off that Angelina Jolie keeps calling me. I was just at Sundance and this business is all about getting too much respect or none. I was there for a film and it was great, they give you free shit and everything, but I would say, like, three times a day people thought I was Philip Seymour Hoffman. Does that piss me off? Not really. You’ll look at a script, and I’m a character actor, and it’ll be like, “The guy who looks slightly retarded enters the room,” and that’s my character. Those things can piss you off or you can go, “Yeah, you know what, I am a doughy white guy.” I think that’s what sarcasm is for, deflecting some of that annoyance.”
– Iowa State Daily, 1/26/06

For about the initial first ten minutes, Jim stays stationary in his position on stage. During his introduction and as he begins to move into the steak of his act, Jim would occasionally switch into a female character. This falsetto voiced character comments as if she were an audience member.

“Oh, that joke wasn’t funny,” he’ll whisper into the microphone. This quasi audience voice did become a crutch for Jim to catch a breath all night. Whenever seemingly running into a topical dead end, Gaffigan changes gears by using his internal commentary to segue way into different material. One time he seamlessly stopped talking about the perils of a microwave into a commentary about Jesus and religion.
After musing about Jesus’ footwear during certain miracles performed over water, he then effortlessly criticized his own material “as being too dependent on the audience’s familiarity with Jesus.” Jim talks again to the Iowa State Daily about his religious humor.

“People just hear you mention the word Jesus and they just kind of assume you’re making fun of Jesus or that you’re trying to preach or something like that. I suppose it could be offensive to someone, but my wife is really, really Catholic. And she would not let me get away with anything that would jeopardize her getting into heaven.” — Iowa State Daily, 1/26/06

Maybe in Jim’s mind, the best humor he has to serve as prime is a result of his fluid sense of comic timing.

“Steak is the tuxedo of meat…and baloney is the retarded cousin.”
– Jim Gaffigan, Omega 3 star

There were generations of his family that had never gone to college. His father was the first one to go to college and offer the family a middle class lifestyle.

“It wasn’t one of those things where we were advised to throw it all away to go into show business. It wasn’t discouraged but was just seen as impractical.” — Gaffigan

So Gaffigan took the practical route and earned a degree in finance. Then reality set in while he worked as a financial consultant for a couple of years.

“When I studied finance in school, I kept thinking ‘Once I’m paid for this, I’ll enjoy it.’ I didn’t. I thought I was going to hang myself,” he said. “I eventually got a job in advertising in New York and became a copywriter. Along the way, I had gotten into improv just because I wanted to do it. Then somebody dared me to do stand-up.”

Never lacking the sense of humor, Gaffigan’s stand up reflects his responsible character. Jim’s jokes are all carefully selected for universal appeal, making his act a safe 70 minutes; non-intrusive humor.

“I was always the guy who would do six or seven spots a night on a weekend. I saw every audience as an opportunity to try new material and try to hone the universality of a joke.”

As Jim’s routine was winding down the path to tidy finishes; he began to lose a little intrigue due to his reliance on his falsetto character. At this point, being as dark as the hall was, I conjectured he might have even stepped out for a drink and had been relieved by an actual audience member. Not to be tricked, I confirmed my conjecture untrue with “it” sitting next to me. We both agreed, Jim’s character was still just a Gaffigan character.

The faceless laughters from the crowd were eerily exclusively coming from the seats on the floor, and not from the balcony. In fact, I’m not sure whether the silence up top was due to Jim’s inadequacy at all. Coupled with the lack of light, the balcony might have been closed due to the overwhelming danger of possible sleepwalking accidents.

In my research of Jim, I found a story about his most frightening stage appearance.

“I try to block them out. I used to do a show in Harlem called New Jack Comedy, because I wanted stage time. I had a lot of stage fright when I started, and I wanted to get it pounded out of me. They literally introduced me as, “Here’s a white guy!” Boo. “This guy’s really white!” Double boo. They didn’t want to hear jokes about cake.” — Time Out NY, 6/26/06

In the end, I had seen all of Gaffigan’s jokes before on Comedy Central. In that sense, he seemed very mechanical and less unique, almost as if he were the host of his own comic infomercial. And like most infomercials, his product is useful, just not quite ready for prime time air play.

Reviewing work by Mark Twain is like drinking water. Why? Let Mr. Twain explain. The legendary satirist briefs us;

“My books are water; those of the great geniuses is wine. Everybody drinks water.”
- Notebook of Mark Twain, 1885

Coincidently, Mr. Twain’s writings are not intended for any specific individual, nor does he endorse individual judgments of literature as meaningful enough for print.

“..I could not consent to deliver judgment upon any one’s manuscript, because an individual’s verdict [is] worthless…The great public [is] the only tribunal competent to sit in judgment upon a literary effort.
” – from the Twain Letter, “Concerning the Carnival of Crime in Connecticut”

And the public adored Mark Twain; each diverse in Twain content exposure yet also each uniform in belief of Twain’s Folk Hero stature. As a member of this phenomena (I had previously only read Twain Fiction: Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer) this review started quite dehydrated.

Being interested in early American political commentary, I found many transcendental ironies inside the words of Mark Twain’s broad critique of early American offenses against humanity; ”To the Person Sitting in Darkness”(as it was printed in the January 1901 edition of the NY Times).

Mr. Twain’s words also seem very poignant in regards to recent US Military History. Specifically, Twain’s “two Americas” remind me of the ironies present in current American conflict.

“The Person Sitting in Darkness is almost sure to say:’There is something curious about this – curious and unaccountable. There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive’s new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land.” — From Twain Letter, “To the Person Sitting in Darkness”

Not all reviews found Twain’s letter as timelessly brilliant, historically, peers downplayed Twain’s arguments and passion as an attempt to be “smart”.

“Mr. Mark Twain entitles his article, “To a Person Sitting in Darkness.” It is impossible to exclude the suspicion that Mr. Twain was indifferent to the truth or falsity of his recital. To a person of his literary habit and temperament that aspect of the matter might not seem to be important. A man who makes it his vocation to be funny is not called upon late in life to develop a historical conscience. If the article was deemed “smart,” that was doubtless quite enough to satisfy Mr. Mark Twain.” — NY Times, 2/9/01

Even after the condescending criticism by the Times, a reader of the same historical population admonished the dismissive review, and signed his retort as “A Christian Patriot”.

“A reader of The Times who signs himself “A Christian Patriot” says in a letter which we printed yesterday that our note of warning against the total untrustworthiness of Mr. Mark Twain’s burlesque history of the Philippine transaction has prompted him to read Mr. Twain’s article, and he likes it. “It speaks truth,” he tells us, “and dispels the sophisms of Chamberlain, McKinley, and the rest. It gave me great pleasure and satisfaction,” says he of Twain’s article, “to find expressed in such a clear, cogent, and interesting manner the exact views which I and many other loyal American citizens have entertained from the beginning.” — NY Times, 2/9/01

Enjoying a printer’s perk of content timing, the Times again discredits Twain’s commentary by denying its factual accuracy.

“We remark with surprise and grief that Mr. Christian Patriot has disobeyed our injunction “to read with care the original authorities, the official sources, from which he [Mr. Twain] would have it appear that he drew the information so amusingly perverted in his article.” That was the cure we recommended for those who have been taken in by Mr. Twain. We assumed that every Christian Patriot who was really seeking the truth would let neither business nor pleasure stop him from applying this test of the truthfulness of Twain. How dare any Christian Patriot declare that Twain “speaks truth” when by so simple a procedure as consulting the sources of the truth he would have been apprised of the indisputable fact that Twain speaks falsehood?” — NY Times, 2/9/01

Not Falsehood, or propaganda; documented history tells a much more congruent story to that of Twain’s letter. Mark Twain’s most effective commentary unveils itself as part of a satirical explanation from America to the mistreated Indigenous people abroad. As masterfully as liquid is fluent, Twain amuses us with his most provocative perspective: The “Honest Imperialist” doing a bit of damage control.

“Having now laid all the historical facts before the Person Sitting in Darkness, we should bring him to again, and explain them to him. We should say to him:’They look doubtful, but in reality they are not. There have been lies; yes, but they were for a good cause. We have been treacherous; but that was only in order that real good might come out of apparent evil. True, we have crushed a deceived and confiding people; we have turned against the weak and the friendless who trusted us; we have stamped out a just and intelligent and well-ordered republic; we have stabbed an ally in the back and slapped the face of a guest; we have bought a Shadow from an enemy that hadn’t it to sell; we have robbed a trusting friend of his land and his liberty; we have invited our clean young men to shoulder a discredited musket and do bandit’s work under a flag which bandits have been accustomed to fear, not to follow; we have debauched America’s honor and blackened her face before the world; but each detail was for the best. We know this. — From Twain Letter, “To the Person Sitting in Darkness”

Nothing comes close to Twain’s building sense of global urgency for peace and mutual respect in modern dissent satire or commentary.

The Head of every State and Sovereignty in Christendom and ninety percent of every legislative body in Christendom, including our Congress and our fifty State Legislatures, are members not only of the church, but also of the Blessings-of-Civilization Trust. This world-girdling accumulation of trained morals, high principles, and justice, cannot do an upright thing, an unfair thing, an ungenerous thing, an unclean thing. It knows what it is about. Give yourself no uneasiness; it is all right. Now, then, that will convince the Person.”
– From Twain Letter, “To the Person Sitting in Darkness”

This opinion in 1901, by Mark Twain, demands a moral obligation for American tolerance abroad. He warns these early imperialists: Don’t take for granted the effects of American manipulation and conflict abroad in the name of American Blessings & Civilization!