European Perspectives on the EU: Part III

Note: This is the final installment of an interview with two Hamilton College students from EU countries. 

What are your thoughts on the leadership of the European Union, and do you feel that the leadership needs to be reformed? 

Chiara Bondi: The EU parliament works in a unique way, and I don't know too much, to be perfectly honest, about how it all works. I just know that some of the most politically important countries in the EU are some of the most stable and independent ones, like Germany. Germany deals with its own problems, and only if something involves the rest of Europe do they call on the EU for support. The EU was originally created to protect all European nations from any attack or threat. But currently its leadership is so bureaucratic and involved in micromanaging the affairs of member countries that I do not know how effectively it can be reformed. 

The EU has some good things and a lot of flaws. It would be impossible to reform it with just simple changes. Rather, very deep reforms, fundamentally changing the EU with new treaties and agreements, would be required. Someone in the EU parliament who wants radical, fundamental changes would have to get enough support in the parliament to become leader of the EU before it could really think about reform. Would it be bad if one powerful leader came in and forcefully made sweeping changes? Probably not, because the EU’s system is currently broken – for example, letting someone like the Catalonian rebel leader Carles Puidgemont escape justice. He escaped and can’t be extradited back to Spain, since Spanish laws do not apply to Germany and Belgium, countries he fled to. And this has had a politically crippling effect in Spain. Radical reform of the EU might be problematic in the short term, but in the long term will be beneficial. 

Gabriele Fett: I would say we need more direct elections, since we don’t really vote for the person leading the EU, only for representatives. I don’t know how that would work, though. A few large countries that agree with each other and disagree with smaller countries could band together and elect a leader that represents their interests, screwing everyone else. Voters in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain could just dominate the leadership election. It would be like California and New York and maybe Texas dominating U.S. elections. If there were a better checks-and-balances system in the EU that could make it more vulnerable or at least more responsive to public opinion, that would be good too.

In 2020, the United Kingdom officially left the European Union. Do you feel that your home country should follow the U.K. and leave? And what are your reasons for either remaining or leaving? 

Chiara: I’ve been asked this question quite a few times. I think Italy needs to get their s*** together a lot better before leaving. Right now, if they left the EU they wouldn’t be doing as well as the U.K. is. One of the pros of the EU is that most countries use one currency, the Euro. Before the U.K. left, there was no Schengen Area and you had to go through immigration, and it had a different monetary system based on the pound, so it was already quite separate from the rest of the EU. The only thing they were getting from the EU was the defense agreements, and they realized they could defend their country on their own and that there was no overarching threat to them. Also, the U.K. has always had a really strong relationship with the United States, so if anything were to happen to them, they would work with the U.S. 

Italy does not have any of this. It is part of the Schengen Area and does not have its own independent currency. If you look at Italy throughout history, it has always changed sides to whatever seemed to benefit them, and never stuck to one idea. So in order to leave the EU and still function properly without a decade of disaster, they first need to establish better diplomatic relations outside of the EU, develop their own monetary system, change how the ports of entry work, and enforce border control since Italy would no longer be a member of the Schengen Area. Can they leave the EU next week? Not a chance in hell. Italy is not independent enough, stable enough, and to be perfectly honest, does not have smart enough leadership. I don’t trust Salvini, Conte, or Gentolini with my life. The first thing I would fix is the internal problems in Italy. They need a stable and competent government that people can trust before they even think about leaving the EU. 

Gabriele: Italy should definitely not leave the EU. Unlike the U.K., we do not have a robust economy. It’s pretty weak for the most part, and it’s very tourist-oriented and service-oriented. We are not big exporters of important materials or goods. We export fancy clothes and fancy cars, but Gucci and Ferrari are not the reason most people are employed in Italy. So it would be silly to rely on frivolous exports. Italy is also in massive debt, and Germany has helped a lot with money so it doesn’t fall under like Greece. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot to leave. Maybe a country like Holland, Denmark, or Austria could leave, because they have much more robust economies and governments that function much better than Italy. The EU is almost like a babysitter for Italian governments. 

In one sentence, how has the EU affected your life? 

Chiara: The EU has opened my eyes politically and culturally, as it has enabled me to see so many different cultures and learn how to interact with people and appreciate people with different ways of life than my own, to see different political ideologies and how the world actually runs. Visiting and seeing everything firsthand teaches you a lot, and I appreciate this, despite my criticism of how outdated the EU is and the many problems it has inadvertently created. 

Gabriele: The EU has made my life easier with the ability to travel without having much difficulty. I fly a lot, especially when I was living in Italy and traveling to visit family members in the U.S. Traveling from Rome to Frankfurt to Los Angeles, or Rome to Paris to LA, and being able to go through the lines quickly without passports is really nice. And flying back into the EU is nice. There are two customs lines, one for EU passengers and another for non-EU passengers, and it can be up to three times faster for EU passengers. You just show them your identification and they let you go through.

European Perspectives on the EU: Part II

Note: This article is the second part of an interview by Philip Chivily on the European Union. He interviewed two residents of the European Union, Chiara Bondi and Gabriele Fett, both attending Hamilton College.

Do you have any criticism of the European Union? 

Chiara Bondi:  Oh, yeah. From a cultural point of view, the EU is excellent. Politically, I think the EU has created a sense of dependency for most of its members, because now it is hard for them to assert their autonomy or leave.

To give you an example, Spain entered into a conflict with Morocco in 2002 because a group of Moroccan soldiers took over the small Perejil Island between Spain and Morocco. The island is extremely tiny, about the size of Hamilton College. The fact that Spain felt the need to contact all the other countries in the EU to fight Morocco for an island the size of a peanut says a lot about what a country feels like it can do. Spain didn’t want Morocco to control it because they didn’t want Morocco to get any closer. The idea that it had to call upon the EU for support and aid to kick Morocco out of this island says a lot. The EU should be a last resort after trying every other option.

Another example is: In the 2010s, France suffered many terrorist attacks. The culprits were people who immigrated there from non-Schengen countries and had lived in France for a long time. Immigration policy should be 95 percent France’s decision, and the EU should not really step in. Immigration policy in Spain is Spain’s decision, and immigration policy in Italy is Italy’s decision.

 A situation like a radical minority of immigrants launching terrorist attacks on French soil is a local issue, and I don’t see the point of bringing in the EU. To rely on the EU to solve terrorism problems related to immigration would be like the U.S. calling on NATO to solve its mass shooting crisis. I think the EU is just really outdated in that sense. 

Gabriele Fett:  I’m overall pro-EU like most Europeans are, but with some criticisms. The reason there are many anti-EU movements now is the perception that many of its bureaucrats are disconnected from reality, distant from most people, making a lot of money compared with the average citizen. That they are making rules no one understands, with no logic behind them, and that when people criticize them the critics are called populists and racists. Not to say there are not racists and populists.

 We have definitely seen things such as skinheads in Northern Europe and Poland, and many people in these places being very anti-immigrant. But there is a distinct difference between someone who admires Hitler, or says “get the brown people out of Europe,” and a concerned Italian citizen saying “I’m not sure if we can afford bringing this many people here. Do we have the resources, and do they have the skills?” It seems that EU bureaucrats treat those two groups of people the same, which is very dangerous. It’s like the difference between a racist person voting for Trump and a person who is not racist at all voting for him for economic reasons – and you are lumping them together in the same category, which could not be further from the truth. It’s a dangerous precedent. I guess the criticism is that the bureaucrats can’t take criticism.

European Perspectives on the EU: Part I

The European Union is a controversial and confusing entity. During the past decade, it has increased its influence across its domain despite losing one of its largest member states, the United Kingdom. I am no seer, but I expect the European Union to further integrate its members more closely together, and to expand further into Eastern Europe and even to parts of the former Soviet Union in the next few decades. Regardless of your opinions on the European Union – whether you believe it has improved the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans and made Europe a more progressive or welcoming place, or that it is a technocratic socialist forerunner of a dangerous New World Order – it has increased peace and stability on a continent known for nearly perpetual warfare since the Roman Empire. In a way, it is a more concrete 21st-century version of the “Concert of Europe,” the international diplomatic system that maintained a general peace for a hundred years up to the First World War. I decided some time ago to interview two residents of the European Union, Chiara Bondi and Gabriele Fett, to get their honest opinions of it. 

To begin with, please tell us where you’re from and how you found Hamilton.

 Chiara Bondi:  I am a senior here at Hamilton and a math major. I am an Italian citizen, a resident of Spain, born in France. Quite a variety. I grew up in an Italian academic system. Part of my family is American, from New York, and I always admired how their educational system worked. I’ve always wanted to go and try it, trying the same experiences in the same environment, both academically and socially. I never had the chance in high school, but realized I might as well do it through college. I knew I wanted to go to the East Coast and a small college. Out of all the possible colleges in the Northeast, that were small and liberal-arts, where I could play golf, I knew Hamilton was where I wanted to be when I toured the school, had info sessions here, and talked to students and faculty. I loved it. Now I’m here and I’m very happy. 

Gabriele Fett:  I’m a junior at Hamilton, from Rome, Italy. I wanted to go to a liberal arts school. I toured all of them and this was the nicest one, in my opinion. 

What are the benefits of living in the European Union? 

Chiara:  One of the benefits, especially as a young person, is culture. Because of all these international agreements, you only need one form of ID. Typically you just need either your personal ID or your passport. With no restrictions, it is really easy to travel within countries, making it really easy to learn. It is really enjoyable to just travel around and visit a city you never thought about visiting, visiting its museums and learning about its history and culture. A lot of people see the EU and Europe as just one entity, and to some extent you can see it as just one country politically, but demographically and culturally every country is different. You are able to easily learn and educate yourself about it. From a political standpoint, it was very important to rebuild Europe after World War II and then develop a system for trade and dialogue between countries that would work, for countries to avoid war and defend each other. But now, there doesn’t seem to be much political benefit.

Gabriele:  I’m not a business owner, but if I were, it would be free trade and no tariffs. And personally, as an individual, it’s being able to go to other countries without much document checking. I have been able to go to other countries such as Holland and Sweden. You show them your EU passport and they just let you go by. There are no other steps you need to take. 

What is your opinion on the Schengen Area, the region in Europe with very easy border crossings thanks to the EU?

Chiara:  The Schengen Area really promotes culture. I know a lot of people don’t value culture as they should, but it is very valuable. Learning how to adapt to different cultures, since you can’t just go into a different country and expect to interact with locals in the same way you interact with people from your own country. For example, in Italy when you meet people you give them a handshake; in Spain, it is two kisses on the cheek; in France, it can be as much as five kisses on the cheek. If you are an Italian and you go to France and don’t know this, and just shake their hand, they are going to see this as extremely rude. Traveling through Europe taught me how to quickly read the environment around me and adapt. I think the Schengen Area is good for this reason, especially for young people, making it easier to learn and explore. You are not just visiting old places, but learning about a place’s history, heritage, and culture, becoming a more worldly person. 

Gabriele:  It seems fine. Open borders are a weird thing. When people think of them, they are imagining you can just walk across them without any checks. That’s not what it is. You have to go through checkpoints, you have to show them your ID, it has to match you. It’s more that you don’t have to get a visa or any other documentation. It’s more like going from California to Texas.

The Exponential Unhappiness of Gen Z: Part II

Since mankind became more physically settled with the Agricultural Revolution, most change had been glacially slow. Communities existed unchanged for centuries. Sure, things were generally more repressive and dangerous than they are now, but the basic units of a community, the family and village and religious institution, all endured. People’s lives were hard, but in important ways they were happy. Then, after the Industrial Revolution, change and advancement on all fronts exponentially took off, and life changed forever. The fields of psychology and neurology emerged amid industrialization, and starting in the mid-20th century, members of the “Greatest Generation” and then the Baby Boom generation commonly began to pop pills to drug their brains in order to feel happier. And with the onset of the 21st century, this rapid change intensified. Things that were taboo among most people suddenly became acceptable among most. (Not that any of this change is somehow wrong. It is good that we live in an era when people can more freely express their own unique identities).

In addition, the basic tools that are required in modern life, such as phones, computers, and the Internet, all become at least partly outdated in a short time and we need replacements. In the past, appliances and tools were built as if to practically withstand a nuclear blast; they would last perhaps 30 years before they had to be replaced. The fast, sometimes exponential advancement in more recent technology has, in my view, done particular harm.

Some technologies have virtually destroyed fabrics of community and society which had existed for millennia, leaving humans weak, scared, and impotent in a new, unnatural state.

With the intensification of societal change and technological development in our century, and with Generation Z having to grow up with so little concrete sense of identity and community, such extensive unhappiness in people our age has rapidly followed. The effects appear in many ways. Many of Generation Z, seeking meaning in life while feeling deeply unhappy, begin adhering to dangerous fringe ideologies, whether it be on the extreme left or the extreme right.

The culture of Generation Z is both watered-down and nihilistic, with its artists typically creating sad, soulless works. (Even its meme culture, a fundamental part of its identity, is surreal and meaningless. One needs only to Google deep-fried memes, photos with so many filters applied to them for comedic effect that their original point is lost, to see this.) The effects have been tragic, as members of Generation Z so often cope with their unhappiness by obsessive, and often addictive, consumption of alcohol, drugs, and sex.

What is the solution to Generation Z’s unhappiness? Does one even exist? I don’t know. I cannot say there is some antidote or silver bullet for this plague. The only solution I can see for our generation’s unhappiness would be to end the hyper-industrialized, hyper-connected, and Internet-oriented system of exponential growth and change. Maybe then, Generation Z, and the rest of humanity including those yet to be born, could find peace and contentment.

The Exponential Unhappiness of Gen Z: Part I

Over the summer, I was texting with a friend about life and the culture on campus. This friend and I often get into deep conversations about politics, philosophy, and the Hamilton community, and this time we discussed the social climate. We came to the conclusion that there is a pervasive sense of unhappiness and even nihilism in almost every young person at Hamilton College. We could think of only one student, a recent alumna and mutual friend of ours, who seemed to be free of such unhappiness. As our conversation petered out, I began to ponder: why are so many of my fellow members of Generation Z unhappy, nihilistic, if not downright self-hating? I thought that if I could put my thoughts into words, even if they might seem rambling and incoherent, I might better understand why. Furthermore, I realized that if I wrote this piece, then perhaps I could discredit that awful and hurtful insult, “snowflake,” that people on the right launch at members of Generation Z, and show that our unhappiness comes from a concrete place.

I am not a mental health expert, and have no degree or certification in any field related to mental health. I am merely sharing my perspective on what I’ve seen of Generation Z as one of its members, my firsthand experience of its unhappiness. We are members of it, and all my friends are. And let me add that writing for Enquiry does not mean I have some political or other identity, as some people have imagined. If I receive any harassing messages on social media or elsewhere, I will contact the appropriate channel or channels of authority. Donna Brazile’s tenure at Fox News did not make her a fascist, and J.D. Vance’s at CNN does not make him a communist, no matter what leftists or rightists on Twitter may say.

The origin of the unhappiness afflicting Generation Z can be boiled down to this: over the past twenty years, rapid technological advancement has destroyed the bonds of community to such a point that young people cannot hold onto a stable identity or place. This erosion of confidence and security has led to rampant unhappiness. Consider this allegory: A runner on a treadmill in the gym. All the runners before him have followed an old treadmill regimen, ordered by their trainers, of running at the same consistent pace. But this runner is new and has a new trainer, who modifies the pace, increasing it to maximum speed. At first he runs without difficulty, but the pace grows until he is struggling to keep up. He becomes exhausted and his legs begin to wobble, but he keeps running, trying to stay balanced by gripping the handlebars. Imagine it: sweat drips from your body and loosens your grip on the handlebars. You fall down, scraping your knees. After a few minutes resting, you begin to notice everyone else still working out, while your workout is incomplete. So you keep on running, and persist to the workout’s end, but you’re scratched-up and exhausted when you finish.

My point is that Generation Z grew up in an environment of such fast-paced technological and societal change and advancement that we have been unable to settle down and grow comfortable with the community or set of values we find ourselves in. In the second half of this piece, I will discuss it further.

The Experience of a Religious Person at Hamilton College

Religion. The mention of it can bring a dinner to an awkward silence or inspire fiery quarrels that result in the participants flipping the table. Yet religion also inspires people to do good. It inspires sacrifice, charity, and art that awes the mind and enthralls the soul. Yet in this secular age, many people take it for granted. They ignore religion in all its forms, finding it backward, antiquated, uncomfortable, or some combination of these. Some even find religion downright evil. And these sentiments are heard frequently at Hamilton College. 

Let me clarify a few things before discussing religion. First, writing for Enquiry does not make me racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, and/or fascist. The toxicity of today’s political climate forces me to say this. And if you do take offense, or are uncomfortable with me writing for Enquiry, please feel free to chat with me, as I always encourage a good and productive conversation about politics. Second, this is a commentary on student life at Hamilton, not academic life. Third, my intention is not to be overbearing or moralistic. I try every day to be the best Christian I can be, but it is a struggle. I have my own vices and faults to deal with. I am a sinner. And I want you, the reader, to read this article knowing that. 

I write as a Roman Catholic. However, I have friends who are non-Catholic Christians, and others who are Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist. I often engage in discussions with them to understand their religious views. All religions are beautiful, and I admire people of faith no matter what God or gods they worship and what practices they follow. Interfaith dialogue and unity thrive among religious students at Hamilton. Where the discussion becomes difficult is among non-religious students. I do not care if someone is an atheist, agnostic, deist, or non-religious in any other way. And many express themselves in a respectful manner. But a sizable number of non-religious students openly mock and despise religion, in cruel and jabbing ways. 

I am not here to drag any reader into unnecessary drama. Nor is it my intent to denounce anyone as a bigot, even though there are students who seem to be. I have heard religion mocked on an almost daily basis. Students have mocked the Catholic Church in front of my face. They have assumed that Catholic students are repressive, bigoted, and have backward views on sexual intercourse and gender. I am often told this personally by students who in many cases are not aware that I am Catholic. The fact that these closed-minded students feel they can say such things to people whose religion they don’t even know about is wrong, cruel, and offensive. Other Christians on campus have reported similar experiences. And I do not know of a single Christian student, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, who is backward and bigoted. None of us are closed-minded. We are accepting of everyone regardless of their identity and have no intention of forcing a life of celibacy on the world. Jewish and Muslim students, and students of other faiths, experience problems too. They tell me that people constantly question how “Jewish” or “Muslim” they are. 

To be a religious student, no matter what your faith, is in my experience to be a subject of mockery and ridicule from many others. Again, I want to stress that this is not true of all non-religious students on campus. Some of my closest friends are loving and open-minded non-religious students who respect my faith and the faiths of others. But the problem of intolerance against religious students is pervasive at Hamilton, and something which nearly every religious student seems to have experienced firsthand. One might claim that I am exaggerating because I haven’t cited specific instances of intolerance, or because they haven’t heard this is an issue. I am not exaggerating. If I felt like this was a nothing-burger, I wouldn’t have written about it. I don’t get into specific stories, and didn’t interview people for this article, because I am simply describing a general climate on campus. If I had wanted to include personal experiences, I would have, and there would be so many that this article would be dozens of pages long. If you think this isn’t an issue, talk with a religious student about it. I believe that in your discussions with your religious friends and peers, they will tell you about times when they were treated with intolerance against religion or against their faiths. 

I will continue to pray that such students see the error of their ways. And when one of them makes a disparaging comment against religion or religious students, call them out and correct them. But do it with gentleness and kindness. Religious students and those who oppose anti-religious hostility cannot change minds if we act with anger and arrogance. And while you call people out and correct them, know that like everyone, you are a sinner too, just as I myself have been guilty of messed-up actions. I hope that with the example set by religious students, students who voice hostility toward religion will embark on the path of love and tolerance.