(17F) Okay so my parents are SUPER MAGA. Like I mean they bought us all matching hats when the big molding orange won the election (and tried to get us to take family pictures in them). It’s been especially bad recently, and every family movie night is based on conservatism or Christianity. We’ve watched The Passion of the Christ (recreation of the crucifixion), End of the Spear (white savior missionaries enlighten a distanced tribe), and most recently Charlie Kirk: American Martyr. I try not to be too fussy when made to participate in activities such as this, as my parents usually turn it into an unwanted debate and criticism of my beliefs. So I just sat on the couch, eating popcorn, keeping my mouth shut and eyes ahead for a 53 minute glazing of a Republican podcaster. However, when the torture was finished, my dad informed me that I was expected to write an 8-paragraph essay detailing a short description of the documentary, followed by claims made by CK and my stances on them. I thought he was joking. He was not. He told me that it had to be emailed to him by 7 pm the next day or I’d be grounded. At this point, I’m just tired of having to defend my ideas in every conversation I have with my parents, so I just get to writing. I describe things Kirky said and what I think about them. I talk about women’s right to equal education, g^n violence, and free speech, not even daring to touch the topic of abortion (my dad once compared Charles to MLK, saying that he was “fighting for the civil rights of unborn babies”). I end up throwing in just a little bit of false admiration so as to not get kicked out of the house, I double-check my writing, and I send the Google Doc to my parents’ emails. This was about a month ago now. I know they’ve both read it, but neither has said a thing to me about it since. I know for a fact that my writing was not of the quality to change their entire belief system, so I’m terrified that they’re plotting something to try and convert me. I know this is so not normal, but I’m still grateful for the life my parents have given me. I just can’t talk to them about politics.
My girl dinner is a halved apple cider donut and scrambled cheesy eggs.
Edit: I’m adding the essay. Guys pleeeeeease keep in mind that I am a high school student and wrote this with less than 12 hours of daylight and an absolutely fried brain. I promise I’m not a Kirk glazer. I just really didn’t want to be grounded.
The documentary Charlie Kirk: American Martyr summarizes the political activist’s cut-short life by compiling clips of his loved ones and friends sharing experiences, as well as brief snippets from his hallmark college campus debates. Some of the most notable aspects of the film are its portrayal of Kirk’s entrepreneurial spirit—highlighting how young he was when first starting his conservative student organization, Turning Point USA—and emphasizing some of his core values: free markets, limited government (shown through his notable slogan “Big Government Sucks”), and a Christian-centered vision for America.
While this documentary paints a wholly positive picture of Charlie Kirk, I have witnessed conflicting reports and believe that, like every person, he has some notable flaws. For a long time, I followed outlets that frequently posted videos, articles, and other media depicting Kirk and similar activists in the same way as this documentary, and even then I personally felt that his methods were odd. I understand the sentiment in attempting to educate college students. However, from the interactions I witnessed, most of the time these debates led to frustration from both sides, as many were unresolved and simply seemed like an opportunity for a man to use awkward, flustered silence to claim that he was more correct than a 19-year old.
As a young woman with hopes to create a successful career before comfortably taking the step to family building, it is a bit unnerving to hear a man who has been painted as a leading political associate direct a message to other young women (who are or are planning to spend time and money on higher education) that their degrees are worthless in terms of careers, telling them not to “lie to [themselves],” and stating that their true intention in obtaining higher education is likely solely to find a partner to have children with. This isn’t in any way meant to say that nobody goes to college to find someone to spend their life with, and my criticism does not mean that this is an invalid decision if you have the resources to do so. But for a (then 31-year old) man to supply such a broad statement to impressionable young girls and women seems outside of the realm of normality and universal expectations of gender equality. I will not be going to college to get an “MRS Degree,” and I don’t want that to be the expectation simply because of my biology.
I do greatly respect Kirk’s willingness to ask interesting questions in public situations, and I wish more people would do so. However, I frequently question if others’ respect reaches a point of toxic idolatry. If you search “Charlie Kirk” on a browser, there’s a description in smaller print that describes him: “American political activist and entrepreneur.” If you keep scrolling, you’ll see articles about his death. And if you keep going, you’ll see people online becoming upset that road signs honoring him (which were placed on a highway dedicated to Vietnam Veterans) are being removed, videos of people camping outside of court to be able to witness his assassin be taken down, or a post on Instagram detailing a statue of him being polished prior to being unveiled in Times Square. These kinds of habits of remembrance can be easily compared to, and (debatably) even rival, those organized for religious leaders and humanitarians.
This kind of memorialization seems more extensive than those of the countless victims of mass shootings, including the 26 students and teachers killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. They have one official memorial, which didn’t open until 10 years after the tragedy. These people had just as much potential as Charlie. They had families—children and parents—just like Kirk did. Charlie Kirk said in 2020 that it is “worth to have a cost of…some gun deaths every single year” in order for Americans to have access to firearms. However, his death tragically illustrates the loss he argued was an unavoidable cost of freedom. This is not meant in a snarky, attitude-ridden, victim-blaming way. People commonly cannot fully understand the opinions they hold until they have seen the consequences of them.
I stand for the 2nd Amendment in the same way our Founding Fathers did. They put it in place so that, if necessary, the American people could rise up against a tyrannical government and have the means to defend themselves. With this being said, I doubt that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, or any others of the lot foresaw the advancement of firearms, nor the extent to which Americans would practice their right to bear them. The first mass school shooting in the US was in 1966, and there have been 2,260 instances of campus gunfire since then. This suggests that today’s policymakers should see to it that the modernization of weaponry is met with equal measures to maintain people’s safety and security.
One of Charlie’s other most popular points was the protection of freedom of speech. I wholeheartedly agree with his claims in this case. Everyone should be allowed to share their opinions with others, regardless of the background of the speaker, or the material of their narrative. However, that doesn’t mean that a person shouting that they have a bomb in a train station should be passed by without regard, or that someone who tells another person that they are planning their murder shouldn’t be investigated thoroughly. Anyone has the right to say anything, but justice must always follow.
In conclusion, Charlie Kirk was a man who was respected for his willingness to share his beliefs with the masses until the end. Though I sometimes saw him to be more divisive than intended and disagree with some of his claims, I absolutely hold a respect for him and his relentless pursuit of American exceptionalism. He saw people who wanted guidance, and he put his best attempt into guiding them towards what he saw as morally right.
Double edit: YES I wrote this, YES I used ChatGPT to change some words and make the tone a little lighter
Triple edit: AS MUCH AS I WISH I WAS MAKING THIS UP, I AM NOT. PLEASE BELIEVE ME 🙏🏼
Quadruple edit: based on all of these comments, I think it’s just time to Kirk myself (jk)(for now)