One of the many plights of humanity is the sudden and solemn understanding that we have too much freedom—the idea that the universe in its entirety has no sense of security, that no failure or success is predetermined by the universe’s path for individuals because those paths do not exist unless people make them for themselves. The aspect of freedom that that entails; the brutal revelation that people are in charge of their own destinies often leads to their bitter resentment for the world because humans, unsure and disregarded creatures, find it easier to follow an already paved road than become tangled and lost on roads not taken and being the first to make a new one. We do not want to be released into the wild and unknown and struggle to thrive, but rather maintain the warmth of a home and family, the warmth of familiarity, the warmth of security. We are biologically programmed this way—as newborns we cling to our parents and caregivers, the only security we know as infants. American essayist and social critic H. L. Mencken’s philosophy on the desire to be sade rather than to be free is often demonstrated throughout American history through examples of immigration to the United States by people from foreign countries, Japanese internment around the around the time of World War II and even in more modern society with graduating students determining the paths of their futures.

We often see, looking back on history, that safety is frequently this primitive need, and when felt in numbers can continually negate the very concept of freedom that we as Americans hold so dear. During the World War II of American history, the United States witnessed one of its largest violations of of constitutional and promised rights on the premise that certain groups of people were dangers to the safety of the country based on their race. The United States, build on the premise of freedom for all, demonstrated this absurd hypocrisy by putting much of the Japanese-American population in concentration camps following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese immigrants who had come to the United States with the hope of this foolhardy notion of promised freedom in their hearts were sent to live in concentration camps, paying the price for a crime they did not commit. The rationale for locking almost all Japanese-Americans away was that they were a “threat to the safety of the country” and that if the United States wished to remain a safe nation, people’s rights would have to be suspended for the greater good. Here, we see a nation standing tall and waving its flags and proclaiming to fight for freedom—freedom from the crown, freedom from communism, freedom from unjust government—locking its citizens away like animals, because freedom is only available when there is safety first. Japanese internment demonstrates the lengths to which people favor safety over freedom and the immense hypocrisy that that ultimatum demonstrates.

A more commonplace example of people choosing safety over freedom is demonstrated as confused and insecure high-school and college graduates walk out of their school and university doors, diplomas in hand, and find themselves overwhelmingly unsure of what to do with their lives. Sometimes, mom and dad step in and whisper into their children’s ears what path to take; often based on their own ideas of what might be the most financially secure or has the greatest rate of success. Take it one step even further—many children, particularly asian immigrants and second or third generation immigrants are often coerced into different educational fields or occupational fields by their parents. Many asian children are influenced by their parents to strive for a place in the medical community, as parents often view it as a safe and financially prosperous occupation for their children. Albeit, many children may find ambition and passion in the industry of medicine, a greater majority of children find themselves with little passion and no security because they invest themselves in jobs they are indifferent towards and are only interested in because they have been pushed in that direction. Without passion or security, those same children are thud led to a higher incentive of following their parents suggestions. And because children are young and naive and overwhelmingly impressioable, they often choose paths that are more secure rather than following what they are passionate about. Much of the workforce consists of broken men and women sitting at nine to five jobs, not because they couldn’t strive for more, but because they were scared to. More menial and stable occupations are often part of the lives of children who choose safety over the freedom of paving their own roads and thus financial stability over their sense of freedom and the right to their real passions. This demonstrates Mencken’s point again, exemplifying the idea that children will often grow up to choose safety over their own free passions. Young children often dream of being things that seem out of reach and irrational to older people, and as those children grow up, their dreams become tainted by the pressure set on them by society and the people around them.

Oftentimes, this idea of forsaken freedom is conquered by the drive for safety for people immigrating to other places due to circumstances in their own current place of life. Take for example, a situation of extreme distress and conflict such as war or famine erupting in the place you live. Your prominent and almost urgent impulse is to relocate somewhere that maintains stable living conditions that do not endanger your life or well-being. If the only place you could move to would restrict your way of life and personal freedom, you would still most likely move to that place because the threat of death and starvation often serve as greater incentive. Freedom is an acquisition, a luxury, and one that should be promised to all people, but it is not.But safety is a primitive instinct, and in a burning house you do not wonder about the quality of a place you can escape to, but rather the safety it provides. Freedom is hard to consider when war is being shoved down your throat, starvation a growling sensation in the pit of your stomach, death lurking around every corner with a battle axe in hand, blind to whomever’s life it might take. It’s seen periodically throughout history that people flee from imminent danger to places where their freedoms may not be guaranteed because there is a reason “life” comes before “pursuit of happiness.” You must be alive first to strive for happiness and likewise, you must be safe before you consider freedom. Throughout history, millions of immigrants have arrived in floods to The United States because because of the chaos in their own countries. Many of those same immigrants arrive to our borders with the understanding that they are coming to a country full of people that look different from them, people who speak differently from them, people who might very well harass them for their cultural differences. But when Korean immigrants flooded to The United States during the time of the Korean War, they did not think about how they might encounter racism or discrimination because they were more preoccupied thinking about the war erupting in their backyards and their country being divided at its seams. This relates back to Mencken’s social philosophy of putting safety before freedom because the lack of freedom is the less life-threatening of the two, and when you’re in a burning house, you don’t think, you just get out of the house.

It is demonstrated, throughout history, that paving the way to freedom is much harder than meandering down an already paved road. This concept exists to exemplify not only figurative freedom, such as freedom of choice, but also literal freedom, such as freedom of a way of life. The idea of playing life on the safe side and not wandering towards an idea of theoretical danger is a constant of life for millions who would rather be safe than free. It is hard to choose freedom in all aspects of life, and nearly impossible when safety is being threatened.