Meta-Mega-Blog-Post

I just had a lot of fun re-reading my bog posts-I can't believe junior year is over! My blog really displays the progress I've made in my writing since the beginning of the year. My first blogs were vague, timid,and standard. Now, by really pushing my limits as both a writer and thinker, my blogs are more thought-provoking, daring, and (need I say it) actually interesting.

I think the blog that best demonstrates my growth is A Teenage Dream. I take something we discuss in class, put a creative angle on it, relate it to the material we are reading in class, and ask a thought provoking question. I think it fits one of the main goals of blogging: making the reader look at themselves, America, and the world in a different light. I also included several links and media within the blog, which I have struggled with since day one.

I also think what has changed is the genuineness of my blog posts. I used to make myself blog every Sunday and force myself to come up with a topic. If it didn't relate to class or American Studies whatsoever, I would force it to. These made my posts seemed forced and strained. However, I began to blog whenever an idea came to me. My posts were all derived from class activities or other people's blog posts(such as Doc Oc's White Trash post inspiring my post, Rich). I could have, however, posted a link to his blog. And for that matter, many of my blogs could have used more "gravy." Some of my blogs, such as Rich and So Happy Together had no media at all. This leaves them just sort of "blah" and doesn't incite interest or excitement.

Overall, I'm really glad we had to keep a blog this year. At first I was very apprehensive, but looking back I realized how much I've grown. Although the freedom a blog gives you can be scary, it is also very liberating and by the end completely worth it. (Of course there isn't an end. Everything is just one big cycle right?)

(Tweet/Text/Facebook/Email/Call) Me!

Reading The Kentucky Cycle, I have really been able to immerse myself in various eras of the past. Although at the surface life was so different back then, American history repeats itself. However, one of the things I believe has changed dramatically since the nineteenth century is communication. People were so isolated that they had little interaction with those outside their immediate family and knew very little of what was going on in the world. In Tall Tales which we read today, the Rowens pretty much only interacted with one another and were thrilled at the sight of a visitor. Their concerns were surrounded solely around farming, and they were cut off from the rest of the world. Jed didn't even know a new president, Grover Cleveland, was elected.

Now, things are quite different. With the addition of technology and a new urban era, people can now instantly communicate with anyone around the world. They are aware of news as it happens, and can speak with anyone at any time. However, is this better? On the surface, it sure appears to be. But Americans are now dictated by this technology. Doesn't it seem they are now burdened with the problems of world, causing cynicism and pain. And instead of visiting a friend in person over dinner, they can just text the friend and have a brief interaction. With the ability to communicate so easily, interactions with one another have become less meaningful and deep. So, what do you think? Has the ease of communication worsened the lifestyle of Americans? What is better for America as a nation?

So Happy Together!

Hayley's blog post, 2012, inspired me in many ways. She described the phenomenon of the world ending in 2012 and how people view it. While some don't believe in it, some picture horrors, and others are thinking on a more positive note; most people have formed an opinion on what they believe will become the outcome of 2012. Personally, I don't believe the world will end. But it did make me think about the end, which is imminent. We have been discussing happiness and various graphs associated with happiness in America. But what about something more general? How would the happiness graph look like of the human race throughout the course of history?

I believe, unfortunately, it would be a downward facing curve (like in the righthand corner). It starts out with the very first humans. Living a very animalistic life and without any advanced tools, these early humans lived very difficult lives. And not being as intelligent as modern humans, they would have less capacity to appreciate experiences. As time went on, the happiness rose. People learned to become innovative, interact with the earth, and love each other. Yet beginning with the industrial revolution and the rise of technology, people have lost touch with these simple facts of life that provide happiness. They have become so enfatuated with themselves and their issues for the future t that they have neglected what it is that makes them happy in the future.

So, what would your graph look like?

A Teenage Dream

In class yesterday, we spoke of the graph from Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness. It followed the marital happiness of couples throughout their children's age. Most studies indicated that marital happiness was at its lowest when the couple had teenagers. This may be true, but what about the happiness of teenagers themselves?

I found a really interesting article(click HERE) about the happiness of teenagers. It claims that due to the high depression rates among teens, England proposes to "teach" happiness in school, namely positive psychology. This seemed a bit disturbing to me. I don't believe happiness can be taught. In fact, the more pursued it is the more intangible it becomes. Teenagers have this notion that it will all get better in a little bit. Once they graduate, go to college, party...life will all be better.

So what is the American thought behind happiness in teens? Children anticipate their teenage years with great anticipation. And most adults believe teens are angry and miserable. Just think of the term "teen angst." Yet, most adults look back at their teen years in awe. I have met many an adult who is living in their past, just like Gatsby. Gatsby was at his happiest in his early adulthood and the rest of life was left to pursue that lost happiness. Going back to my last blog post, I think it really is all about living in the moment. It seems that people either spend their time looking towards their future for happiness or reliving the past to attain the happiness they once possessed. It makes me wonder...Is happiness itself an American Myth?

Slow Down There Americans!

I had a bit of an epiphany today in class. I realized that our viewing of Citizen Kane in American Studies was one of the few movies I had truly watched in a very long time. We later had a class discussion about this. Americans are so efficiency-obsessed that they can never just watch tv shows or movies without feeling the desire to get something done. I find myself feeling this way constantly. I never watch tv, when I do I feel guilty about spending time for myself. I always think of something more efficient that could be done.

I was recently skimming through a health book that highlight this American phenomenon. By constantly worry, working, and planning; American's are not truly living. We have lost the ability to live in the moment, truly soak up the world around us. Hard work is an American value. But the more American success slips from our hands, the more hard work we put into our lives. This type of hard work is not the answer. For true success(happiness) and to ensure our sanity, we must learn to live in the now. This means doing one thing at a time, slowly, and with purpose.

Rich.

I found the blog post Doc Oc made really interesting. The debate in Winnetka about allowing "affordable housing"(if you can consider $75,000 and less a year low income) and the fact that all these "lower income" people come to claim the old goods of the North Shore dwellers is fascinating. Obviously there is contempt for the lower class among these people. They are jumping to conclusions and assuming this housing could bring "criminals". This brings up a good discussion not just about class, but the attitudes and interactions of different classes towards one another. The Great Gatsby oozes with aristocratic class, but there are also references to the "valley of ashes" where the lower classes dwell. How does the upper class' attitude towards the poor compare in The Great Gatsby ? How have these attitudes changed over time? Has progress been made?

Lets Get Earthy!

Yesterday was one of the most important days of the year: Earth Day. Yes, it is is important because are we are decimating our earth and ourselves in the process. It is important because people take action planting trees, organizing events, and enjoying the beauty of earth. But the real importance is in its principle. It is one of the only days that the world becomes a community. There are no barriers separating people of different ethnicities, religion, gender, and race. It is the one thing, aside from being human, that every single person in this entire world shares and feels the same way about. Nobody, albeit some crazies, wants to see the deterioration of earth. This is why I urge everyone to go the Earth Day website (click HERE), and sign the pledge to act green. You might think that your actions, as an individual, doesn't matter. But just imagine if all seven billion of us humans did an act of green. And for that matter, don't limit yourself to today. Try living everyday consientous of your actions on our earth. Earth will thank ya!

Jesus Camp

It is crazy that I have spent almost a month researching Evangelism, and never truly felt I "knew" this religion until last night. Doc Oc suggested I watch the documentary Jesus Camp, and it was truly eye-opening. It follows a very radical, fundamental Evangelist summer camp in North Dakota. Truthfully, it was shocking. There were children crying, seizuring, and speaking in tongues(click HERE). Parents were homeschooling children and blatantly teaching their children global warming was a hoax by liberals. Children were approaching strangers in the park and asking for their vow to accept Jesus. These same children were vowing to die in the name of Jesus Christ. I tried to be as subjective and non-judgemental as possible, but for someone so used to the North Shore, it became pretty difficult to watch. My mom had to leave the room.

While this was all so fascinating to observe, I think the biggest culture shock to me was just how important religion is in the lives of these people. They speak, breathe, and eat in the name of Jesus Christ. Everything in their lives is dictated by religion. It was eye-opening in the least, and yet I completley understand that this is not remotely close to what all Evangelists lives are like. These are the most extreme of the extreme.

I highly suggest to my peers that they look into a documentary or movie about their topic. While books are articles are fine, they can never grasp the images and footage that movies can reveal.

Junior Theme...

Only several days until the "full draft" is due, and I am lagging painfully behind. I believe it is a combination of my tendency to procrastinate and my obsessive-compulsive need to finish every step in my writing process. Right now I have an intro, an effective thesis, and a fairly decent outline. But because I am so picky about the writing process, I need to completely finish my outline with all evidence I will use so I can begin.

Despite not having officially began the writing process, I have already learned so much from this paper. Yes, I know a crazy amount of statistics and facts about Evangelism. But so far I have learned the most about me and my writing habits. As of now I am behind and very stressed. But if I have learned anything this year in American Studies, it is that sometimes stress is exactly what I need to get a paper done.

Praise the Confederacy-Hallelujah!

My Junior Theme topic is the Development of Evangelism in the South. It began with me having a pretty basic, not-too-complicated observation: Christianity is a big part of the South's culture. From there it morphed into why. Why is the South so Christian? Specifically, why is the South mostly associated with Evangelical Christianity.

I have learned a lot from my research. But what I didn't realize is how connected the development of Christianity in the South is to everything we have learned in class so far. In a blog I wrote earlier this year, I Pledge Allegiance, To The Flag, Of The Confederacy , I spoke of the rampant Confederate flag seen throughout the South and Southern culture today. I linked this to the Reconstruction- Are the reconstruction plans we had in part to blame?

After my research, I learned a lot more about the post Civil War South. In part to reaffirm their identity, and in part to ensure their wartime losses and efforts weren't in vain; the South maintained Confederate rituals well into twentieth century. They dedicated monuments to Confederate heroes, issued a Confederate Memorial Day, and had a vast array of art idolizing the Confederate army. The organizations, such as the still-exisiting United Daughters of The Confederacy, also glorified the Confederacy.

And how is religion tied in? Confederate heroes were preachers at revival meetings and viewed as martyrs. The civil war wasn't just a war for freedom, it was a war for Jesus. It is interesting how everything is tied together. This project doesn't just answer the question we initially asked. In my quest to answer that one question, I have found answers to questions we have been asking all year long in American Studies.

School of Racism

As a child, I loved the Jack Black comedy School of Rock. But while watching the movie again this weekend; I noticed very prominent racial tokenism taking place. The plot of the movie consists of a deadbeat musician, Jack Black, posing as a certified substitute teacher at an elite private elemantary school. They then proceed to form a rock band and perform in shows. While assigning each student's role in the band, he chooses very stereotypical positions for each race. Out of the three back-up singers, two are African-American girls with powerful voices. And out of the "groupies", all three are little, blonde-haired-blue eyed girls. In bands, groupies generally follow the band and have sexual relationships with the members, and are often identified as white.

Not only are these stereotypical placements, but it's also the director of the movie "playing it safe." They are avoiding controversy of having black girls appear remotely promiscuous by instead playing it safe with the stereotype that black girls are good singers. What is so scary about this scenario is that this is a movie with kids, for kids. This racial tokenism is encouraging children to develop subconscious racial stereotypes at a young age. Perhaps the best way to decrease racism in America is to stop it at its root, with our highly impressionable youth.

Not So Funny

There seemed to be a very common theme while going through our tv tokenism presentations: black comedians clearly mocking black people. Dave Chappelle, for example, acted out black musician Lil John in an extremely offensive and stereotypical manner. I laughed at his ridiculous representations, but at the same time felt a pang of guilt for laughing. Similar to the Bamboozled clips, these characters are stupified and ridiculous. The common response to this point? It's not racist because Dave Chappelle is black himself.

It's not just Dave Chappelle. It seems to be a multicultural comical strategy to encourage stereotypes on your own culture. Larry David, a famous Jewish comedian, makes countless stereotypical and offensive jewish quips and jokes. This clip (click HERE), from his show Curb Your Enthusiasm, clearly mocks a "holocaust survivor." Aziz Ansari, Indian actor and comedian, compares a chubby Indian child to a shooting star that is "fat, brown, and on the ground."

It's not just famous comedians either. I have heard the response "It's okay, I'm Jewish/Asian/etc." countless times at New Trier. There is a common notion that if you yourself are of a certain ethnicity, it gives you the right to make fun of it. '

Quite clearly, this is wrong. Mocking your own ethnicity and backing up stereotypes only gives others the belief that these stereotypes are valid. You may believe it gives you power to be able to poke fun at yourself, but in reality it just gives the public the complete power to poke fun at your entire race.

The Office, La Ofis, Le Bureau, y La Job

Lately, due to our heated class discussions on televisions, I look at the television industry in new eyes. No longer is it an industry to serve and entertain the people; but rather a money making machine meant to lure people into the world of advertisements. Every show is made with one intention: to boost ratings and thus boost advertising revenue. Many of the television shows we watch aren't original; they are merely copies of other shows successful in similar countries, the networks praying that the same success will arise in their own country. A popular, NBC network sitcom, The Office, is an example of this lack of originality.

The Office, based of the British sitcom by Ricky Gervais, has adapted versions in fourteen other countries. Countries such as China, Germany, and France all boost their own versions. The networks see the success in other countries, identify similarities between their audiences, and view potential for cashing in the big bucks. And the similarities between these countries? They are all, for the most part, economically advanced. So why is it that the people that suffer endlessly trapped in their nine-to-five office jobs go home to watch more people suffering endlessly in their nine-to-five office jobs? Is it that they can relate? Laugh at themselves? Play out office fantasies of having a more exciting office atmosphere? Or maybe the humor and wittiness of The Office is just what they need to escape from their own office.

He Said, She Said

While our class was editing various papers of anonymous classmates today, my notes weren't on how to revise my own paper. Rather, I was tracking and tallying how my classmates referred to the writer of the paper. The results were shocking. The females didn't mention gender in their references to the author, while the males generally assumed the author was a male.

So does this mean all the males in my class are sexist? I don't think so. But what does this mean?
This theme can be seen throughout pop culture. Why is g-d always referred to as a he? Why is mother nature a she? Is does seem slightly racist that the dominant, all powerful force is a male while the caring, motherly force is female. And, I do believe ,these are sexist assumptions. But I still refuse to believe my male classmates are sexist.

I'm stuck. It would be one thing if both males and females referred to the author in the same manner, but they don't. So, do males assume an anonymous is a male because their sexist, egotistical, dominant, or just from basic instinct? And why is it that females make more asexual assumptions?

States vs. The United States

The rumblings of a civil war began when some southern states disagreed with the country's decisions and secceeded. There was, however, a lot of argument about the validity of this secession. President Abraham Lincoln denied the secession, claiming it was unconstitutional. It was the states rights vs. federal rights.The Civil War may appear distant and far-fetched, but underneath the layers it is simply a more radical version of what is occurring before our very own eyes.

Recently, President Obama passed the controversial health care reform bill that would spend 940 billion over ten years to expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured. And yet, like during the Civil War, many states disagree with reform and find it to be unconstitutional. States like Virginia, Florida, and others have deemed the bill unconstitutional. But only the federal government has the ability to repeal the bill. And while I highly doubt these states will want to secede because of this issue, it still seems unfair that state governments, who more directly represent the people, are losing their voices.

It is a difficult subject. How can state governments have more of a say in federal politics, without undermining the unity of America. How can we better balance the state and federal governments, to ensure that nobody's voice is going unheard?

You Never Read A Book Twice

Your understanding, connection, and emotions towards a book are dependent on your environment, experiences, and feelings at the time of reading. Our understanding of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is enriched by class discussions and projects. But our class discussions is with a class of solely Caucasian students, while race is oftentimes the highlight of these discussions. But what if it wasn't? How would our reading of Huck Finn change if the class was, say, half African-American and half Caucasian? Would it be a more enriching experience?

For one, African-American students would have the opportunity to share their first-hand accounts of race today. We often talk about the omnipresence of racism today, but from only one perspective. On the other hand, the analysis of racism could be a much more touchy subject. Although we have learned Twain satires racism in the 1830s South, the treatment of African-Americans is still repulisve and asinine. There is potential for a lot of hurt. The addition of African-American students could create the possiblity of an openminded, supportive classroom; or could cause a lot of discomfort and awkwardness.
If adding some diversity in the classroom can affect a reading of one sole book so greatly, it raises the question: How would diversity in the classroom affect the overall learning experience of all students?

I Pledge Allegiance, To The Flag, Of The Confederacy

As we work on our own plans for Reconstruction in class, it really makes you wonder what you would have done differently. The repercussions of how America handled reconstruction after the Civil War are still felt today. It was a tricky time where the reintegration of the Confederacy would have to be made to save the U.S. Yet somehow, after over one hundred and fifty years, Confederate flags are rampant throughout the South.

Just the fact that there are still Confederate flags in the South demonstrates that there is still loyalty to the Confederacy. Now, I wholeheartedly believe that there is freedom of speech and thus people should be allowed to fly any flag they want to on their own property. But what about the Confederate flag that flies in front of the South Carolina statehouse?

The Huffington Post reported that in May of '10, only two of the six candidates for governor would consider moving the flag.

It is shocking that one hundred and fifty years after the Civil War, the flag of the opposition is still flown publicly. No, I don't believe this means that Southerners want to leave the Union again and there will be Civil War II. But this flag embodies all the ideals of the Confederate South: extreme racism and the belief in slavery. Personally, if I was African-American, I would feel extremely uncomfortable seeing my neighbors and government supporting such an institution. And frankly, It makes me feel uncomfortable as a caucasian as well.

So it raises the question. If the U.S changed their plan for Reconstruction, could they have somehow prevented the infiltration of the Confederate flag into Southern culture?

The "Beauty" of Politics

Through our class discussions, we have come to a conclusion that oftentimes the media uses attractive women and their sex appeal to entice an audience. This was thought to be common sense, think about all those commercial with half-naked women that have nothing to do with the product its selling. So what if it was the same with politicans?

What if instead of attractive women that have nothing to do with the product being sold, it is an attractive face that has no indication of the candidates' inner qualities?

Well, it is.

This frighteningly accurate video (click here) sums up the problem America doesn't even know it has.

A politicians ability to lead has absolutely no correlation with their attractiveness. So why is attractiveness a factor in choosing a political candidate? As our American Studies class creeps towards voting age, this is an important concept to keep in mind. Regardless of whether you vote for the conservative tea party maverick, that liberal Chicagoan with those captivating speeches, or whoever else's name is on the ballot; vote for WHO they are, not what they look like.

Meta-Post

Rereading my blog posts, I have definitely made some leaps and bounds since last semester. In my last meta-post, I complained that all posts were pretty standard and followed the same format. They discussed a topic from class, took a new take on it, and then proposed and answered a question. While my first few posts somewhat followed this format, they also became increasingly creative. I began giving more commentary and coming up with more interesting subjects. For instance, in Goodbye Summer, Hello School and Yet Another Teachable Moment, I discussed current events and connected them to topics and motifs discussed in class, rather than directly referencing class discussions and books we've read. While I used to mostly answer the questions I proposed, I began asking thought-provoking questions at the end of my posts. (see Goodbye Summer, Hello School).

While these creative improvements were nice to spice things up, there were some downsides. I realized the more out-there and creative I seemed to get, the less concrete and substantial evidence I provided. 2011 was fun and interesting, but did not have any real, substantial information, nor was it related to class. And, sometimes I don't conclude properly and could add a lot more. In The Ugly Truth, I bring up the very interesting statistic that "unattractive defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted than good-looking ones" and tied it to to unfairness of the court room in The Crucible. However, I end with the conclusion that these biases are unstoppable and are "something the justice system will just have to live with." This is a very thought provoking, interesting subject and I could have either gone in more detail or raised more questions, instead of simply providing a hasty and naive conclusion.

So, for the most part my blog posts have improved. They become increasingly creative and interesting. However, sometimes they tend to lose their reliability and substance. I think my goal for second semester will be to find a healthy balance between my random, fun posts and important, class-related posts, as well as fusing the two together.

Well Mr. Kohlberg...

While learning about Kohlberg's theory of moral development in class today, everything was pretty simple and clear. However, I couldn't seem to come to comprehend the notion that a person morally matures onto the next stage solely by thinking through moral dilemmas and having discussions.

I think there is another factor to keep in mind: experience. While I am certainly no psychologist, I do feel that a person develops, in all ways possible, based off experiences they have. Yes, they can discuss moral issues and learn from different discussions with different people. But don't they need to experience various moral dilemmas themselves to learn what is morally right as well?

So this leads me to wonder about good ol' Huck Finn. We have generally concluded he is between the second and third stage. But what experiences have lead him into this stage? Would he be at a different stage if he had a stable childhood and home? What stage is Jim at and what experiences has he had that's left him there?