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?