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?