Meta Post Semester II

I believe that this semester was my best semester for blogging. Besides the fact that it was better because I actually kept up with it a little better than 2nd quarter, where I struggled on the morning of the due date for all blogs to finish mine, I feel like I also brought better ideas to the table that I will be able to use in thoughtful conversations outside of class as well. I also feel like I created a balanced mix of thoughts that I had on my own, like in Race In Classrooms and thoughts that sprung from class discussions, like The Death of Osama. However, I felt like some of the blogs I wrote from thoughts in class were almost exactly the same as the discussion we had in class. An example of this is More Huck Finn Controversy, where I talk about the banningof the book at New Trier and how I think if it should be banned at all, then it should be banned outside of classrooms so students could properly learn the social messages represented in the book. Although this is thought-provoking, it is still an idea that I took directly from someone else in class, and not my own.
I also had a lack of links in my blogs this semester. I am not sure if this observation is trivial or not, but I know that more links= more viewers. I don't think I did enough outside research for my blog this semester, which could have helped some of my arguments and comments.
I think my best blog for the whole entire semester is Theatrical Tokenism because I went very in-depth into the topic of tokenism in Les Miserables. Although it was quite long, I hoped that some people looking over my blog would be as interested/ appreciative of classic musical theater productions as I was. I brought in other ex   amples of different shows as well, such as Guys and Dolls. I also explained my point well with a little background of the story, rather than an complicated synopsis that would probably just confuse people. This is not something I've always necessarily been good at, so I think that is part of why I am so proud of this blog post. It's also my favorite because it was an original thought that I had outside of the classroom, but it is still mixed with conversations we had during school.

The American Dream

While discussing the American Dream the other day in AS, it was asked whether or not people born into incredibly rich families could achieve the America Dream, even if they already have everything they want. During this discussion, people began adopting Paris Hilton, the famous American heiress, as the ideal figure for this. Ironically, Hilton was on a reality TV show called "The Simple Life," where she and friend, Nicole Richie, took the places of parents in average middle class families in different areas of the U.S. and did all of their chores and errands for one day, while taking care of their kids and pets. Although these seem like completely normal tasks, Paris and Nicole's charmed lives made it entertaining to watch as they failed at folding laundry, making lunch for the kids, and walking the dog. These two girls made it nearly impossible to believe that any born-wealthy American could achieve the American Dream.

However, one exception comes to mind. My dad was born into a very wealthy family, with his grandfather being the CEO of a very successful company, and his father inheriting that company. Dad was a sophomore when his older brother flunked out of college, sending my grandparents into a frenzy over all of their children's educations. My father took it upon himself, in order to make his parents proud, to graduate early from school and work for UPS to pay for college by himself. He worked for one and a half years to pay for his first year of college and part of his second, which he also picked up another job for. He has been creating a living on his own since then, becoming a wealthy man himself and living in Winnetka. I believe that, even though my dad was not born to a poor family, he still worked very hard and earned the American Dream he lives today. Let me know if you know someone like that too!

The Importance of the Ability to Swim

Listening to my grandmother's conversations with her sisters and friends usually sparks an idea or two about racism. The other day, while talking about the importance of being able to swim, one of the ladies involved in the conversation blurted out:

"As important as the skill of swimming is, a lot of black people seem to not be able to. I never see blacks actually in the water, just around it."

This remark sparked a new conversation:

"Well, you know, the reason blacks can't swim is because back during the Civil Rights Movement, they weren't allowed at local pools, so they were never able to teach their kids, and their kids couldn't teach their kids, and so on."

As stereotypical as this is, do you feel there is some truth to it?

Class Markers II

Recently, while watching a film about the evolution of dogs in biology class (called "Dogs and More Dogs"), one of the narrators said something very interesting and relevant to our discussions on class in American Studies. He said that purebred dogs were a sign of an upper class family because it proved that the family could afford them and care for them. It struck me that the narrator specifically said "purebred," as though mutts were not expensive and did not need as much care and attention.
A comparison can be drawn from the low class mutt and high class purebred dog, to the descriptions of white in The Great Gatsby. F. Scott Fitzgerald commonly uses the color white as a marker of upper class in his novel. I don't think it's a coincidence that white people are often associated with upper class, while African Americans are normally associated with lower class. This portrays an extreme amount of racism towards blacks, who, in this case, are more similar to the mutt dogs rather than the purebreds.

Movies

Recently in AS, we have been talking about movies and the way we watch them. I started thinking about movies today and realized that although we consistently have movies coming out, few of them are very good or original. So many movies have 2, 3, or 4 sequels out because our consumerist tendencies have movie making companies milking one good movie for all it's worth.

This also must mean that original scripts are becoming less and less common, as our theaters are filled with movies like Shrek 4 and Spiderman 3. I looked at the movie listings on Fandango and found that the movies coming out consist of a lot of sequels. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, The Hangover Part II, Kung Fu Panda 2, Cars 2, X-Men: First Class, Tyler Perry's Madea's Big Happy Family, and Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil all were listed, just to name a few. Another large portion of the list was repetitive movies, but in 3-D, or "IMAX Experience," or even the IMAX 3-D Experience. I then proceeded to look at the Top Box Office sellers, and found that the number of weeks a film was released averaged from about 1 to 2 weeks. To me, this seemed very different from when I was younger, when films seemed to be out for a month, or a month and a half. These observations seem to indicated that the quality of movies and the movie industry has gone way down. What will movies be like in 20 years? or 50 years? Will they exist at all?

Class Markers

After spending a great Mother's Day helping my Mom open cards and gifts, it occurred to me before long that the method my family chose to prepare our gifts and cards for my Mom was not unique at all to our area where we live. Unfortunately, we pulled the classic "Dad-buys-the-card-and-signs-for-everybody." I remembered talking about this with my friends before, all of them being from upper class families, and they had all said that their family does the same thing on holidays and birthdays. Then, I remembered some of my friends from middle class families saying they made homemade cards, and spent a lot of time arranging them with brothers, sisters, and parents.

While rushing to the store and buying a picture frame after making this realization, I thought about in what way this could be considered a class marker. A distinction between the holidays for upper, middle, and lower class was clear, but I had never thought about the cards presented on the holiday in different families. In upper class families, we need hallmark to phrase things for us, while in middle/lower class, cards are much more sentimental and intimate.

Why are cards usually not as personal in upper class families?

This could be for a few reasons. Maybe a typical upper class family isn't as close to each other because of work schedule for parents (traveling, long hours, etc.) and a common use of a nanny in wealthy families, causing a lack of communication. It could also be the general high tension in the family due to things like pressure from parents which is common in upper class families.

I am not in any way intentionally belittling or judging any type of family, so if you have an exception to this thought, please feel free to comment back and elaborate on it!

The Death of Osama

Today in AS, we discussed thoughts about the recent headlines referring to Osama Bin Laden's death. After we all shared our thoughts and questions on notecards read aloud to the entire class, we realized there were a lot of mixed feelings about this assassination. A common emotion was fear of retaliation from Al Qaida. Others felt patriotic and relieved that the terrorist mastermind had finally been shut down.

Many also felt uncomfortable with celebrating someone's death, as many college students had done in front of the White House Sunday night after the news broke out (White House Celebration). This brought to the table a conflict of emotions between Americans. Should we feel proud to be responsible for the death of this man? Or should we be more respectful since we are dealing with the death of a man, as terrible as he was?

Rights Vs. Welfare

For the most part, when people think of Animal Rights advocates, they think of gung-ho PETA fans, throwing paint on women with fur coats and boycotting meat. What people don't usually think about are the animal welfarists. These people believe that animals should still be used to benefit human-kind, but in the most humane way possible.

Animal welfarists believe that humans have an understood dominance over animals because we are more advanced and most animals don't actually know their purpose in the world. That is why animals are used to test cosmetic and household products to ensure human safety, and to look for new cures or treatments for diseases. However, animal welfare also means that animals can be slaughtered for fur coats, as long as it is done in the most humane way possible. Most animals rights activists believe that no human goes through life absolutely NEEDING a fur coat, and that it is unnecessary cruelty to animals.

Which side do you choose?

Horse Slaughter

Recently, in the process of Junior Theme, I had been researching dozens of articles based on cruelty to animals. One of the many articles I read that I did not include in my paper involved the abolishment of horse slaughter. The article stated that this industry slaughtered as many as 100,000 horses every year for the use of human-used products, and was effectively shut down through congressional action in 2007. What's interesting is, people want to bring it back. Why, you may ask? It is such a terrible and inhumane process, yet it provides thousands of jobs across the country, and prevents an even worse fate: being sold for $10-20 and crammed into trailers to be slaughtered in Mexico. In 2008, after the American Industry shut down, 57,017 horses met this end. Old or temperamental horses who their owners no longer have use for, or can afford, are usually sent to Mexico or abandoned. Some say slaughterhouses may be the best way to go.

If the thought of this repulses you, you're not alone. Though there are few alternatives now, there are also some in the making. Angry animal rights groups, proud horse owners, and veterinarians suggest the hay that horse owners use to feed their pets be free for anyone struggling economically, and anyone interested in buying a horse must pay an up-front fee to cover euthanasia costs in case it is needed. Which option sounds more realistic to you?

The Future of Education

After the recent protests and media up-rise of Governor Scott Walker's abolishment of collective bargaining in Wisconsin, I decided to ask my grandmother, who was a teacher, what she thought about this decision. Though she did disagree with Governor Walker's decision, she did admit that many teachers took advantage of the Union and received more than they gave to the school and to their students. Before I asked her, I had heard about an incident in Rhode Island where all of the teachers of a certain high school were fired. If you want to read further into this, I have posted the link to the article here. After reading this, I started to see what my grandmother was saying. The article states that the firings "came after the district said it failed to reach an agreement with the teachers' union on a plan for the teachers to spend more time with students to improve test scores." With this plan, the teachers were asked to work a longer school day of seven hours, tutor the students weekly for one hour outside school time, have lunch with students more often, meet for 90 minutes a week to discuss education, and set aside two weeks during summer vacation for paid professional development. To me, this conditions seem reasonable, because many of these things are already done at New Trier. Also, with the school's low graduation rates (half the students are failing every subject), one would think that the teachers would want to improve their teaching methods for their students, and give them more motivation. From the information I was given, it really does seem like a change in the union is necessary for the future of education.

How Do People Become Proactive?

Recently in class, we had discussed what needs to be present in order for social issues to be brought into the light in America. Examples of this included Civil Rights for African Americans and Gay Rights. How did these become important issues? What did it take for the victims of these movements to become proactive and fight against the injustice?

My idea on this topic is that the people who fell under the category of African American or Gay had to speak up more in order to create a crusade against the people who victimize them. It has always been said that there is power behind numbers, so when more gay people spoke out, they probably felt more empowered to act against their discrimination. Once blacks were united under the common goal of defeating racism, that's when the proactiveness arose. I think unity of the mistreated people really motivates them to become proactive.

Theatrical Tokenism

A few months ago, I attended a great performance of "A Christmas Carol" in which I remember my grandmother asking me if there were any characters played by people of a race besides Caucasian. When I asked her why she wanted to know, she proceeded to defend her question by explaining that it was not a racist stand point because any race other than Caucasian would not be true to the setting and original portrayal of the story. I kept this in mind when I went to see the cast of Les Miserables in downtown Chicago, and noticed that the lead character, Jean Valjean, was African American. Another principle character, Eponine, was also African American after her parents in the show were Caucasian, and the younger version of herself earlier in the show was also white. I thought about my grandmother's question during and after the show, trying to decide whether or not it was racist.

Sure, it was not typical to portray Jean Valjean or Eponine as African American, considering the show takes place during the 1800's in France. I thought about my past theater experiences, and all of the times I had been told that you have to "look the part." For example, when auditioning for the famous show "Guys and Dolls" I was told that the character Adelaide was traditionally portrayed as a blonde. Is discriminating by means of skin color the same as by means of hair color, body shape, height, or voice range?

At the same time as wondering whether their races were true to the story, I also asked myself whether Jean Valjean and Eponine's race actually took away from the credibility of the show. I tried to create arguments for both sides. On one hand, like I said before, African Americas were not common among the French at the time. But both cast members also had incredible voices and as the show continued, the thoughts of race in my head eventually dropped and I no longer separated the cast members by race on stage.

I also recently put in to question the tokenism that may have been involved in the show. The character of Jean Valjean is a former convict, who changes his identity, as well as his morals, and eventually becomes the mayor of Paris. He is close to a saint with all of the sacrifices he makes for others and his positive moral direction. He is the center of the show, seen as the protagonist, and is a very complicated character. Of course the story of Les Miserables was written many years ago, probably with the assumption that there would be a white Jean Valjean. I have never heard of a Les Miserables with a black Jean Valjean, and in fact, out of all of the professional productions I've ever seen, a black male or female has never been the center character of the show. After studying examples of tokenism in AS for a solid week, my first thought was that the casting directors of the show were trying to use Lawrence Clayton (Valjean) to draw an audience to show how diverse they were, therefore casting an African American Jean Valjean. However, the story is so old that there is little to tamper with when it comes to creating a token character. What do you think?

Black Trash vs. White Trash

The other day in American Studies, we discussed the term "white trash." For those who don't know, "white trash" is a stereotype thrown around to describe a generally vulgar, cigarette-smoking, teenage-mothering, trailer park caucasians with bad teeth. However, the fact that this stereotype only applies to white people may imply that for races like African American, the race in just assumed to be trashy. What do you think?

Race In Classrooms

After discussing racial stereotypes and connotations a lot in our AS class, I got to thinking if are discussions would be as in-depth and interesting if there were actually an African American in our class. Would people hold back more for fear of offending this person? Or would it spark interest in the discussion with a new point of view?
I believe that if there were a Black person in our class room, people would definitely be a lot more cautious of what they say in our class for fear of offending the person. I don't think that what we say in class is offensive or far from the truth at all, but I do think that people would over-think saying things about race in class and not put everything they have to say on the table, which could sway a discussion at least a little bit. What do you think?

More Huck Finn Controversy

Recently in AS, we picked up another discussion about the controversy on Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and how it was banned in our school in the 1970's. Even today, it is not allowed to be taught outside of our class room. The reasons listed for banning the book were that the content was inappropriate, hurtful to African American students, and irrelevant. However, these motives are not even fully valid. The content, read superficially, could offend blacks, but if read in depth, students would see that there is a satire placed on racist whites. Also, the book's historical setting is completely relevant to racism even today, and it will be relevant until racism is eliminated. The "N" word is written a total of 216 times in the book, but it would be wrong to shelter young adults from the meaning and former use of the word. All of these arguments are even more reason why the book needs to be read and analyzed in a class room. In fact, students could misinterpret the message of the book if not read carefully. It is important to discuss the "N" word and racism inside a classroom so every student develops a correct understanding. So, if you have to ban anything, why not ban the books outside of all class rooms?

Meta-Post 2

This quarter, most of my blogs have been conceived off of independent thoughts and experiences outside of the class room. Only my entry The New "Huckleberry Finn" Eliminates the "N"-Word was based off of discussion in class. I think that is one area that I could improve on for next semester. Also, some of my other entries are a little short, like Musical Stereotypes and Rich vs. Poor. I think short entries can still spark thought among readers, but it is also important to do research on your idea to back it up in your entry. I realize that I had this problem last quarter, and now that I have been refreshed on it I plan to change it. Doing research and adding links can also attract readers outside of AS, and it would be exciting to see my blog being read by outsiders on the Internet. Some topics in my blog I believe have kind of shallow thought, like Advancing Technology and Musical Stereotypes, because they are not particularly discussing society or culture, but they are still interesting to read. Advancing Technology received three comments, which is the most amount of comments from the whole quarter. I have to be honest, blogging became less of a habit for me this quarter than it was in the previous quarter, and I found myself struggling this very morning making sure I had enough blogs. However, most of the blogs aren't rushed.
In my entry called Kissing the Chicken, I believe it was interesting enough of a topic to move forward in discussing it, but I left it up to the readers to come up with ideas for the ending question. This would be OK, except no one has responded yet. I would love for the video that is the topic of discussion to be analyzed more by my peers, but maybe I should have given a few more examples in the entry.
I think my best post this quarter has been "How to Trick People into Thinking You're Good-looking"... really society? because it poses an interesting question at the end after a whole entry of taking one side. It turns the tables a little bit. Also, I think it's particularly appealing to high school students because many highschoolers worry about their image too much, and the post and video deal with that a lot.

Musical Stereotypes

The other day while listening to music with my friend in her car, we discussed how certain bands or genres of music that people listen to can give off connotations about who they are or can lead people to make assumptions about them and put them in a certain category. An example that we came up with was a girl that listens to Pop, like Ke$ha or The Black Eyed Peas, is typically a bubbly and loud teenage girl. Or maybe, if you listen to Pink Floyd you are a stoner, or listening to techno means you go clubbing a lot. It's interesting to think about your music taste and what stereotype you fit under, and whether it's true or not. Why do you think these stereotypes exist, and do you think they are necessarily true?

"How to Trick People into Thinking You're Good-looking"... really society?

The other day, my friend sent me a youtube video titled "How to Trick People into Thinking You're Good-looking." Although the video was very humorous and entertaining, I couldn't help but be bothered by the general message. The video is obviously superficial, which you can see from the title, but it was also very degrading to women. The girl that made the video attempts to make herself look better, but immediately associates that with looking like a "street-walker" or "stripper." She even says, before putting on her make-up, that "the goal is to make yourself look NOTHING like yourself." This detriments the need we all have to be ourselves, and can lead a girl watching this video to believe that in order to seem appealing, she has to cake on make-up and bleach her hair, taking on the look of a stripper.
The girl in the video also states as one of her steps "Go out and get a job that is super degrading. I picked dancing in my underwear." Regardless of whether she is or is not a stripper, the message she is sending across is very appalling. She then goes on to say, "To pump myself up for work, I like to cry over my Master's degree." This implies that in order to be attractive as a woman, you have to throw away the hard work you've done in school and in your activities, and become a stripper. We can all see how the message of this video is insulting. Every person is attractive in different ways, but this girl's ideas must stem from somewhere. Do you think that what she says is somewhat true in society?

Here is the video. Just a heads-up, it's inappropriate, but is necessary to watch if you want to comment back.

The New "Huckleberry Finn" Eliminates the "N"-word

In class, we have been discussing the new version of Huckleberry Finn, and how it has replaced every "n-word" with "slaves." The reason for this was that the character's takes on slaves was too controversial for some class rooms, and in order for the book to keep its place, the content must be removed. I, however, don't agree with this. The use of the "n"-word may be controversial, but it is an important piece of the book that shows what the times were like when it was written. Without this, it takes a certain racial component out of the novel that is vital to studying the story and analyzing it.


The use of this word in the book is offensive, but can spark discussion in class rooms on how the "n"-word should never be used in the 21st century. Purifying any book that has the "n"-word in it could make it so children and young adults never have this important conversation in their classroom.

What do you think?

Kissing the Chicken

The other day surfing the Internet, I came across a Youtube Video that really amazed me. The video is an interview of a reformed Ku Klux Klan member talking about a specific instance involving Reverend Wade Watts, who was a collaborator with Martin Luther King Jr. and the state leader for the NAACP. The former KKK member, Johnny Lee Clary, speaks of how the KKK would attempt to terrorize the Reverend, and each time they tried, he would counter it with genuine love and acceptance of the Klan. For example, Johnny led about 30 members of the KKK to a restaurant where Rev. Watts was dining, and after telling him that they were going to do to him exactly what he did to the chicken he was eating, Watts picked up the chicken and kissed it. This was such a hilarious incident, that even members of the KKK were laughing. It amazed me from Clary's stories how tolerant the Reverend was of Johnny, and that he fought off hate and torment by showing that it didn't bother him at all. It got me thinking to what this way of countering harassment could also work for. Any ideas?

Cyber-Bullying

Today, once something is posted on the Internet, it is permanently there and can show up in multiple places. Comments and pictures are often posted on blogs, facebook walls, and twitter without censorship, which can often allow personal attacks on people. This is inappropriate, and if behavior over the internet like this continues, it can cause harm to another person or people. I have heard many stories of cyber-bullying, but the one that left the biggest impression on me was the story of Megan Meier. Lori Drew, a mother from Missouri, impersonated a 16 year old boy and lead Meier into a fake relationship over Myspace. It tragically ended in Megan committing suicide because of the awful things that Drew would say to her. This news made me realize that there are unfortunately some very sick, immature, and menacing people on the Internet. This story and many others have encouraged me to find a way to prevent situations like these. There must be something the Internet can do in order to avert cyber-bullying. Would censorship be fair? I think if it meant saving Megan Meier's, and other teens such as  Phoebe Prince's life, than it is worth the slight violation of free speech on the Internet.

Advancing Technology

It's exciting for us too see changes in technology over the years. IPads, digital cameras, GPS systems and more constantly give us luxuries that past generations only dreamed about. Living with all of these new inventions has been an adventure, and it has been so interesting to remember the days where we had to wait for film to develop, or wait to receive a letter. However, the next generation will not even be slightly familiar with the technology of our youth. I came across an article on Yahoo! about what our children will never know. Everything from wires to forgotten friends is expressed in the article and will be foreign concepts to our children. It's just interesting how technology is moving so fast, soon the internet won't be fast enough for us, and we will need something to replace it. What is the demand that keeps us needing faster connections? Will progressions in certain technologies ever come to a halt?

Rich vs. Poor

Lately, I've been thinking about why some poor people have resentment towards richer people. It was hard to make sense of at first, but I came up with the idea that maybe some impoverished populations equate money with happiness, so they resent the rich thinking they have no problems, or that they are at least trivial. In America, it is common for the rich and poor to be separated, so that not much contact exists. However, on a recent business trip to Rio, Brazil, my Dad said that hundreds of impoverished people filled the streets that also contained the richest buildings. Does this sort of arrangement in society improve the relationship between rich and poor or worsen it?