Save the Written History!

I was reading this article that my dad saved for me from the paper, and it was about a kind of graffiti.  A teacher encouraged his students to write their name and a favorite quote on the classroom wall every year.  Some students came back and saw their names on the wall and were inspired, others were inspired by what their predecessors had written.  In any event, the teacher died of cancer, and the school is planning to rennovate the building, including the walls of that classroom.  I can't get a good picture, so please go to the link and look at the slide show and the descriptions.  Very interesting stuff.

The article goes on to say that in the past, such as at a certain ROTC center, they cut the signatures on the wall and part of the wall away and brought it with them to the new location so that the people on the wall would still be honored.  The school decided not to save the wall, but to make a record of the cinder block wall by photographing each block.

Does this seem like an appropriate solution?  Isn't there something more secure about having your name printed on concrete as opposed to paper or special cardstock?  Paper is easily destroyed.  What will new members of classes do?  Will they get an opportunity to immortalize their names for a few years?  Will the tradition stop?  Is this decision appropriate?

Deconstructing Wisconsin

During the debates over the past few weeks about the Wisconsin strikes, I have been able to look at what is going on and what the problem seems to be.  I just read two articles about this subject.  The article by USA today seems to lean towards the side of the republicans and the state of Wisconsin in this issue.  Governor Scott Walker says that he wants to balance the budget of the state by cutting the funding from a number of government funded organizations like Medicaid, as well as the salaries of government employees, and removing some of their collective bargaining rights.  Collective bargaining rights are simply the rights that an employee has to request higher pay or better benefits from their employer.  Some of these rights are being taken away from the unions, leaving only the right to request higher wages and strike for them.  In addition, certain regulations are being placed on unions that would cut their income by about 1/3.

Now, some of these measures make sense.  I  think that bills to cut spending are great.  Very necessary, any time.  I think that since only government employees are the ones affected, and since they receive pretty good benefits and pay, it is permissible to cut the ability to bargain for more, but only if they concede to not get rid of too many in the near future.  In addition, I believe that it is ridiculous that employees would not have to pay into their own pension and medical funds.  It seems like the government is just giving away the taxpayer's money and other people get it for free.  That doesn't seem right to me.

However, there are problems with this kind of law.  It seems like the governor and his party have ulterior motives that are not expressed publicly.  Weakening the unions would weaken the democratic party, which would weaken the opposition to the republicans.  This kind of power struggle is what has felled many a good country in the past, and I would hate to see a vicious fight for power between the two parties ensue.  While I see necessary spending cuts on the surface, I think that trying to pass laws that would hurt what makes America unique (democracy and the ability to lobby the government) is not right.

So where is the middle ground?  Can two parties that conflict find a compromise?  We'll soon find out, no matter the case.

Passion and Compromise: Why the need?

During the presentations this week on Reconstruction, it was very interesting to see what different groups focused on fixing the most.  For example, some groups focused on fixing the economy while others worked more on the rights of the freedmen.  Our group focused primarily on the economy, trying to create a stable working environment for everyone, and figuring that equal rights would come shortly thereafter.  But what made the groups choose these most important topics?

I know that in my mind, the economy is very important.  I enjoy learning about the carrots and sticks that the government can use to manipulate people and businesses.   I know that others are passionate about equal rights and are fascinated by the treatment of different groups throughout history.  However, I believe that a plan with only one aspect in mind will fail.  It is necessary to have a compilation of different facets of reconstruction and rebuilding in order for it to succeed.  By using our passions we can make something great, but by combining them with others and compromising them within reason, we can think up something great, that may actually work!

Racial Tokenism again??

Today I was looking at my valentines, a few of which were Disney Princesses.  It was a little strange, but I started to remember what the cards used to look like when I was little, and what they look like now.  The way I remember a typical Disney princess card looked something like this.

But now, there is a new face.  Disney's most recent princess movie was The Princess and the Frog, and the main character, Tiana looks like this.

The year was 2009 when the first African American princess appeared.  I noticed her as the one who stood out on the card.  There were two white princesses, from some original movies, like Snow White (1937), Sleeping Beauty (1959), Cinderella (1950), The Little Mermaid (1989), or the most recent being Beauty and the Beast (1991), and then a very recent addition to the princesses.  The princesses that everybody recognizes are the white ones.  Even Jasmine (1992), while sometimes shown on these cards, is not as familiar as say, Ariel. (It is debatable whether Mulan (1998) is a princess per say.)  Why the famous princesses do not stay on the cards I would argue is an obvious depiction of racial tokenism.  Thanks to those who gave me the valentines that inspired this post.

Facebook is "On Land" for most

In American Studies this week, we touched on the fact that when Huck Finn is on the raft, he is free to be himself with Jim, but when he steps onto land he feels the need to put on a mask and fit in with society, by pretending that Jim is his slave of some kind.  In the same way, I find that Facebook, and possibly the entire internet is not a place we can feel free to be ourselves.

On Facebook, I have never seen a post about an injury, emotional trauma, or relationship problems.  I see some posts that look like they were taken out of a melancholy book on relationships, saying things like, "I thought if someone breaks you, someone will come and fix it. But I was wrong. Sometimes, they come to break you more and make you feel the pain twice as before.." HERE is a link to Facebook so that you can check your own friends' posts (if you don't already have it open).  But that really doesn't tell any readers about what is happening in their life.  Most posts are completely superficial, dealing with homework, scheduling, and even the weather.  My own Facebook profile is equally boring, so it seems as if nobody is comfortable sharing what is actually going on in their lives.


The question is, is there a raft?  Is there somewhere where a person doesn't have a few billion people looking at their words or actions and where they don't have to worry about conformity?  If people put on a mask at school, on the internet, at clubs or sports, and maybe even for their parents, do they become that mask?  And is Facebook becoming what the creators intended it to be?  Is having 4000 friends and conversation completely devoid of meaning really the idea?

Why Only Discuss One Race?

In American Studies, we spent a lot of time these past few days talking about the way African Americans are treated and given attention in the book, Huckleberry Finn, as well as common stereotypes about them in modern culture.  However, by listening to our discussions, it seems like stereotypes only exist toward African-Americans.  Throughout the existence of the United States, there have been movements and racist views against many different people groups including: Japanese, Chinese, African, Italian, German, Irish, Jewish, and Latin Americans.  HERE is an article from Wikipedia about the history of racism in the United States.  It shows some cartoons that promoted racism, and an explanation of each era in which racism was applied to each people group.

So if all of these races have stereotypes, cartoons, and jokes about them, why do we only discuss racism against African Americans?  Clearly none of the other people groups were slaves, but currently Latin Americans and Middle Eastern Americans (among possibly some others) are also thought poorly of by some other Americans.  All of these peoples are portrayed differently by the media, and we could analyze any of them.  Cartoons about Asian Americans are abundant from the 1890s as well as during World War Two.  So why just analyze one group?

What ifs of Reconstruction

Last night, I went to a swim meet at Maine South.  The water was frigid and most of our team didn't have towels- we forgot them at New Trier.  However, I knew that when I got home, I could take a shower with a lot of hot water, and then go to sleep in a warm and comfortable bed.  This was not the case for the newly released slaves in the mid 1800s.

When the slaves were released, they owned nothing, and the newly passed 13th amendment did not have provisions for the welfare of the slaves- ie, the food, shelter, education and livlihood of these newly proclaimed human beings.  They were simply turned out to whatever their fate may have been.  But, the freedmen were quickly hired again by their former masters and African Americans were killed and beaten all throughout the South regardless of their condition.  On letter from a former slave who is being asked to return to his old master can be found HERE.  One of the most interesting things is how Jourdan Anderson addresses his former master very politely, yet sets a requirement that is almost impossible to meet.

So, the freedmen were treated in an inhumane way, but what could have been done differently?  The whole idea of emancipation was not new, but getting it accepted by the white members of the United States of America was very hard anyway.  Should they have been given more rights, or would that have sparked even more anti-African American sentiment?  Or would less rights have been a better idea so that the long time citizens could ease into the idea of African Americans being human beings?  But it is clearly seen in Anderson's letter that he was thriving with his new family and that he had learned to read and write.  Bigger questions can be who should yield when the class in power clearly wants to keep it?  Is government set up correctly to handle issues where people are being harmed every instant?  Can it be fixed?