Busy Guy?------> Simplify!

A few days ago I saw the title of an article on the New York Times web page that immediately got my attention. The article was called "The Simple Life" and it proved to make a strong connection to Henry David Thoreau's thoughts regarding simplicity.

The article spoke about the increasing popularity of a Buddhist monastery in upstate New York; the members of the monastery meditate and do what is called "work practice", or scrubbing toilets, raking leaves, etc., all day long. These people are living very simple and tranquil lives. The particularly interesting part about this monastery is that a large portion of the members do not regularly practice or believe in Buddhism and are everyday Americans. So who are these people and why are they meditating in a monastery?!

"Philipp Malkmus, a 30-year-old consultant for PricewaterhouseCoopers, said the rigorous agenda at Zen Mountain Monastery over the Halloween weekend actually left him refreshed. 'It wasn't fun in the traditional sense, but it was the opposite of my life in New York City and a return to a very uncomplicated way of living,' he said. 'It gave me the rest and relaxation I was looking for.' "

These people want simplicity! Henry David Thoreau spends a lot of time in his novel, Walden, expressing the importance of making our unnecessarily complex lives more simplistic. Thoreau, as Phillip Malkmus had, left the busy city life and found a simpler life elsewhere. In the woods, Thoreau built an extremely basic shelter to live in, only used necessary supplies, and lived mainly in undisturbed solitude. In that type of environment one is able to focus on the important aspects of life and human nature; now many modern day Americans are following the same path.

The article I read stated that the present amount of attendees is shocking; usually the monastery is not even half full. Additionally, the fact that the attendees flowing in are everyday Americans looking for some simplicity says a lot. The individual, the city, the country, and the world have all become more complex. The amount of complexity that humans can take on may be reaching its limit, and people will be forced to begin simplifying their lives by eliminating unnecessary factors. Thoreau would be excited at this idea, for now people will be physically and mentally able explore themselves, the truth of Man, the truth of nature, and the truth of life.

Link to "The Simple Life" article: http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/travel/escapes/12ashrams.html?hp

Into the...Man's Nature?

Last weekend, I watched the movie titled Into the Wild, a film based upon a novel written about the true story of Christopher McCandless, a man who started a new life for himself by hitchhiking across America all the way to Alaska. McCandless burned all of the money in his wallet, left behind most of his possessions, and lived off the land. This was one of the most touching and beautiful movies I have ever seen before, and makes a significant connection to our AS class. McCandless is a great example of modern day connections to transcendentalism; it seems he acts as a modern day Thoreau. In the movie, in fact, one of the few possessions McCandless does carry with him is Thoreau's Walden. There are a numerous amount of connections I could make between the two men and their beliefs; watching the movie, however, specifically turned my attention towards Emerson's "Nature" essay that our AS class read recently.

The reason I decided to focus on "Nature" is because the way the movie is filmed truly connects the two. In "Nature" Emerson writes, "In the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate than in streets or villages. In the tranquil landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as beautiful as his own nature" (4). This passage puts an inspirational idea in my head every time I read it, and I was able to visually see its truth while watching Into the Wild. Every scene where McCandless' character is out in the wilderness, alone, and away from city life, "tranquil landscapes" come alive. When you see this man, immersed in the luscious woods, it is almost as if he is one with nature; the true purity of man's nature becomes visible.

McCandless' character truly seems to reach a certain peace while surrounded by nature, and by the end of the movie, it is evident that he discovers much about himself. Just as Emerson described one would when in the wilderness, man seems to become nothing, yet part of everything at the same time.

The film, Into the Wild, really portrayed the beauty of tranquility and discovery perfectly. Viewing these gorgeous settings that the main character travels through really touched me in the deepest sense possible. Complex thoughts entered my head after the movie was finished, and I certainly was not able to form any solid opinions, yet one simple idea became clear: The relation between the individual and the natural world is something extraordinary...

You Can Run, But You Can't Hide

I just finished reading the final pages of Emerson's "Self-Reliance" after school and was about to drive home. I got in my car, put on the radio, and began to drive. A song then came on whose lyrics reminded me tremendously of a maxim I had just read in Emerson's essay. The song is titled, "We Don't Have to Look Back Now," by Puddle of Mudd; this song connects to Emerson's belief about "travel."

In "Self-Reliance" Emerson writes, "He who travels to be amused, or to get somewhat which he does not carry, travels away from himself, and grows old even in youth among old things" (34). Emerson explains that it is not correct for people to run away from their problems, whatever the issue may be. People often believe that by "fleeing" their problems and going somewhere else, their problems will disappear. Emerson, however, says that if one runs away from their problems, that same problem will continue to find that person, wherever they go. It is, therefore, necessary that people plant their feet and confront their issues. By fleeing, one runs away from themself, and self-reliance no longer exists.

The lyrics to the song I heard seems to oppose Emerson's belief regarding "travel." The chorus to the song is:

"You and I will ride tonight'

Till the past is out of sight

We don't have to look back now

From the dark into the light

We can leave it all behind

We can stand together, we don't have to look back now."

The singer here is saying that he and someone else are confronted by a problematic past. He decides to "flee" their problems by "running" away from the past and leaving all problems behind. It seems very inspirational at the time, but as Emerson discussed, this dude's gonna find out it isn't that simple. Even if these people momentarily "run" away from their issues and leave the past behind, their problems will follow them forever and wherever they go. The only way that these people will be at peace will be to face their past and solve their problems.

The connection between this song and Emerson's writing truly allowed me to reach a great conclusion regarding "travel." I do agree with Emerson that one cannot run away from their problems, but the song inspires me to release myself in a way from the issues I face. I, therefore, have created an efficient compromise between the two beliefs; I will never run from my problems, but I will first release myself from the pressure that those problems present, and then face them.

Hold Strong to Your Beliefs

This week in AS Class, we read part of Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self-Reliance." While reading, there was a particular passage that made a fantastic connection to a show I had seen recently. A few weeks ago, I watched a show on NOVA entitled "Einstein's Big Idea." This show described how Einstein's spectacular theory of E=mc^2 came to be. The duration of the show did not focus on the German physicist's discovery of this equation, but more so on the people before Einstein that helped to shape it.

In his book, Emerson wrote, "Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood" (25). He is discussing how it is important for people to hold strong to their beliefs, for the world may not understand their thoughts at first, but may eventually. This passage directly relates to the show I watched, as those who contributed to Einstein's famous equation were all misunderstood at first.

I will not go into exact details of the scientific discoveries that these contributors made, but I will explain the basics of their findings. First, an ordinary blacksmith named Michael Faraday, after years of scientific studying and experimenting discovered electromagnetic rotation. A chemist by the name of Antoine-Laurent Lavoiser made important findings regarding the conservation of mass. Emilie Du Chatelet, a french scientist, figured out the relationship between mass and speed.

The point is, is that all of these people were misunderstood by the world when they first announced their discoveries. Faraday was a poor blacksmith, Lavoisier stated a crazy theory, and Chatelet was a female; trusting these people's ideas was not easy for others at first. These individuals, however, never gave up and continued to test their theories. It took months or even years for the scientific world to comprehend these new discoveries, but once it did, a gateway of advancement opened in the scientific world.

Eventually, because these people held strong to their beliefs, the misunderstanding world came to accept and praise the three scientists for their work. Einstein was able to later combine these three theories and form E=mc^2 as a result, one of the most significant scientific formulas ever.

Emerson is truthful when he says that it is important that we have faith in ourselves and our thoughts, and do not cease when challenged by a misunderstanding world; for our individual and unique ideas, like the three scientists' described previously, can one day open the gateway to great, unheard of discoveries.

Link to "Einstein's Big Idea" story: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ancestors.html

The Divided States of America

Around election day on CNN, I watched Anderson Cooper and his panel of analysts discuss the faults of the Republican party this year. One of the analysts made a very convincing and truthful point, bringing up James Madison's opinion towards factions, and discussed how Sarah Palin created, or tried to create, insulting factions.

James Madison had a strong opinion towards keeping checks and balances on factions, but he also had a deeper opinion as well. He believed political factions are inevitable, but the factions should not lead to cases in which the country is no longer united, but divided.

The analyst agreed strongly with Madison's take on keeping the country united; political factions are necessary, but "American" factions are destructive.
The analyst explained how a large part of Sarah Palin's campaign was describing the "real America."

During one of her many similar speeches, Palin said,"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation." Palin is, therefore, drawing the conclusion that people who do not live in these small towns and are not these "hardworking" Americans are not patriotic, and even anti-Americans.

This was indeed a huge mistake on Sarah Palin's part, because any voters that didn't fit her small town American description probably isn't going to vote for her. I agree 100% with the analyst when he discussed how political factions are necessary in order to maintain the terrific government we have today. Trying to create a division amongst people describing some as "real Americans" and others as "anti-Americans" is both insulting and plain old foolish when running a political campaign.

CNN related article: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/real-america-two-americas/

You said I couldn't have any more sugar, but you never said I couldn't have any more candy

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the widely debated 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. As we discussed in AS class, this sentence can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Not quite sure I have the political stature to fully debate this interpretation yet, but it helps to get some information about why/how this amendment is so controversial.

After our class discussion , I found myself very interested in this topic. I later researched more about Supreme Court Cases and discovered that some decisions in past court cases have been made due to strict following of the Constitution; others seemed to have been resolved using a more modern-day loose and interpretive style of the document. I came upon two terms in my research that clearly define these two styles of interpreting the Constitution: Strict constructionism and loose constructionism.

Strict constructionists, or judicial fundamentalists, believe that people must follow every word of the Constitution without questioning it and do exactly as it says. I learned that Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist during his time.

Loose constructionists believe that people should have a liberal interpretation of the Constitution and can act in certain ways as long as the Constitution does not directly forbid it. Another name for loose constructionist is judicial activist. Alexander Hamilton was an example of an early loose constructionist.

I got the two terms down, but then came across probably the most important part that connects these two terms, as well as making an overall connection to our AS class. People choose to be a loose or strict constructionist often based on how they believe our forefathers envisioned the Constitution's roll in the future.

Many strict constructionists believe that when our forefathers created the Constitution, they intended for the document to be followed word for word forever. Present day strict constructionists show pragmatism as they believe that men like Thomas Jefferson created a realistic and straightforward lawful document that should be followed as is.
Loose constructionists think that the forefathers created the Constitution with the intention that it should be left open for change and adjustment in the future. Loose constructionists today practice a type of idealism, as they believe that others like Alexander Hamilton wrote the Constitution as a document that had some leeway to it for future change.

So concerned parents, when your child defies you by using the, "But, you never said I couldn't do this!" line....maybe he/she is just a young and ambitious judicial activist??

Idealism+Pragmatism=...Beautiful Music?

This is the second year I've had the privilege to be a member of the wonderful New Trier High School Symphony Orchestra. This orchestra has been well known for years because of its ability to play very advanced pieces of music and with great professionalism. I remember last year we had very long, difficult pieces to prepare in a short amount of time, but it does not compare to what we have on our belt this year.

On November 13, we are performing two very hard, LONG pieces; one of the pieces, "Carmina Burana", is 25 movements. Then, in December, we are playing three new songs that we have not even gotten the chance to practice yet... Things are not looking good so far.
After rehearsing the hour long "Carmina Burana" that we are not close to being done with, our conductor stopped us and gave a speech at the end of class that really made me think of our AS theme, dreams vs. reality.

"The pieces I chose for you to play this year symphony orchestra are extraordinarily difficult to perfect in the small amount of time we are given. We have a few weeks until we begin rehearsing the entire 'Carmina Burana' with the choir which we are not ready for, we still have to finish Tchaikovsky which we are no where close to, and on top of all that, we have the three pieces to play in December that we have not even looked at. When I decided on the pieces we would play this year, I truly believed that you guys could pull it off, but right now I'm not so sure, maybe I was being a bit idealistic. From now on, I'm no longer going to be Mr. nice guy up here on the podium...It's time to be more pragmatic folks."

After this speech, you could tell our conductor was disappointed, the symphony was disappointed, and things were going to get a little more realistic around here. Although this was quite a...saddening speech, i could not help but give off a little bit of a smile. I knew what was REALLY going on here, and I realized it applies directly to the discussion in AS class of the balance that pragmatists and idealists create.

Every year in symphony, it does seem nearly impossible to play the pieces we play in the amount of time we are given. Each year, no matter how prepared we are, my conductor gives this same speech every time; and although it looks bleak for symphony orchestra this year, I am 100% confident that it will turn out as it always does- nearly perfect.

Here we see the black and white of a balance between pragmatism and idealism that combine to make the New Trier Symphony Orchestra great. First, we are idealists, deciding to pursue pieces that don't seem possible to play in the amount of time we have to rehearse. Then, we are given "the speech" by our pragmatic conductor that tells us to wake up and smell the coffee, explaining the realistic situation of where we stand in terms of being prepared. Soon, everyone in symphony freaks out, starts practicing the pieces of music like crazy until they can perform them almost perfectly. Then, for the next few weeks of rehearsal, the symphony and our conductor dream of accomplishing our goal by the upcoming concerts, while still maintaining a realistic vision of what we must do in order to succeed. When the concert arrives, we are a fully prepared combination of pragmatism and idealism.

"You say you want a revolution... You better free your mind instead"

(Look closely at the picture. How does Jude (left) and Lucy (right) represent idealism and pragmatism?)


A perilous time is most frequently a time when people make the choice to dream or face reality. In an extreme sense, Idealists are created during these times because they are convinced that the only escape from peril is to act and dream in ways that will bring about extraordinary change. Pragmatists often focus on accepting that radical change will not affect the situation and that people must come to terms with that in order to realistically deal with their problems.

Last night, I watched a great movie called Across the Universe; this film is a love story that takes place during the 1960s, where the U.S. was experiencing a true time of peril. The U.S. was involved with the tragic Vietnam War during this time, as well as the long-lasting battle for civil rights. The war and the riots and protests within the country created a time of peril for American citizens. The two lovers of the story, Jude and Lucy, then experience separation as one dreams of change and the other focuses on the truth of the situation.

Before Lucy and Jude separate, there is a great scene that portrays the creation of an idealist and a pragmatist. Lucy yells at Jude explaining that their country is "...in the middle of a revolution." She tells him that she would "lie down in front of a tank" if that would bring her brother home from the war. Jude replies by saying, "well, it wouldn't." Jude makes the point that no matter what Lucy does, it won't help solve the country's problems. The next scene goes further into Jude's pragmatic style of thinking as he sings the Beatles' song "Revolution." I could talk about the meaning of how that song applies for hours though...

So, the two lovers are then split as Lucy leaves Jude to commit herself to a radical anti-war protest group, and Jude returns back to England. Lucy begins to rethink her choice of radical idealism, however, as she sees the war unaffected by the protests and sees people getting hurt. Lucy later discovers the leader of the anti-war protest group that she looked up to assembling a bomb. She understands that her dreams of ending the war this way are not realistic and are becoming dangerous.
Jude reads about how dangerous the rioting has become in America, and there is a sense that he believes now that some type of change is necessary. He returns back to America and in the last scene, we see the two lovers' idealism and pragmatism combine.

The lovers are then reunited in the last scene, as both abandon their idealistic and pragmatic philosophies. This scene represents how a country united is the most powerful way to deal with times of peril.


"Revolution"
The Beatles

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

Constitutionality 101

“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Urbina said this week, after ordering 17 detainees of Guantanamo Bay Prison to be released.

Guantanamo Bay Prison is located in an area of Cuba that the U.S. controls. Captured foreign nationals from the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 have been imprisoned here. These prisoners did not receive due process, thus, creating an issue that has been debated for the last few years.

The Constitution says that all U.S. prisoners have the privilege of Habeas Corpus, or a fair trial. President Bush, however, said that Guantanamo Bay Prison is in Cuba, so U.S. law does not apply there. It can also be concluded that the President believes these prisoners should not receive due process because the "perilous times" that we face create an entirely different factor and we must bend the rules a bit in order to protect our country.

In AS class, we are discussing under what condition a leader's authority should be extended during perilous times. There are many Americans who believe that Bush acted correctly by extending his power in this situation, and there are many Americans who are outraged. I believe that Judge Urbina said it right, however, when he stated that it is time for the court to "...shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention."

Constitutionality...

The U.S. Constitution was created as the ultimate check and balance system for our country. It is a set of rules that creates limits for our country's actions, so that we may always maintain a democracy. When a leader, like President Bush, extends his power over the Constitution like this, it gives an alternative idea to the prompt, "Under what condition should a leader's authority be extended during perilous times?" Instead of answering under what condition should power be extended, this situation offers an additional idea: The limits of power extension.

The release of the 17 detainees of Guantanamo Bay Prison shows that a leader's authority must only be extended during perilous times until it changes our form of government. By denying the Constitution, we are denying our democracy. Because Bush extended his power over our Constitution, he has crossed the line of power limitation.

"The Past is Never Dead"... or are the Dead Never Past?

This week, we had to read the packet entitled "F.D.R. And the Framing of the New Deal." As I read, it was remarkable how many times I wrote the word "parallel" next to the margin. The political and economical clashes during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the economical crisis we face now are similar in so many ways. The feelings, the causes, the effects, and so much more stood out to me, but there was one line in the packet that made the most realistic parallel to me:

"F.D.R. kept popular attention focused on the need for change, rather than on the tougher and riskier question of what kind of change" (726).

After reading this line, I truly realized the validity of the statement, "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (William Faulkner). Past events aren't just present, but the people of the past are present!! The line about F.D.R. and his focus on change relates so much to the modern day election between Barack Obama and John McCain.

We are in a time of economic crisis just as America was back in the 1930s. The election today between Obama and McCain is one of the most important ones that our country will ever face, just as it was between FDR and Hoover in 1932.

I would primarily like to examine the parallel between Barack Obama and F.D.R. in 1932. I could make an argument about the idea that McCain parallels Hoover, as two Republicans who would bring about no change when dealing with the economic crisis, but that itself is an entirely different and controversial story.

Senator Obama's campaign slogan is well known now as "Change we can believe in." As the quote I took from the packet explained, F.D.R. also led a campaign focused on a "...need for change." As peril takes over America now as it did in 1932, in the midst of the depression, the citizens look to change, new ideas, or anything that can save the country. Obama, just like F.D.R., is an inspirational leader who says that he can make this change if he is elected.

The second part to draw a parallel to between Obama and F.D.R. is the idea of what kind of change they will make. Obama and F.D.R. both propose to make change if elected, but do not say exactly what they are going to do. Here we are now, in the midst of a similar economic depression/recession, and Obama is beginning to take an advantageous lead in the polls as F.D.R. had. The significance of this is that not only does this parallel the two men, but parallels a common theme of human nature.

This common theme shown is that in a time of crisis, people will look for immediate change. The situation we are dealing with now, as well as those that did in the 1930s, is a situation where there is no easy solution. A secure, lengthy solution is not always what we look for. We simply wish to believe that the person we elect to lead our country will bring about some type of change that will save us from these dangerous times. It is obvious then that American citizens would begin to favor Obama/F.D.R. during these perilous times, for they themselves represent change. Obama and F.D.R. did not have precise, laid-out plans at first to deal with the economic crisis; but the fact that they emphasize change, however, gives faith to the people.

This parallel is a very deep one, and it is one that could potentially make voters realize who to vote for in the upcoming election. I would therefore like to end with a quote that is also from the "F.D.R. And the Framing of the New Deal" packet that can really provoke the reader to draw one last parallel to Obama and F.D.R. It is then up to the reader to determine whether or not this parallel is true, and if it is what we NEED during this time in our country's history.

"But F.D.R.'s unfailing optimism and utter unflappability gave millions of Americans new faith that things would improve. The most famous line in his inaugural address--'We have nothing to fear but fear itself'--was catchy nonsense. In 1933, there was plenty for Americans to fear in addition to fear itself. But F.D.R.'s magic made people believe it" (726).

Trying to Keep an Open Mind... Sarah Palin

When I opened up the New York Times home page today, I searched for an article that I could use to study and then analyze rhetorically. I came upon the perfect article for me to analyze because it is one that I have a definite opinion on, and it would behoove me to learn how to support and negate certain points of an argument that I already possess a strong bias for.

The article is entitled, "Palin's Words Raise Red Flags" and is written by Bob Herbert. I agree completely with this article that shows how unqualified and unprepared Sarah Palin is to be the country's VP as shown in recent interviews; but before I began to analyze, I decided to look at what others had to say to this article on the comment section. This helped me form a solid base of knowledge of the pros and cons of this argument.

Analysis: The argument is an important one, its structure and evidence used is presented effectively, but it does not mention enough support to persuade its main targets.

The purpose of Herbert's argument is to convince the reader that Sarah Palin is not fit to run for VP and should be taken off of the ticket immediately. This claim is a very important one as we get closer and closer to the elections during a difficult time in our country. By persuading readers to challenge Palin's qualifications, that could change the results of the upcoming election completely.
The audience for this argument is all Americans, but the primary target to convince are the Republicans. By persuading Republicans that Palin should not even be considered as the next possible VP, the entire election could change as the Republican party could lose numerous amounts of votes. The article had enough information to confirm that Democrats like me will continue not to support Palin; the argument, however, does not contain enough convincing support to sway the minds of Republicans.
The columnist uses logos in his argument effectively; but he does not use enough to change Republicans' minds. The argument contains two sets of dialogue from an interview with Palin. Palin is questioned about her thoughts regarding foreign affairs with Russia. Herbert places two or three quotes spoken by Palin that show her struggling to answer certain questions, thus showing her as an unqualified candidate. Although the logic is presented well, there is not enough to show that she is completely unprepared. She could have simply been nervous or made a simple mistake and slipped up in her speech momentarily.
The writer, therefore, used some evidence to support his point, but left a lot out. He did show well that Palin does not seem fit for the position of VP of the U.S., as she loses train of thought mid sentence and mutters words about dealing with Russia that just don't make sense. In this article, however, we only are able to view Sarah Palin at this brief moment in time where she spoke only a few words. We see nothing of her actions in the past, her ideas for the future, or other interviews that may have gone better for her. The most difficult targets to persuade, the Republicans that support Palin, will challenge this argument for the facts that have been evaded.
Herbert uses language and style effectively in his argument, as he uses comparisons, quotes, and an attention-grabbing vocabulary. Herbert discusses that when Palin is compared to past leaders such as Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford, she does not seem to fit in this list. This causes the reader to picture then what it would be like if Palin were put in the position of these men during the difficult times they faced in office. The writer also uses well selected quotes that really make the reader challenge both the way Palin speaks and presents herself, as well as her thoughts. The words that Herbert uses such as "potential for catastrophe" or "red flags" really get the attention of the reader and have a powerful affect on the reader's point of view.
---------------------------------
This argument is, therefore, convincing to a certain extent, but it does not possess enough evidence to sway the minds of its primary targets, Republicans.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/opinion/27herbert.html?em

You are a warrior!!... Got it?!

This weekend, I walked into work and was immediately met by an obnoxiously loud song blasting in the whole room. At first, I was a little angry that I would have to listen to this irritating song sung by someone that sounds like Kid Rock, yelling at me the whole day. After awhile though, I actually started listening to the lyrics of the song...I then went from a little angry, to very angry. The song I later found out is called "Warrior" and what do ya know, it IS by Kid Rock. Anyway, the chorus of the song is, "I'm an American warrior, a citizen soldier." The rest of the song is about "breathing in red, white, and blue" and my "favorite" line, "If you ain't gonna fight, get out of the way." I went home that day and watched the video of this song on youtube. It is basically a big army commercial with big words like "loyalty, mission, and citizen" flashing once in awhile.
The reason I bring this experience up is because it really connects to the idea of our American Studies Unit 1 question that is, "What does it mean to be an American?" This Kid Rock video states simply that a true American is a loyal soldier. War, strength, and determination are emphasized in this song. This is very interesting because MANY people in the United Sates are given this image of who we are and what we should be. In fact, I can securely say that this "soldier" image is something I've seen all my life.
There are many different images that we are shown that tell us what we must be as Americans. After all this, I just thought to myself how lucky I am that I have grown up in a place like this and can experience a class like American Studies. By studying the question of what it means to be an American, that alone causes us to question this instead of be told the answer. I am just realizing this now as I type, in fact, that the answer to this Unit 1 question is, there is no answer. America is truly a country of diversity, and we all have different views of what it means to be an American. No one image, like this Kid Rock video, can ever persuade me that THAT is what it means to be an American.

Here is the "Warrior" video, if you are interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHzSBEVbXtM

The day that Native Americans fear shall arrive soon...

As I was writing a reminder for myself in my assignment notebook about something I must take care of in October, I came across a particular day that really made me question the... awesomeness (?) of it's naming. The day of which I speak of is October 13, Columbus Day.

This day is named after Christopher Columbus, the man who "discovered North America." After we learned in class about all of the terrible things he did to the Native Americans in order to claim this land, it is only natural that I wonder HOW could people name a day after this racist murderer and not question it. Ah yes, Columbus is famous for "discovering" the new world...despite the fact that the Native Americans had discovered it long before. Suddenly, it clicked to me!

People constantly ask why as children are we taught that Columbus was the discoverer of America , when he clearly was not. Why are the school systems, history books, and U.S. lying to us as children?!

BUT, they aren't lying!! They are simply showing bias in support towards the white colonists... A LOT of bias. Another connection I can make to our class now is the Howard Zinn reading that relates to this. Zinn said that people often present all the facts, but bury up the ones they view as unimportant towards the point of view they take. The U.S. has done the same with Columbus and his "discovering" America.

What I always learned was that Columbus came to this foreign land where natives lived. The natives are always described as not sophisticated enough to have the title of "discoverers." Therefore, I was always presented with all the facts (the Native Americans were here first) but certain facts were covered up with the ones that proved Columbus to be the "discoverer."

Therefore, I realized that I was never fully lied to, but the important facts were never emphasized. In terms of WHAT Columbus actually did to the peaceful, generous Native Americans...Now THAT is an entirely different story......grrr