Relection

Hmm, last one, ehh? I don't know. This semester has been an eye-opening experience for me, and not because of my classes. I have learned a lot about myself not in terms of identity (unfortunately), but more in terms of limits. I have learned there is a limit to how much sleep you can get, or not get. I have learned that there is a limit to how little exercise you can get before you snap and work out. I have learned how long you can procrastinate before starting to work on something (too long). I have learned what my personal comfort zone is, and its limits.

This semester has taught me more about myself than about world politics or music, and I have to feel grateful for that. I know now I have to make some adjustments in my life, and that I also have some important decisions to make. Explorations, to me, has been a definite facilitator of these realizations that I have made, not because the course material forced it, but because the introspective atmosphere that the course (and teachers) engenders. Forcing myself to do these blogs was pretty annoying, but definitely useful to myself.

Explorations didn't teach me about my identity, but it taught me to teach myself. If that makes sense.

Plusssz, not Alka-Seltzer, and Lots of... Fizzing

Final reflection. And what of this finale? From Goffman to Augustine to Bellah to Sophocles to Heinlein, what have I learned?

I am somewhat intimidated by the feat of encapsulating my entire Explorations experience and wisdom into one easy-to-swallow pill. As far as medicine goes, this course material is more like Alka-Seltzer. The tablet slowly fizzes in, and you have to swallow it with a few gulps of diluting water. Or, sometimes you swallow the tablet before it has done its fizzing, and you're left to churn out the medicine on the inside.

More liquid than solid. Yeah?

I guess what I am saying is that, although the Explorations content was perchance difficult to grasp, to beat into form, the topics, like liquid medicine, are still essential. And yes, it might take longer than usual to swallow (the waiting, the fizzing, the gulping), and even for the medicine to take effect (maybe it's still fizzing for some... or got swallowed in the fizzing process) no doubt it will kick in. Community matters and analysis are too pertinent for us, as members of the human race, to be ignored. We are not independent beings, and every day you and I are shaped by the places and groups we find ourselves in.

And the fun part is, upon educating ourselves on the topic, we, in a way, become masters of it. We are enabled to make more deliberate decisions. We enrich our waking experience with another dimension. We turn more conscious and aware as living, alive human beings... and that's a beautiful thing.

Have a phenomenal, ecstatic, out-of-this-world, super-cosmically-fantastic break, everyone! May your Holidays be full of love, joy, and cake. All sorts of cake. And splendid food and Home Alone reruns. And not too much snow and frost. (:

Note: I inserted the "Plusssz" picture, as actually, that's what I thought of all along in my metaphor - not Alka-Seltzer, but fizzing, fruity, Polish vitamins. Much tastier.

The Impact of Three Months

It's time for the last reflection.

Yesterday was such a weird day for me. I'm sure everyone has had those off days. With classes ending and hell week approaching (my own little term for finals week) I couldn't help but feel a little overwhelmed. It also doesn't help that I was given an unexpected reality check, and with this reality check, came a whole flood of emotions. I began to feel uncomfortable, and that's when I realized that maybe I was living the whole college experience right.

Think back a couple months ago (I hope that at this point of the semester your brain is able to think that far back) to when Pres. Kerwin came to class. He made a statement that has really stuck with me, he said that feeling uncomfortable during college was a common symptom of the experience. In fact, if you didn't feel uncomfortable at some point or another, then maybe you weren't fully giving it your all to the good ole' college experience. Well, yesterday I felt uncomfortable. I actually began to doubt my abilities and began to wonder if I was going to succeed in college. But, yes, there's a but, I sucked it up. I realized that I was wasting so much energy and time (and in college, time is such a precious thing) feeling fearful and doubtful of myself. So, I gave myself some moments to worry, got myself together, and decided on a plan as to how to fix my unexpected "reality check."

I'm sure that many of us have had this experience, and if you haven't, a time will come. However, even if the experience is common, everyone has different ways to deal with them. It's amazing to think how much three months of college has changed me. Just three months. . . I didn't think one could change so much in just three months. But I like who I am becoming. Yes, I've felt uncomfortable, fearful, doubtful, but it always comes back to who I am. Who I'm becoming.

I hope everyone enjoyed their first semester at AU. Most importantly, I hope everyone is enjoying the experience of learning who they are, the experience of crafting their identity. I hope everyone likes who they're becoming. Good luck with finals and enjoy the snow!

el fin or the end of 1st semster

One more class and then I am officially done with classes for 1st semester! I know everyone else is having a common reaction to this occurrence because it came so fast! I am glad though because there are times when I just want to go home since everything is much more comfortable there, and I don't feel out of place. It is disappointing in a way, too, that 1st semester is over because all of the things that I had high hopes for were not fulfilled, which leads me to believe that I either had a. a way too idealistic view for college as shaped by other fores such as the media and stories from friends (others' actions) or b. I did something wrong (personal responsibility)

It's funny because those same two opposing ideas-- between one is able to attain success due to personal actions and there are unforeseen circumstance due to the actions of others to which individuals have no control over when finding success-- was what our class kept going back to. In a way this sort of flip flopping in the conversation was also annoying because now I feel like in every class we just moved in a cyclical fashion, never accomplishing anything. Again, I falsely held the perception that by the end of the semester I would have come to at least a concrete formation of my own ideas and be able to relay them in this final blog. But, it is as though I am as unknown about my own ideas as I was at the beginning, I am just as unsure as to what to write my blog post about as I was when I wrote my very first reflection. This uncertainty (and openness) is shown in my first post here:

"I will, however, use them (Goffman's suggestions about humanity) as an observational tool, and throughout this Explorations course maybe I will possess more of the gumption toward humanity that Goffman conveys in his book."

First of all I was hesitant to believe in Goffman's view of humans and their performance in my first blog post, and I still take a more cautious view of him when I think about the way in which he analyzes society. Also, in my first reflection I stated I would continue to think about Goffman's views in contrast to the other activities which we did in hopes that it would help me. I think that being exposed to his point of view did aid me, but it doesn't mean that I still do not remain confused. I feel like everything I have known has come back to challenge me and, therefore, I have to continually be cautious and continual challenge myself so that more things do not surprise me in the process.

I feel as though after each Explorations class I would push the glass door and walk in the hallway on the way Spanish class in complete disbelief that I never knew that the whole world was so ambiguous, and to go through such a realization twice a week is startling because it is as though there is nothing to hold on to-- nothing tangible to base anything against because everything can be anything depending on how you look at it. Just writing that confuses me.

I do know that the one thing I did learn this semester is that I worry too much, as relayed by my many professors, but I never objected to worrying because I feel that being concerned helped to me get to here. However, now I realize that I do not even know if I still like being here, and it is the end of the semester. Thus, my uncertainty in thinking is what frightens me the most, not only that but also all that uncertainty and ambiguity that is contained within the whole world that we continually reiterated in class.

But, I will remain open and try not to worry as much, though I think everyone will be a little worried since it is our first experience with finals! On a positive note, after just reading this article, I feel a lot more accomplished and transformed because I at least did most of the scary tasks that he outlined, except, again, for these daunting finals! Also, I find this quote perfect for how I felt throughout August and into September: "For a freshman, fresh out of high school, it produces a churning sensation in the stomach, a sense of being incapable to ever finish, and a response similar to 'There is absolutely no way in this world one person could ever...' You can however," (Parker). It's funny because it's true. That quote describes the process I went through from anxiety, to stress, to worrying, and now to a form of content. I think that the next step will be when I am able to find the beauty in all of this ambiguity-- after it is done confusing me-- and that will probably be after college... but hopefully not too late in life.

Works Cited:

Parker, Susanna. "Surviving the Freshman First Semester of College." Associated Content. Associated Content, Inc., 29 May 2005. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. .

Joining communities

There are a multitude of communities I aspire to join. Based on my dreams and goals, I aspire to become millionaire and join a community of philanthropists, I aspire to become an academic and join a community of researchers, I aspire to write books and join a community of authors that stimulate people's imaginations and perceptions of the universe, a community of travelers and travel-writers, and further explore the world in its magnificence, a community of dance performers, of musicians, artists, and, most physically, a friendly Spanish barrio community in Madrid or Barcelona where I will own a cozy, beautiful home next to the best bakery in town (I love waking up to the smell of baked bread).

Actually, I suspect I plan on moving back to Europe because I am drawn to the small community-bonded way of life that I remember from my childhood.

I aspire to join all these communities because they involve things which greatly interest me and that I love and enjoy. I am glad the question "How do you aspire to join it?" was not asked - that's a matter much too complex, and all I could say is that I am joining them by focusing on the end result.

Community

Hmmm. What community do I wish to join? There are so many that I don't even know where to start. But if I had to narrow it down to a very abstract community, I'd say I would join the happiness community. I came across this idea while reading anne's blog, where she said that "If 'good person' and 'happy' are communities, then I aspire to be in them". The community of happy is an elusive one, I believe, especially nowadays, and it's getting harder to find ways to be in it. But I strongly believe that happiness is the most important part of life. To give and receive happiness is the essence of humanity, in my opinion. If you can't be happy, then what's the point of living? SO, I think the object of my life will be to give happiness to as many people as possible. As soon as I figure out the most efficient way to do that, then I can tell you EXACTLY what community I want to join.

Snoozing In

It seems like we're always joining communities. It's like we are constantly trying to get into circles that we believe are appropritate for us. For example, when applying to college, I was asking for admission into communities that I thought were suitable for me. The same when building my course schedule, I was choosing classes that I wanted, I guess you can say I was trying to join little communities based on my interests. As of now, I am happy where I am. But circumstances change, as do interests. Because I am happy where I am, and my vision of my future-self is not as clear as it was before, I wish to join a community that is not so "serious." Although now that I think about it, joining this community would be a drastic change for me. If I could join any community, I would join the community of people who aren't addicted to the "snooze" button. The wonderful people who are blessed with the ability of getting off their beds as soon as their alarms rings, a call to wake up and face the world.

The addiction to the snooze button started my sophomore year of high school. Actually, I'm not going to lie, I've had a problem with the snooze button for as long as I can remember. I just have so much trouble getting out of bed. This is how bad my addiction to the snooze button is; I have been known to hit the button for two hours straight, and once I hit the button the alarms goes off every five minutes. Now, I haven't been late to a single morning class this semester but let's just say that this inability to immediately get out of bed is getting very aggravating. Not only that, but I'm positive that it annoys my roommates. I know that at first glance, becoming part of a group of people who don't hit the snooze button ten times before getting off of bed may not sound like a serious community. Yet it would be great if I could become part of this community. No more precious hours wasted hitting the alarm; no more annoyed roommates; no more lying to myself whenever I set my alarm at an early hour fully knowing that I will not wake up that early; no more telling Corinne that I will go eat breakfast with her and then canceling because I decided to instead sleep in and hit the snooze button. Overall, I would seriously love to be part of this community and free myself from the chains of that evil snooze button.

A Deserted Campus and Washington Rock Star

The hall was eerily quiet for about three days, and a total of about 5 people remained on the floor. I had mixed feelings.

But, I am glad for not having gone home for Thanksgiving, as with all the turbulence currently at home, I would get absolutely no work done over the weekend and have a royally painful time adjusting to the old rhythm (plus, I would've wasted 1 whole day on transportation alone).

Anyhoo, we had a good break. Getting more acquainted with DC is a pleasure, and Aline and I performed some community and identity analysis ourselves at the National Museum of American History. I was particularly intrigued and amused by this Washington statue, a bold and audacious statement, basically presenting the father of USA as an almighty greek deity. So much for analyzing Stuart's National Portrait Gallery painting and searching for symbols of royalty, when Greenough's statue emanates god-likeness.

This is curious as well, because the painting was created in Washington's lifetime, still (painted in 1796, he died in 1799), while the statue was erected in 1841. Thus such was the artist's perception of Washington in that day. Here's some facts:

Greenough’s sculpture is enriched with symbols: Washington’s figure is modeled on the classic statuary of ancient Greece, seat of the world’s first democracy. Carvings on the sides depict the Greek god Apollo and an infant Hercules. Small flanking figures of an American Indian and Christopher Columbus represent the New and Old Worlds. The most important symbol, however, is the sword in Washington’s outstretched hand: this celebrates the fact that after he led the country to victory in the American Revolution, he selflessly relinquished his power to the people.

Symbolism, symbolism. Aline thought it was way too rash and obvious, I thought it rather silly and for the founder to be an almost toga'd rock star (Yeah, liberty, but also - 'Are you ready to rock?!'). Huh. Wonder what Washington himself would make of it?


Note
"Landmark Object: George Washington Statue, 1841." NMAH. Smithsonian National Museum of American History. 29 Nov. 2009 . <http://americanhistory.si.edu/news/factsheet.cfm?key=30&newskey=779>.

I Just Got Lost & Some Quality Time With Dan Brown

This Thanksgiving break was such a great one!! After hectic months of going to class, work, or volunteering at the Newseum, it was nice to slow my pace down and just enjoy the city. Yes, I didn't go home for the break, and now I learned that trying to buy airplane tickets at the last minute is not a great or cheap idea. However, it's not like DC is a boring city. So between going to the Smithsonians, getting lost trying to find another museum, getting lost trying to find the German embassy (except that this time with Gunperi), having dinner in Georgetown, and spending Thanksgiving with Anna's wonderful family; I must say that this break was a very good one.

One thing I learned about myself during this break is how much I don't freak out anymore. For example, when Alex and I were looking for the old postal office that's near the Washington Monument, we got lost. Yes, believe it or not, Alex and I could not find a giant building that has a giant tower, with a giant clock on it. Even though we asked a security guard for directions, and even though we were carrying a map, we still could not find that building. When we finally found it, it was only to be told that it was closed. It was at that moment that I realized two things. One, I seriously need to improve my map reading skills. Two, I don't panic as much as I used to. If a year ago I would've gotten lost the way Alex and I did, I would've worried and panicked at the idea of being lost in a city I wasn't accustomed to. Nevertheless, that's not the situation anymore. In fact, I enjoyed getting lost, I saw new parts of the city that I did not know were there. Did you know that there's a Barnes & Noble on I believe it was 10th street? Or was it 11th? I don't remember but it's somewhere around there. Anyway, I think that I've become a bit more spontaneous and unplanned, which to tie it back to class, I guess I have been absorbing the advice that has been given to us by guest speakers. The advice that we shouldn't plan or organize our life so much, just let life take its own course. Yes, maybe we'll get lost but there's always the chance that you'll end up liking it.

Just to add a quick note, I would like to thank Anna W., Alex, and Gunperi for making this Thanksgiving break an enjoyable one. Also, my friend Adam for lending me his book "The Lost Symbol" by Dan Brown. Yes the writing sucks, but the story is great!! Especially because it's set in DC. I've actually found that some of the areas described here I've visited which only adds to the excitement. I really recommend it. So, to sum it all up, great break, good times, and now it's hard work until finals are over.

Reflecting on Thanksgiving Day: I feel too grown up

This reflection is early but I did not want to wait until tomorrow or this weekend to post it because tomorrow I must awake at 4 am for work at 5am-- oh the joys of working in retail. And the rest of the weekend will fly by and then I will be back at AU on Sunday. Though, I can honestly say that I do not want to leave, and I have only been here one day. Maybe it is because of the fact that I haven't seen these people-- family, friends, and co- workers-- in so long, but it also reminds me of how easy life was and having the comforts of home all the time. But it is true that absence makes the heart grow fonder because it just makes me appreciate it all so much more. Thank goodness I will be able to come back in two more weeks. I will admit that 1st semester went by fast, but I expected that at the same time. There is always so much to do and I found myself having to plan everyday just so that I would not forget anything.

Today I found myself comparing this Thanksgiving to last year's, and geez so many things were different. First of all less relatives came and my boyfriend came instead. Also, just being back at home last night was weird. The first difference I noticed was that the ceiling in my house is so much lower than that of the dorms! So everything kind of felt smaller, though my room at home is definitely bringer than our dorm room. Speaking of my room, my mom cleaned it so it looks totally different! It needed a face lift though.

Anyways, I do not think that I am appropriately reflecting in this post so I will proceed to do more of that now. I think that the reason that history is so important, and that when Ambassador Quainton came to talk to us and he relayed that he studied history in grad and undergrad, because it is the most important way in which we feel as though we can predict the future. For instance, I loved this quote on Allie Cat's blog post: "It is interesting to note that many of the famous revolutions of history involve a dissolution and later reorganization of their country's military, including the French and Russian. Military and society are tied together- if one falls, so will the other." I think that she is correct in her comment, and it is true that future will contain repeats of the past. The way in which we move forward, like by dissolving the country's military, is by taking notes on what others in the past did. I love drawing parallels in my posts about my real life and the theoretical ideas which we talk about, and I am going to attempt to do so in this post as well.

Basically, being back at home flooded me with memories of the past. It was crazy how everything I did reminded me of the last time I was there, and at its core, I think that the reason for traditions and maintaining holidays is to remember the past and not forget what has happened. Holidays serve to remind us of our personal histories that make up our life, and act as a day of reflection in themselves-- an imaginary pause button. And as from learning from the past, we attempt to learn, though sometimes it is unsuccessful, from our past mistakes and what went wrong from holidays so that the bad traditions to not live on and the good ones sustain themselves. Just as disgruntled citizens desire to recreate their countries military to obtain power, so do we, ordinary citizens, attempt to learn from past mistakes and hold on to the good memories so that we can continue to reinvent and recreate our holidays and other silly/ sentimental traditions. Hope that makes sense and it is not too much of a stretch.

PS: HAPPY THANKSGIVING. This is one of my favorite traditions for today.

My nose and furry mukluks

What a stunning museum! I missed the Wednesday lab but was just as thrilled to explore the National Museum of the American Indian by myself. I am finding anthropology to be one of those exhilarating academic fields that sends chills down my spine... plus they had an exhibit on the Quechua tribe, with llama-skin sandals, flutes, and all. Splendid!

Bonus Q:

Whose values are expressed in the National Museum of the American Indian? How are remembrance and othering manifest in the museum's layout and presentation of artifacts?

Whose values? To me it appeared the values expressed were those of the "Community Curators" posted before every tribal entrance on the 4th floor. These people seemed to be ones who had helped in the consolidation of the their tribe's rituals and traditions, ones who most probably helped outline the most important aspects of their past and current culture.

Or was it the values foreign anthropologists deemed exemplary? What were those "Community Curators" doing up there?

As goes for the manifestation of remembrance, there was a plethora of examples. The display of the Denver March Powwow memorabilia was an easy representation of how the folk dances and songs of the American Indians are preserved to this day at annual contests and celebrations. The usage of natural, earthy colors in the design (yellows, reds, browns), smooth, curvy architecture, rock-like flooring, flowing staircases, and dusky, dimmed lighting all established an almost mystical ambiance with intention to preserve aspects of the physical world of the American Indians. This mystique generates awe, respect, and yes, reignites a remembrance of the Indian ways.

(Although, back to terms of values, I feel the layout and majority of the museum’s presentation focus specifically on the physical realities of Northern American Indians [the term 'American Indians' encompasses Central and South American Indians, too. In fact, people in Central and South America tend to call themselves Americans as much as we do. Side note – US Americans are called gringos or estadounidenses.])

Wow... there was one especially dramatic and impressive display, the "We are the Evidence" wall, which lit up the names of many (not all) of the tribes that had been decimated after "Contact" (with the Europeans), in a sweeping eye-of-the-storm form. The Quechuas, Lakotas, Huapas, Mapuches… and Andean Quichas, Quechas, Aymaras, Callhuayas.

The manifestations of othering within the layout and artifacts included hung tribal flags in the middle of the first floor, specifically delineating boundaries of tribes within and visitors outside; yet, for the most part, I found the manifestations of “othering” welcoming. Visitors are not solitary and excluded in their perusal of the museum, the learning is not a “cold” examination, one does not apperceive a feel of great distance between the self and the Indian peoples of the past and present. Instead, one is accompanied by narrated cartoon stories and welcoming interactive modules that open the outsider boundary. But, the most spell-bounding aspect of the presentation, again, the mystique, for me… was the glass.
I, as incoming visitor, peeked in to view the artifacts through the glass, but my eyes perceived not only the given costume I was attempting to examine, but also, a spooky, phantasmal, reflection of myself. As I moved, the reflection flowed and distorted my figure, softly warping my shape and face and granting me the opportunity to view myself as I viewed the American Indians. This happened on all the artifacts, electronic displays… I have reasons to believe that reflective glass is there for a purpose. That reflective glass opens community boundaries and yes, invites the visitors to generate their own comparisons to the tribespeople.

As I peered at both my reflected nose and a mannequin dressed in parka and fur mukluks, I certainly did, side-by-side, muse on my relation to the universe of the American Indians.

Reflection

I was extremely pleased to see that the museum of the american indian was done in an informative, respectful, and mindful manner. I say this because it's easy to devote a museum solely to the "interesting" parts of a culture, and I was glad to see that the museum was quite thorough in the way that the information was presented. For example, there was only a small exhibit on General Custer's defeat at Little Big Horn, an example of the traditionally "exciting" aspects of Native American culture, and there was much more on the day to day life of the modern Native American. I was happy to see the stereotypical "Indian" very much downplayed, and I was also happy to learn things I had never known, like the living conditions on reservations and the struggles of some of the modern Native Americans to stay close to their roots.

I was very taken aback by the architecture of the museum, to me, it was the best part. Everything seemed to flow and curve, it seemed the embodiment of the natural flow of life that the Native Americans believe in so firmly. just standing in the middle of the big circle on the ground floor and looking up, I couldn't see a single sharp angle or corner. It was very impressive. I really enjoy going to museums where the architecture matches the content; it enhances the experience greatly. In short, I thought that the Museum of the American Indian was a fitting tribute to our land's earliest occupants.

Army Attitudes

Thinking in retrospect to Ana's comments in class about illegal aliens and military duty, I at last had remembered my friend Christina, whose Guatemalan mother, after fleeing from the Guatemalan Civil War in the 1980s, had enlisted in the US army. She received a college education as result, and thus moved her family up from severe poverty to the middle class Christina is at today. (Reading Annie's blog post and personal story triggered this memory, as well).

So... is the military a social-mobility solution for immigrants, as well? (See Annie's post).

I was an upper-class mentor for freshman students in my high school back home. Around 50% of the kids were Hispanic, most first-generation immigrants from Mexico. I did my best to advertise college and the rewards of diligently doing their homework every day. Yet, instead of enthusiasm for further schooling, once taking each student on a one-on-one conference, all I heard is "I'll just join the army."

Not only was I awestruck, I was angered, exasperated. Why weren't these kids listening? What was so attractive about the army? Had this been promoted within their families? Within their communities?

In all, was this one of the three: (1) an easy way out and good excuse for not performing well (for reasons of sheer laziness) in school, (2) a bamboozlement of the kids, who had been so impressed by the "Army of One/Army Strong" commercials (and service men at the cafeteria table), or, (3) a feasible solution (discussed with family, cogitated upon) to rise from their current social status?

Quite honestly, these terms of thinking I have elaborated only now. Previously my logic must have been much simpler. But now, as I connect the dots, I notice the certain immigrant allurement with military service might just have something to it.

Bonus Blog Question

Though the museum was very open in space, the exhibitions themselves felt crowded. Artifacts placed in the upper levels were positioned in ways in which the visitor had to go through a pathway in order to observe them. It almost felt as if I were in a maze. Though at first I did not understand this order of placement, I now realize that the visitor could become even more engaged in the museum if he or she were to choose to dive into the exhibitions in order to look at the artifacts. As a visitor, I was engaged. Having to go and actually seek for artifacts captured my attention more than if the artifacts were just placed in wide, open, and visible areas. Due to the lack of space in the exhibition, I submerged myself in a history that I must admit, I am a bit ignorant of. I became surrounded by history and was therefore more receptive of the portrayed cultures.

Lighting was also an interesting factor of the museum. In the fourth floor, the lighting of the exhibitions was dimmed and focused solely on the artifacts. Due to the lack of light, I began to feel as if I were in a mystical place. I kind of don't really know how to describe this mood with another word besides "mystical." It's just that something felt kind of mysterious about the whole atmosphere. Maybe it was to reflect how Native Americans were not really rooted to solid ideas but rather to abstract forms of thinking. What I mean, is that many of their beliefs seemed to be centered on things such as folklore or finding symbols in objects rather than focusing on actual scientific fact. Maybe this was the whole reason behind the layout, to reinforce the idea that this culture was an abstract one.

The Harmony in Geometry

My mind works in mysterious ways. For example, whenever I think of a color, place, word, or just anything in particular, I link that subject with an image. Here's what I mean, say that someone says the word "Converse" (referring to the shoes) the first image that immediately pops into my head is a scene from the movie "2012", in which everyone who survives a massive flood goes out to face a whole newly organized planet wearing Converse shoes. Apparently, Converse will be the shoes of the future, and the ones that all governments will choose to provide to people who survive a catastrophe. By the way, I really recommend this movie, it's absolutely hilarious. Anyway, another example is when I think of Seattle. Whenever I think of Seattle, I immediately think of dirty snow. This being that last time I was there it snowed like five inches, though beautiful at first, the snow turned from a crisp white to a dull gray, the result of dirty car tires driving over it.



To get to my point, when thinking of the American Indian Museum, the first image that pops into my head is the image of a circle. After the image of the circle, the song "The Circle of Life" from "The Lion King" then begins to play. So, why a circle? Well, for one, the architecture of the museum itself was round. There were no sharp outer angles but rather undulating and curved surfaces. Also, one thing I almost ignored while in the museum, was the ceiling. The ceiling itself curved upward and ended in a circular roof window (I guess that's what you would call it?) that allowed natural sunlight into the museum. It was all about the circles. However, it all connected with Indian beliefs. Upon reading the information in the exhibitions, I learned that Native Americans saw their world as two bowls put together. One bowl represented the earth, the other was the heavens. When these bowls were put together, a circle was formed. Hence, a sense of completion and togetherness. Also, I remember reading an exhibition that stated that some Native Americans viewed their lives in the shape of a circle. Whenever a disruption occurred, that circle lost form and was not completed. It seemed as if harmony was represented by the shape of a circle.

It's pretty amusing to me that circles are the forms of completion and peace for Native Americans. A flowing and connected figure that loses form when broken is the ideal image for the fragility and at times inconstant moments in life. I absolutely hate anything that has to do with Geometry but for this event, the circle seems like the perfect shape to symbolize a life full of peace and happiness.

Stuck in the Middle

It's been awhile since I have been actually stuck and cannot decide what to write a blog post about. I think it's because my mind hasn't been focused on one issue lately, but been divided into many little thoughts, which has caused a. stress and b. a sense of disorientation. But, now it is finally the weekend so my brain should be able to recuperate a little and then break will be like a gift from God because it has not only been 3 months since I have seen my friends and family, but it has also been three months since I have had a room to myself to sleep in!

I am thankful that I did not have to go through the decision making process that is involved with de- tripling though, but all of this talk about rooms and thus the walls that construct rooms reminds me of the way in which us, as individuals, construct boundaries to create and maintain communities and to define a sense of identity. First of all, I just find it interesting that when I searched "boundaries" on blogger, no one blog talks about them as if they are tangible beings. Like this guy, who talks about boundaries in terms of a rule that the government imposes on its citizens in China about censorship.

And the first site that appeared in my search was actually the policy of Blogger's towards the certain boundaries that one must abide by in order to post on their site. However, I never thought of using the term boundaries in the way that these two sites employ it. I usually think of boundaries as a way to define the differences between what's inside and outside of something. But on those sites the term is used as a synonym for rules.

Concerning the American Indian Museum, I find that the existing Native American people employ boundaries to preserve their culture and maintain their heritage. But, they have also been increasing lenient with these boundaries in that the one exhibit displayed how many Native Americans and African Americans have been increasingly intermarrying. However, this continues to cause a problem for the children of such relationships because, as a video in this exhibit conveyed, these people feel as though on the outside they look African Americans and people assume that is what they are, but on the inside they feel Native American, too. These individuals have consistently had to struggle with these two identities. Strife arises when boundaries get blurred.

Therefore, I do not necessarily think that boundaries are a bad thing because they give people a sense of comfort and security when there is either a physical one blocking individuals from entering into a certain community, or there is an intangible one, like rules that a government creates to maintain order and keep certain people under control. But at the same time, they are bad because they restrict human's basic right to assert themselves physically in another area or vocally towards a certain audience. And thus I again have written a circulatory blog again in that I brought up both sides of the argument and remain confused myself about which side I truly side with. But I guess one does not have to always be extreme in order to state one's opinion since that is what I just did.

I might fail to reject, but nevertheless...

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breed that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." -- Starship Troopers, p. 27.

Justin (1) tried to list "nonviolent heroes," but concluded his list wasn't anywhere near exhaustive. Belle (2) posted that:

You can spend hours and hours trying to convince someone to do something verbally, but at any point they can change their mind and back out. When violence is involved, it usually only takes a few seconds to get a person to do what you want them to.

And Ariel (3) stated:

I don't know when or why, but sometime in my 18 years, I realized that humans are not a inherently nice race. Granted, there are individuals who are good and make huge contributions to society, but when it comes to International relations and cooperation on a systemic level, I lean towards a realist perspective.

Evidently, the majority of us are pessimistic. And I can understand how refreshing US History's Trail of Tears and the effects of violence on Native Americans can impact a perspective.

To counter some made claims - (1) - not being familiar with more nonviolent heroes is a matter of knowing our world history. Please see this slideshow, and additionally consider Otpor (see image), the Serbian Youth Movement that stirred up the whole nation and overthrew the corrupt and tyrannical, President Slobodan Milošević in 2000.

(2) - As goes for convincing, I believe the best way to influence someone's actions is to think of the matter in terms of their point of view, and clearly present to them their interests and potential benefits. Could Indian removal and the Trail of Tears have been solved differently by Jackson? Maybe this is silly, but with the right incentives, could a compromise be reached between the moving settlers and the Native Americans?

I believe violence is the "human," natural, impulsive, instinctual thing to do - but that does not mean it is right, or actually, most effective. There is truth to the statement that violence has settled issues, that wars have granted freedoms. (This is kind of like null hypothesis in Stats... I fail to reject, but that does not mean I accept.) Frankly, I do not think I am doomed to pay for my optimistic thinking with my rights and freedoms.

Also, from what is seen to me in daily life, at the least, is that ones who restrain that instinct to infuriate and use bodily force achieve more of their aims. Really, to think about it, do we think we would resolve more personal conflicts by fist-fight, yelling, or respectful discussion and consideration of the other person's needs?

Perhaps it would be best to counter out instincts and resist the urge to violence. Don't we resist an array of "naked" and animal impulses and instincts to fit into society, anyway?

Force

As much as anyone wishes it to be otherwise, as much as it goes against everything you're taught in kindergarten, Mr. Dubois' assertion that force has settled more issues is completely true.

I'd like to begin by posing a question. Do you honestly believe that the way we live today was not directly affected by the use of force? Without force we wouldn't be the dominant country we are today (WWII), we wouldn't be a true independent people, or at least we wouldn't have gained our independence until much later (Revolutionary war), and we definitely wouldn't have as stable a state as we do now. The definition of sovereignty, as thrown about in my world politics class, is the legitimized use of force within a certain area.

Of course, there are several cases of nonviolence working in a perfectly effective way: examples such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr cannot go unnamed in this argument. And I say that those solutions are fantastic and should be strived towards at all cost when problem solving, but the question here is not morality, it is a question of the overall effectiveness. Obviously, throughout all of human history, more grand, important issues have been settled through the use of force, moral or not. Look at the Romans! Look at the British! Every great empire began spreading and maintaing influence and order through the use of force. You can argue all day over whether or not it is right, but it is undoubtedly effective.

Peaceful Thoughts

I'm going to be honest, my mind is drawing a blank at this moment. Looking at the quote, I can't help but have an internal debate, but it's hard to draw the little fragments together and piece them into one solid argument. There's a peaceful side of me that cries for the end of violence, the part that believes that violence doesn't solve anything. Then there's the more. . . cruel side of me (I guess that's what you can call it) that says that violence can have a forceful way of achieving things. But I know, that deep down, I don't approve of violence as a means of solving issues.

To point out the obvious figure, look at Martin Luther King. He lived his life in peace; rallying in peace; and bringing peace to others. Yes, he was assasinated, so maybe he did pay for it with his life and freedom. However, did he truly lose his life and freedom? Biologically speaking, the answer is yes. He is no longer alive, living, or breathing. But he didn't lose his life because his meaning was never lost. He lived his life with a meaning. That meaning being for the equal treatment of African-Americans. He passed that meaning on, which in turn, created laws for the equal treatment of African-Americans. Even though he died, his message for peace and equality transcended to others, therefore, his life was not completely lost. So, though he did live a peaceful life, and he did lose his life for it, his message transcended to others which therefore, kept his legacy and memory alive.

"wishful thinking" > violence

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." -- Starship Troopers , p. 27... p. 26 in my book though. But, regardless, it is time to tackle this quote by Mr. Dubois.

To start, I think that people who subscribe to the belief that violence is the overpowering force in the world, which this quotation advocates for, are going to have to pay for it with their "lives and freedoms as well," (Heinlein 26). It can not be forgotten that when violent means are used, people do not die on one side, but rather there are always casualties on both. This is only one of the ideas that I will have to discount. Also, just to merely have the notion in one's mind that this quote is true is very disturbing because it strips life of meaning: if everything is only going to come back down to survival of the fitness and who can exert more power, in this case a violent sense of it, on another, then all of life's existence is geared toward the day where one will have to use violence in order to survive. But what's wrong with living and surviving for the sake of life.
When I began thinking about this quote I realized the easy thing to do would be to agree with it. I mean if it wasn't true then armies would be disbanded and people would not continue to join in order to protect America or for that matter any country's ideals. However, I think that the threat of violence is always a guiding factor in life, but it is not the sole or most used factor that people go utilize in order to come to a conclusion on a pressing issue. I am going to have to agree with this post in that it is not accurate to attribute violence as the one and only factor that is able to change the outcome of a situation the most times.

I find it disturbing that Heinlein describes the denial of this quote as being correct as "wishful thinking at its worse," because it conveys blatant disregard and strips the legitimacy of the thoughts on whomever holds a contradictory opinion (Heinlein 260). Thus, he definitely tries to deter one into disagreeing with him. Nonetheless, I have to disagree because as a human who has the ability to not fall susceptible to violence, I cannot morally think that he is correct. Also, I guess Heinlein never heard of Mahatma Gandhi who used nonviolent methods (hunger strike) to pursue his goal in gaining India's independence from British rule. Oh, wait did Heinlein also never come across Henry David Thoreau who advocated for civil disobedience and did not pay poll taxes due to his disagreement with the government's handling of Mexican American War and the existence of slavery to convey a statement on the injustices he saw in the government. And we cannot forget about Rosa Parks. She did not pick up a gun, but we all know her story and how it impacted the Civil Rights Movement. Thus, we cannot attribute violence and progress as being equatable because doing so is ignorant and it refuses to acknowledge the existence and the effectiveness of other ways in which to enact change and "settle issues" (Heinlein 26).

At first glance, this quote of Heinlein's seems logical, and in some cases it does apply. But to say that violence has been the most effective measure in changing the course of history is not only disturbing, but also incorrect. And what Heinlein categorizes as "wishful thinking" is not naivete, but rather another way of looking at history and the ways in which we can nonviolently and effectively achieve progess (26).

Antigone and State

As we progress into Starship Troopers, I have a couple of final points about Antigone that I'd like to make, most related to matters of citizenship, lawfulness, and state.

Two things I found highly perplexing and telling of the culture of Thebes in times of Antigone:

1) The state is the citizens.

a. On page 56, Ismene, following Antigone's impassioned speech about burying Polyneikes, says:

I don't dishonor them! But to defy the citizens is beyond what I can do.

Thus, Ismene equates defying the laws of citizens, or of the state, to the citizens themselves. She refuses to defy and counter her fellow city people and bury Polyneikes - even though Kreon was the only one to enact the ordinance.

b. The chorus themselves blame Polyneikes, on page 58, for having disturbed public peace:

He had risen and flown to our land, he had come against us (...)

Thus, although Polyneikes only tries to remove Eteokles from the throne, lawfully as decreed by his father Oedipus, he nevertheless goes against "us." In going against the state, or a state representative, he by extension contends the public of Thebes - the state is the citizens.

2) State law separates moral right from moral wrong.

a. Eteokles died in battle for the city, and, although he committed a wrong of failing to abdicate from the throne - he is honored; while Polyneikes, the rightful assailant, is condemned by Kreon (62).

That Eteokles, greatest in glory with his spear, who died in battle for this city, we will bury, we will perform all pure and proper rites ... but his brother by blood... an exile who came back... this man!: for him it has been proclaimed throughout the city that no one is permitted to honor him (...)

So, Kreon himself decides what is a sin and good deed, and this is extended all throughout the state.

Also, Polyneikes actions are viewed as a "shatter[ing] [of] laws and customs (66)," an utmost deplorable thing. Then, the Chorus states (70):

But outside any city is he who dares to consort with what is wrong: let him who might do such things not be the companion at my hearth nor have the same thoughts as I!

The Chorus itself scolds Polyneikes and expels him from its community, all for committing an accepted societal wrong, offending them by offending the city's government.

b. And, a final line (83):

The city must be obeyed in everything - in small things, and what's just, and the opposite. There is no greater evil than lack of rule.

Now, that is a rather telling line and a sweeping summary to my post. To find a strand of such similar ideology in the modern world, we'd probably have to look to dictatorial and totalitarian states. In all, frightful, repressive regimes with abysmal conditions for human life.

But these Theban Greeks (besides Antigone et family) seem pretty contented and comfortable.

How come?

Reflection

I have to be honest, I still am not 100% sure what the purpose of this class is, but on wednesday, I came a little closer to fully understanding it. Now I know it is about the study of identity and all that jazz, but I'd have to agree with a part of my fellow blogger Miranda's post when I say that coming to terms with future insecurities seems to be a main theme of our class. We have had several different speakers, including Ambassador Quainton, that reinforced the idea that it will all be alright, you don't have to know what you want to do later. I am truly thankful to people who say this to me, because I've had so much of the opposite, especially recently, with all the worrying about my major and how all that will shake out. But seeing such an extremely successful diplomat who didn't even study diplomacy in school keeps me hopeful that even if I choose to study one thing, I can always devote my life to something completely different.

Well, maybe coming to terms with the idea that the true nature of identity is a fluid concept, as opposed to a fixed, unchanging facet of life IS the point of the class. Someone can say that they're "losing their identity", but really, you are you, no matter how much you change. You can be a waiter one day, and join the army the next day, and it all is absorbed into the enormous psyche we call our identity. I think it is important to make the distinction.

Arlington Cemetery

This Wednesday, at the Arlington Cemetery, I couldn't help but feel that time had stopped. Walking around the lands, I kept forgetting that I was actually in a cemetery. The natural scenery around the cemetery was kept clean and neat. Grass was trimmed to perfection and tombstones were aligned in perfect angles. Because everything felt so meticulous, I have to admit that I forgot my history. I forgot that American history was not a perfect history. It was a history full of pain and sacrifice; a history where at times citizens of this own country fought against each other. However, the organized structure of the cemetery didn't seem to reflect any of this history. I guess it all had to deal with death and closure. When one dies, especially if one died during combat, one wouldn't want to be reminded of how that death occurred. One would want to be received in death by peace and rest, not by being reminded that death occurred through violent means.

Though the cemetery was beautiful, I couldn't help but think that I would not want a ton of tourists walking around and looking at my tombstone when I'm dead. I mean, I understand I'd be dead, so I wouldn't care at that moment who was looking at my grave. But still, is it correct to treat a cemetery as a tourist attraction? On one side, by people seeing graveyards like this, they can gain respect for the military. On the other, maybe by seeing graves, the idea of death and military service can become undermined. People can become so familiarized with the image of a grave that they take for granted the fact that these people died for the ideals that our nation upholds. Overall, I really enjoyed the cemetery, it was beautiful (even if it was raining like crazy) but the image of death was just not appealing to me. Well, now that I think about it, I don't think it's appealing to anybody.

Ambassador Quainton's Impact

I agree with this blog post in that Ambassador Quainton was very interesting. What I really loved, though was that what he was talking about concerning Nicaragua and America's history of trying to inflict our views onto other cultures, especially in Latin America, and that I am learning all about that in much more depth in an SIS class this semester-- Contemporary Latin America. The Ambassador's comment on Samuel Huntington was very familiar to me too, in that this week I had to read two pieces by him as well! I just love when classes interconnect with another, it makes me feel as though I am not learning random bits of information, but rather important pieces to an overarching puzzle of life. The same is occurred in high school as well. For instance, when I was learning about the scientific aspects of Darwin in biology at the very same time I was learning about the historical implications of Darwin's philosophy in another class.

I think after hearing the Ambassador speak I am going to try whole heatedly to not worry so much about the future in respect to a career. Maybe that's what I am supposed to take from Explorations: a feeling of reassurance about the future...? Because that is what continues to resonate when each guest speaker spoke to us. Actually, it is nice to know that we are expected to be comfortable with changing careers because I think that I am so used to change, and our entire generation is as well, that we would all become kind of bored at the same job forever and a change of scenery, whether it be a new posting to Kuwait like the Ambassador received or a new position in a similar corporation, it is always needed.

To tell the truth, I took this little quiz by the US State Department after one of the representatives came to Leadership Gateway, and I was definitely deterred away from the foreign service pathway after taking the test, and I thought that the civil service pathway would be a lot more friendly to foster a family and have a more normal life with. However, when Ambassador Quainton came to talk to us I was very intrigued by his job and he said he was on every continent in the world! That has always been my goal, to go to at least each continent once. Regardless, as I stated previously, I think I will just lay off of thinking of career paths as of now, because it seems as though they find you and you should not really go looking for them, though it is definitely still good to have prospective goals outlined for the future, in my view.

And I asked - what's the right way to live?

The most brazen example to counter American individualism and utilitarianism is the culture of the peoples of the Andes.

The various groups - Quechua, Aymara, Chibcha, Wanka, Cañari... they center their livelihood on the veneration of their gods (Pachamama, goddess of the Earth, represented by the mountain), of nature, the veneration of their ancestors and ancestral sites (huacas), and familial and community ties. The individual is only an individual who furthers the cause of the pueblo, the group, through a role within the ayllu, or community. A young boy's life is to be shaped by his ascent in the ayllu, from lower to higher-rank positions, serving his people via labor or administrative means. A young girl is to grow up, be fertile, and produce many offspring. And that's it.

No "me, me, me," no "mine, mine, mine." No flagrant, vivacious, Disney-style success stories, no personal achievement anecdotes, no motivational posters, no books, no workshops on becoming a multimillionaire, on attaining individual glory and recognition.

Just the ayllu.

(Side note: It'd be a curiosity to document the current mixing of the Andean village people with the more Hispanic and European city influences, which, of course, are continuously injected with shots of American culture. I. e., how is the foreign individualism impacting the ayllu, if anyhow?)

We could be perfect models of the two extremes, or we could fall somewhere in between.

But here's an idea: There is not a correct way to live. One just has to figure out what works.

Reflection

I have to say, it was good to see some theater, even if it was short. I do miss theater quite a bit. After doing theater all throughout high school and stopping abruptly at the beginning of this year, I have been missing it greatly. And seeing the people in the acting UC just made me more nostalgic for my past days "trottin' the boards". As a result of seeing the show on wednesday, I have seriously thought about auditioning for AU's production of Oklahoma!. Not for a real role, just a chorus part, so I could enjoy all the benefits of being in a show without all the pressure of having to memorize a bunch of lines. Unfortunately, my senior year, I had a lead role and I left the memorization to the last minute, and even though the show went off great, it was way too stressful for what is supposed to be fun (by the way, the show we did was Curtains and I was Frank Cioffi).

Anyway, I think it would be a great way to get back into shows, and even though I'm not terribly good, I think it's one of the most fun things that a person can do. I really hope that my schedule can accommodate the rehearsals and such, because I am super excited to try to get back into the swing o' things.

College Cheesy(i?)ness

The other day I was feeling a bit nostalgic for my high school years. Of course, when one is feeling overwhelmed by the stress of homework and all that other good stuff, it is understandable to miss those carefree moments. Anyway, I was remembering my life as a little high school freshman. The year was 2005 (I think it was 2005?) and I was sitting in my freshman lit. class when my teacher announced that we would be reading Antigone. When reading the play, my teacher covered the basic stuff, stuff you could have found on Sparknotes. However, I have been amazed at the HUGE difference between the Antigone taught in high school and the Antigone taught in college. I mean, of course there's going to be a difference, college is college and high school is. . . well, high school. But I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I definitely prefer the college teaching of Antigone way better than the high school version of it.

In college, things are just observed more in depth, and of course, that's the way it should be, right? But the funny thing is that I've actually found myself applying knowledge learned in one class to another. I don't mean to sound conceited, but I'm very proud of myself. Until now, I had never really applied the knowledge from one class to another, at least not the way I am doing now. I just love how everyday I find myself finding new way of thinking about things that I thought I already knew, like Antigone. Take Antigone, for example, in Friday's class after defending King Kreon, I was left with the impression that behind every action there's a potential for good and evil. Things can't always be seen in only one way, there's depth and logic behind decisions that at times, the reader may never know the answer to. I had never thought about Antigone that much before as to draw that conclusion.

Anyway, besides the stress, I really like being in college. It's a stage in my life that I'm enjoying and though there are moments when I wish things were a bit easier, I just suck it up and think of all the new ideas that are yet to be discovered. (Didn't mean to sound my ending to sound cheesy.)

Greek Stuff

First of all, I thought that seeing Antigone performed on Wednesday was interesting because of the way in which people's interpretations differed. Also, the monologues conveyed the way in which the setting of the play can really change the interpretation. This play has so much ambiguity when it comes to its interpretation that I think that it what makes it a classic: people are able to apply its themes to differing settings or times and it remains applicable. Just look at this clip from youtube. Since when did ancient Greece have the ability to erect photographs instead of the traditional statues? But this was the way in which the director wished to convey the power of Kreon.

There is so much that is not stated and that is left up for the reader to decide what they want to conclude in Antigone. I think that what we did in class today epitomized this because whether one believes that Kreon or Antigone were just in their actions or if the overarching power is the gods, it is left up to debate and for one to decide.

With this in mind, I think that people are largely in charge of their lives, but there are certain events that are going to happen regardless of our control or not. I think that there is a certain time in which I am to die, though I hope it is many, many years from now, and there is a certain person I am supposed to marry. I do not think that I have the ability to control fate in these circumstances. Though I think that if I had picked a different college to go to my current situation would be different because there is no way I could have met the same people, but in the end my soul mate would have still been the same person, even if I met him in a different way, and my final breath would occur at the same time, even if I changed many of the events in between. There are also other major events besides these two to which I am powerless over. I think that with any decision there are certain paths that can be taken, and depending on which path we take there is a different destiny to be awaited, but all of these paths eventually lead to the same ending, and along the way there are the same major events to be encountered.

In that respect, I am able to feel hopeful that I am in charge of my life and that not everything has been predetermined without ignoring the fact that there is a force greater than me in charge of the universe (God in my view), and he is going to direct and ensure that some of the events do take place that I have no control over.

Poverty

I would have to disagree with the assertion that the relative socioeconomic status of a society is the main indicator of a "healthy" or unhealthy society. Affluence, I believe, can be an indicator of a healthy society, but not in all cases. What I think makes a healthy society is the happiness of the people that make it. If a people aren't happy, then what's the point of living, much less being in a society? I think happiness should come first in a society because people function better when in a state of happiness.

Call me naive or cheesy, but I truly think that happiness is the most important part of life. Now, while you might say that with money comes happiness, or that societies that are happy are usually wealthy, but some of the world's happiest countries are monetarily poor.

Confucius Quote of the Day

After reading this week's blog question, this Confucius quote immediately popped into my head:

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.

I agree that in the discussion of social arrangements wealth and poverty are essential. A stable middle class is the backbone of social mobility and societal opportunities. Sizable gaps between the rich and poor can espouse corruption on side of the rich, and anger, violence, and a civic maelstrom on side of the poor.

As Confucius notes, in a nation which prides itself in functional and orderly governing systems, poverty can be regarded a national failure. If all systems work well, how come some citizens lack the essentials of life? Why do they vie for food and shelter?

(The idea of retaining wealth in a country badly governed aims at a separate point. That is, ones to become affluent in chaos and disorder have most likely obtained their status via immoral means.)

However, I wonder what other factors could be used to "evaluate social arrangements." I guess an evaluation of a healthy society would also include the morality of its members. But morality is often tricky and relative.

And... what are "social arrangements," exactly, anyway?

Personal Agendas and Other Stuff

First, I must state that economic wealth should definitely not be the only way to evaluate a country's social structure. Why not look at other aspects such as, religion, ethnicity, or level of education? Some may argue that by looking at a group's economic standing, the aforementioned aspects could also be determined, but this leaves room for error, since there are always exceptions. Some of the least educated citizens could actually make part of a pool of the wealthiest.

Second, I must agree that a society that works to lessen the gap between the rich and the poor is a healthy society. Governments that worry about poverty issues are usually the ones that spend much money on increasing welfare or social programs that benefit the needy through other means such as, educational reforms or financial aid that allows students to receive a higher education. So what exactly does this treatment of the needy mean? It shows that society cares. It shows that there are people concerned with the well-being of their constituents and it shows that everyone can benefit from their country no matter what their economic means are.

It can be argued that all these programs that are created to aid the less economically wealthy could just be a way for a society to push its own personal agenda. Say for example, a government spends money to increase educational programs in areas where education is not successful, therefore more kids get involved in school and go to college. Though it's great for a government to be so caring and kind to those who need it, their personal agenda for this whole educational movement was actually to increase the number of people getting a higher education so that their economic means could improve and could therefore have extra cash to spend in the economy. (I really hope this is making sense.) However, one can hold a personal agenda and still be able to benefit others. So yes, the way the poor are treated is a good way to determine how healthy a society is.

The Acidic Base of Society

First, I wanted to point out that it is an interesting choice of words that Bellah and the other authors decided to use when stating: "litmus test . . . for assaying the health of a society," because during a litmus test acids turn the paper red and bases turn the paper blue-- two colors that are symbolic of America (Bellah et. al., p. 285).

Besides this observation of the language which Bellah and the others elected to use, I agree with the claim that a society's standing can be measured by the way in which it "deals with the problem of wealth and poverty," (Bellah et. al., p. 285). There are many public bads which arise as a result of poverty, such as an increase in violence, drug use, and diseases. Although, I believe, there is no one sole factor that leads to poverty, and as these individuals convey through their back and forth debate between each other, a way in which it is reinforced is through a lack of education. Poverty is cyclical in that once it begins and the longer it prevails, the harder it is to eradicate it. When people become despondent and see no hope for their future, due to a lack of education, they turn to other means like drugs or violence, and the result of these activities turn into a public bad because it ends up affecting innocent people, like someone being the target of violence when they were just walking down the street. It may sound irrational but it occurs across the globe. In my class on Latin America, we were discussing the increase in femicide in countries Guatemala where gang members kill women just because they are women as a way to move up in the ranks in their gang.

The death of an innocent person has dramatic spillover effects onto the rest of society because children are left without parents or they make even turn to violence or drugs as a way to cope with the loss. Therefore, poverty does not create health in a society and because of the immense ways that it can effect society as a whole,and it needs to be addressed in order for prosperity to occur. The government needs to intervene to ensure that everyone has the chance to thrive and achieve their own individual goals so that the society is not weakened. Wealth redistribution is integral and although people claim that they worked hard for their money so they do not want to be forced to pay taxes, it is necessary for those that are wealthy to do so if they wish to continue to see their society prosper and in the process see themselves continue to prosper.For these reasons, I hold the belief that the way in which a society deals with poverty and wealth is the single most important factor that we must take into account when estimating the standing of our society.

Thus, if the citizens of an individualistic society, such as America, wish to thrive in the world, they need to find a way to ensure that not all are left deprived due to extraneous circumstances and that equality is still a key component of the way in which laws are created. The realization that: in order to be able for me to pursue my personal goals, I will need to give back once I have attained success is something that must happen, or if it already has it needs to be reinforced throughout the ages. Concerning the "litmus" test, we need to find a way to become not fully acidic and not fully basic, but a neutrality where all are able to at least have the opportunity or the means to make their dreams a reality, which in turn will benefit the overall society (Bellah et. al., p. 285). I know... I am an idealist.

Freedom v. Structure

I've made a realization about matters of religious preference after reading Bellah's Religion Chapter this week.

The description of Larry Beckett's choice to join his evangelical church, based on "a structure that till then he had been lacking in his life (236)" piqued my interest enough to look up the footnotes.

17. of Chapter 9:

A more extreme example of the need for "structure" is provided by a member of the very conservative Living Word fellowship on the San Francisco Peninsula who complained that all through school he had been expected to "decide what is right and wrong and why I was alive and what I was living for... That's the worst thing to do to a man - make hims decide everything for himself, because he can't. It's a Satanic trap." A Christian, on the contrary, "doesn't have to decide what is right or wrong. He just has to decide to do right or wrong."

As I reflect on my personal preference of religion, I notice stark contrasts with the Living Word fellowship member above. The Catholic church has been too structured and stifling for me. Sunday church and priestly expounding about repenting for sins have not served me well. I wanted each homily to be an open discussion - clearly the priest knew not of half the things he was attempting to instruct the audience in. And funnily enough, the Polish word for homily, kazanie, stems from the verb kazać, or to order, command. I think that sums up Polish church culture well.

The preference based on structure arose also as I looked back on my Bulgarian friend from Chicago, who went from religion-devoid to religion-devout. Brought up ignoring the Orthodox church, she's become an impassioned Protestant in the United States. It struck me as incredibly odd as she once described her church's prayer rituals with a zeal and wonderment I thought reserved for loonies, for fanatics.

So, preference has been a matter of structure. Not having had structure, one yearns for it. Not having had freedom, one yearns for it. This is not exclusive to religion... same occurs with cultural identities (native languages as part, which are known by the 1st generation, taught to the 2nd, forgotten by the 3rd, and [attempted] to be resuscitated by the 4th [David Crystal lecture on language death!]), and even university image and administration (class discussion with Ana on strictness and authority presence in a uni setting).

Huh.

Reflection

I would first like to comment on a topic that was only touched upon for a few moments in our class's last session. In the final minutes of class, we discussed the motives behind decision-making. Now, I strongly believe that every single decision made is made on a cost-benefit analysis basis, but several people disagreed, which I find confusing. In every decision I make, and every decision that everyone makes, they are evaluating what is best for the situation at hand. I actually can't even think of another way that people make decisions.

On another note, I am still shocked at the spending of 35 million dollars on the radio station. I do understand and support the hosting of such an important radio station, but 35 million dollars definitely seems excessive. Honestly, how much can it cost for upkeep of a station? I would really like to see the breakdown of where that money goes and why, it cost that much. For 35 million dollars, you could become an astronaut 175 times. You could buy 88 Saleen S7's, one of the most expensive cars in the world. You could buy 14582 toygers. You could buy more than a TON of gold, according to market prices. You could pay for 700 people to go to AU for a year, or you could invest it and create a scholarship, earning 1,400,000 a year off the interest (at a 4% rate). At any rate, 35 million dollars is an enormous sum of money, and the spending of such an exorbitant amount should be monitored and considered very carefully.

QUEENLY DRAG QUEENS

So. . . I went to a drag queen race this past Tuesday. Yeah. Before people start thinking that cars raced down DC, stop that thought. I mean a drag race as in men dressed up as women (and ridiculously high stilettos) and ran down 17th St. in Dupont (in their ridiculously high stilettos). Though it was a rainy night, the event was still awesome and I can say that it was one of the best events I have attended so far in DC. I must admit that people can get really creative in this city, from the Rainbow Brite drag queen to the person dressed up as the Washington Monument complete with red shining lights, all the costumes were amazing.

The queens first paraded down 17th. They strutted their stuff, posed for pictures, blew kisses to the crowd, you know, the usual queenly stuff. I was part of the cheering crowd that marveled at the creativity of the costumes and I was also one of the ones that cringed with some awkwardness when I saw some of the "edgy" costumes that some guys tried to pull off (like a guy who wore cowboy chaps and showed a LOT of skin, I'll leave the rest to your imagination). Anyway, I hate to think like Goffman, but for this event I must. You see, every single drag queen created a sort of persona that played with the receiving audience. Therefore, they controlled what impressions they left upon the audience. The Marylin Monroe drag queen strutted down the street (with a guy wearing a JKF mask holding up an umbrella for her) and acted in a regal way, meanwhile people in the audience cheered her on and yelled "Go Marilyn". People actually played and acted as if this man was actually Marilyn Monroe. It was pretty funny.

However, I also fell victim to the belief that the characters being portrayed were real. When the race was over and we were heading back, I ran into Rachel Maddow. . . drag queen Rachel Maddow. If you don't know, Rachel Maddow is an MSNBC news anchor. My encounter with Rachel Maddow went something like this:

"Oh my gosh! Guys, it's Rachel Maddow."

Rachel (remember, this is the drag queen we're talking about) responded like this:

"Sweetie come here and take a picture with me!"

She then grabbed me by the arm and we took a picture which hopefully I have posted correctly. I will admit that at the moment I met "Rachel" I seriously thought I was talking to the actual Rachel Maddow. To add to my embarrassment, I seriously considered asking for an autograph (I am so lame). Except that I forgot one thing, Rachel Maddow is a woman, and a woman that does not wear that ridiculous amount of makeup. Still, I fell victim to the theatrics.

Wow, I just realized how long this post is.

Who is governing America(n)?

Last year in my government course we learned three ways in which American government and its actions can be explained. The three were: pluralism, hyperpluralism, and elite and class theory. After hearing today's discussion on AU's budget allocation one word came to my mind: entitlement. Disappointgly, I came to the conclusion that most of my fellow students are firm believers in the elite and class theory.

In short, the elite and class theory is that the few elites, who hold the concentration of wealth, are those who persuade policymakers to make policies that favor them and policies that will ensure that their wealth is not in danger. Thus, it makes it seem as though those with the most money yield the most rights. But, since when did a right that one is supposed to be born with cost money? A sense of entitlement transpires because those that possess the money feel as though they are entitled to more rights than the rest and that they are inherently better than the rest of us average or below- average individuals in the socioeconomic structure of American society.

Concerning American University, we all are in some way paying for our education, whether it is you personally who is paying, your parents who foot the bill or if you received an outside or AU scholarship, there is someone who is paying for the bill in your name. Then if we are supposedly all on equal footing, shouldn't equality ensue? But, in actuality people feel as though they are in some way better than others and are entitled to certain resources here, but one sole individual should not be singled out to reap all the benefits, and if a certain radio station or club is helping a certain group of people or if they enjoy listening to it, it should not be destroyed just because you are not personally benefiting from it. That's just selfish. Money turns into a contest that can be very destructive and never ending, as Dante conveys.

If you do not like it, you do have the right as a student to express your discontent or ask for funds to start a club or some other type of organization that you think would be more beneficial. But, by sitting around and doing nothing and stating that you, since you pay tuition, are entitled to certain rights and you are allowed to make or break a radio station is ridiculous. I am not saying that you cannot make a difference. You can. But you cannot do so by just complaining. It is immature and since we are all paying, we are all equal and a few of us are not entitled to more than the rest of us.

We are The American University, and we, just as those in Congress, should be constantly reminded of the principles on which our nation was created.

And remember, life could be a lot worse. Just think about it. We are lucky to even have the opportunity to go to college. Sometimes it is necessary to open our eyes to what others do not have and what we have to realize that we should feel gracious and not selfish-- relative deprivation is a powerful thing.

Discuss, discuss!

"Modern individualism seems to be producing a way of life that is neither individually nor socially viable, yet a return to traditional forms would be to return to intolerable discrimination and oppression" (Bellah et. al., p. 144).

To discuss this, first the "traditional forms" have to be defined. And what were these traditional forms of life? They were characterized by a life for one's family and community. A person's existence was integrated tightly into his or her social fabric. Utter individual separation from the pack was deemed "egotistic," a peculiarity and anomaly.

Another point is that the ancient republican and biblical religious values, of personal roles as wife serving a husband, slave belonging to a master, were aspects of an unequal yet respected and functional system.

Cutting off these republican and biblical traditions, thus, according to Tocqueville, would seem to weaken "the ideal of individual dignity."

However, somehow it does not for many. Perhaps because we are so accustomed to this "modern individualism," we don't quite mind ignoring biblical values. I question if individualism is the natural form of being for the human. Following Freud's teachings on the ego and superego - yes, clearly it's natural. Clearly we are all subconscious egotists. Perhaps within republican and biblical frameworks, people have been repressing their innate needs for individual expression and fulfillment, all along? Have their moral conscious superegos been at perpetual toil, struggling to repress their solitary desires and shove them into a place in society? Perhaps these individualistic ideas of life were taboos, taboos like certain sexual and social behaviors of today?

Thus, maybe people - once acquainted with individualism and, at last, a means to satisfy their desires stemming from the ID, once they feel the freedom - another way of life to them appears scandalous. Barbarian. "Intolerable discrimination and oppression" is of course a relative term based on our societal values. In ancient Egypt, many paupers would not have felt oppressed by their lower status because they accepted it as their ancient place within society. Their fathers had been paupers, their grandparents had been paupers, their great-grandparents had been paupers, they were paupers, and these were the ways of the Earth. Even a great legacy, history, and culture of their nation of Egypt.

In modern times USA, the wife is no servant to the husband. She searches for individual fulfillment and testing of her skills in a career. She is free to choose a social circle and thrives on a mutual relationship with the husband. Limiting the woman to a homemaker role would be discrimination, it would be oppression. The individual ID requires self-satisfaction, and it is unwilling to repress its desires into a taboo and conformed way of being. Not again.

Personal Worldly Bubbles

An individual is someone who thinks for his or herself. This means that their ideas are their own, they may listen to outside opinions and thoughts, but in the end, the opinions that that individual creates are crafted in an independent way free of outer influences. In other words, an individual's thoughts are produced by that person itself, their beliefs or ideas are not forced upon them. Some may argue that there are certain thoughts that may have not been thought of "independently". For example, religion, some people that consider themselves independent individuals may have had their religion since birth. However, those who are of free-will accept that they have a choice over their beliefs, just because one was handed-down a belief does not mean that they cannot question or re-assert themselves later on in life.

So why is being an individual not socially viable? For one, being an individual could mean wanting to live in your own "personal worldly bubble". This means that as people become individuals, they could tend to become less receptive of other people's opinions or thoughts, therefore becoming less receptive of others and withdrawing themselves from a community of people. A withdrawn individual is created.

But what is even worse than being a withdrawn individual? Living in traditional forms. Traditional forms could mean completely submerging oneself in a community, risking one's sense of independence and individualism. People could begin to think alike, with less variation and being in danger of becoming close-minded. So is community a bad thing? I think there has to be a balance between being your own person and belonging. You can't completely live in your own atmosphere because then you interact and impact others less, but you can't live completely with others because then one runs the risk of losing individuality and independence (and this is not a good thing).

Hope this makes sense. Maybe this is what Bellah meant or not, either way, anyone can make his or her own inferences, correct?

individualism

I do not think that the outlook for America is as depressing as this quote portrays it to be. I think that Habits of the Heart, in its entirety, did not seem to paint such a grim picture, because they identified such trends that they saw as problematic and then they showed that there is still hope for our society as a whole by the conclusion.

Nonetheless, I do think that modern individualism is not "socially viable" because increasingly people are learning to become more selfish in the materialistic society that we have, and working in their jobs to make others look bad (Bellah et. al., p. 144). People are constantly worrying how they can obtain their self- interests above others, and such trends as husbands or wives working later at the office to earn more money so that with this money they are able to flaunt their wealth over others is seen. There is so much needless opulence in the world and the sad part is that people are drawn to it out of their own greed. Therefore, individualism is pushing people away from others so that the individual can succeed, and thus it creates a less "socially viable" country (Bellah et. al., p. 1440).

People's interests are conflicting now more than ever and relationships become constrained. In this way, modern individualism is also not "individually... viable" because when one is unable to form close relationships with others and is forced to live alone, happiness is halted and people are unable to thrive. It is through relationships with others that we learn the most about ourselves, and yet if we are only looking out for ourselves, how can we ever expect to have even a friendship? People's tendencies to become increasingly interested in pursuing their self- interests is going to be detrimental to not only their own selves and happiness, but also to society as a whole. We cannot forget where we came from and relationships should not be forced to face such constant strains that individualism creates.

However, I disagree with the authors of Habits of the Heart, when they state that a "return to traditional forms would be to return to intolerable discrimination and oppression," (Bellah et. al., p. 144). I do not think that people would revert to such extreme measures again if we were to go back to the individualism that was emphasized in the past, but I also do not think that it is possible to even go back to the old ideals of individualism. Society is shaped by many forces and technology plays a very important role. The advent of technologies like cell phones and computers allowed for people to become more self- reliant because if they needed someone they knew they could call them but they did not have to stay in constant contact with them to find out where they were; computers allowed people to search for information on their own and complete tasks on a more individual level, too.

Since we cannot remove these technologies from our current state of society because so much is based around them, we must, instead, find ways to use these advancements to stress ways in which individualism will promote progress for society as a whole, and not think about ways in which we can go back to the old individualistic ways since that is not even a possibility.

Reflection

I have to say, I was very impressed with our president, Neil Kerwin. In the world of politics that he inhabits, the straight-shooting, frank manner in which he speaks is a rarity. In the first semester of this year, I've a lot of BS coming from a lot of people on a certain number of subjects. Most of the BS comes from students who really don't know what they're talking about, and spew it regardless. However, Mr. Kerwin told us in a straightforward, no-nonsense tone, exactly where he came from, and where AU is going. I truly appreciated the fact that he did not condescend to us at all, and he never seemed to want to be doing something else. It was as if he actually wanted to be there (imagine that!), talking to us about the issues facing American University. Anyways, It was a refreshing look at the leadership of our school, and after meeting him and hearing him speak, I am extremely pleased and hopeful for the future of AU.

In other news, my family is doing very well (thank you very much for asking), and I can still prepare and cook a fabulous steak. I'm not gonna lie, I make a fantastic steak, and the best part is, theres no secret ingredients or marinade; all I use is salt and pepper (albeit ground salt and pepper). First you rub the salt into the steak, a good bit more than you think, too, and this makes sure that the steak loses no moisture during the cooking process so they're nice and juicy. Next you put a HUGE amount of pepper on, almost so you can't even see the meat!!! This, for some reason is the most delicious thing in the world; the french call it steak au poivre, I call it steak au my god I want to eat you. Anyways, it's the most delicious thing ever, and, oh yeah, I'VE GOT LEFTOVERS. So, uh, I'm gonna leave now and devour my leftover steak before I go crazy thinking about it.