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.