In the middle of a field I sit
Gazing out at the nature in front of me
A picture of the rural states
I sit and think
My skin white
My family well-to-do
My life normal
No worries in the world
College to move ahead towards
A stable life to look forward to
My American life is mundane
At first glance
But to me it holds much more
An opportunity is ahead of me
To change the world for the better
So much excitement will be for me in the future
But still I sit
Wondering
Why I even wonder at all
Monday, June 3, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
In my opinion, I believe that America can no longer be considered a Puritan nation. At one time in our history, our drive for hard work and perseverance over others may have pushed our nation further and made us more bitter towards uniqueness, but I believe it has changed now.
Our work ethic and exclusion principles are prominent today mostly because of our drive for progress. We have become a nation based on efficiency and hard work. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it makes our nation begin to culturally clamp down on certain liberties and pleasantries. This subtle attack is referenced in the article 'Are Americans Still Puritan?' when it says, "...Americans have a culturally specific tendency to view family photos and other personal items as unprofessional presences in the office." This outlook, that can probably be called 'fascism' as a hyperbole, is the kind of attitude that pushes our nation to an extreme.
By no means am I saying that hard work isn't good. It pushes our nation forward and allows us to indulge in the riches that make our country great. I am simply saying that this constant pressure that is caused by increased demand instead of Puritan beliefs has made us a nation of overtired, pill dependent, desk monkeys. We are no longer a Puritan nation, and I hope that we don't become a country run by corporate norms. Our lives should be more free, and while we need to work to maintain a nation, we should live with more cultural liberty. After all, we only have one time on this planet, and we might as well make it worth it.
Our work ethic and exclusion principles are prominent today mostly because of our drive for progress. We have become a nation based on efficiency and hard work. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it makes our nation begin to culturally clamp down on certain liberties and pleasantries. This subtle attack is referenced in the article 'Are Americans Still Puritan?' when it says, "...Americans have a culturally specific tendency to view family photos and other personal items as unprofessional presences in the office." This outlook, that can probably be called 'fascism' as a hyperbole, is the kind of attitude that pushes our nation to an extreme.
By no means am I saying that hard work isn't good. It pushes our nation forward and allows us to indulge in the riches that make our country great. I am simply saying that this constant pressure that is caused by increased demand instead of Puritan beliefs has made us a nation of overtired, pill dependent, desk monkeys. We are no longer a Puritan nation, and I hope that we don't become a country run by corporate norms. Our lives should be more free, and while we need to work to maintain a nation, we should live with more cultural liberty. After all, we only have one time on this planet, and we might as well make it worth it.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The map I chose, which is titled 'Novissima et accuratissima totius Americae', is a map of both South and North America. It displays all of South America, as well as most of North America, the West being left out or incorrectly sketched. The first thing I notice about this map is that, as I have already stated, the West of North America is missing, yet South America is complete. This is evidence that the Spanish and Portugese were able to settle the lands very early and effectively, while the English, later Americans, were struggling to branch out and conquer.
While in this class, we have focused on English/American expansion, this evidence brings up a completely different fact. We know that there were natives all across the American continent in all places. Because the Spanish and Portugese have a broader expanse of land and were able to explore it faster, it shows that the Southern conquerers were far more racist and ruthless than the English/Americans were. They expanded faster because their philosophy behind 'divine right' was far stronger. The Spanish and Portugese swiftly came in and crushed the natives so they could utilize the land for their own good.
These atrocities may have been stopped if word had gotten back to Europe that such bad things were happening in the New World, but another piece on the map suggests why nothing was done.
In the bottom left-hand corner of the map, there is a drawn description of the map, and all around the description, which resides on a stone-ish plaque, there are natives. These natives are dressed in their traditional clothing and are depicted doing things that they would do in their daily lives. The problem with this is that when images like these went back to Europe, people thought that while the landscape was new and exotic, it was ruled by savage people who didn't look very 'normal' (in the European sense).
This is referenced in Valerie Babb's essay, when she says that, "a map could be an intellectual tool for legitimizing conquest, economic exploitation, and cultural imperialism." All of these became a possibility in the minds of all Europeans when they saw the images of what they thought to be an untamed wilderness occupied by a people who couldn't control or use it properly. From this notion, racism began to occur, and this is what Babb was trying to touch on in her essay. Through these maps, racism was easily attainable in a place that could easily be rocked by it.
While in this class, we have focused on English/American expansion, this evidence brings up a completely different fact. We know that there were natives all across the American continent in all places. Because the Spanish and Portugese have a broader expanse of land and were able to explore it faster, it shows that the Southern conquerers were far more racist and ruthless than the English/Americans were. They expanded faster because their philosophy behind 'divine right' was far stronger. The Spanish and Portugese swiftly came in and crushed the natives so they could utilize the land for their own good.
These atrocities may have been stopped if word had gotten back to Europe that such bad things were happening in the New World, but another piece on the map suggests why nothing was done.
In the bottom left-hand corner of the map, there is a drawn description of the map, and all around the description, which resides on a stone-ish plaque, there are natives. These natives are dressed in their traditional clothing and are depicted doing things that they would do in their daily lives. The problem with this is that when images like these went back to Europe, people thought that while the landscape was new and exotic, it was ruled by savage people who didn't look very 'normal' (in the European sense).
This is referenced in Valerie Babb's essay, when she says that, "a map could be an intellectual tool for legitimizing conquest, economic exploitation, and cultural imperialism." All of these became a possibility in the minds of all Europeans when they saw the images of what they thought to be an untamed wilderness occupied by a people who couldn't control or use it properly. From this notion, racism began to occur, and this is what Babb was trying to touch on in her essay. Through these maps, racism was easily attainable in a place that could easily be rocked by it.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
From the 'commonly used words' section of the inaugural speech page, it is interesting to see how each speech varies differently depending on the needs or morals of the nation. My comparison comes from President James Polk, who was inaugurated in 1845, and our current President Barack Obama, who was inaugurated in 2009 (obviously).
When we watched Obama's second inaugural speech in class, he very rarely spoke of the problems that were going on in America. He extensively talked up how great our country was. He made many references to the Constitution, as well as the heart and soul of the American people to capitalize on the idea of America: a strongly driven, patriotic nation. He talked up the world as a whole to make us seem like we were all in this together. Peace was the option to strive for. He basically used powerful words and speech to give hope to a group of people even though he provided no solid explanation as to how he was going to get there.
On the other hand, in James Polk's speech, he pushed to hint towards the big problems that were facing America at the time. The words that stick out to me are 'territory', 'Texas', and 'war'. At the time, America was going through a hard decision: whether or not to go to war with Mexico over the territory in Texas. In his speech, he pushed to make the American people know that he intended to go to war with Mexico so that he could achieve his goals. By saying this, he was clearly making it known to everybody that he had an agenda that he was willing to chip away at. Of course he had all of the notions that Obama had on his mind, but he provided a more solid approach to his plan.
These two presidents have two different notions to their speeches. Whether they be a foolproof plan or words that strike emotion, they both made very effective speeches to the nation.
When we watched Obama's second inaugural speech in class, he very rarely spoke of the problems that were going on in America. He extensively talked up how great our country was. He made many references to the Constitution, as well as the heart and soul of the American people to capitalize on the idea of America: a strongly driven, patriotic nation. He talked up the world as a whole to make us seem like we were all in this together. Peace was the option to strive for. He basically used powerful words and speech to give hope to a group of people even though he provided no solid explanation as to how he was going to get there.
On the other hand, in James Polk's speech, he pushed to hint towards the big problems that were facing America at the time. The words that stick out to me are 'territory', 'Texas', and 'war'. At the time, America was going through a hard decision: whether or not to go to war with Mexico over the territory in Texas. In his speech, he pushed to make the American people know that he intended to go to war with Mexico so that he could achieve his goals. By saying this, he was clearly making it known to everybody that he had an agenda that he was willing to chip away at. Of course he had all of the notions that Obama had on his mind, but he provided a more solid approach to his plan.
These two presidents have two different notions to their speeches. Whether they be a foolproof plan or words that strike emotion, they both made very effective speeches to the nation.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
La Reponse de L'Apocalypse Maintenant
Apocalypse Now uses many film strategies to get across its main ideas and views. The main things that the director used to give the various effects were layered portraits and still-shots. These both gave the start of the movie a distinct visual effect.
The beginning of the movie was full of layered portraits. One of the shots was of a silent soldier lying on a bed and the other shot was a backdrop of a jungle. These were both translucent shots and layered on top of each other. This kind of made the effect that what was happening in the jungle shot was actually a bigger conflict that was trapped within the mind of the soldier. This perhaps shows how cluttered a soldiers mind can be when they are off and fighting in war.
The other aspect that is used is still-shots that are actually utilized in the background of the layered portraits. The still-shot is the backdrop of a jungle. The camera doesn't move at all. It just focuses on the one part of the jungle. As the movie progresses on, different things happen in this still-shot, like bombs and napalm going off. This gave the effect of how peaceful a landscape can be, and then suddenly, bombers come by and ravage the landscape. This shows how quickly things in Vietnam can change and how devastating the war is to the country.
The beginning of the movie was full of layered portraits. One of the shots was of a silent soldier lying on a bed and the other shot was a backdrop of a jungle. These were both translucent shots and layered on top of each other. This kind of made the effect that what was happening in the jungle shot was actually a bigger conflict that was trapped within the mind of the soldier. This perhaps shows how cluttered a soldiers mind can be when they are off and fighting in war.
The other aspect that is used is still-shots that are actually utilized in the background of the layered portraits. The still-shot is the backdrop of a jungle. The camera doesn't move at all. It just focuses on the one part of the jungle. As the movie progresses on, different things happen in this still-shot, like bombs and napalm going off. This gave the effect of how peaceful a landscape can be, and then suddenly, bombers come by and ravage the landscape. This shows how quickly things in Vietnam can change and how devastating the war is to the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)