Zombie Homes and Desert Roofs

The NPR article, while focused on the current economic and creative difficulties in the housing industry, made me instead think more of the environmental problems surrounding the ‘zombie housing’ issue. One of the inherent faults with modern developers is they try to imitate an eastern style of suburban living that emerged after the creation of Levittown, NY. As Cullen explains, Levittown emerged as a joining of Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideals by trying to give people both the connection to nature offered by rural life, while maintaining the close community of urban life. There was strong appeal to live in a home seemingly tailored for the interests of the up and coming American family. People felt they were on the path of upward mobility through homeownership of such a home. However, the scale at which these homes were produced and the consumer culture that emerged in the post-war era changed the objectives of the average American. Instead of seeking status or wealth people were instead seeking conformity.

This conformity has led Americans to believe that a two-story house with a well-maintained lawn is vital to upward mobility, regardless if you are in the middle of the Sonoran desert. I think this article makes a very pertinent point that we need to rethink how we use our space. Not only to continue growth in a tanked economy, but to live more efficiently and practically in our local environments. If we fail to gain a thoughtful perspective on how we live our lives, we risk the collapse and desertification of our communities.

I am reminded by this article of an art piece I saw in New York back over thanksgiving break. The piece, entitled “Desert Rooftops,” is a statement on how unchecked suburban growth results in desertification through the over-consumption of natural resources.

http://www.timessquarenyc.org/times-square-arts/current-upcoming/david-brooks-desert-rooftops/index.aspx


P.S. This article also reminded me of an article we read last year about schools on Navajo reservations (i think). The attempt to transform the desert landscape seemed comparable in the article to Phoenix's suburbia.

Division between small ethnic groups

I find it very interesting how isolated ethnic groups remained from each other in this time period. Usually when I think of race or ethnic relations in American society I think of the civil rights movement, or Ellis Island or the Chinese exclusion act. What I don’t think of is how the German farming community considers itself different that the Norwegian community 10 miles away. Although now that I think about it we did see that in My Antonia when they were trying to find a place to bury Mr. Shimerda, and also with the St. Olaf student Katie mentioned; the student who considered her groups of friends to be ethnically diverse because some are of non-Scandinavian, but still European, origins. Maybe it was inherently Norwegian at the time to consider what we would see today small differences between communities, as being large. After all many Norwegian communities were developed in isolation, with very limited worldly interaction, as a result of Norway’s geography. Still, in the context of believing European nationalities to be very distinctive, the divides between Norwegian/Lutherans and Asian and African cultures must have been perceived as cavernous. Perhaps I can explore this more in my essay. . .

Change: Fear It!

We have talked a lot about the different ways people are categorized and how those different categorizes interact with each other. We have talked mainly about race, ethnicity, class, gender and sex. Actually I feel that the theme of the class so far has really been about categorization. I found it very interesting today when Mary mentioned that people divided themselves into categories in order to be “read” and that there is a sort of comfort in knowing some defining characteristic of a person. That people are afraid of not knowing anything about a person, by not having reference point from which to judge a person. Perhaps it’s for this reason humans create stereotypes. In order to believe that we can understand a person just by recognizing a few select characteristics.

The idea of fearing someone by not knowing them made me rethink the clashes between the kinds categories previously mentioned. For example I have always considered the clash between heterosexual and homosexual culture to be based on concepts like morality or vice. It was my thought that the church was trying to make others convert in order to give legitimacy to their own beliefs. Now I believe it is more than that, that there is a fundamental human fear of change. That in the 1920s and 30s people were afraid that the congregation of homosexuals and immigrants would create new subculture within American society. Such subculture would then permeate into mainstream culture and this change would result in a re-organization of power.

I think that modern religion could have gotten its start from this kind of fear. That without a reason stay people would abandon their culture, so leaders of early society began telling stories that told the importance of ritual and family. If so the “facts” behind religion are meaningless as they are only created in order to maintain a cultural ideology as best as possible. Still, science, homosexuality, and other religions threaten the legitimacy of these “facts” and in turn threaten the legitimacy of the culture a religion promotes. In my opinion, the only thing to believe is belief itself; in other words there is hollowness within religion because is relies on controlling people in order to have legitimacy. Religion is a collective experience that defines a culture, not a set of laws or a moral authority.

I’m not saying in this post that I believe that religion is fundamentally evil. I’m trying to say that the interactions between different categories of people, including religion, have been and have the potential to be violent or infectious or destructive. That people should try and get past fearing what they don’t know, and try to understand what they can.

Here is a video of Richards Feynman talking about beauty. It relates to not being fearful of the unknown.



Also this might be a little rough, but i feel like if i don't start posting things right after i write them they never get posted.

Who is the real upper class?

There is a noticeable distinction in Ragtime between wealth and class. There are even distinctions between impoverished people. In a scene in chapter 3, immigration officials sort newly arrived immigrants. The officials are likely to be not well paid and to not rank high in societal class; still their power over the immigrants is extraordinary.

“They were immediately sensitive to the enormous power of the immigration officials. These officials changed names they couldn’t pronounce and tore people from there families, consigning to a return voyage old folks, people with bad eyes, riffraff and also those who looked insolent. Such power was dazzling. The immigrants were reminded of home.” Pg 14

What struck me in this passage is the immense power title. To have any form of respected ancestry could be in some situations considered more important than wealth. This can be seen in the class difference between old wealth and new wealth. Old wealth requires being born wealth. Being for any period in your life un-wealthy or of lower status hinders ones ability to be part of high society later in life. This poses problems for those of new wealth, like Tateh and Houdini, who must feign aristocracy in an attempt to be accepted by high society. I would argue chooses a more successful title of Baron which alludes to old wealth. For this reason the family feels more comfortable in the presence of Tateh than Houdini. As Tateh is part of a fake aristocracy and Houdini is a common who somehow managed fame and wealth.
The greatest irony in this is that Tateh and Houdini must hide there true identities in order to gain status, yet they seem infinitely more talented and motivated than Father or even JP Morgan. JP Morgan, while talented, was raised in a family of bankers of considerable wealth; he is more a product of heritage than raw talent and motivation. Father’s skills seem almost inexistent, as mother is able to easily adjust to running the company with no prior experience while continuing to run the household. In contrast Tateh and Houdini risk their lives so that they and their families can live a better life. The safety of their families is more important to them than anything, and for that reason they devote themselves fully to their work. JP Morgan and Father feel compelled to travel the world and become part of history as if to justify or prove their own importance in the world.

The Statue of Liberty in Ishinomaki/ Women at War WWII

Shortly after posting my statue of liberty poem i ran across this image from Ishinomaki Japan. September 11 not only marked the 10 year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America, but the sixth month anniversary of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. I find it very interesting that in a day a mourning for both our countries that the statue of liberty stands as a symbol of hope. Perhaps the reason the statue of liberty wasn't attacked on September 11 is that it isn't a symbol only pertinent to American ideals; it is a symbol of liberty to all. Whereas the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were symbols specific of American military and economic power.

See more of the photo gallery here: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/09/japan-earthquake-six-months-later/100146/

You guys should also check out this way cool photo gallery of "Women at war in WWII" :http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/09/world-war-ii-women-at-war/100145/

Statue of Liberty Poem

the green statue
reaching tall and sharp growing broad
standing above the trees
and the flowing river
its staircase rising
to liberty
to freedom

An Ideal within an Ideal

The Statue of Liberty is an ideal within an ideal. The statue itself can be said to be a symbol or an icon on to its own. It marks entrance into the United States and it once served as a beacon and welcome to immigrants. Today it is a moment to American ideals and history. However Lady Liberty herself tells another story entirely. She is the finalized product of generations of American’s use of idealistic symbols to portray American ideals. The image of Lady Liberty evolved alongside the nation, it went from the harsh and savage Indian queen, to the milder Indian princess, to the classical and sophisticated, even orthodox Greek goddess. However, lady liberty has never been an entirely accurate portrayal of American ideals. Instead it was a manifestation of how Americans wanted to be perceived by the world, in particular Europe. In early colonial days they wanted to be regarded as natives to the land and distinct from Britain, regal yet dangerous and brutal. As America became a nation and started rising as a world power Americans wished to viewed as respectable, and as having roots in European wisdom and culture. So the image or American ideals changed from an Indian princess to a Greek goddess. Lady Liberty symbolizes our idealization of American values. We want America to be viewed in a certain way so we create fictional images that glorify what we value as a nation and a culture.

First Blog! Hope it didn't have too many typos.