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.

Civil Rights Movement-NAACP

So my part of our presentation on the NAACP wasn't the greatest. So here is a more coherent brief on the NAACP's work in the civil rights movement.

x

On May 17 1954, a NAACP legal team led by the associations chief counsel Thurgood Marshall, celebrated one of the greatest legal victories in the civil rights movement. The court found segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional in the federal case Brown v. Board of Education. (Thurgood Marshall later went to serve as the first African American appointed to the Supreme Court.)

During the Civil Rights movement the top leaders of the NAACP movement and black elites pushed for legal action to fight segregation. The association worked within the government, specifically the judiciary system, hiring grassroots lawyers to tackle the segregation case by case. This tactic was pushed by the association’s executive secretary, Roy Wilkins, who was worried that direct confrontation (such as protest) would result in an even stronger backlash from white supremacists.

While Brown V. Board of Education deemed segregation in public schools unconstitutional in 1954 integration took over a decade. 68% of black children in the south still attended all black schools in January of 1969. In response the NAACP filed hundreds of lawsuits on the local level, successfully integrating a host of schools. Unfortunately school integration was not without violence.

There was an instance in 1970 in South Carolina where a group of three buses carrying over 500 black students to be integrated into a new school were attacked by a mob of white protesters. Many of the children were injured by the incident and were able to take shelter in the school they were being taken to shortly before the mob overturned two of the buses. A group of NAACP leaders were soon after able to secure federal marshals to protect the students. This incident in 1969 is reminiscent of the little rock nine incident in 1957, only it had been twelve years and followed several years behind the civil rights acts in 1964 and 1968, as well as the Voting Rights act in 1965 (which were all helped into passage by NAACP lobbyist Clarence Mitchell). However the continued work of NAACP lawyers helped ensure successful integration of public schools as well as many other establishments that refused to serve, hire or allow people of color. The NAACP shows that use of the legal system is an extremely effective form of civil engagement and political activism. While protests and demonstrations do spread awareness from a cause and have the power to unite a group of citizens, the power of legality and of pressuring the government from within the government is undeniable. Shows that a citizen’s greatest power is to engage in politics on a local level.

The NAACP did still organize successful protests and demonstrations, but they were more successful in the north. The NAACP played a role in organizing the 1963 March on Washington, during which MLK gave his famous I have a dream speech.

Unlike many civil rights organizations in the south NAACP maintained strong membership after the mid 60s, when many other civil rights organizations simply disappeared. In fact NAACP was enormous by the mid 60s, having close to 450,000 members. The NAACP was so successful during this time period because of its strong consistent leadership, under Roy Wilkins, and its systematic approach at combating social and economic equality. The NAACP legal teams have been called the “crown jewel” of the NAACP and were crucial to the success of the civil rights movement.

South Carolina Republicans Interviewed

">

Here is an interesting video I found that interviews a group of South Carolina Republicans and Tea-Partiers. This is a biased and left leaning video, however, I find it very alarming that a group of Americans relies almost solely on Fox for its news and political information. One individual interviewed didn’t even know truthfully where his news comes from. I also find it even more unsettling that one individual in this video wanted to cut spending on education. I fail to understand how cutting public education, what I consider to be one of the most vital government services, benefits the nation.

From Trains to Cars and to Cars Again

I’m sure many are already responding or have responded too the George F. Will article on why liberals are trying to take control of everyone in America, and also like trains, so I’d like too add my piece as well. While I would like to denounce Will and call his article a desperate attempt to degrade progressives, I must admit I’m torn when it comes to trains.
What I like about trains is that they provide cheap, reliable transportation, especially for those who are unable to afford a car and they also are extremely environmentally friendly. Not only do they produce drastically less carbon emissions than cars or planes, but also they by nature get cars off of the highway.
The problem I have with trains, as mentioned by Will, is that they are expensive to build and they are limiting to the passenger compared to the car. To be honest I love cars and would prefer to see a switch to hydrogen fuel rather than see a radically expensive rail system built, especially during a recession. Hydrogen may seem as or more radical as building a $53 billion high-speed train system, but I feel that it would not only would be a huge leap towards sustainability but would also maintain our extensive use of cars.
To me the car carries similar connotations of “democratic aspirations” today as the train did 100+ years ago. It’s a symbol of American ingenuity, of production, of freedom and maybe also symbolic of our countries falling, or at least “evolving”, place in the world. I’d like to see cars again be the future of American society. While I would also like to see the emergence of trains nationwide, I think cars will lead the way, both environmentally and symbolically, in American life.


PS: I feel that trains aren’t a great source of social capital, just like planes aren’t a good source of social capital. Sure trains might be more comfortable or quieter than planes but people today are just to engrossed in media and electronic devises to develop significant social capital on trains or other public forms of transportation.

It should also be noted that most of my knowledge on Hydrogen cars comes from Top Gear, so here is a clip that might be enlightening, but at the very least it should be entertaining.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AUurBnLbJw

Interesting 106 Year Old Perspective on Tocqueville

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50610FE3F5911738DDDA00A94DF405B858CF1D3

"Though not one of the greatest political philosophers, he was a man of particularly high aims to whom our nation owes an especial dept."

It seems now almost 200 years after Tocqueville came to America we are even more grateful for his detailed analysis of early american democracy. I find it inspiring that such an old book, and such an old constitution can remain relevant in such a rapidly evolving globalized world. In many ways it shows that the american political system can (or at least has) endure of global instability.

However i feel some negative aspects of american government have endured election with the good. For example Tocqueville mentions how reelection reduces the ability of a politician to lead effectively and make actions constructive to society. This is because the personal need to be reelected replaces a politician's desire to serve society.

The Greater Good

While reading Tocqueville he mentions often his belief that religion is a crucial aspect to a successful democracy. While I do agree that religion plays a strong role in promoting social and political activism, I do not consider religion to be vital to society, or a successful democracy.

Religion, although useful during the rise of civilization, is now becoming more and more irrelevant. I see the decline in church attendance over the last 50 years as evidence supporting that people don’t need organized religion to develop their own beliefs and morals. I believe in time, greater worldly understanding (both in science and cultural interaction) will result in the end of need for religion.
Religion provides rules or a set of laws that dictates how humans should interact with each other; in this sense religions have been vital in human self-preservation. I believe religion is a human creation, a tool to build values and communities. Perhaps it could be considered in our nature, a human characteristic or evolutionary trait, to form regions. Religion also provides answers to large, often frightening, questions; it gives life meaning and direction. However in many religions, this meaning and direction is often not found directly in a religion’s text, instead they are inferred. One instance of when I come in conflict with religion is when people read the bible, or other texts, as if they were fact.
The bible has been largely successful because it is so relatable and easily understood by different people and cultures, that many can find a common meaning, or truth, or message of good. If people can infer these truths from a centuries old text, why can’t they find similar meaning on their own or in the natural world? I believe ethics are derived by our instinct to survive as a species. It is in our best interest to form communities and positive relationships because they develop our intellect and success as an individual, as a nation, and as a species. Morality, I believe, doesn’t come from God, but from our intrinsic nature to build communities.

It’s for the greater good.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

I'm trying to DD but it isn't working out (Defining Democracy)

Democracy, for me, is such a tough thing to define. I found it especially difficult to define it in fewer than 25 words. To start I looked up a definition of Democracy from the Internet.

“Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”

I found this definition to be lacking direction; it’s too literal. I tried making several single sentence definitions that included the purpose of democracy. Here’s a couple.

Democracy is a system of government in which authority is collectively held by the people of a nation in order to protect the rights and equality of those people.

Democracy is a system of government that protects the interests and freedoms of the individual by giving the individual political representation.

I found my definitions of democracy always to contain key words of American Democracy: equality, freedom, liberty, rights, ect. I feel then my personal definition of democracy must be biased because it is being written from an American perspective. I think many other Americans also base their image of democracy on American ideals.

Perhaps this says something about how a successful democracy operates. Earlier we talked about how democracy needs to be developed by a nation not forced on it. How American democracy developed over 160 years in the American colonies. I wonder if a successful democracy can still develop in a globalized world.

Another challenge I found in defining democracy is that the term itself, democracy, is a very complicated concept. I feel it is easy too get either too vague or specific about what constitutes a democracy. For example what level of equality does a democracy require, can it have an extreme disparity between social and political classes, or contain a large host of socialized government institutions, or have a powerful level of national/political/military leadership and still be considered democratic. I find it hard to understand today, when the goal of many Americans is to globalize democracy, how we can label one nation democratic (in the American sense of the term) over another.

Rewritten Sentences

“What I am trying to say in this rather awkward and cursory glance at American history and the pietistic awakenings and reformulations that have shaped it is that the dialectic of pietism is a continuous spirit around the moral core of our cultural ethic.”

“What I am trying to say in this rather awkward and cursory glance at Freestyle Skiing and the ski tech revolution of the last decade that has shaped it, is that the cultural rebranding of skiing is a constant process shaped the perpetual drive of athletes to push the sport further. “
—
“In an important respect, however the Dream of Upward Mobility, particularly in the south, was actually too successful; it quickly became apparent to those who employed servants that is was in fact. . . (couldn’t find rest of sentence)”

“In an important respect however, the introduction of can toads, particularly in Australia, was actually too successful; it quickly became apparent to the local population that is was in fact quite difficult to maintain them and then they became dangerous predators in the ecosystem.”
—
I thought this mini-project was really illuminating. I often find that my writing seems formulaic (anybody’s probably is to some extent). This seems like a really cool way to explore unique ways to structure sentences. I will definitely to apply this technique to our next writing assignment.

The Middle East, Democracy, and Tocqueville

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07gerecht.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

I saw this and was amazed at how relevant it was to our brief discussion on Egypt and bringing democracy to the middle east today. I'll post some analysis later, but right now i'm just proud of finding this and had to claim it.