Internet... On the School Bus

As technological advances continue to affect the American society on a daily basis, I find myself questioning whether or not they are furthering our society or hindering it. I read an article recently that discussed how some school buses in Arizona have chosen to install wireless internet access so students can access the internet on their way to and from school. And I couldn't help but ask myself, is this necessary?

For students on living in the Vail School District, commuting to school can take up to an hour. But lucky for them, if they have a laptop, time flies. Anything they can do on the internet, they can now do on the school bus.


Sterling Pratz, the CEO of Autonet, says, "People went from connecting their homes to connecting their handsets. And now they're moving into the next evolution of connecting things. And vehicles are the next logical step."


Maybe it's naive of me to think this, but I don't see this as necessary or extremely logical. When I used to take the bus, I would just talk to friends. I guess being able to access the internet could be a useful way to maximize good use of time, but I doubt that students use their computers to play games more than to finish homework. But regardless of how they choose to use the laptops, it seems that human relationships are continuously become less important as a result of new technologies, and to me, establishing personal relationships is really important. As technology advances, will making social connections and friendships continue to demean? How will this change America in the future? Do you think these changes will be positive or negative?

White-Washing America

I came upon a New York Times article this morning that considered the controversy surrounding the recent changes in American history textbooks in Texas. This article reminded me of the TV tokenism presentation that Mr. Bolos made and the continued discussion during class yesterday. It made me think about the implications of the idea of "tokenism" not only in television, but in our society today-- more specifically in how it shapes the history of our nation. Or at least how it is used to shape the history of our nation.

The article gave me a nice background of this current issue in Texas, but what struck me the most was an inset image (left). Gary Bledsoe, the man in the image, is the President of the Texas NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and continues to fight for the preservation of ethnic presence in American history, something he feels is being ignored in the new Texas law. Right now, individuals like Bledsoe are fighting "merely to keep the woefully inadequate mentions of African-American, Latino, and female contributions to society from being removed" from textbooks. 

Bledsoe also argues that, "It appears that there is a desire to not have an honest discussion of America and its history of race... A desire not to address the issue of slavery directly to portray African-Americans as an afterthought."

Honestly, I don't really understand why Texas would try to "white wash" American history. We talked in class about how history is a construction and textbook-makers have the right to choose what to include and what to exclude, but I think this decision to "portray African-Americans as an afterthought" is simply an inaccurate portrayal of American history. Although it is not something to be proud of, slavery was an integral part of us becoming a nation. By not addressing it, I think that Texas is indirectly continuing (and promoting) this race-hierarchy. So if our nation really is one that promotes diversity, why would they do this? Is this an issue only in Texas? Is this an example of tokenism?

Goodbye, Junior Theme

So... I haven't blogged in a while, but I figured I would get one more post in before the JT was over. Before we started the Junior Theme, I was intimidated by the idea of it because of all the hype that surrounds it, but at the same time I underestimated the difficulty of it. I didn't realize how much more to the process there is than just finding a topic and writing about it. For me, centering in on a why question proved to be a difficult task, but that was nothing compared to generating a thesis statement. After I had a thesis, everything else started to fall into place.

Reflecting on this process as a whole, I can say that I've learned a lot about myself as a writer. Being clear and concise at the same time is something I have struggled with a lot this year, but I think (I hope) I have accomplished it in this paper- at least more than in other papers I have written this year. I hope that the skills I've gained through this process will continue to influence papers I write in the future, and more than anything, I'm just glad that I'm done!

Junior Theme

To be completely honest, the research process is a lot harder than I thought it was going to be. I don't know if anyone else is having the same problem, but it's been hard for me to find research that backs up my claims. But now that I have a thesis I feel like I'm finally getting somewhere. My thesis is: Public education enrollment is on the decline because lack of change within public schools across the nation is leading parents to choose alternative schooling options for their children. The factors I am using to prove this is lack of technological integration (despite availability of technology), lack of change concerning the curriculum/teaching style, and that schools focus on solving the same problems despite rising problems, which prevents change from occurring. If you have any suggestions for other factors, please let me know!

Junior Theme

I'll admit that finding a why question was a lot harder than I anticipated. And now that I have one, I'm kind of releaved. I started with autism, then moved to special education, then to education in general, then back to special education-- only to eventually return to education. So now, my question is "Why is public education on the decline? When I first landed on this topic I was pretty much desperate, I'm not gonna lie. But last night I was doing some research and found that there are many individuals who believe that public education is making America "dumber." I realized that going to New Trier and living in this area has made me relatively unaware of public education across the nation. Now I have a chance to understand it more.

Any good book suggestions? Any suggestions at all?

The American Dream

The "American dream" is something that has defined American life since the early 1930's. This idea that America is a land of prosperity and all citizens have the opportunity to achieve richer and happier lives has, in a way, given many Americans a sense of false hope. The image of normalcy behind this dream sends the message that anyone can achieve it.

But what happens if a majority of Americans feel they can no longer achieve the "American dream"? According to a video I watched recently, many average middle class Americans feel as though the current economy has made this seem like an unrealistic goal. One woman described how she used to volunteer at soup kitchens but now visits them herself so she can stretch her $11.00/hour salary to feed her kids. This is consistent with the recent surge in individuals who need food assistance-- 48%-- and increasingly middle class Americans.

This video demonstrates in many ways how the middle class America is "struggling for survival." With the state of the economy right now, it seems to me as though the dream has shifted from trying to move up to trying not to move down. It is apparent to me that the "American dream" is a dream of money since it is dependent upon moving up the economic ladder. So if the majority of America can no longer move up, is the dream still relevant? Will it change to reflect changes in America? Should it?

Full Body Scanners at O'Hare

I watched a Yahoo! video this afternoon that talked about the recent installment of full body scanners in the United terminal at O'Hare airport. The purpose of these scanners- in use as of yesterday- is to look for "anomalies on the body," detecting both metallic and non-metallic items. These scanners have been under scrutiny for some time now, but I have yet to come in contact with them. Now that they are at O'Hare and will effect me directly next time I travel, this video made me think about the morals behind this growing installment. Do these scanners violate passenger privacy?

When I look at the bigger picture, it's hard for me to see anything wrong with these scanners. They are there to protect us, and when reflecting on past events like 9/11 security seems necessary. So how can I argue that that's a bad thing? But at the same time, someone sitting behind a plexiglass wall is analyzing an image of my body to make sure I'm not carrying and weapons and to a degree, this seems like an invasion of privacy. So do I give up a small amount of privacy for the sake of protection? Do the benefits outweigh the negatives?

I think the most important thing to remember when thinking about these scanners is that traveling by airplane is a choice. Although I don't see a significant problem with them, those that do can choose an alternative mode of transportation.

The Oscars

We've talked a lot in class lately about creativity and how it impacts our lives, and today, we spent some time talking about the Academy Awards, specifically the basis on which winning films are chosen. In an attempt to tie these two ideas together, I am going to relay a question I found on the New York Times website today, one that I think relates perfectly to what we were talking about in class and also made me think about the film industry itself in a new light. Do you think that "the Oscars promote artistry and experimentation in filmmaking or do they undermine innovation by rewarding tried-and-true approaches?"

Personally, I think that any individual in the entertainment industry has to have passion to make a good film. This being said, this passion could be driven by the need of being recognized-- more specifically the need to win an award. In any industry there is a pressure to be the best, as well as to be recognized as being the best. It's a goal, and it shouldn't be the only reason to be a part of an industry, but part of me thinks it becomes the reason that some are. I would like to believe that people partake in movies for no reason besides their love for acting, directing, screenwriting, etc. But I think that for some people, this love, whatever it may be, is lost among the necessity of being noticed in an industry where many people are lost and remain invisible throughout their entire careers. I do think that the Oscars have changed the film industry, and the yearning to become a part of the Academy has unfortunately made some people forget why they chose to become part of the industry in the first place. This being said, I think the idea of the Oscars undermines filmmaking because it defines what a "good movie" is. It rates movies against each other in an attempt to define a clear winner that is better than the rest, and the goal shifts from creating a movie you're proud of to creating one that will be recognized by the Academy as a "good movie."

Preparing for Life

Life seems to be all about preparation for what comes next, but never about embracing the moment we're in-- especially when it comes to school. I remember halfway through fifth grade, we moved our school supplies from our desks to our lockers, because that's where we kept things in sixth grade. I later learned, however, that we only did this because in seventh and eighth grade, we didn't have our own desks and had to keep our things in our lockers. But this, too, was really only preparation for what was yet to come in high school, where we similarly stored our things in our lockers. So basically we started preparing for high school in fifth grade.

This idea of early preparation was taken to a whole new level at Linwood Middle School, a school in Brunswick, New Jersey where all students begin tracking their academic path (on an electronic planner) in sixth grade. According to an article in the New York Times, the goal of this is to "better prepare students for college, and motivate even low achievers to work harder by showing them that what they want matters, too."

Although I agree that it is important to motivate low achievers and show students that what they want matters, I have a problem with the idea that sixth graders are mapping out their futures. Why should they have to already deal with the pressures of college? One individual interviewed in this article, Mercedes Arias, has a perspective about this that I couldn't disagree with more. She says, "If you don't know yourself and think you want to be a biologist, you may realize in your sophomore year in college that you don't like science... You should have really figured that out sooner." I personally see college as an opportunity to experiment, and I think it's almost better if people don't know what they want to major in in college right when they get there. This way they can try out more than one thing. If a student has to pigeon-hole themselves and decide what they enjoy and dislike (academically) in sixth grade, then high school and college become stepping stones for a job, where they should be stepping stones for life. This is unfortunate because it means that students wouldn't have the ability to experiment different areas of study in college, and instead would only be able to move through their lives in one direction-- one decided in sixth grade.

When I read this article, it really struck a nerve with me. What do you think about this idea? Do you think it would be beneficial or be detrimental to our society? Why do you think we spend so much time preparing for the future instead of appreciating what we already have?

The Stay-at-Home Dad

I read an article on the New York Times website this week that I thought related really well to our recent unit about men and women's roles in history.

This particular opinion piece talked about how during the current recession, more men are being laid off jobs than women, which means that in a lot of families, the wife is working while the husband is not. This means that the untraditional stay-at-home dad is becoming an increasingly normal occurrence in families across America. But at the same time, this idea is not widely accepted due to the gender stereotypes that have been established in the past, in this case mainly the idea that men should work while women should stay at home.

This idea of breaking the gender stereotypes and accepting something that is not considered "ordinary" is hard for a lot of people in America. In this article, Collins talks about how we are "a country that has spent so many generations celebrating the housewife" and now "could show a little enthusiasm for the full-time dad." After we have spent time in class talking about America's apparent  inability to adapt to new and different ideas, it occurred to me that maybe we are unable to accept the idea of the stay-at-home dad because we have been focusing so much on creating the image of a housewife in the past, and it has since been transformed into an expectation.

Why do you think that America has such a difficult time with change? I personally see nothing wrong with the stay-at-home dad and I don't see fathers staying home with their kids as a weakness. What I don't really understand is why we as a country cannot accept this new idea, why we have such a hard time when it comes to change in general. It almost seems like people are so resistant to change that it is viewed as a bad thing, while in fact I think it usually is a source of strength because without change, there is no progress.

The Past, The Present, The Future

I went to Boston this weekend and while I was there, I went to the Holocaust Memorial. As I walked through the six towers that exhaled steam to mimic the gas chambers, I was overwhelmed by the millions of identification numbers written on the walls. 

Although the towers only housed the ID numbers of those who died, this memorial was a tribute to all individuals affected by the Holocaust. This made me think a lot about our recent conversations in class about reparations. After seeing this memorial, I came to the conclusion that the most meaningful and personal type of reparation is a formal apology. In my own life, I have found that it is difficult to openly apologize for something you did that you know was wrong, but it's the only way to face your mistake. On the other end, even when you are unable to excuse the action of the person giving the apology, it means a lot to receive one. In a lot of ways, this is not comparable to an apology for something like the Holocaust, or in terms of our class discussions, to slavery. But regardless of the scale of the event, I think it's still necessary for wrongdoers to face their mistakes. Other types of reparations, like monetary or experiential (like the GI Bill), do not allow individuals to face their mistakes in the same capacity. I think they can be used in addition to- but not instead of- an apology.

Although an apology cannot take away the actions of the Holocaust or of slavery, it's a way to acknowledge that actions in the past were not just. Contrary to what some people said in class last week, I think that it is important and necessary to reflect and learn from the past. The past is the past, but it 100% influences the present and the future. If we do not learn from past mistakes, how do we expect to grow? Without reflecting on the past, how can we ensure we do not make the same mistakes in the future?

HERSTORY

Last week, I read an article about how some people reacted to being nominated for the Academy Awards. Following our Herstory presentations last week, there was one reaction in particular that support the ideas we have been discussing in class.

Kathryn Bigelow is nominated for best director for The Hurt Locker. She is only the fourth female director to ever be nominated for an Oscar. When she got news of her nomination, she responded, "I certainly, if one can give the impression that the impossible is possible, then I am perhaps overwhelmed with joy. But I do think that I hope someday we can lose the modifier and that becomes a moot point whether the person is male or female and they're just filmmakers making statements that they believe in."

One of the main ideas we talked about during the Herstory presentations was the idea that women have been perceived as inferior to men in American society in the past. This quote supports the idea that although women may have progressed, there is still a visible gap between men and women in American society today. Reflecting on the past and the present, is it reasonable to think that we will ever be able to "lose the modifier" in America?

Success

I saw Avatar this weekend, and after our conversations about the movie in class, it was difficult not to watch it through a critical lens. One thing that stuck out to me was the overlying idea that evolution is a cycle. I noticed that Jake Sully's video logs took place in 2154 and therefore, his interactions with the Na'vi population took place in the future as well. The idea that the Na'vi's society was based on their interactions with nature demonstrates that future societies may rely on unevolved basics to live, which also supports that development is not a continuum, but is instead a circle.

The idea that the existence of the Na'vi population was dependent solely upon nature contrasts with the values of the human race, which in the movie is represented by Americans. In the movie, the humans were willing to destroy the Omaticaya (a section of the Na'vi clan) and their world on Pandora to obtain a certain material that would make them rich. For them, the ultimate goal is monetary success, and they're willing to destroy anything and everything that stands in the way in order to get it. The human race fixates on material possessions to provide happiness and success, forgetting about simpler things like nature and love, which are the basis of the Na'vi belief system. For the Na'vi people, money does not exist and is of no use, making monetary success a useless and unattainable goal. Since they are not distracted by superficial things, their priority is to protect what they know and love-- nature. As long as they can stay in touch with nature and their Goddess Ewa, they are successful. For them, life is in and of itself success.

How do you define success? What type of success is valued in the American society? Is this the type of success we should be striving for as individuals/ as a country? How does Avatar challenge the things we have come to see as important?

Creating Yourself

"Life isn't about finding yourself, it's about creating yourself."

George Bernard Shaw

For what I hope is an obvious reason, this quote made me think a lot about the creativity aspect of our class, but also about a blog post I wrote earlier this year. In this previous post, I considered the idea that education stifles creativity, that we lose creative ability because it is not actively used during school. However, this quote made me reconsider the idea all together. Maybe it's not so much that we've lost it, just that we mask it- call it something else- and forget that we have the ability to use it.

When I was younger, I was taught in school that being creative is a way to distinguish and set yourself apart from others. In terms of school, this meant thinking outside the box and coming up with individual ideas and projects. But by time I had reached seventh or eighth grade, this creative way of thinking wasn't valued so highly, and success in school was focused more on the output rather than the path taken to get there. In my previous blog post, this is what led me to believe that schooling forces us to lose our ability to be creative. However, I failed to realize that creativity is necessary beyond a schooling environment and that it is the fundamental of individuality.

The quote by George Bernard Shaw says that "life is not about finding yourself." "Finding yourself" implies that who you are yet to become already exists, you just have to look for it. Like George Bernard Shaw, I would argue that this is inaccurate because you do not already exist, not until you create who you want to be. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I was wrong in my other blog post. We can't lose our ability to be creative because we use it all the time. We are creativity in it's purest form.

In my personal opinion, our American Studies reflects life in the sense that neither are possible without creativity. What do you think about this quote? Is creativity a fundamental of life, or does it just a skill that has the ability to be lost?

The Little Engine That Could

One of the books I remember from my childhood is The Little Engine That Could. In this book, a little steam engine is too small to carry herself and the rest of her train cars up the hill. So she leaves the cars at the bottom and goes to search for help. She eventually finds another young steam engine that is willing to help her and together, the two engines return to the bottom of the hill and begin to pull. Slowly, the other cars start to move. As motivation, they chant "I-think-I-can, I-think-I-can" until they reach the top of the mountain, where the little steam engine says thank you and sings "I-thought-I-could, I-thought-I-could" as she continues with her journey.

The phrase "I think I can" holds a lot of meaning. The train believed in her ability to find a way to get her cars up the hill, and her self-motivation and determination allowed her to find a solution to the problem. At a young age, children that read this book learn that it is not a weakness to ask others for help, but most importantly that if you think you can do something, you can.

The Hunger Games

The other day in class we talked about how advertisements use and exploit children to get certain results from the viewer. Prior to this, however, we talked a lot about civil liberties and human rights. I recently read a book called The Hunger Games that relates and parallels to both of these units. This book takes place in a future society that has evolved from America, and a society in which the government has ultimate control over the country (the majority of the people in this society have lost all simple liberties and are extremely unhappy). This is one view of how repression of civil liberties could be taken to the extreme in the future, to the point where citizens are at complete mercy of governmental control. It directly addresses the government's ability to repress civil liberties during times of peril, but also how this repression can continue beyond the perilous time. Here is a passage:

"Just as the town clock strikes two, the mayor steps up to the podium and begins to read. It's the same story every year. He tells of the history of Panem, the country that rose up out of the ashes of a place that was once called North America. He lists the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land, the brutal war for what little sustenance remained. The result was Panem, a shining Capitol ringed by thirteen districts, which brought peace and prosperity to its citizens. Then came the Dark Days, the uprising of the districts against the Capitol. Twelve were defeated, the thirteenth obliterated. The Treaty of Treason gave us the new laws to guarantee peace and, as our yearly reminder that the Dark Days must never be repeated, it gave us the Hunger Games.

The rules of the Hunger Games are simple. In punishment for the uprising, each of the twelve districts must provide one girl and one boy, called tributes, to participate. The twenty-four tributes will be imprisoned in a vast outdoor arena that could hold anything from a burning desert to a frozen wasteland. Over a period of several weeks, the competitors must fight to death. The last tribute standing wins.

Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another while we watch -- this is the Capitol's way of reminding us how totally we are at their mercy. How little chance we would stand of surviving another rebellion. Whatever words they use, the real message is clear. 'Look how we take your children and sacrifice them and there's nothing you can do. If you lift a finger, we will destroy every last one of you. Just as we did in District Thirteen'" (19-20).

In this situation, the government exploits children in order to maintain power over the people and ensure that another uprising does not occur. Based on what we have discussed in class, why do you think The Capitol has chosen to use children? Also, at what point do the people of a country become at the mercy of their government? When does the government's focus shift from protecting the people to protecting the government's power?

A Silver Lining

I recently read an article called In Recession, Americans Doing More, Buying Less. This article emphasized an upside to the current American economy, stressing that economic turmoil allows individuals and families to separate necessities from excess, and recognize that experiential activities trump material possessions.

This article emphasizes that people today are letting the recession influence their lives in a positive way instead of a negative way, embracing simple but often overlooked activities like going to museums and the park with their family. One man in particular, Mr. Moyota (an artist and freelance art director in advertising), is "trying to teach kids that you don’t need to have expensive toys to have fun... You can make it fun, from anything.” I think that this is an important fundemental that has been overlooked in recent times, in part due to the focus shift of advertising we have been talking about in class. Material possessions- for both adults and children- may play a factor in happiness, but in no way create happiness. They are catalysts that lead to easier lifestyles, but not always better lifestyles.

I can reflect on my own life and say that I, too, am victim to this. I take so many aspects of my life for granted and am unable to appreciate them for all they are worth. Although the economy has not affected me in a major way, I have had other experiences that have taught me to embrace what I have instead of mourning what I don't have or used to have. I think this is the lesson that the recession has taught so many Americans. They have realized that money is important, but the things it can buy are not necessary. There are countless activities you can do for free, and many people are noticing without an abundance of money, these activities can be more rewarding than expected.

The recession has forced Americans to understand the power of money, but also how this power influences their experiences, priorities, and happiness. In this respect, the cloud does have a silver lining. But why is it that a negative event- such as a poor economy- is necessary for people to see the positive aspects in their lives? Why can we not see how good we have it until it's threatened or lost?