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?

An Act of Reconstruction

I read a book recently called The Year of Fog by Michelle Richmond. One of the themes in the book is the reliability of memory, about how we often are unable to remember the small details that matter the most. This book explores the boundary of memory, a topic that we have talked a great deal about in class this year, and one that I find to be increasingly interesting the more I learn about it. Here's a passage from the book:

"A common misconception is that memory is like some kind of computer that stores and retrieves information. The truth is, memory is an act of reconstruction. Every time we remember an event, we piece together rough drafts of the of the event based on our lifetime of experiences... Memory is not unlike a photograph with multiple exposures. One event is layered on top of another, so that it is impossible to distinguish the detail of the two. The older we get, the more multiple-exposure memories we have. Temporal relationships become elastic. As the years progress and we experience more and more, the mini-narratives that make up our lives are distorted, corrupted, so that every one of us is left with a false history, a self-created fiction about the lives we have led" (Richmond 162-63).

The idea that my memory is not a reliable way to remember the past, that what I know may not be the truth, that my memory could fail me when I need it the most, kind of scares me. In this quote, it talks about how our experiences following an event are reflective in how we remember that event. But the question I have is not how our future influences the way we remember our past, but how does the way we remember our past- our reconstructed memories- influence our future?

35 Years of Lost Time

I read a really interesting article the other day about James Bain, a man who was exonerated earlier this week after serving 35 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. In 1974, when he was 19 years old (pictured left), Bain was arrested for kidnapping and raping a 9-year old boy. Regardless of his confirmed alibi, Bain was sentenced to life in jail. But thanks to new DNA-testing techniques, it was recently determined that Bain could not have commited the crime.

How could the court have made this mistake? Rationally, I understand that mistakes happen, but isn't the point of the justice system to prevent things like this from happening? It made me kind of mad to think that this man wasted so much of his rightful life behind bars. But my own feelings aside, what surprises me is that Bain is not bitter. Not in the least bit. "No, I'm not angry," he said. "Because I've got God." He has decided not to dwell on the past, but instead embrace what his future holds- a future that until recently held nothing- understanding that being angry would only result in more time being lost.

On the bright side, one good thing for Bain is that he is entitled to $1.75 million. A few years ago, Florida passed a law that entitles inmates found innocent to $50,000 per year they spent in prison. Do you think this is proper compensation for 35 years behind bars? How do you compensate for taking away something away that can never be returned, that you can never get back?

Photo courtesy of CNN Justice

Is Education Stifling Creativity?

After reading Mr. O'Connor's blog post about creativity, I started thinking a lot about how creativity affects education, but more about how education affects creativity. I came upon a video of Sir Ken Robinson giving a speech called "How Schools Stifle Creativity" at the TED conference in 2006.

This video showed me a perspective that I was lacking as a student myself. Mr. Robinson believes that although we are all born with great innate talents and creativity, our creative abilities are not recognized in traditional schooling curriculums and we are therefore rarely able to apply them in settings where they should matter the most, in places where it has the greatest potential to grow if given the opportunity.

Education is narrowly focused to the output. As Mr. Robinson puts it, the goal of public education is to produce young adults that have the cognitive ability to be "college professors," a profession where factual education trumps creativity. He makes the argument that "We don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it... we get educated out of it." I've never given this idea much thought, and right after I watched the video, I didn't think I agreed with Mr. Robinson's perspective. But after pondering it for a while, I have realized that traditional schooling environments don't give kids and young adults the opportunity to regularly tap into their creative abilities, and since it is not actively being used, it becomes useless.

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you believe that school systems are stifling (not necessarily intentionally) children's creativity, or not? Does academic accomplishment define success? How does creativity have a role in success?

Invisible Racism

In People magazine a few weeks ago, the cover article was about children who vanished without a trace. Recently, I was reading some reflections on this article, and there was one that made me think about how race silently continues to impact America: "Being the founder of the blog Black and Missing But Not Forgotten, I was happy to see that your cover included two missing blacks. It's a relief to see that someone knows it's not just whites who vanish."

This quote made me realize that inequality between the majority and minorities in America continues to be a problem today, just not as explicitly and not in the same way it used to be. The purpose of Black and Missing But Not Forgotten "is to raise awareness of the racial disparities in mainstream media's reporting of missing persons of color... to draw more attention to missing minorities and help bring them home." The founders of this blog believe that the media pays less attention to minorities than to the majority. But why? This doesn't make any sense to me. We're all American, so for the media what makes missing whites more important than missing blacks?

According to Ernis Suggs, vice president of print for the National Association of Black Journalists, "There is a certain level of interest, a certain fascination with White missing persons... Americans identify with who they want to be." After processing this quote, it occurred to me that there are people that still equate being white with being American, while they should equate being American with being American. Although inequality between races does not affect the public the way it used to, it's clearly still an issue. In class, we have talked a lot about how the media chooses what information to feed to the public. In this situation, what gives the media the right to write stories pertaining to some races more than others? Are they the root of this invisible racism?

Forest Kindergarden

Earlier this year, I blogged about the idea "experience is education," that children need to experience something to fully understand it. Recently, I read an article about forest kindergardeners, a concept that directly addresses the importance of learning through experiencing. Forest kindergarden has been popular in Europe for years and is now gaining popularity in the United States. The 23 forest kindergardeners at the Waldorf School at Saratoga Springs (there are over 100 Waldorf Schools across the nation that offer a variation of the same program) spend at least three hours every day outside, warm or cold, rain or shine. These kids- ranging in age from 3 to 6- have no academic curriculum until first grade. For them, nature is their classroom and the sky is the limit. 

Using their natural surroundings, these children are able to make discoveries that are not possible in a traditional classroom setting. With their imagination and Saratoga Spring's 325 acres of land, there are an infinite number of things to explore and examine.

I see nothing wrong with this type of education for young kids. I think that experience can only enhance and reinforce education, and this forest kindergarden supports this. According to the Waldorf Schools, this type of schooling for young children is favorable because "research has shown that free play in nature increases children's cognitive flexibility, emotional capacity, critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, use of imagination, self-esteem, and self-discipline. It makes them smarter, more cooperative, healthier, and happier." So if forest kindergarden has all the above benefits, what is the downside to this type of early education? Should schools across America continue to adapt this type of program, or does traditional preschooling provide a better learning environment?