06/07/2015: Sophomore Year...

Since this is my last blog of the year, I think a final word on reflecting the year seems reasonable. I feel I've grown a lot, even just within these two courses. I've learned a lot about where progress is made in gaining not only knowledge, but new perspective. These courses have taught me a lot about being able to feel comfortable in my ideas and how they are able to connect with educational topics; in other words, a reminder that a lot of what and how we learn comes from ourselves.

But on the focus of course structure, practicing analytical skills I've realized was a crucial part of this year and really impacted my abilities to produce work in a very positive way. That is something I am happy about, especially in the realm of writing, because to continuously improve as a writer is something I really anticipate. I love to write, and throughout the American Literature course I've definitely been able to have a better grasp on types of analysis, a part of writing I would always tend to avoid.

My biggest takeaway is learning to draw these two together. Putting YOUR individuality into how you learn is important, and often happens without us noticing. You acquire many skills in ways that benefit you best. Lots of people, myself included, find that avoiding challenges sounds so much nicer and easier, but unfortunately, you'll learn running from any problem won't do you any good. If at first you fail, try again, yeah? Eventually, if you take it from a different angle, you'll find what pushes you forward best. Then you'll find you continue to improve not only as a student, but your own person as well.

Usually I'm pretty good at finding the right words for what I am trying to say, but today isn't one of those days. Basically the message is, keep trying! Keep learning! Believe in yourself! Aaaaaand finally, good luck on your exams. Get sleep, eat good food, and relax. Summer is almost here. 

Blog for 5/20/2015

One blog prompt for 5/20/15 that I found interesting was the following: Is a militant or violent response to oppression justified?

Ideally one would want to say that no, violence is not and never will be the answer; that peace is the best way to handle any situation at hand- myself included. It would be great if we could just let everything be happy and perfect, right? Yet, there are billions of people in the world, and many that think otherwise. Peace isn't going to be the answer, because we've never chosen peace. Peace isn't what we can have, because oppression has already altered our society far too much, unfortunate as that is. This has molded in a way where our idea of peace is wildly different from one person to the next. Essentially what I am trying to say is that we live in a world where oppression is long existent in history and has influenced much of what we have become; that oppression in itself makes any potential response impossible to be anything but violent.

There was something I was shown and found very interesting, and I bolded out some general points I agreed with and found related to how I feel with the question at hand:

"Non-violence is an inherently privileged position in the modern context. Besides the fact that the typical pacifist is quite clearly white and middle class, pacifism as an ideology comes from a privileged context. It ignores that violence is already here; that violence is an unavoidable, structurally integral part of the current social hierarchy; and that it is people of color who are most affected by that violence. 
People of color in the internal colonies of the US cannot defend themselves against police brutality or expropriate the means of survival to free themselves from economic servitude. They must wait for enough people of color who have attained more economic privilege (the “house slaves” of Malcolm X’s analysis) and conscientious white people to gather together and hold hands and sing songs. Then, they believe, change will surely come. People in Latin America must suffer patiently, like true martyrs, while white activists in the US “bear witness” and write to Congress. People in Iraq must not fight back. Only if they remain civilians will their deaths be counted and mourned by white peace activists who will, one of these days, muster a protest large enough to stop the war. Indigenous people need to wait just a little longer (say, another 500 years) under the shadow of genocide, slowly dying off on marginal lands, until-well, they’re not a priority right now, so perhaps they need to organize a demonstration or two to win the attention and sympathy of the powerful. Or maybe they could go on strike, engage in Gandhian noncooperation? But wait- a majority of them are already unemployed, noncooperating, fully excluded from the functioning of the system.
Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and was “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and, thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy."
-Nonviolence is Racist, How Nonviolence Protects The State by Peter Gelderloos

That being said, we cannot erase the past. We cannot change the mistakes that we've made and the bad things which shaped our society into the position it is in today. We can't destroy the concept of privilege; it is present. Yes, a violent response to oppression is justified, because oppression is unjustifiable, and yet, we allowed it to happen, and we still allow it to continue. We are in too deep to excuse the years and years of these destructive systems lightly. This isn't to promote violence, but reiterate that being able to peacefully handle a society with years and years of oppressive history is, to a greater extent, nearly impossible. While we see cases of nonviolent actions which may somehow benefit the future, they are only a piece of the fight, and not enough to completely push it. Unfortunate as it is, violence has already been here, and will be here, whether it can be able to make things right or not.

The Glass Menagerie

Being a good way into The Glass Menagerie, I find myself really liking the book. Often, when reading or watching works, my immediate thought is to connect with a character or running theme in some way. This is how I usually find immersing myself in a book; by finding a way to empathize with a component of the book, it enables for it to be more applicable to my own life and put that in perspective. That being said, I find Laura to be easy to relate to. While I obviously am not a mirror representation of her life in its entirety, I find myself on a similar emotional level. This is, of course, a similar case for anybody. We'll never be complete replicas of anything down to the simple fact that humanity is much too complex; but there are pieces that make up us and that we are able to share. This isn't an exception between what I find between myself and Laura. In fact, during the discussion we had on Laura in the previous class, I realized a lot of the things people shared on their thoughts in regards to her were very similar if not exactly representative of myself. She appears to be the type who is rather avoidant, paranoid, and insecure. In not thinking of herself as highly as she should, Laura finds ease into keeping herself to what appears to be far in her comfort zone. She thinks because of the lower level she views herself at, it's justifiable to ignoring what might be in front of her. Despite this, Laura is a person who seems to be full of compassion. She puts all her love into other things, an example being Tom. This put all together also exemplifies she has a trait of being selfless. Laura, overall, is the type of person that has a lot to her beneath the surface, and this put together is something identifiable to myself. That being said, I enjoy Laura as a character. 

Women During the 1920s

Happy International Women's Day! Over the course of time there have been many women leaving incredible marks in the world, including many back to the 20s. In our American Studies course, I was apart of the group that covered women and their prominence in this time period, including a few people to be discussed. These three prominent figures were Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, and Margaret Sanger. Both Paul and Burns were American suffragists who partook in protests constantly in hopes of helping towards the ratification of what is known as the 19th Amendment. They often worked side by side, Alice being recognized as the leader strategist and Burns being the organizer. Both ladies were part of the hunger strike which happened during one of their several arrests, and resulted in them and other women being forced fed. Despite being involved in a lot of their work together, both had their independent impacts. Paul is known for having established a legacy of nonviolent actions. Burns took on many protests on her own, including various situations in which she would picket and spread messages via banner(s). Eventually these voices as well as many others were heard upon the ratification of the amendment- women were finally allowed to vote. Aside from Alice and Lucy, there is also Margaret Sanger, who was a birth control activist and easily recognized as the founder of the modern birth control movement. She opened the first birth control clinic in America, which led to a trial (and appeal) to which she made a point that for women to have an equal stance in society, they are to be making their own decisions, including whether or not to bear a child. This, of course, was also influential on health matters- being able to prevent other dangerous situations (an example being unsafe abortions). These, however, are only three examples of uncountable women who fought very hard to make their resilience and strength heard. Still today, women are striving for what they truly deserve, and proving themselves by each day as well. A day such as today is important to commemorate past and present women for contributing so much to the world just as anybody else.

The Gilded Age

Throughout the week our class has delved into the topic of the Gilded Age, a point in time during the late nineteenth century (from about 1870-1900). It was a time of extreme industrial and economic growth. While this was a time of wealth, poverty remained as an issue and became even more so during this period in time in which wages, wealth, and so forth all shot up. Despite the negative aspects, positive ones still existed as well. This attracted immigrants. People, in hopes of reestablishing their lives, came to America. It seemed to be a drive based on the American Dream; and to begin anew with ones self and their family. The interest of America itself could have been apparent already to those who viewed it dreamily as the "land of the free" and wished to take a drastic step in their lives. While of course any reason is possible for immigration, when evaluating this particular time slot, it was mostly based upon the economical expansion which took place. The chance for change was in the air, and some people took that opportunity. This period in time is, to some extent, connected with our American Literature course as well. We have begun reading a novel titled The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, which evidently seems to be set during the "Roaring Twenties", a point in time that came not extremely long after the Gilded Age.

Should We Teach American Values In Public Schools?

A journal entry which presented our class today was whether or not we should allow American values to be taught in public schools. To state off the bat, my answer is no. I do not believe this is something that is even necessary. This is because if we heavily impose something or even just the ideal of it, this can strip cultural and or individual perspective. While this is situational, the fact it can affect someone badly says enough. Whether or not somebody embraces ideals or remains firmly with what they believe in is up to them. To use an example of the narratives we read in class, Luther Standing Bear said that he was able to learn things such as to read and write but still come back to the life he had once known without an issue, and did not come back with anything bad such as addictions. However, the case was not the same for the narrative written by Zitkala-Sa. She had a very terrible experience as they stripped something of her she had cherished; her hair. To summarize the point I am making, regardless of whether or not it is the same for each person, the ability to take away who they are and what they truly stand for is still there. Not only that, but I find the idea of teaching American ideals in public schools to be rather pointless. All kinds of places over the world have diversity that have come from all said places and more. Simply accepting diversity and exploring culture as well as communicating with the people around us can not only teach us of American ideals, but all kinds of cultural morals. If we allow all cultures and people to be what they are- their cultures and themselves, instead of a carbon copy of what we find "normal", I think we'd be able to understand how the world truly is much more.

Why Is Poetry Written?

I think that poetry is written because it is a form of expression. As stated in the packet we had received, "an author is limited to his words to express his feelings and ideas". In this sense, this is no different from when you are writing other texts such as an essays, novels, and so forth. After all, they're composed of mostly words that only come out of our heads, aren't they? Words are all of what we have to create a text from our minds. However, these forms of writing are differentiated for a reason, and that's no exception for poetry. The way I see it, poetry is almost like a secret language. Poets are indeed able to express themselves, their experiences, and others through various ways and kinds of words. However, additionally, it's through words and phrases that mean something specifically to the poet. This is why I am adamant on the idea that although we are open to interpreting poetry as we wish, only the poet may truly understand what it means, as it was their experience, knowledge, and sentiments that created it. While poetry is indeed a form of writing, it has it's individual traits as well. It's expression, a story, a thought; something that wants to be said that can be executed and properly said by the poet themselves. Basically, I think poetry is written for ourselves to open up parts of ourselves in many ways.