American Upward Mobility Movies

After reading Cullen’s chapter on “The Dream of the Good Life (II): Upward Mobility” I really thought he brought up several good points. One I focused on even more, maybe because it relates to a lot of our lives, is his quote on the concept of underdog stories in American.   

“For hundreds of years, American readers and writers have had tireless appetites for tales of poor boys (and, later, girls) who, with nothing but pluck and ingenuity, created financial empires that towered over the national imaginations and in some cases towered over the national landscape as well).”

(pg. 60)

It’s true. Everyone wants the underdog to win in many of the stories presented in American literature, and today, in American films. How often do the underdogs come out on “top” in some form (fortune, fame, glory). It has been a theme common to America for a very long time. There are countless films about the sports teams battling back with many underdog type problems, yet they still keep making those movies. Even movies like Star Wars, Babe or Disney films like Ratatouille all have that same kind of theme where minorities can raise themselves up and gain from that work.

This has the “newer” (II) American Dream written in every work. I have to wonder though, is this just an American concept which we like to hear or read, or is this an interesting topic for humankind as a whole? I do feel like we love to embrace this idea as our own in America, and yes it is a very American type of concept, but I think “heroic” (upward mobility) type stories have been written forever, in many cultures, even in ancient times.

Sentence Structure Practice

I really enjoyed this assignment of rewriting sentences in class over the last couple of days. To take apart someone else’s sentence and write in that style was difficult at first to do. It went against the “norm” for me when forming sentences. The structure made me have to work harder to convey ideas but it also caused me to write a more interestingly formulated sentence (even if it was a pretty easy topic!). This helped me to vary sentence structure and I think I will use this task on the next paper, to give my writing a little more variation.

Original:

“Yet the core components of Franklin’s dream as expressed in his writings- trust in the basic decency of human beings, a belief that earthly and heavenly rewards are broadly consonant, and , above all, a serene confidence that both can be attained- reflected the core convictions of a great many Americans of his time” (Cullen, pg 65)

Mine:

The major components to blizzard- stormy clouds, forceful winds, frigid temperatures, and most importantly, massive snowfall- were all present in Northfield, Minnesota’s weather last night.

More on apocalyptic theories...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=97756&page=1

I was inspired the other day to look further into apocalyptic theories after our class discussion. It seems like a very common theme among people to be curious and thoughtful on this topic. It is human nature to want to know what happens in the future and this particular theme is one that especially interests humans. I mean, why else are people so interested (even to the point of making movies, or facebook groups, etc.) just about the year 2012? Just because the Mayan calendar recycles that year, people have read into this fact in many different ways. I then wanted to look up other scientific theories on the topic of the end of life/ the Earth, which I found several. But here is a recent article which sparked my interest partially because it was recently written, but also because research was done close to my home at the University of Washington (which always sparks more interest).  

This article mostly focused on the Sun as the reason for the end of the earth. Once that important star burns out, life on earth will end (but that is not expected for billions of years so….) Other theories around this include problems from too much, or later on not enough carbon dioxide. Another theory presented is that the sun will go through phases of evolution, as it is currently very slowly getting hotter over time. Basically there are numerous theories on this topic which humankind is concerned with. It not only is in debate through religious points of view, but science as well.

Spanish Class Democracy Topic

I have found so far this year that several topics in my classes have correlated. For instance: the idea of Democracy in America. This seems to be a topic we will be working with throughout this semester in AmCon, but now I have even had it be the discussion for many days in my Spanish class. It was interesting because we are trying to come up with important information that could be put onto an atlas about the United States. Besides New York, big companies (mostly McDonalds) and diversity, another major piece to the United States, according to our class is Democracy. It may have been due to the fact we were trying to say things using the extremely little spanish dictionary we know or something more. In our Spanish Atlas, in the section on the United States there was a very small portion that even mentioned democracy. Is democracy something we value as Americans and other countries barely notice? Or do we (Americans) just hold democracy on an extremely high pedestal?

My Initial Def. of Democracy

I am really glad this semester has a focus on the idea of democracy. The idea is difficult to comprehend and I feel like there will never be a clear and easy definition fully describing democracy. Just like our class’s concept of “dense fact”, democracy will always be “played with” changing and updating its definition.

In America we find ourselves understanding Democracy in terms of the governing style we have. Since we have a representative Democracy style government that is typically our mindset of how all democratic governments should be. Democracy mostly is known to mean that the government’s power is derived from the people as a whole. A democracy would mean that all people vote for every issue in the country, which is not possible or performed in America. Many times in America it is assumed that this style of government is the greatest and that all others types are inferior. Whether or not that is true, I feel like it is a type of government in which most people feel like they do get some say in how the country is run. Since people feel like they participate, I feel like nationalism is sparked off of this governing style.

One point I found interesting from yesterday’s class conversation was how automatically we assume the best way to make a decision is to take a vote. This is common in the culture I have grown up with. Even on a daily basis I vote on what time we eat dinner, or where a group meets after class. The common person and their say are very prided through democracy. I feel like “say” is the backbone of this governing form.   

Democracy is not clear cut though. There are no particular guidelines or rules as to how a democratic government is ran. That is what changes democracy through time. Whitman stated in his Democratic Vistas that he assumed “Democracy to be at present in its embryo condition, and that the only large and satisfactory justification of it resides in the future…” I believe the future and hope for that future is also a large part to democracy. Without hope for change in the future, I think democracy would be much less successful. Instead of finding flaws in the governing style, democracy would stay consistent but problematic. Since pure democracy is hard to obtain I feel that America as a whole is constantly attempting to reach a more pure form of that governing style. As a country “fair” or “equal” power in the way the government is run is a common goal of this nation. We are a nation that historically has constantly been fighting for equal rights and representation. The ultimate equality and say would be the goal of democracy, but this will constantly be a struggle for years to come. The future of democracy is what makes it even more unique as a form of government.

An example with the struggles of redefining democracy was the Civil War which Whitman lived through. Whitman says that after this war he hoped progressive changes could be made. The American idea of democracy could be altered again, and be redefined. Could America change from this war? Would it become more of the democracy Whitman believed in? Whitman even quotes Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address on the more ideal concept of Democracy, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

I believe this is the ultimate goal of democracy, although it is a struggle for humankind. Democracy is a difficult form of government to run, and will constantly need alterations. As Walt Whitman suggests, the future is the key to democracy. Although I have not created a solid definition for myself of democracy yet, these are the important pieces so far that I believe should be included in that definition. 

Fredrick Douglas "America's brighter future"

This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. Three score years and ten is the allotted time for individual men; but nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence.
-Fredrick Douglas

I really enjoyed this passage in Fredrick Douglas' speech. The way he uses the storm to portray his message was really interesting and effective. I also like how he explained that America was still young, and has much potential for its future. That is a great way to reach the audience, and it helps them to listen and want to change for the better.

Dialogue

Sarah and I wrote out a short script which we felt might happen the following historical persons and author meet up to discuss freedom. They have varying different views on freedom and I feel like we left off the discussion at a part in which it could have become pretty heated. They time in which they lived is very different and the "norm" point of view society had about freedom also was extremely different.    

Historical Persons/Author:

Anne Hutchinson

Thomas Jefferson

Ronald Takaki

Overall question:

Is it possible for Americans to exert their freedoms without suppressing the freedoms of minorities?

Dialogue:

Takaki: Throughout history, the white majority has oppressed minorities from personal freedoms in order to pursue their freedoms to the fullest extent they believed possible.

Anne Hutchinson: To further this point, it was not solely based on race. Many women were oppressed of these freedoms because men viewed women as inferior.

Thomas Jefferson: It was necessary at the time for the white majority to suppress the minorities and women because the country was not fully stabilized. It is not that I wanted to fully oppress the minorities and women, for example, I have stated that Native Americans and whites are both “Americans, born in the same land,” and hopefully we will achieve the ability to have good relations in the future.

Takaki: This was not your intent because in my research, I have discovered that you wanted to “encourage them to abandon hunting and turn to agriculture”, put them in financial ruin, and remove them from the borders of civilized society.

Anne Hutchinson: The white man’s stupidity in oppressing others from their freedoms can also be exemplified in my case because I was viewed as a threat to the religious hierarchy in Boston and as a threat, I was subsequently forced to leave Boston. So therefore, who has the right to determine who is eligible for the same freedoms?