While leaving the year 2011 and entering the year 2012, one specific thing comes to mind: the end of the world. The Mayans stated in a prophecy that on December 21st, 2012 (12.21.12), a cataclysmic event will occur. This event has been interpreted in two ways; the first way is referred to as a New Age interpretation, believing that the Earth will be transformed in a positive way (either physically or spiritually). The second way is thinking the 21st will be "the end of the world" and is very similar to the idea of an apocalypse. To read more information on this prophecy, you can read here.
Over the years, society has been anticipating and has had a lot of fun hyping up the "big day". A film released in 2009, 2012, is a disaster movie that illustrated the impending end of the world and the struggle of a specific family trying to survive. Sure, it was a huge flop with the critics, but everyone came to see it--not for the deep, underlying meaning of the film, but the riveting experience of watching the world that we have built up all these years come to a crumbling end. The audience was simply fascinated.
Why do you think, as Americans, we choose to interpret a day that can have a potentially positive effect on the world as the ultimate end? America is seen as a place of opportunity and full potentially great things--not a place that expects failure. Why do we have such an un-characteristicly negative outlook on the future?
Today in class, we discussed the confrontation between Frederick Douglass and his master, Mr. Covey. Covey is described as a poor slave owner with a reputation to "break" free-spirited slaves. It was guaranteed he could tame them. After Douglass was whipped countless times and was pushed past his limit, he fought back. "Mr. Covey seemed now to think he had me, and could do what he pleased; but at this moment-- from whence came the spirit I don't know -- I resolved to fight" (42, Douglass).
After fighting back, and winning, Douglass remained a slave for four more years, but was never whipped again. This was considered a major triumph, not just for Douglass, but for any slave. The fact that Covey stopped enforcing such cruel behavior on a slave that fought back was shocking for the time period.
After Douglass was free, he did not recruit men to physically attack those practicing slavery, but instead wrote the book called Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass about his life as an enslaved man. We are actually currently reading it in class. This is very different than the soldiers that volunteered to fight in the Civil War in the film Glory that we watched in class. In this movie, men idolized acts of violence, considering it a valiant effort to support what was right.
American society idolized individuals and supports those who actively fight for what they believe in. Douglass chose to speak his mind and write a book on slavery to emotionally and mentally appeal to people opposed to physical violence--an act that worked well in his past with Mr. Covey.
Why do you think he chose literature to appeal to listeners opposed to violence? Do you think this choice was more affective?
This morning on Facebook, I saw a link of JayFunk, a famous Los Angeles street dancer, fingertutting. Tutting is a style of hip hop street dance that is based off of Egyptian hieroglyphics. It emphasizes beats in the music and almost looks like the dancer is a robot. JayFunk was using this style of dance, but limiting it to just his hands. To see what I'm talking about, watch the video below.
At the end of this epic one minute and fourtey-seven second video, there was a quick zoom out to a Samsung Galaxy SII phone, completely touch screen, and said "unleash your fingers."
First off, I was shocked that this movie was even a commercial. As a dancer, I know that artists constantly throw videos of their repertoire out onto the internet to further publicize their name in the dance community, and fact he chose to further publicize his talent by starring a Samsung commercial blew my mind. The Samsung Galaxy SII has virtually nothing in common with street dancing, but the slogan "unleash your fingers" stated at the end made all the difference by emphasizing the bridge between fingertutting and this new touch screen phone. Customers of Samsung won't want to buy this phone now because it's the cheapest, the fastest, or the most reliable. They will want to buy it because it's "cool." By associating this visually satisfying form of movement with this phone, the consumer believes the Galaxy SII has equal amounts of "awesome" associated with it.
My question: would this video influence Americans to buy this phone? Americans value success--something JayFunk clearly displays. Despite this, we also value efficiency, low prices, and state-of-the-art technology, something that the ad didn't even bring up once. Despite the lack of those many contributing factors, do you think Americans will still buy the phone?
As we all know, Thanksgiving (our epic celebration of food and America) is right around the corner, and with Thanksgiving comes the even more exciting day after: Black Friday. A day that is dedicated to the holiday shopping season and an infinite amount of bargains and deals at every store across America. I know that I personally have woken up at 4 am, still full from my dinner last night, running all over creation trying to hit my favorite shops. As fun as this sounds, there is a definite dark side to the day as well. There have been a handful of tragic deaths due to stampedes into stores and early bird shoppers getting trampled by people so driven to take advantage of the sales.
This afternoon I was google searching the hours that most businesses will be opening Black Friday, and to my astonishment, many businesses have chosen to open ON Thanksgiving Day. According to an article on ABC, for the first time ever Target, Macy's, Best Buy, and Kohls are opening their doors at midnight on Thursday. To read the full article, visit this link.
Obviously, this choice is very controversial to the people of the USA. On one hand, America is an economically and time motivated country. It makes sense that businesses will want to elongate their business hours for more profit. Despite this, some American people feel that this choice is taking away from the sacred holiday of Thanksgiving--a day dedicated to celebrating family and giving thanks for the things we hold dear.
So, what do you think? Is this choice to start Black Friday a day early a justified one? Is it not the more "American" choice? Or is this change one that will take away from our sanctified holiday?
This past week, my AIS class took an excursion down into the city to explore the extreme separation of different Chicago neighborhoods and also to see the Vision of Communism exhibit on Communist propaganda at the Smart Museum in Hyde Park. The artist that created the unique propaganda was Viktor Koretsky, a man whose artwork concentrated on the emotional link between Soviet citizens and others across the globe struggling for independence (see more information here).
The piece of art that I found most interesting was a picture of a black soldier smiling, holding a gun, smoking a cigarette, with a pile of skulls behind him. He was also adorned with many expensive watches, bracelets, and necklaces. What furthered my interest was the drawing below it--the exact same image with the colors flipped, so the soldier was white but the skulls behind him were black. This image I am describing should be to the right of this text.
These two pictures really got me thinking about the message Koretsky was trying to send about his view on Communism. Automatically, when I think of the contrast between black and white, I jump to the clash between good and evil. Was Koretsky saying that the soldiers fighting for Communism were wicked or pure? Does the jewelry represent corruption or rewards for good intentions? Do the skulls represent those who deserved to die, or were killed unjustly? Or, maybe, is the entire controversy a gray area?
While talking with Sheridan, a member of the elite AIS BO'Connor team, a topic of constant discussion came up: The North Shore. We are all very privileged to live in a community that is known across the country having the best neighborhoods, schooling, and security This is all, of course, on top of living on one of the largest and most beautiful fresh water lakes on the continent. How can a location so close to the big city of Chicago (a place supposedly full of ruffians and hooligans) be so successful as a society? The answer: money. Seven of the North Shore communities are in the top quintile of of U.S. Household income, and four of those are in the top ten (Thanks Wikipedia)! Real estate prices here are out of control, reaching millions of dollars for a two story house, not necessarily even on the lake or next to the schools! The educators of the community are paid top dollar, receiving unlimited support by parents and members of the towns. Taxes are also rather pricy (understandably so), funding law enforcement to be active around the community.
This sounds like practically a dream, doesn't it? A perfect education, unlimited resources, and a practically guaranteed safe environment. Who WOULDN'T want to live here? Surprisingly, a lot of people (even myself at times) will complain about growing up in a place like this. I have heard many statements, such as "There's no diversity in a place like this" and "The North Shore is a bubble, it's not the real world."
Sheridan got me thinking, don't we WANT these things? The American dream can be defined as the "perfect" lifestyle, living in a perfect place full of perfect people doing perfect things with their lives. Isn't displaying wealth and living in a nearly surreal neighborhood what all Americans are working towards on a daily basis? Are we, the students of New Trier and members of the North Shore, living the American Dream?
I was shocked today after hearing about a massive animal slaughter that took place in Zanesville, Ohio, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. A man named Terry Thompson, an owner of about 60 exotic animals, let them all loose on his farm shortly before shooting himself in the head. The police made the call to shoot all of the animals, fearing that if anyone tried to capture them, they would be mauled to death. This course of action rubbed many animal lovers the wrong way. The police claimed that "Tranquilizer guns proved ineffective — and in some cases, weren't even available." Despite hearing this, some are still having trouble digesting that they killed 18 endangered Bengal tigers, 17 lions, and 6 black bears. For more information, feel free to read this article. Did the government make the right decision? As Americans, we tend to make decisions that benefit both the individuals of society AND the greater good. True, there was potential for an accident involving a human, but automatically resorting to killing MULTIPLE breeds of endangered animals was "the right thing to do?" How do you think the government should have handled the predicament?
This past weekend has been a joyous occasion for all New Trier students, being a four day weekend opposed to your average two day weekend. As delightful as this is, there's a twist. Although the school's schedule is atypical, curfew does not change. Curfew in the state of Illinois is 10 p.m. on week nights and 11 p.m. on weekends. Since we had Friday and Monday off, two of our four nights was cut an hour short due to the government and it's law regarding curfew.
This is not only at times confusing to the minor population of the North Shore, but it is also irritating. Why should I have to be home by 10 if I don't have school tomorrow? This question got me to think even more about curfew, not just during this four day weekend, but as a system in general. Why is the government allowed to dictate what time a teenager needs to be at their house? Parents of the children to whom the curfew law applies are legally responsible for them and their actions. Should they not be the ones who determine what time their child should be home every night? As American's, we truly value our freedom as individuals and our government allowing us to practice our rights.
Isn't it the American thing to do to NOT abide by curfew? Would it not make more sense for parents to tell their children what time to be home by? Or is curfew just a friendly reminder to the community that rambunctious teens should not be roaming the streets late at night and enforcing parental responsibility?
Being juniors in high school, we are all beginning to experience the joys of the ACT and SAT, both college entrance exams that are considered a standard way of assessing knowledge. Everyone is asked the same questions and is given the same amount of time to answer them. Sounds fair, right?
After attending my first of many ACT prep classes today, I started thinking about all the other people that have to go through the same process. Everyone is required to take the test and are given the opportunity to take the test multiple times (in case your full potential was not captured in your initial test). There are also ACT/SAT prep classes offered to anyone who can afford them. Most kids take the test at least twice on the North Shore, if not five or six times, and attend multiple preparatory classes where there are practice tests and tutors. At each tutoring session, there is a fee--a fee that some cannot afford due to their economic status. There is also a fee for every ACT/SAT the student takes. What about the less fortunate students who can only afford to take the test once? The students that can't afford practice ACT classes or private tutors? How can they be considered a standardized tests when there are thousands of kids that aren't getting the extra preparation that other students are?
As American's, we value equality more than any other moral in our culture. Is it "fair" to provide tutoring, practice tests, and the opportunity to retake tests multiple times to all students, knowing that only a select few can take advantage of the privilege?
So, as we all know, New Trier's Homecoming dance was last night and has really gotten the student body stirred up about it. Everyone has the opportunity to attend the first dance of the year while having to deal with the drama of getting a date, buying the ridiculously overpriced tickets, getting a group to go with, finding an elaborate restaurant to dine at, renting out a stretched limo, and finding a house to keep the after party going the rest of the night. At almost any other high school, public or private, the routine is nothing close to that of a trevian. There are no dates, dinners, or party buses equipped with a sound system, mini bar, and strobe light. Also, the guys are not in charge of paying for all these luxuries for both themselves and their dates. Is it chivalry? As much as we would love to believe it, it's pretty clear what it is: tradition. Why do New Trier kids still feel the need to maintain this pricy custom?
As American teenagers, we value the ability to make unique choices. Sure, the upperclassmen have the freedom to choose which theme to dress up as at the dance, where to eat, who to ask to the dance, and how to get there. Why can't students choose to break the structured and elaborate tradition we have been presented with all together? We're choosing to spend all this money on one night, but do we feel like we have to? Why do New Trier students feel the need to create such an elaborate Homecoming night while kids across the rest of the country treat it so casually?
Tomorrow is 24 Hours of Reality, an event that I find extremely important for others to participate in. It will address global climate change, an inconvenient truth that is taking place across the globe. This event will be airing in 24 different time zones, 13 languages, and will last 24 hours. I think it's important to watch this short film before you continue reading, to ensure the understanding of the event and what it's purpose is.
This video was actually shown to me by my father--a man who is on a mission to save the world (and is also obsessed with hybrid cars, recycling, LED light bulbs, and vegetarianism). Although many would argue that he will have virtually no impact on a world full of gas-guzzling Hummers, they are wrong. The purpose of this day is to inform the public about HOW to make a difference: joining together to shrink our carbon footprint by everyone doing their part. They're not saying everyone should sell their cars or never turn on a light switch again. The event is promoting small alterations in each person's daily routines across the globe, removing an immense about of greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the carbon footprint. Sounds super simple, right? This straightforward strategy has had some trouble catching on, especially in the United States of America.
The U.S. is the second largest contributing country to the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Although we are a very large country with many inhabitants, we are a very wealthy and advanced one as well. Why can we not adapt our relatively care-free lifestyles for the benefit of the world and our futures?American's are supporters of efficient and economically appealing investments--such as buying a hybrid car. LED lightbulbs are also a great buy. Although they are slightly more expensive than other types of light bulbs, they last up to 50,000 hours (42 times longer than incandescent light bulbs).
There are countless pieces of technology that should appeal to the American population, but global climate change is still a challenge we are struggling to conquer. Is the reason we cannot seem to make a change in our carbon footprint the lack of caring? Our reluctance to change? Our American tendency to focus on the individual effects versus the big picture? Or are none of these possibilities correct?
Don't forget to tune in Wednesday, September 14th at 9pm!
Here's the link to the website: http://climaterealityproject.org/the-event/
This previous week, it was brought to the attention of both students and parents at New Trier High School that the student dress, one that is supposed to encourage "adolescents to develop their own style of dress" (Tim Dohrer, principal of the school) has been taken advantage of, and by doing so has tainted the learning environment. Students and parents were notified both in advisory discussions and via email. The administration addressed the problems caused by girls with "low jeans, short skirts, short shorts, crop tops, strapless or backless shirts, see-through tights, and revealing tank tops that...are inappropriate for an educational setting" (Dohrer). The scandalous attire worn by the students of New Trier even made WGN News and the Chicago Tribune.
Although the administration has a valid point in its complaint on promiscuous dress and the repercussions of it, our culture in many ways has embraced this right of individual and unique dress. The appeal of American culture to many is the ability to make choices. Ranging from freedom of speech to the right to bear arms to the freedom of religion, many are probably wondering why kids can't wear the clothes that are sold to them in department stores. Provocative dress is also endorsed and even glorified today in pop culture. Sexualized women and what they wear is broadcasted daily in commercials, movies, and magazines.
While I don't approve or encourage dressing in this manner, I don't believe everyone should be penalized for the actions of a select few attending the school. I feel it's a right to wear the clothes you choose and a responsibility to dress appropriately in an educational environment. I find attire to be a defining characteristic of a person and a great way to express yourself as an individual. Hopefully, more students will be able to both express themselves through their dress while making sure they are not becoming a distraction in the classroom setting.
