Letter to Frederick Douglass Outline

Question: Does everyone have the right to carry out their personal freedoms without having others infringe upon them? Then if one is not given an equal chance at utilizing these personal freedoms, how can they have a legitimate American Dream?

·      This letter is going to revolve around equality

·      Reasons for infringement circulate around gender and race.

·      I am going to use the historical figures and material culture to answer the first question and the place and blog to answer the second

Historical Figures: they are going to be used to illustrate how people were unable to carry out their personal freedoms (Anne Hutchinson) and how people infringed upon the personal freedoms of others (Thomas Jefferson).

Anne Hutchinson – use her to talk about how the personal freedoms of women were greatly suppressed and how these freedoms were overridden to keep the hierarchal leaders’ social structure intact.

 " The ‘dictatorship’ or ‘oligarchy’ ruling the churches of Massachusetts Bay, comprising a hierarchy of ministers, elders, teachers and deacons, were all male, chosen by men; it controlled the terms of acceptance into church membership – as much social and formal recognition of visible salvation as an individual could get,"

“To accept her doctrine would mean the abandonment of the fundamental belief for which the Puritans had crossed the water – the belief that truth for man was to be found in the Bible. It would mean a complete change in their daily lives, in their church, and in their state,” (pg. 637) - Morgan

Thomas Jefferson – use him to show the contradiction between who is allowed to fully utilize their freedoms.

“Thomas Jefferson declared to the Kaskaskias that whites and Indians were both ‘Americans, born in the same land,’ and that he hoped the two peoples would ‘long continue to smoke in friendship together,’” (pg. 45)

“Ultimately, for Jefferson, Indians as Indians would not be allowed to remain within the borders of civilized society,” (pg. 47)

“Seeking to do more than demonstrate and affirm the intelligence of blacks, Banneker also scolded the author of the declaration of Independence for his hypocrisy on the subject of slavery,” (pg. 66)

Material Culture:

The Cross: represents the prominence of religion in the Puritan Era as well as the socially subordinate because the people of the church (hierarchal men) controlled who was allowed to participate in their society. – Anne Hutchinson

The Declaration of Independence: represents a beckon of hope for America and the betterment of the American society, yet it does not fully serve the needs of minority groups because the writers of the Declaration did not have all Americans in the forefront. – Thomas Jefferson

Place & Blog:

 St. Olaf is a place were equality is promoted and no one is suppressed from exercising their personal freedoms. However, people at St. Olaf are restricted from choosing to use their personal freedoms when they violate social standards that cause disrespect to fellow Oles. For example, the library has different floor levels to permit the freedom of choice, but the social standards for one's loudness on specific floors impedes on one's ability to choose which floor they study on. 

My friend and fellow student, Katie Hewett echoes this point by stating, “The individual matters.  We can only define our culture through the individuals who create it, and it is necessary to attempt to place each voice into the equation before attempting to speak for the group,” During Week One at St. Olaf, we learned the phrase “Never Leave An Ole Behind” With this phrase, St. Olaf helps contribute to one’s achievement of the American Dream because Oles’ take pride in helping everyone reach their full potential and achieving their dreams.

Takaki!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNvmcuVt6Rs&feature=related


We watched this for my religion class and at 8:37 it reminded me of the Takaki reading for this past Friday.

Another Blog

In “Afro-American Housing in Virginia’s Landscape of Slavery” it states, “His statement draws attention not only to a private economy within the slave quarters but to alternative slave tastes that favored the purchase of liquor over clothing,” (pg. 220). I found this relatable to an article we read in the past that said the traders who traded with the Indians preferred to trade with them when they were drunk because they could cheat the Indians and encouraged them to drink so they could continue their cheating. These two examples show how throughout history whites have used alcohol as means to keep minority groups suppressed. The article also states how Carter wanted to give his slaves an economic advantage. However, I think he did this to undermine his slaves. Once he realizes his slaves are using their earnings to buy alcohol he does not stop them because he most likely realized they become less powerful and the chance of their rising up is lessened.

Also when I was reading this section it reminded me of Ceremony, by Leslie Marmon Silko because while Tayo and his friends are under the influences of alcohol, they are blind to what is happening around them and are unable to change their futures.

A Party Without a Mandate is Damaging

            Across the nation, the Tea Party Movement is taking American politics by storm. In November’s Midterm Elections, the momentum the Tea Party has generated within recent years was more than noticeable. This can be attributed to celebratory figures within the Tea Party, such as Sarah Palin. With her eloquence and strong presence in the media, Sarah Palin has been able to foster growth and support for the party by endorsing various candidates. However, due to Tea Party’s lack of mandate, the growth and support of the Tea Party is more of a danger to the future of American politics.

            On the national level, Sarah Palin has endorsed 64 candidates running in the House, Senate, and Governor elections. “Campaign 2010: The Politics of Palin” illustrates that of these 64 candidates, 32 were elected. Endorsements in excessive amounts endanger the future of American politics because they create biases towards the candidate. From a psychological perspective, people who favor Sarah Palin are more likely to favor the candidates she endorses because they will believe the candidates are like her. This perspective coincides with the voters’ inability to inform themselves on specific candidates. By believing the candidate is similar to Sarah Palin, the voters will not feel the need to educate themselves on where the candidate stands or the past experiences of the candidate. Ultimately leading to the possibility of electing an under qualified candidate. Furthermore, endorsements endanger the future of American politics because the elected candidate may skew or completely change their original principles in order to keep in favor of their endorser. Due to the Tea Party’s lack of mandate, the idea of candidates falling to the principles of their endorsers is entirely possible. In this sense, Sarah Palin is a puppeteer and the candidates she endorses are her puppets.

            In “Campaign 2010: The Politics of Palin”, the large amount of endorsed Tea Party/Republican candidates gives way to the large citizen population who support the Tea Party. While these candidates and supporters are spread across the nation, it goes without saying there is much diversity amongst the ideals of the candidates and their supporters. In “Tea Party Comes to Power on an Unclear Mandate”, Kate Zernike emphasizes this point by quoting the conflicting viewpoints of Tea Party supporters on how they believe the Tea Party/Republican candidates ought to act once they are elected.

             With the elections come and gone and the Tea Party having no set mandate, it can be argued the Tea Party’s inability to set a mandate is damaging to the future of American politics and the Tea Party itself. The absent mandate is allowing the individual ideals of elected candidates to linger and develop, which in time these ideals will become more precious to the candidates. Therefore when the time comes to set a mandate, the elected Tea Party/Republican candidates will be unwilling to compromise on a mandate if their ideals are not all represented in the way they wish. From here arises the possibility of the elected candidates moving away from the Tea Party and the ideals of their endorser, Sarah Palin. This has the potential to stall American politics because each elected candidate may only want to work for their agenda and be unwilling to work with their counterparts in other parties as well as their own.

                        Tea Party candidates have greatly benefitted from the endorsement of Sarah Palin. In “Campaign 2010: The Politics of Palin”, the graph shows many Americans are willing to stand behind the Tea Party endorsed candidates. Therefore the Tea Party and its elected candidates must realize the importance of setting a mandate in order to bring about beneficial change for the people who elected them.

United States of Jefferson

In “American Neoclassicism, The Idealistic Phase”, it emphasizes how Thomas Jefferson would not base his architectural style off anything British related. As an architect, he criticized the classical taste in architecture because it revolved around classic principles, “Classical taste in architecture was epitomized for Jefferson by the classical orders,” (pg. 290). The same is true for his political beliefs. One could go on to say that this is true for all his belief systems. This isn’t a surprise right? After the Revolution, the colonists couldn’t have kept their previous ideals and methods of thought because it would have remained heavily influenced by the British. The colonists’ could not have had a clean break from only the political influence and kept their social influence. Their break from the British is like the Dominos game, where all the pieces have to fall after you push the first piece.

Paper Part 1

Dense Fact: The Sarah Palin Tracker Political Chart

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/

The Tea Party is using prestigious figures, such as Sarah Palin, to create growth and support for their party. However due to their lack of mandate, the growth and support of the Tea Party is endangering the future of American politics. The public is electing Tea Party endorsed candidates without having much knowledge on where these candidates stand.

I also plan on referencing these sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03repubs.html?scp=4&sq=Tea%20Party&st=cse

http://www.kare11.com/news/elections/election_article.aspx?storyid=880303&catid=222

Hypocrisy within the Declaration

What is the purpose of honoring the Declaration of Independence when the message of equality is nothing more than a hypocritical statement? Why would you write about equality and then do nothing to promote it? The delegates’ inability to follow the Declaration’s call for equality leads one to believe that they were only thinking of themselves and their counterparts when writing/reviewing the Declaration.

In Takaki’s text he analyzes how various minority groups view the Declaration of Independence. By doing this, he brings forth the hypocrisy of the Declaration and how the Declaration did not serve the needs of all Americans at various points in time.

“Thomas Jefferson declared to the Kaskaskias that whites and Indians were both ‘Americans, born in the same land,’ and that he hoped the two peoples would ‘long continue to smoke in friendship together.’” (pg. 45)

“Seeking to do more than demonstrate and affirm the intelligence of blacks, Banneker also scolded the author of the declaration of Independence for his hypocrisy on the subject of slavery,” (pg. 66)

“They were taught that honest labor, fair play, and industriousness were virtues. But they ‘saw that it wasn’t so on the plantation.’ They saw whites on the top and Asians on the bottom,” (pg. 250)

In recent events, I feel like hypocrisy within the Declaration was most notable this past summer when Muslims in New York City wanted to expand on a mosque. There was one day when I was watching CNN and they were interviewing a construction worker and he said that if there was a job regarding the expansion, he would not take it because it was un-American to support Muslims. Does it not say in the Constitution that there is the freedom of religion? Does it not say in the Declaration that every person is created equal? By suppressing one’s freedom of religion, you are suppressing their ability to have equality. Every person should be considered equal in the sense that they have the freedom to practice their own religion.

Harry Potter!!

I am currently sitting in Buntrock Commons. I am waiting to buy my Harry Potter movie ticket. I didn’t think that many people would have shown up for this, but I was wrong. I’m super glad I got here obnoxiously early.

Paul Revere vs. Pocahontas

The main difference between the John Singleton Copley’s portrait of Paul Revere and Simon van de Passe’s 1616 engraving is that Copley’s portrait displays the subject as a real being. In Paul Revere’s portrait, you get the sense that he was a real person with thoughts and feelings. He makes the viewer wonder what Paul Revere was thinking about. In Pocahontas’s portrait, you get no sense of who she was. However, you do get the sense of who the British wanted her to be. She is removed from her native environment and culture. She became an image that the British settlers could use to their own advantage when interacting with Native Americans in the future.

TEA!

Drinking tea from a psychological perspective can affect the way one views themselves and how one is viewed in society. It can also be applied to how common misconceptions can dramatically increase the usage of tea.

Tea drinking became an indicator of one’s social status in colonial times. It is arguable that many people developed the belief that if they were seen drinking tea, they were of a worthy status. It is also arguable that the perception of the wealthy drinking tea fosters a larger gap between social classes. With more and more people drinking tea and holding the belief that they are of a higher status than the people who don’t drink tea, they are creating the possibility for more social prejudices.

“…the wonderful Chinese plant that seemed to cure so many different diseases,” (pg. 66)

The belief that tea could cure so many diseases was a placebo. The fact that the colonist believed the tea was making them better was all in their head. Tea is not a magical medicine. It was not responsible for curing their many diseases.

If only Ben were alive today

“There seems to me at present to be great occasion for raising a United Party for Virtue, by forming the virtuous and good men of all the nations into a regular body, to be govern’d by suitable good and wise rules, which good and wise men may probably be more unanimous in their obedience to, than common people are to common laws.”

How far have we diverged from this idea? Is our current government something Benjamin Franklin would approve of? How disappointed would he be with the modern world? How badly would he want to take over and fix every problem in the world?

The politicians of today obviously have a different mindset from the political thinkers of the 18^th century. However while reading about Franklin, I began to wonder who has the interest of the general public in the forefront versus self-achievement and personal status. Then I shifted to thinking about who actually knew what they were doing and who thought out their ideas to the fullest extent. It’s not that I think all politicians of today are complete nincompoops, but there is just so much extra stuff they get caught up in - for example, becoming reelected and constantly publicizing themselves via television and Twitter. I feel like back in the 18^th century, the political thinkers thought out their plans more fully because there was less for them to get caught up in. Also there was more for them to lose because the still newly settled colonies could not afford ideas that were not well developed.

This weather is horrid

I would much prefer snow to this wind and rain. Today was gross, I did not enjoy going outside at all. I had to turn on the heater for the first time because there is a terrible draft coming in from the windows.

Snow makes the world prettier.

The Real American Dream

The American Dream has shifted from being an actual idea to the desire to gain as many material items as possible. People no longer think of the American Dream as working hard and having a vision for where they want to take their life. I think most Americans don’t even think about the American Dream anymore, unless it is in the manner of evaluating all of their material gains and how these items apply to their satisfaction level throughout their life. I don’t understand how a person can achieve the American Dream by having a lot of stuff. Stuff doesn’t last and it is replaceable. Then there is the stereotype of the American Dream, which Cullen illustrates as, “Economically self-sufficiency, a secure and esteemed profession (e.g., the ministry), the leisure to pursue a career in politics: these among others were the yardsticks by which upward mobility was measured,” (pg. 61). Personally, I do not agree with this view on the American Dream because all of these characteristics are centered on gaining money and power. I believe the American Dream has to do with finding personal happiness and being able to realize that having a dream gives oneself a purpose in life. Money and material items cannot help one come to this realization. Therefore the American Dream resonates within the individual.

Dorm Inventory List

AmCon Inventory List –

2 lofted beds

2 desks

2 dressers

1 window seat

1 telephone

1 rug

1 mini fridge

2 trash cans

1 recycle bin

1 printer

1 bag of Halloween candy

1 loaf of bread

1 bottle of milk

Now specifically my side:

1 desk lamp

1 standing lamp

2 plastic cubbies

1 kettle

1 steeping pot

1 jar of tea

1 jar of honey

1 box of Goldfish

2 boxes of cereal

many granola bars

1 box of oatmeal

1 dry erase white board

2 water bottles

3 mugs

2 plastic cups

3 blankets

2 pillows

2 sets of sheets – purple and green

15 books

many pictures

1 pre-wrap tape – purple

1 cell phone

1 laptop

1 iPod

1 camera

many highlighters, pencils, and pens

many note cards, notebooks, folders, and page markers

1 headlamp

1 stapler

1 roll of tape

1 bottle of hand sanitizer

1 Burt’s Bees chapstick

1 hanging shelf

1 backpack

1 lanyard

assorted cords for the phone, computer, and camera

many clothes

2 jackets

1 shoe holder

3 pairs of flats

2 pair of boots

2 pairs of flip-flops

1 shower caddy

1 laundry basket

1 bottle of Tide

2 purses

1 umbrella

3 metal book containers

3 towels

1 box of Kleenex

1 toothbrush

1 hairbrush

1 hair dryer

1 hair straightener

1 curling iron

5 plastic storage containers

1 paper towel roll

1 bottle of Clorox wipes

1 dishtowel

1 bottle of dish soap

1 sponge

1 mirror

1 bottle of apple juice

1 jar of applesauce

FUN BLOG

The Fun Blog

The other day I was at the Mall of America and I went into the Disney Store. AmCon did not originally motivate my visit to the Disney Store. I wanted to buy a Toy Story water bottle. BUT right in the middle of the store was the Disney Princess display and off to the side of this display were Pocahontas dolls. There were way more Cinderella and Belle dolls than Pocahontas dolls. This is a good comparison: there were as many Pocahontas dolls as there were Prince Charming dolls.

What happened to Pocahontas?

I thought the Pocahontas statue in the Jamestown Settlement was interesting because the way in which her arms were positioned suggests she was open and accepting to the new ideals and way of life the English proposed when they first arrived. One could also argue that the statue is positioned in a way that she is searching or looking for something. Either way, I still have no idea what to think about Pocahontas because we have to view her through the perceptions of others. And even then these perceptions could be biased by stereotypes or lack of information. Pocahontas’s image has become skewed to how people want her to look. For example the portrait done by Mary Woodbury in 1730, one could argue that she idealized Pocahontas as a Caucasian instead of a Native American. Then there is the Pocahontas that most of us are familiar with, the Disney version.

Pocahontas

In The Pocahontas Perplex, it is made evident that many men in the 17^th century were indeed Neanderthals. They were controlling sexists who took advantage of Native American women and allowed their desiring perceptions of women to affect their ability to form perceptions correctly.  Did anyone ever consider that Pocahontas did not want to marry John Rolfe? I mean she was being held captive when she met and married him. One could argue that in Pocahontas’s famous painting, John Rolfe is trying to remove her from the Indian lifestyle and making her become more English or “proper”. It is also arguable that their marriage was a way the English tried to gain control over the Indians because Pocahontas was an important person among the Indians and her change in lifestyle could influence other Indians to become more like her.

American Fakeness

In Playing Indian, suggesting that Americans’ attempts to form an identity are incomplete is absolutely correct. The American identity is somewhere between the English and Native American identity. I feel like this only came to be because it was all the English settlers knew and were capable of knowing. Also by diverging from the English identity and staying away from the Native American identity suggests a limitation on their ability to form an identity because they restricted their free will and ability to act naturally. One cannot form a complete identity when one is modifying the various behaviors that encompass an identity. One could go so far as to say that the American identity is nothing more than a cover for not having an identity.

Another Bloggity!!!

In Understanding Ordinary Landscapes, it becomes evident that the government-sponsored schools had more of a negative impact on the Native Americans than a positive one. When this happens, one must realize that their culture and ideals will not always meld with other cultures and ideals. Then one must ask oneself, who is to say that your culture and ideals are better than those of another. Obviously one will display a bias for their own culture, but even then, no one can possibly be correct in saying that their culture is better because they have not experienced the other culture.

In the process of “educating” the Native Americans, the government-sponsored schools praised individual achievement. When reading this segment, I began to question what good is individual achievement when the working-world is a somewhat collective society (I think I worded that quite badly – I thought of the people who have jobs and work together, which most jobs involve some type of collaborative effort). So what is the point of only praising individual work when collaborative efforts are inevitable? I don’t get it.

Identity?

How long does one need to stay in a place to develop an identity?

The development of an identity is fully dependent upon the person who will be forming the identity. A person could live in one location for their entire life and never fully discover who they are. Then there are the people who move around so much, that they are never given the opportunity to discover who they are. However there are certain cases where individuals have taken what they have seen from their experiences in past locations and melded them together to form an identity. Therefore, the length of stay in one location is not the only determinant when creating an identity. One must consider how the person utilizes their surroundings and learns from others when in that location. The environment in which one lives is like paint and the person is like canvas. No identity is the same because each individual takes their own perceptions and experiences from their environment and uses it to create their identity.

Landscapes, Landscapes, Landscapes

In Belden Lane’s Landscapes of the Sacred, it is referenced that Americans are in the constant search for the perfect land by holding mobility and placelessness close to their hearts. Is being in the constant state of wandering a form of identity? I do not believe so because with this, the mobility that drives Americans affects their ability to form the basic connections that are rooted within the formation of an identity. Ortega y Gasset said, “Tell me the landscape I which you live and I will tell you who you are,” how can this be possible when Americans are not in one location long enough to mold with the landscape? Then there comes the possibility that the American identity is to be in a constant state of wandering. There is no perfect land, the only reason people keep wandering is so they can continuously find new experiences that change their perception on something and then take those experiences with them to their new landscape.

I love the smell of coffee

I just read Dan’s blog and thought it was amazing. I wish I would have watched Glee, but I was doing homework instead. I thought three of the four articles were rather boring. Campus was the only one I liked because (1) I was unfamiliar with the changes American colleges have gone through and that they were originally modeled after European colleges, (2) there were pictures.

On a more serious note, Stilgoe’s article emphasizes how the overwhelming features of cities can be tied in with the corruptive effects of urbanization on the people who live in those cities and the environment and landscape that was there before the urban sprawl. Then when looking at Turner’s article it says, “The romantic notion of a college in nature, removed from the corrupting forces of the city, became an American ideal. But in the process, the college had become even more fully a kind of miniature city,” so are colleges corrupting today’s young adults with its city-like qualities? Is urbanization changing our perception on what is really important? No to the first question -with city-like qualities, colleges offer community and therefore create a place for ideas to grow. For the second question, I believe it does. With urbanization, people forget what it is like to move peacefully through life and get caught up in things that do not matter, as mentioned in Stilgoe’s article. However, one could definitely argue that urbanization is a given in today’s world and people’s perceptions are changed to fit the environment in which they live.

Side note – a girl in my corridor just made coffee and it smells really good.

Side note regarding the Manitou Heights – yay for St. Olaf compensating for trees that were cut down!!

Modern Politics

Surely no problems would have arisen if Anne Hutchinson, “had attended to her household affairs, and such things as belong to women, and not gone out of her way and calling to meddle in such things as are proper for men, she had kept her wits, and might have improved then usefully and honorably in the place that God had set her,” (Barker-Benfield, 71). John Winthrop had no reason to persecute Anne Hutchinson. He only did because he was a sexist and he felt like a woman was threatening his perfect society of male superiority. It is not surprising that Winthrop felt threatened by Hutchinson because her outspokenness went against the ideal that women were silent and submissive to men, as mentioned, “Puritan government in America have additional support to the fathers’ authority in their families ‘because without assistance from them, it could not have begun to accomplish its task of enforcing the laws of God,’” (Barker-Benfield, 68). In Winthrop’s attempt to maintain power, it reminded me of modern day politicians. Now I’m not talking about every politician, but the few who have their personal interests ahead of the interests of the people who voted for them. There are corrupted politicians who would say anything, just as long as it could extend their time as an elected politician. They do not listen to the people, instead they listen to themselves and remove themselves from risks that could shorten or change their career paths. Like John Winthrop, they are afraid of change. They do not want change or anything new to come about in the world of politics because it could influence how people see them, their place in society, and most importantly, alter how they can use their power.

I went to church today

While reading Marilyn Westerkamp’s American Society of Church History, I came across a section that related back to the sermon in Chapel this morning. The pastor’s sermon was about identity and how not having a relationship with God could interfere with finding one’s identity. In Anne’s past, she moved away from Christ, “She had followed the covenant of works; she had opposed Christ,” (pg. 491). Then this passage goes on to say, “her first progressive steps toward enlightenment involved the discovery that she, herself, had to be overcome,” (pg. 491). These two quotes put together further emphasize the point of the sermon - without having Christ in your life, you will not be able to overcome challenges as easily.

Oh Those Puritans...

First thing’s first, I have a question. In Winthrop’s speech when talking about forgiveness, Winthrop states, “Whether thou didst lend by way of commerce or in mercy, if he hath nothing to pay thee, thou must forgive, (except in cause where thou hast a surety or lawful pledge)” does the exception refer to something like a loan or a written contract?

From reading the beginning stages of the Puritan movement, I found the Puritans admirable and selfless for the way they went about starting their new lives. However, I thought it was interesting how they used Bible verses to justify how everyone must act. While today that most likely wouldn’t work, it is understandable for how that would have worked for the time period. Originally, I thought this method was taking advantage of the Puritans. By utilizing the Bible, Winthrop is subconsciously instilling the fear of what would happen to them if they do not honor God’s wishes because he does not mention anything to the contrary.

Just for fun:

I appreciated how Winthrop uses the body as a metaphor for their new society. It’s cool.

“There is no body but consists of parts and that which knits these parts together, gives the body its perfection, because it makes each part so contiguous to others as thereby they do mutually participate with each other, both in strength and infirmity, in pleasure and pain”

Thanks a lot Thomas Jefferson.

When I signed up for AP US History, I thought I would be learning more than the average high school student. I was very wrong. American history classes are still keeping students ignorant about serious events that took place in the New World. In Ronald Takaki’s A Different Mirror, the truth about Thomas Jefferson wanting to bring about the demise of the Indians is brought forth. I had no idea Thomas Jefferson blamed the decline of the Indians on the Indians, he defended the stealing of Indian land, and he made strategic plans to destroy the Indians' livelihood. How can I take Thomas Jefferson seriously when he couldn’t even live by the words he wrote in the Declaration of Independence or when he told the Kaskaskias that “whites and Indians were both ‘Americans, born in the same land,’” (Takaki, 45)? Not to mention the poisoning of the Indians with wine? When I read this, I felt like my AP US History book only covered the basics and left out parts that were too compromising for the “Master Narrative”.

Learning to Love St. Olaf

because we are at St. Olaf

because Northfield is quirky

because we smell Malt-o-Meal

because we live on the Hill

because it is a community

because we are not at Carlton

we keep are rivalry strong

as we chant Um Ya Ya

because we never settle for “just ok”

we study 24/7

and we choose tea over coffee

because it has something for everyone

because you have been asked if you have seen the Snitch

because there was an activities’ fair

because we get too many emails from different organizations

because we are freshmen

because we want to find ourselves

because we have set high goals

because we strive for the future

because we are here

because we are Oles

- Sarah and Liza

Home from America Poem

In Paul-Helge Haugen’s poem, Home from America, the perspective from the people in the home country on their family members gradually reveals how extreme differences in culture can be. The most powerful line in this poem, “if you went to America/you became/a different person” made me upset. When traveling to other countries, yes, culture shock will most likely occur and the experiences that one has in that country could change you or reshape a way of thinking. However it should not be to the extent that when you return home, you cannot mesh with your family.

In respect to values, I thought of the Amy Tan article when reading the line mentioned above. For the people who were in America, they changed their values to match those of the American society.  But much like the events in the article, their change in values could no longer coincide with those of their homeland.

Side note, what does the third stanza mean? Is it that they are trying to speak with an American accent? The “ ‘r’/that was stuck/part-way down their throats” confused me.

Freedom vs. Equality

In the Eric Foner article, there was a section that mentioned how the majority of Americans would choose freedom over equality. I thought this was an interesting fact because if I had to choose, I would pick equality as well. I’m all for freedom, but I think equality has just as much to offer as freedom, if not more.  With freedom we all have rights, but freedom does not ensure that everyone will be guaranteed these rights or that no one will threaten these rights. When people are not given their proper rights, they strive to achieve them – equality. With equality we would be given the same rights and no one could infringe upon these rights because there is nothing to hold superior to them.