How Racist are We?

This week in class we discussed Barrack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union", when he still was a senator and a presidential candidate hopeful, given in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008. It was a speech about race. In it he states,

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years.

(If you'd like to read more of the transcript of Obama's speech, click here.)

Racism is notoriously a large part of history, and although we take baby steps every day, we are still caught in between the disparities of each other. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Indugenous, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They're all labels we categorize each other in. And many seem to think one is better than the other.

As much as it saddens me to say, I do think our society is fueled by racism. That does not mean that I believe everyone is a racist. But look at the situation of the pastor in Florida wanting to burn the Koran just because he had deep hatred for a specific ethnicity. Just because he believed all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and he categorized them all as terrorists. Does that mean he has the right to "punish" the entire Islamic religion by burning their holy book? Absolutely not. Does that mean that we have the right to believe that all Muslims or Middle-Easterners are terrorists? Absolutely not.

Another example is the Arizona immigration law that allows authorities to detain anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. This is a huge example of racial profiling. If the law enforcement is given the power to stop a car they believe is being driven by an illegal immigrant, just by how they look, then racism has to be a driving force. Not only does it take away the rights of those living in our country, but it also promotes community distrust. Lastly, I just want to discuss an article I had read in the New York times. Click here to read. It says that new research discovers "strong evidence that all-white juries acquit whites more often and are less favorable to black versus white defendants when compared to juries with a least one black member." However who is to say that a conviction by an all-white jury is necessarily false? I think you also need to take in account the number of false convictions versus correct convictions for this research to really prove substantial.

Image copyright of New York Times.

Into the Wild: The Sean Penn Version

Throughout class this week, we had been discussing how some textbooks select what you read and learn.They use specific word choices to convey a bias of theirs. And this use of passive voice and conntations to deliver a particular effect on the reader does work. We focused on how a certain textbook created an image of the Native Americans as victims and the whites as oppressors. If it had not been for our analysis of the text during class, I would have completely agreed with the author's words. But as we considered the selection created by the author, it seemed pretty unfair. The words he chose whether it was the "Indians Cheated" or "Indians are Restricted" make the reader feel guilty for the mistakes of our ancestors.

But this type of word selection and secret messages really got me thinking after I had watched Into the Wild last night. Here's an article that places the movie against the book http://www.avclub.com/articles/book-vs-film-into-the-wild,2168/. I had noticed how many parts of the movie were different than those of the book by John Krakauer. Much of the movie was narrated by Chris' sister Carine, in the words of the article, in a "dreamy melancholy that further idealizes him." Which is pretty much right. She goes into great detail of his imperfections and his beliefs, although throughout the book, she doesn't have a major voice.

I believe Sean Penn had over-emphasized the positives for Chris McCandless and for the most part, ignored the negatives. He threw in a scene of Chris' parents fighting violently, his little sister crying and Chris holding her and trying to shield her away from them. Yet, the fighting was never mentioned in the book. He never showed the real frustrations that Chris encountered, like when he was lost for a couple of days in the canal, paddling in circles. He showed the more romantic, happier images. Many people criticize Penn for misrepresenting the truth, of getting "too Hollywood." But Penn claims he was just making a film from what he believes would have been McCandless' perspective. It wasn't supposed to be a documentary.

I think a lot of the problem was that no one really knows what McCandless was thinking. Sure, we have his words and the passages he highlighted. We could talk to those close to him, and try and piece together what kind of man he really was. But I don't think we'll ever be able to do that. Was he really happy? Just like you'll never know the true extent of the person next to you, we'll never be able to know what he was really going through and thinking.

So as Penn chooses to idealize McCandless, he represents his story exactly in that way. Idealistic. A lost soul trying to find himself. Or the book that claims McCandless was a pilgram. But was that who McCandless really was? Or is that what the authors have led us to believe? I think everything we've read or watched about McCandless is based more on the opinions of others than who McCandless really was. They're all collections of others' perceptions and stories. Very little is from the mind of Christopher McCandless.

America: Have We Reached Our Peak?

Yesterday was a reminder. A reminder of the wound inflicted permanently upon America. For the rest of our lives, we will remember where we were that day the planes hit those towers. I was seven years old and had just started second grade. I came downstairs the morning of September 11th for breakfast, my blue backpack hiked over my shoulder. The Today show was on the TV above our kitchen table, like every morning, but this time there was a news report regarding an airplane crashing into one of the Twin Towers. And as they were showing a live feed of the burning tower, a second plane flew out of nowhere and crashed into the other tower. I watched as people's lives were destroyed. I watched as a nation was attacked by hatred. But I also watched as a nation came together like it never had before. As I think back to this day, I can help but wonder if this nation can keep continuing to rebound, or will we too receive a fate similar to those that doom great civilizations like the Romans?

In AIS this week, we discussed the typical American story. It begins right near the good/middle fortune mark, not too bad. But then something happens, and the arc dips severely into the bad fortune area. However, soon after, it's a Cinderella story, and the line shoots up, higher than it was when the graph had started. Are we a progressive narrative? Or have we "hit our peak?"

Many claim the post WWII era was our greatest, and now with our economy troubles, we are headed downhill. However, we weren't headed completely uphill prior to WWII. There was the Great Depression and the Civil War prior to that. Or even Pearl Harbor, which in ways can be compared to the 9/11 attacks. Our country was able to bounce back from all of that and still reach a level of greatness and power. So why can't we redeem ourselves now?

It would be so easy for our country to fall, but I honestly don't think we would. Regardless of the politics within our country, we all believe in freedom and human rights. And think that belief and drive and our reputation for recovery will continue to push this nation further and further. We do have the ability to as great as we were back in the 1950s.

Why do People Lie?

In class this past week, we were exploring the "death" of Mr. Bolos, using artifacts, the Internet, and interviews of those who were close to him to determine who Mr. Bolos and what might have happened to him. During our research, my group questioned Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Bolos' colleague who teaches a long side him. From Mr. Bolos having an ex-wife to Mr. O'Connor visiting Mr. Bolos at the University of Illinois when Bolos was a sophomore, the majority of what Mr. O'Connor had told us about his co-worker was a complete lie. At the conclusion of this project, we had discussed as a class why are biographies of Mr. Bolos would be inaccurate, and one of the reasons was that people lie. We went even further to ask ourselves, why do people in fact lie? Is it because they're in denial? Or they're ignorant? Or maybe they have their own agenda playing in.

Regardless, I couldn't stop thinking about it. Constantly, there are examples in the news of people lying. Whether it's Tiger Woods, living the double life of a family man and a womanizer, to the infamous Bill Clinton speech where he asserted that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman," every one seems to be lying. Childhood heroes turn out to be phonies. I mean look at Roger Clemens, who consistently denies and denies ever using performance enhancing drugs, but is facing being indicted for lying to the Congress.

I found an article on from the New York Times that talks about Lance Armstrong, and how other cyclists are still accusing him of taking steroids. Here's a link http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/cycling/05armstrong.html?ref=lying. Armstrong is arguably one of the most amazing American athletes ever. If these claims are proven true, it's just another cheater and liar in American culture.

To answer my own question, I believe people lie for a few reasons. First, it can be a defense mechanism. Sometimes humans need to protect themselves from others, and lying allows you to keep your secrets to yourself. Another reason I think people lie, is to up hold an certain image. Everybody is always searching for perfection, especially in our society today. Lying allows one to hide their imperfections, because no one wants to seem inadequate or defected. We always want to look better than person next to us. Lastly, I think people lie because it's easy. It's easier to deny doing steroids, than to take the public scrutiny of doing them. Hey, you might even get away with lying about it and then everyone will think you're still a hero or a real athlete. Lying is usually the first instinct.