What it all Comes Down to: The Meta-Post

Well, it's the end of the semester, and that means a little self-reflection is in order. From 'To Standardize or not to Standardize?' all the way to 'A Disconnected Nation', many transformations have occurred. At the same time, some things have stayed constant.

As strange as it is for me to say, relating my posts to America has been my biggest challenge. As I learned about the country and furthered my analysis skills in my American studies class, I became more comfortable critiquing it and some of its decisions in post such as 'Clash of the Races', where I said, "America prides itself in being a tolerant nation while at the time time being racist against people who aren't white." I was originally worried that critiquing America would seem unpatriotic, but later say that critiquing was necessary. Especially when blogging. I've learned that a blog, in order to prompt discussion, must discuss a controversial topic.

A theme that has recurred in my blog is Social Darwinism, found in at least three of my posts. In 'People and their Masks', I wrote about how, due to Social Darwinism, "[Americans] feel that we are better than the rest of the world." 'Unhealthy Competition' exhibits the corruption in America that people experience while fighting to be the fittest: "People come to America expecting a fair fight to the top, but like The Crucible says, 'spies of each side are at work undermining the other'." The political aspect is discussed in 'Who really IS to Blame?': "Politicians with the fewest amount of flaws excel and the ones with more than a few flaws fail."The topic of Social Darwinism is important to me because I experience it every day- at school, among friends, at home. The people in the society I live in are constantly competing.

The blog I am least proud of is 'Intelligence vs. Entertainment', where I mention the insignificance of a vet-turned-ballroom-dancer and the significance of a Russian spy ring in America, but never actually develop the explanation behind my claims. I wasn't as invested in this topic as I had been in others, and that really showed. The post was short, lacked analysis, and had two pictures. The pictures, I admit, were an attempt to make the blog look longer. You will notice that the posts I really cared about have small pictures and many words, compared to this blog post that has two pictures and not many words.

I would have to say that 'A Disconnected Nation' is the post I am the most proud of thus far. I was able to connect a book I was reading on my own time to the ever-present topic in class of the American Dream. I made a claim- "I don't think individual communities try to 'relate' to other communities. That is why the nation is so racially and culturally segregated."- and backed it up with analysis and personal experience. That, to me, shows improvement in my writing.

All in all, I've enjoyed writing this blog. I hope that my posts will only get better during second semester!

A Disconnected Nation

Recently, I have been reading a book by Eboo Patel, an Indian American Muslim, called Acts of Faith. It is a story about the journey he took to find his identity. This morning I came upon an interesting definition of the American dream. In his mind, the American dream is "the idea of different communities retaining their uniqueness while relating in a way that recognizes they share universal values" (Acts of Faith 92).

Right off the bat I disagreed with the statement that this is an American dream. I have found that most communities are pretty uniform. And when you do find a unique community, it's as if you're in another country. For example when I visit Devon (Little India), I feel like I am an ocean away from America's values and it's structure. This is how America is, and I don't think individual communities try to "relate" to other communities. That is why the nation is so racially and culturally segregated. Chicago is a prime example for that.

Further, there is no way that all of America "shares universal values." That goes along with the idea that every American's dream is different. Definitions of success are different. Family values are different. When you have a such a disconnected nation, it is near impossible to instill the same values in every person.

I don't usually read these books, but I have found this one to be really, really interesting. His discussions about identity and American culture are so relatable, so I was surprised when I read this definition of the American dream and disagreed. Maybe he's focusing on the handful of activists from different communities that advocate for a more cohesive America, but I just think that when you look at the country as a whole, you cannot conclude that individual communities of America are trying to reach out and relate to each other. What do you think?

The Royal Role

Meet Sophia the First, Disney's newest princess:

Like other Disney princesses, her gown is dazzling and every hair is in it's place, but unlike the others, she's just a kid. Sophia was created to target two to seven-year-olds and will appear in both a movie and a series of episodes. Disney's hopes? According to Nancy Kanter- Disney's general manager for the younger world- "[Kids will learn that] what makes a real princess is what’s inside, not what’s outside" ('For Disney, A a Younger Princess'). Kanter goes on to say that "what's inside" will include getting along with siblings and learning how to be kind. 

But my question is this: Why does this character have to be a princess? If what Kanter says is true, the amount of dresses you own and the position you hold in society should not decide whether or not you are a "princess." So why do such simple skills have to be taught by a royal figure?

America has idealized the royal role, which is sad because it's such an unattainable role. No matter how hard most American children try to follow what Sophia the First teaches, they probably won't be able to become a princess. Harsh, I know, but true. In my opinion, a normal young child can easily teach these ideals. If that were the case, children would have a goal capable of achieving. America even over-publicized and glamorized the Royal Wedding, which didn't even take place here. It is very likely that no royal wedding will ever be American.  

Something else Kanter said struck me: “If kids relate to what they watch — if they can put themselves in that world — that’s where real learning can start.” This statement is true, but how are these kids expected to put themselves in the world of a princess? By dreaming? The "real learning" starts when kids can be shown that getting along with your siblings and being kind are things that people just like them can do.