A Lincoln Reconstruction

In honor of former President Lincoln's birthday today, several news sources (like the NYT) are coming out with a surprising story surrounding the famous painting of his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln.

Look familiar? That Lincoln broach resting on her chest and the love story that goes with the painting are heart warming. Apparently, Mary and a painter named Francis Carpenter- who stayed at the White House for some time- secretly worked on this portrait so that she could surprise her husband with it. Unfortunately, the president was assassinated before she could present it to him. 

It turns out that this story was untrue. An unknown painter who called himself Lew Bloom actually painted the following portrait of an unidentified woman:

When he heard that Mary had died, he painted over his work to make the woman look more like the president's widow and put Lincoln's face on a broach on her dress. He also reconstructed another story that convinced her descendants to pay a great amount of money for the painting. 

We have been talking about construction and reconstruction for a while now in American Studies, and this story makes me wonder about a person's motive for reconstructing a story. In the case of our reconstruction projects (where we had to reconstruct the Reconstruction era after the Civil War), the motive was to create a better and more fair life for the freedmen with the hope of reducing their 100-year wait for voting rights. In the case of this Mary Todd Lincoln painting, Bloom's motive was to take advantage of a sad situation in order to be rich. So reconstruction can be bad and it can be good, but my question is that in the end, will the outcome be the same as if there hadn't been a reconstruction? Bloom was found out and that caused distress on Lincoln's descendants. How do we know our reconstruction of the Reconstruction era would create a different outcome?

Whitewashing History

The Tea Party can't deny that slavery happened, but it will do everything it can to make sure it's not taught in schools. Right now, the party is focussed on Tennessee. According to a Huffington Post article, "The group is seeking to remove references to slavery and mentions of the country's founders being slave owners." They believe that much of the "criticism" surrounding these topics has been "made-up" and that it's the founding fathers' "progress that we need to look at."

This is a sad attempt to cover up the fact that the Southerners, namely most of the Founding Fathers, once thought it was OK to own people. Does the Tea Party think that if it isn't written in books or learned at school it didn't happen? By ignoring slavery, they ignore the reason our nation is the way it is.

Part of why the Tea Party thinks they can rule out slavery is due to the fact that "the Texas Board of Education approved revisions to its Social Studies curriculum that would put a conservative twist on history through revised textbooks and teaching standards" (HP article mentioned before). How scary is that? A group of people was so influential that textbooks will now contain material either excluding slavery or making slavery seem acceptable.

My question is this: if young people aren't taught the mistakes of the past, how can they be expected to produce a better future?

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.  

Fighting Terrorism One School at a Time

"The decision to act heroically is a choice that many of us will be called upon to make at some point in time."

-Dr. Philip Zimbardo

These are the first words you see when you go to the Heroic Imagination Program's website. This program, led by Dr. Philip Zimbardo (renowned psychologist), gives students the tools and the knowledge that will encourage them to act positively in high pressure parts of their lives. Through workshops Zimbardo and his team are able to reach middle to high school students.

This theory about heroism has to do with teaching. If young people are taught at an early age to be heros, they will probably emerge as one someday. Similarly, if people's "violent extremism" tendencies are fought at a young age, they will probably emerge as much more peaceful citizens. 

In order to promote heroism and demote this "violent extremism" with regards to terrorism, the National Security Council has teamed up with the Department of Education. The idea is this: federal officials have become well versed in finding terrorists who travel overseas for their "training" or conduct hefty money transactions, but the terrorists who are working within the borders of the US are not as easily detected. Therefore, it is up to the schools to find suspicious activity amongst their young students and stop it, just as they would stop gang-like tendencies and bullying. (To read more, click on the "violent extremism" link above.)

Think about this in terms of your school. You've had workshops on how to stop your classmates from bullying several times. Can you imagine having one about how to stop your classmates from engaging in terrorist-like activities?

Americans: The Next Enemy Combatants?

"Enemy combatant" is a term we've always heard being used to describe members of Al Qaeda and other non-American terrorists, but with the National Defense Authorization Act, this label could apply to Americans.

This term was coined when the government was figuring out how to get around the Geneva Convention. It is defined by Dictionary.com in these words: "Any member of the armed forces of a state which which another state is at war; also any person in an armed conflict, including terrorism, who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war."

I bolded "war" and "including terrorism" in order to emphasize the nod to the War on Terror. The "enemy combatants" who were captured during the War on Terror are currently at Guantanamo Bay, a place where torture is abundant and press scarce. These terrorists aren't American. The majority of them are Middle Eastern, because the Middle East is essentially where America is fighting the War on Terror.

This brings me to a scary thought about the NDAA: Americans who are suspected of any kind of terrorism can be sent to Guantanamo Bay, and once they are sent there, who knows what will happen to them? The realization of what the NDAA meant for our country struck a chord in me. I have heard of cases where people are suspected of terrorism solely based upon their Middle Eastern-sounding name. Could this happen to people in my family? I have relatives in the US named Muhammad and Omer. They have lived here the majority of their lives. They are Americans. Could they be jailed at a moment's notice? I've lived here for 15 out of my 17 years of life. Could I be put through a military trial based on suspicion?