Arrested Development

Arrested Development, a FOX show, began in 2003 and was cancelled in 2006 after it had run for 4 seasons. It has been characterized as a "dramedy," or a drama and a comedy. I believe it pertains to the idea of TV Tokenism because its core characters- the Bluth family- are all white. Throughout the course of the seasons, there are several "tokens," such as Lupe (Lucille's maid), Annyoung (Lucille and George's adopted son from Korea), and Ice (a PI hired by the family and brief love interest for Lindsay). It seems as though the only revolving characters are from a minority, and this suggests that they were mainly brought on to please their respective groups. However, as time went on and it became more normal to have an actor from a minority stay on the show as a permanent character, Arrested Development failed to come to these terms. That is why I believe it stopped running. By the third season, the ratings were so low that FOX had to cancel it. Therefore, this show supports Mr. B's thesis (on newtwork channels the main characters are white and they are the ones who have the most complex lives whereas minority characters play a less complex role) because its failure to add minority characters as constant characters most likely led to its cancellation.

What's a Feminist?

For a while now, I've been noticing the taboo that goes along with feminism or being a feminist. How many times have you heard, "I'm not a feminist, but I do think women should get equal pay in the workplace"? I've heard it plenty, and it's starting to bother me a little bit.

I looked up the definition of feminism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and got this: "The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes; organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests."

According to this definition, women who claim they want to be treated equally but say they aren't feminists, in fact, are feminists. They may not be organizing activities that promote women's rights, but they are promoting equality between the sexes.

So why do they try to distance themselves from the label "feminist"? Why has feminism become almost as feared as Communism? Maybe it's because the only feminists in history who have spoken out have seemed rather radical. For example, the group of women who called themselves "The Feminists" never gained a very respectable rep. Their rules were way too harsh, like the rule that "only one-third [of its members] could be married or living with a man" (www.feminist.com). In my opinion, this isn't fair. Women should have been allowed to join no matter what their situation with men was. Also, wouldn't it show that women can be independent and strong even if they were with a man?

Radical groups such as The Feminists set a bad tone for the rest of the movement. Women who claimed they were feminists were automatically put in the radical category. In society's mind, there was no middle ground or such thing as a quiet feminist, and I still see this today. What people need to realize is that feminism not only has to do with equal pay and voting rights, it also has to do with the right to be in the military and the right to any type of contraceptives. What people also need to realize is that men can be feminists, too. A poll states that out of 100 people, 14 considered themselves feminists and 17 want their daughters to be feminists. If this is a reflection of America today, then what is the status of women going to be in the future? I encourage you to read the rest of the poll. I find the politics/media section really interesting.

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.