As we reviewed and discussed Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech in class this week, I wondered if it's true that we are just as ignorant about race as we were when we enslaved innocent people for the color of their skin. Since this past week we basically entered the study of the horrific slavery period in the United States right after hearing a lecture on Obama's speech about the prevalence of racism today, I couldn't help but connect the two in a way that shocked me. We may not be enslaving people or supporting the idea of "white superiority" in a lawful way anymore, but people today still judge people for the color of their skin, the religion they believe in, or where they were born. As many people pointed out in class, stereotypes about races and religions still exist in a strong and unjust way. Someone even gave the example of cops pulling people over in suspicion of their race.
This also brings to my mind the fact that any middle-Eastern-looking person in an airport has to arrive 3 hours ahead of time because we all know that they will be strip-searched and questioned thoroughly. This all relates back to 9/11, an earlier post blog I posted. We think we are so much better today than we were hundreds of years back. But the only difference is that we are separating ourselves from these "outsiders" on our own time, rather than with hateful laws. I think we need to progress much, much further as a society in order to be done with racism once and for all, and I don't think there is any argument that could be made and supported against that. What good does racism do, but separate people based on physical judgments?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Into the Mind of Chris McCandless?
Last night, I watched Into the Wild: the Sean Penn version. Before we began to watch, Sarah "QT" E told Jackie and me that she had discussed the movie with her dad after he watched it on his own. He commented that in the book it was uncertain as to what caused Chris to die, except for a few speculations. In Penn's adaptation, the poisionous potato seeds were 100% at fault in his death. The movie started in images of Chris McCandless, (played by Emile Hirsch), exploring "unknown" territory, clearly loving it. Not too long after the movie had begun, we made a realization. Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor had chosen not to show the film in our class because they didn't like it, especially Mr. O'Connor, (as Mr. Bolos stated). They didn't go into a lengthy explanation of why they didn't like it but mostly blamed it on the fact that Krakauer, the narrator and a potent voice in the book, was absent in the entirety of the movie. But the three of us, watching the movie, also realized that the portrayel of Chris, though very realistic and believable, may not have been the real Chris at all. Since McCandless's tragic life wasn't well-known until after he died, Krakauer had to base his portrayel of Chris solely off of what people told him in interviews or what he had determined from artifacts of Chris's life. In the book, it is clear to the reader that we will never really know who Chris was or how he acted during that time of his life where he was alone in the wild. But in the movie, choices must obviously be made about the character, and these choices may be completely off-base. I did like the movie in terms of plot, character development, ups and downs, and all of the typical factors of a good movie, but I now see what Bolos and O'Connor were talking about. It would be nearly impossible to make a movie out of a book in which the main character, (other than Krakauer), is an ambiguous figure.
In class this past week, we have been discussing the specific words selected in textbooks, and what is the meaning behind them. We studied an article in a certain textbook in which the Native Americans were clearly portrayed as the vitcims and the "white settlers" as vicious, violent, beings. No matter how unbiased texbook editors and authors want to be, ultimately, their opinion will always show through.
It is apparent in the matter of Sean Penn's Into the Wild, that even he could not help himself in his bias. He made Chris's parents look like they were entirely to blame for Chris rebelling against them by showing a scene in the movie in which they fought violently. Penn obviously had his own strong opinions about things when writing the screenplay. Not only did he have to deal with his own views, but he also had to worry about the views of the audience who would watch this movie. I believe that the movie only highlighted the beautiful and heroic parts of Chris's journey, in order to appease the typical American audience. We can never assume that a piece of literature or art is unbiased, or true.
In class this past week, we have been discussing the specific words selected in textbooks, and what is the meaning behind them. We studied an article in a certain textbook in which the Native Americans were clearly portrayed as the vitcims and the "white settlers" as vicious, violent, beings. No matter how unbiased texbook editors and authors want to be, ultimately, their opinion will always show through.
It is apparent in the matter of Sean Penn's Into the Wild, that even he could not help himself in his bias. He made Chris's parents look like they were entirely to blame for Chris rebelling against them by showing a scene in the movie in which they fought violently. Penn obviously had his own strong opinions about things when writing the screenplay. Not only did he have to deal with his own views, but he also had to worry about the views of the audience who would watch this movie. I believe that the movie only highlighted the beautiful and heroic parts of Chris's journey, in order to appease the typical American audience. We can never assume that a piece of literature or art is unbiased, or true.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Media: Friend or Foe?
As all of you (hopefully) know, the anniversary of 9/11 was this past Saturday. I had a show rehearsal that day so I couldn't exactly honor it the way I would've liked to. But I did get in a little prayer circle during a break in which 5 other students and I held hands and commemorated all whose lives were taken or affected by this catastrophic event that happened 9 years ago. Video clips of the Twin Towers going down aired on many news channels repeatedly throughout the day. Seeing this reminded me of something we discussed in class this week. Can we ever really trust the media?
In class, we talked about the fact that after 9/11 occurred, the United States immediately pinned Iraq with the blame. As soon as there were any suspicions about there being mass weapons of destruction, the war with Iraq began. Of course, now we know there were not any weapons of mass destruction, but who were we to question the authority back when it was all happening? Not only were there no weapons to be found, but Iraq wasn't even responsible for the terrorism of 9/11 in the first place. It was 19 hijackers, none of which were from Iraq. All we, as citizens, knew was that the government had reported that we were in danger unless we sent our troops into Iraq.
Only a few people really looked into this and dared to be skeptical. Mr. Bolos, one of these people, went to see a man who had gone to Iraq himself in search of these so-called weapons of mass destruction. He also learned that there were not any to be found. Although Mr. Bolos didn't mention this man's name, I can guess that it was Joseph Wilson. Wilson was the husband of Valeria Plame, a CIA agent who's career was ruined when she was outed by another reporter. Wilson reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and was thus shut down by the rest of the media, who claimed there was. Mr. Bolos told the class that only a minimal amount of people actually went to hear this man speak. Only a minimal amount of people actually wondered if maybe the newspapers and stations had it all wrong. This, to me, is sad. Why do people buy whatever they are fed just because the news seems like the most official way to know something is a fact? Only the people who went to the "scene of the crime" and discovered the truth for themselves can really know, and say.
This reminds me of the first week of school when we differentiated between primary sources and secondary sources. Do people realize that news reporters are oftentimes reporting the secondary truth? What is even more horrific, is that not one of the sources of news was skeptical about the weapons in Iraq. Not one made it sound ambiguous, when it really was. This is most likely because they were under the control of the government, who wanted the citizens of the US to be pitted against Iraq as much as the governmental figures were. Not only should we avoid having 100% faith in the media, but we should do the same for our own government. After all, they are all people. And aren't people naturally biased about things? So the next time you read an article or watch FOX news, I ask you to really ponder whether or not it is the whole truth.
In class, we talked about the fact that after 9/11 occurred, the United States immediately pinned Iraq with the blame. As soon as there were any suspicions about there being mass weapons of destruction, the war with Iraq began. Of course, now we know there were not any weapons of mass destruction, but who were we to question the authority back when it was all happening? Not only were there no weapons to be found, but Iraq wasn't even responsible for the terrorism of 9/11 in the first place. It was 19 hijackers, none of which were from Iraq. All we, as citizens, knew was that the government had reported that we were in danger unless we sent our troops into Iraq.
Only a few people really looked into this and dared to be skeptical. Mr. Bolos, one of these people, went to see a man who had gone to Iraq himself in search of these so-called weapons of mass destruction. He also learned that there were not any to be found. Although Mr. Bolos didn't mention this man's name, I can guess that it was Joseph Wilson. Wilson was the husband of Valeria Plame, a CIA agent who's career was ruined when she was outed by another reporter. Wilson reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and was thus shut down by the rest of the media, who claimed there was. Mr. Bolos told the class that only a minimal amount of people actually went to hear this man speak. Only a minimal amount of people actually wondered if maybe the newspapers and stations had it all wrong. This, to me, is sad. Why do people buy whatever they are fed just because the news seems like the most official way to know something is a fact? Only the people who went to the "scene of the crime" and discovered the truth for themselves can really know, and say.
This reminds me of the first week of school when we differentiated between primary sources and secondary sources. Do people realize that news reporters are oftentimes reporting the secondary truth? What is even more horrific, is that not one of the sources of news was skeptical about the weapons in Iraq. Not one made it sound ambiguous, when it really was. This is most likely because they were under the control of the government, who wanted the citizens of the US to be pitted against Iraq as much as the governmental figures were. Not only should we avoid having 100% faith in the media, but we should do the same for our own government. After all, they are all people. And aren't people naturally biased about things? So the next time you read an article or watch FOX news, I ask you to really ponder whether or not it is the whole truth.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Titanic Once Again
So I have to admit I've never seen The Titanic. But I have a strong fascination with the story. As soon as I saw an article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2015271,00.html) about new photos taken of the long-ago sunken Titanic, I knew I had to write about it. In class we have been working with artifacts to piece together the so-called "murder" of Mr. Bolos. What better of an artifact to study and refer to than the Titanic in the history of the United States. Can you imagine if the Titanic hadn't been discovered? The movie, which is an American cinema staple, would not have been made. That's an obvious one. What else wouldn't have happened? While the sinking of the Titanic is an event we are all familiar with, is it important to keep studying the artifact, (the ship, itself), even today? The Time article brings up the point that taking pieces of the wreckage in order to study them out of the water may increase the rapid pace of the deterioration of the Titanic. I wonder what is so important about this event that occurred almost 100 years ago that they have to possibly ruin this historical masterpiece. Once something has occurred and has been scrutinized for so long, shouldn't we just let it go? I think it's fascinating that we were able to get clearer and more detailed photographs of the sunken beauty, but it's not worth the possible destruction of it.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)