What is Being 'American'?

As we discussed American Identity in class this week, we have focused on identity in the past. And rightly so, since race relations are a center-point of American history. But what caught my eye, and kept me interested, was about the future of American identity. The article was on CNN, and unfortunately failed to go farther than simple facts and light speculation. The article, titled 'Hispanic population boom fuels rising U.S. diversity', explains that a booming minority population, mainly hispanic, is saving the U.S. economy by providing high demand for consumer goods. This is all fine and dandy, (if you want specific numbers, read the article) but what really got me thinking was the question, "If in the future, there is no single majority, what will become of the typical idea of the 'American Identity'?" We have talked about people striving to assimilate and 'become' American to fit in, but if there is no majority population to be like, will people still attempt to rid themselves of 'foreigness' to fit in? Perhaps people may not feel like they need to fit in because they already fit with their own minority, and there will be a different American dream for Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, Caucasians, etc. Or maybe each group will mesh, to create a sort of new American idea that immigrants and minorities will strive to become. Whichever it is, only time will tell what booming minority populations will do to American culture.

Dont Forget About Iran

After we did the Iranian crisis simulation, I had a new appreciation and understanding for the gravity and seriousness of the situation us, and the world, are in with unstable relations with Iran. But more than once when thinking back on it, I found myself thinking in past tense "what if Iran had..." or "were lucky they didnt...". I think the reason for this is because Iran seems to be just a side note in todays news, something that was huge a few years ago but today has fallen by the wayside, maybe because we have all gotten used to the threat. As an example, most of the crisis articles we read were written in 2006, and articles on Iranian nukes today are somewhat of a rarity. There was a recent surge in articles related to Iran, but that was because of the 2009 campaign and a journalist who had just been released from prison there. It seems like we have placed Iran in the category "yea its there, we'll deal with it later". But it is important to continue to keep Iran on the front of our international topics, since a search of the words 'Iran' and 'nuclear' on CNN yield a few alarming articles which for some reason never gained headline priority. One article details a report which claims the Iran may have enough material for a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. Even more worrying, it also goes on to explain that Israel may have been planning a strike on Iran only a few months ago but backed out because the US would not support them. This undoubtedly means tensions are still high and a possibility of confrontation is still very likely, so why have people stopped talking about it outside of American Studies simulations? My blunt answer is that we have become bored with it. The media is simply a business, and they cater to what we want. After a few months of high tensions regarding Iran, people realize there are more pressing matters for them and move on. The same has happened with North Koreas Nuclear program many times. Kim Jong Il detonates a bomb or something, and he gets center stage for international media, and thus gains attention in relations between countries. After a few months, however, interest in North Korea dies down and Mr. Il finds another way to capture our attention. The same situation can be seen happening in Iran, except they are not trying to gain our attention by flaunting their technology because unlike North Korea, Iran is not in dire economic need or on the brink. So being left alone to play with nuclear material is perfectly fine for them. But not for us. Unlike many other topics we have studied, the Iranian crisis is very current, and is still a major issue. Just because we have finished our Unit and Iran isnt blowing stuff up, we should still pay attention to it because it has the potential to turn into World War III, as our simulation lightly displayed.  

How to show a war story

This week while cruising the interwebs, I came across a media section on the New York Times. A certain link titled An Ambush and Comrade Lost caught my eye which turned out to be a slideshow of pictures taken before, during, and after an ambush in Afghanistan. The story is remarkably similar to the one O'Brien tellls of the booby trap. The first time I watched it was at school, so there was no sound, but upon watching it at home, I was surprised to find that accompanying the pictures was the story being told by a soldier who was there through a sound clip which matched up with the pictures. This simple addition dramatically altered the feeling I got while watching again. The voice gave the story a background, meaning, and emotion. Pictures alone lacked a certain something which made the story feel real and tangible. Hearing the story through the voice of a soldier who was there made you feel some of the same emotions he felt during and after the attack, which brings me to my question. When depicting a war story such as O'Brien's or this slideshow, is it better to tell the story through pictures or words. Everyone knows the saying a picture is worth 1000 words, but those words may lose their meaning and effect when the reader is left to interoperate the images and story for themselves. With a primary source spoken story, tone and emotion paints an image in the mind which goes deeper than simple photographs can. Pictures also somehow lose the meaning a story may hold. Like O'Brien says, war stories can be true stories that never happened. When a story is based off of pictures, you know it happened, and there is little room for details to be varied. I may be wrong, but when it comes to a war story, I think the right way for a soldier to tell theirs through the most original form of storytelling.

Civilian Bombing or Tactical Airstrikes?

While watching "People's Century" on Friday about civilian bombing, it was clear where the line was between military and civilian bombing (at least as clear as it can get). Bombing by both sides during WWII included heavy focus on non-military targets, heavily populated cities with no significant military value, to 'break the will to continue'. Here the line between the two was distinguishable, but since then it has become more and more unclear where military battles end and civilian bombing begins. In Vietnam forests were burned to the ground to chase out the enemy, in Korea the situation was very similar. And in Afghanistan NATO forces carry out 'strategic' air-strikes meant to pinpoint and destroy the enemy. But when the enemy is barely distinguishable and living amongst innocent people, is it civilian bombing? How does a military deal with an enemy who lives and blends in with civilians to deter attack? While it is true that NATO uses the most advanced weapons to make the most of each strike by killing the most amount of enemy, least amount of civilians, using the least amount of explosive, these strikes hardly leave the innocent untouched. We occasionally hear of air strikes missing a target and killing innocent Afghans, but what of the rest, the supposedly 'unharmed'?  Dropping 20,000 lbs of explosive will undoubtedly effect anyone living within a mile of the blast. The innocent population lives in fear and stress of the possibility of being bombed at any time, and ruled by insurgents. But if NATO troops were sent in, the situation could turn into a nightmare of not knowing enemy from civilian and going on a goose chase facing a higher death toll than bombing. So the question is, when does tactical bombing become civilian bombing if only insurgents are targeted?

The Original is Always Better

After reading Zoo Story and getting past the initial creepiness I felt, I decided I really liked the short play and wanted to find out more about this Edward Albee whom I had heard so little about before now. So after a quick search on Google and found a plethora of results. Many of them were about Zoo Story and a recent addition by Albee of a second act. The article I ended up in described the new act as a prequel, which opens before the scene we all know and takes place in Peter's house with his "pleasant looking, unexceptional" wife. This prequel is supposed to shed light on Peter's life, but I say, do we really need to know more about Peter's life? He was created to be a pretty unexceptional, middle-class guy whose story we are all familiar with. Even his name, Peter, was made to make him out to be an average guy. Jerry is supposed to be the one whose life is interesting and full of substance, a life too many people like Peter who live in their own bubbles fail to understand. So exploring Peter's life further seems frankly to be a waste of time since we already have a pretty clear understanding and perception of his life, just as Jerry does. In fact, I think it detracts from the value of Peter as a generic middle-class character. By creating him as such a common American ideal life, Albee made Peter into someone that could easily represent many of us or someone we all know. But when his life is explored, you lose some of that generic, mediocre feeling that Jerry indirectly accuses him of being. I think Zoo story is better off without this prequel, and glad that we read the original, the 'good one'.

The Heart of America

After this unit on affluence and poverty, and especially after the artifact 'Roger and Me', it has become apparent to me just how important cars are to Americans. The unit has almost been about the automobile the same as it has been about privilege and affluence. Few, if any, Americans since the beginning of the 20th century have lived their lives without being substantially effected by a car. It is even said that an American remembers two things for their whole life; their first love, and their first car. In many people's cases it is sure to be the same thing. The Roaring twenties were fueled by the industry of the automobile, many people's last hope lay in their car during the depression, and even in 'The Great Gatsby' the automobile played a large role. So what happens when such an important part of America fails? Unsurprisingly, you dont need to look any farther than today's news. GM and Ford crowd the headlines paired with extremely large sums of money, if the American car company were to fail, what would we do with ourselves? 'Roger and Me' documents that case of 'what if', if only on a small scale. But multiply that nationwide, and you have a very very serious problem on our hands. Michigan, the nearly former car center of the world, is one of the hardest hit areas of the country, with a 12% unemployment rate. And the scenes of 'Roger and me' and even 'semi-pro' from the streets of flint have spread throughout Michigan. So when it comes to the question of "what are we supposed to do with these failing former goliaths?" We can use Flint, Detriot, and the rest of Michigan as an example of what America can become if we let such important aspects of Americana fail. So the Automobile may not be the heart of the American economy, but it for sure is one of the critical organs, maybe the liver, or the stomach, or muscles. And AIG can unfortunately be the heart.

Where New Money is Becoming Old

Although the article I got inspiration for this post from isnt really written about specifically old and new money, but it does have a few similarities to The Great Gatsby. 'You Can't Go Home Again' is about the weakening of the conservative and republican stronghold, Orange County. Johnathan Durnham describes a typical scene in the O.C. where high school girls carry lattes and credit cards, and high end restaurants filled with high end people. This famous western county was born during the post-WWII boom of government funded defense projects and then the prosperity of California's hollywood and computer booms. Since then the O.C. has been considered new money, but how long can new money last? Eventually it is no longer 'new', and becomes part of the ranks of 'Old' Money. The O.C. is changing with new immigrants from the all around, attracted to such a famous social society. But  inevitably the social class will change as well, and either whether the scene changes to 'old' money or loses its affluent will depend on how things play out. But it got me to thinking about if the society depicted in The Great Gatsby still remains, if it ever did, on 'East and West Egg' and how the money and society came to be in the first place.