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.