Dear Mr. Douglass,

Dear Mr. Douglass,

            Mr. Douglass, I’m not quite sure where to begin. I’m honored that you may be in correspondence with you. I, coming from the year 2010, am very aware of the impact your autobiography and general rhetoric has had on America, specifically on the issue of slavery. I would like to congratulate you on your freedom, and praise your honorable willpower and strength.

            Given this occasion, sir, it is your freedom that I wish to discuss with you. While I believe everyone has a general understanding of what “freedom” is, I fear not much time is spent intricately analyzing the its subtle nuances. If we only consider it to be the absence of forced bondage, than technically indentured servants are free. There is a deeper meaning necessary to understand before we participate in any great undertakings. Knowing this meaning will allow us to be accurate in our actions ensuring freedom for all.

            To me, freedom can be simply stated (though that does not make it simple to understand). Freedom is the ability to be who you believe you are intended to be. In essence, every person should be able to mold themselves into the best version of themselves. This broad definition isn’t of much use in your current context though. Technically, by my definition, you were “free” as a slave because you were able to free yourself. Therefore, I have a qualifier for my definition. Government’s role is to promote self-actualization; it not to enslave people by any means, whether it be literally, financially or socially. The government should provide ample opportunities for self-discovery.

            I am aware that the Emancipation Proclamation was recently created. It’s an important step in the right direction, but we both are aware that it is hardly adequate in ensuring freedom. The great irony is that Lincoln has no power to physically free the slaves it refers to. It also has no impact on slaves in the Border States.

            It is easy to view this as a failure simply because it is not the all-encompassing bill ensuring freedom for your people. But it is still a step in the right direction! Now the US is expected to ensure freedom for all people. This represents Lincoln’s devotion to freedom. With him in office there will be more steps in the right direction, and presidents after him will continue walking down that path. But even by my time I’m sorry to say we are far from perfect equality in liberty. But I digress…

            There have been people in our country’s history who have accurately represented my image of freedom. For example, Anne Hutchinson, who advocated for female religious freedom in her Puritan community. In exercising her freedom she chose to be in communication with God. According to Marilyn Westerkamp (a modern scholar), there were two apposing religious ideologies: the covenant of works, supported by the governor John Winthrop, and the covenant of Grace, which she supported. The covenant of works suggested that based on a person’s actions, they could tell whether they were predestined for heaven or hell. The Covenant of grace believed one would know based on personal interactions with God. She saw herself just as much in communication with the divine as any man, and taught other women to be just as open. The patriarchal society did not support this, however. John Winthrop brought her to trial and had her exiled for her beliefs, because they ran contrary to his and because she was a woman. Her society did not allow her to exercise her freedom and to pursue what she believed was her best self- a woman in relationship with God. This an example of a government not fulfilling it’s role in ensuring freedom.

            Later on in history, another tried to better himself. Benjamin Franklin is known, among other things, for his obsessive attention to his virtues. Pages 63-67 of his autobiography detail the virtues he deemed important, while also explaining how he would “… mark, by a little black spot, every fault [he] found upon examination to have been committed respecting that virtue upon that day.”. He was exercising his freedom to become a perfect individual. He was choosing to be the most virtuous person, attempting to be the best individual he could be. However, because he was a white male society was built in his favor, and he had enough material goods to ensure the time philosophize about being a virtuous person.

            A fellow student of mine named Athena took a better look at Benjamin Franklin’s life. In her thoughts she referenced the fact that he did not do a very good job of living the values he claimed to follow. In his autobiography there is a conflicting tone of arrogance against his aspiration to be humble. Perhaps he is not the figure we all thought he was. But he still exercised his freedom, even if he was not perfect in his attempts. And Athena was right to say he symbolizes “Americanism” though success and self worth. In exercising his freedom he created a life for himself. He became his best person; because of his success he was able to pursue loftier ideals.

            To a certain extent, material goods are necessary to pursue freedom. You must have food, water, shelter and clothing. Your possessions should be enough to satisfy your basic needs. Excess is unnecessary and dearth is demeaning. In your narrative you talk about clothing, and how humiliating only have one set of clothes is. There is a modern philosopher of sorts named Abraham Maslow who asserts that there is a greater pyramid of needs. At the bottom are physiological and safety needs, both of which are tightly linked with material goods. At the top is self-actualization, which is what freedom should be used to pursue. Beyond basic comfort and safety needs, I believe material goods are irrelevant to one’s ability to pursue freedom. I’ve already discussed how Franklin was economically comfortable enough to do so. Anne Hutchinson lived in a stark, minimalist Puritan society and was able to pursue it. Even you, sir, were able to move up with the extremely minimal comforts you possessed. Beyond basic safety and physiological needs I will stress again; materials are irrelevant!

            If I may speak to my own personal life for a moment, sir. I’m attending a college called St. Olaf. Its mission statement says the college, “In the conviction that life is more than a livelihood, it focuses on what is ultimately worthwhile and fosters the development of the whole person in mind, body, and spirit.” It’s this attitude toward the development of the whole person that allows me to pursue self-actualization. In specific, I appreciate Hoyme Hall, where I currently reside. In this environment students foster a sense of independence, build relationships with a diverse population and simply exist in the context of others. I learn about myself and make decisions that I believe will allow me to grow into the person I want to become in the future; here I am choosing who I want to be.

            Thank you once again for you time Mr. Douglass. I truly do appreciate you listening to any input I have in the matter. Though I may know the outcome of your future, don’t let it bother you. You have done wonderful work already and are bound to do more.  I hope the best for you and your goals.

Most Sincerely,  

Michael Enich

The Beginnings of the End

I don't think there'd be anywhere better than this blog to post our assignment for Monday!

I think a theme running through all my blogs is pretty obvious. I love talking about social injustices. I suppose it's a Debbie-Downer sort of attitude. But I think it's important to point out where American society is inadequate; truly it's looking towards a more positive future. I believe we can make the changes to become a more equal nation.

As for conversations, I think I'll (ironically) reference my great con essay. "The missing piece in most conversations is listening, and through my experience it is the fertilizer that makes any budding conversation grow. With it, ideas may morph, change, and evolve to become something more cohesive than before." Within the context of any conversation there must be active listening; to respond to the opinions around you as well as to let yours change.

As for ideas of freedom, Zinn actually has an opinion extremely close to mine. our vision of society should be from the perspective of the oppressed. It is this bottom-up view that I really do appreciate. Freedom should start from the bottom... hmm, just like Rawls, am I right? It's always important to view that perspective.

The freedom that should be fulfilled is the freedom to achieve the true best of your being. It's the ability to be who you are truly meant to be. It's a similar theological idea to Anne Hutchinson. Through a personal relationship with God you were able to discern His path, in a way. It's this sort of ideology that I really find enjoyable.

Thanksgiving Discourse

I was eating dinner with my family and a close family friends. It's really simple this year, we just smoked a turkey on the grill had some instant stuffing and potatoes with cranberry sauce and called it a day. It was nice just to be home (even with the incessant nagging to set the table) and with family. Eventually we reached the "after dinner discussion" portion of the meal. My parents asked me what I thought about my new major. I told them something about how I'd want to go into social justice work with my religion major, or work at a theology or ministry department in a high school similar to the one I went to.

Then the conversation lept into a different category.

As some background, I'm going to say that both of my parents are republicans (but I still love them :D) and if you could tell from my tea party editorial, I am not. We jumped into a conversation about America. I talked a lot about my usual opinions about how there isn't equal access to opportunities. I don't remember the details closely. But I remember two points.

One was when I told my mother that our family was extremely privileged, simply by being able to eat a thanksgiving meal and for me to be able to go to college. She seemed really shocked. She mentioned how hard she works, and in a way I thought "Hey, that's kind of a privilege." because she works hard doing something she loves. Many people also have to work hard, but simply to scrape by a living something they detest doing. She also had the same privileges I do (such as colleges), while many do not.

Also our family friend who stopped by is from the Philippines. She moved here after getting some basic education done back home and became a nurse. She's extremely successful now. She said something that struck me: "I think the American dream is still real.".  Now it is true, she moved up, and it reminded me that there are still success stories here and that fundamentally the values exist. Even if I don't, people still do believe in the American dream. But at the same time, how much did her previous education and family status in Asia effect her success story here? Maybe that's something I'll explore more elsewhere.

Slave Justification

I had a discover in class on Friday when we were discussing the development of slavery. I suppose I never really thought about how it had to... develop. It didn't just snap into existence out of nowhere. People had to make the conscience choice to increase the trade and hold more people captive. The issue then becomes "Why did they do it?". I find it hard to believe that those people could initially justify their beliefs by saying whites just had to be supreme or some other ideology. Then again, I come at it with quite a different perspective than those people in early America did. But wouldn't some little voice in your head say "Hey, they're humans too... and I would never like to personally be enslaved."
If this little voice is true, then what reasoning did these people use for justification. Well, one is obviously financial. It costs much less to keep a slave in awful conditions without proper wages than it does to pay for an actually servant who would probably demand the equalities the owner had. As it became a cultural phenomenon people probably justified it by saying "Everyone else is doing it, so might as well too."Individuals probably convinced themselves that the whites managed to win the social survival of the fittest.
What scares me is the dark side of people that probably enjoyed ruling over someone. Slave owners became addicted to that position of power and didn't want to part with it easily. All the other reasons still held true, but were they really just a facade for this darker, more macabre motivation? I sure hope not. Because that implies some scary things about human nature.

I was talking to Athena and I asked her if China ever really had the similar with slavery that America did. She said no, though there might have been something more similar to indentured servitude; in China it was never really centered around race. Perhaps slavery was more of an addiction, and once America started it was hard for Her to stop cold turkey. I suppose that's true of any social standard. Once it becomes the norm it's hard to change again; that requires altering the thoughts of an entire society of people.

Liberalism

Ok, let's talk a bit about this chart to the left of me. It's a political ideology graph, depicting many famous political and social leaders. The y axis reflects social opinions and the x axis is economic policy. Positive y is authoritarian, where the government has complete control and the negative y is libertarian, or complete social freedom. Negative x is communism, or complete economic equality and positive x is neoliberalism, or typical laisez-faire economic policy where there should be no interference in the economic private sphere.

Now that that's explained, hopefully you can understand why some of these figures are placed where they are. I brought this up to explain where I fell on the chart. I wish I could remember my exact numeric position, but basically I placed a little left of Nelson Mandela and slightly more positive than the Dalai Lama. I thought I was relatively close to Gandhi, but this portion of a different chart makes me think otherwise...

Anyway, this places me in quite an idealistic position. You may have been able to tell I'm obsessed with issues of social justice and believe in the idea that all people should have equal opportunity, and at least be able to live in comfortable circumstances as well as have the chance to move up in socioeconomic status. As I've said, this is the American Dream. A good way to sum up my opinions would be with John Rawl's Ethics, like "...the liberty principle, which advocates that each person should have an equal right to as many basic liberties as possible and still allow a similar system of liberty for all (Munson 2004)." and "...the difference principle [which] requires that social and economic inequalities be arranged so that they benefit those who are least advantaged."

These quiz results were the result of me staying up with two people until 5 in the morning Saturday night discussing American politics and the ideal American system. I just thought this would give you insight to my thinking strategy when it comes to some aspects of this class. I know not everyone will think the same way as me, but I want to strongly accent that I am extremely welcome to discussion of ideals. I do not want to be considered a close minded extremist; that's how America became as convoluted as it is today.

PS- The website is here!

Dear Mr. Teapartier

(I say Mr. because a New York Times survey suggests that most Tea Party supporters are male. This letter could just as easily be addressed to a Mrs.)
    Mr. Teapartier, I’m a little upset, and I’m sure you are too. Our country’s in a bit of a pickle if you ask me, though I’m guessing we think so for different reasons. You think the government is overstepping its boundaries. I think you lack the perspective to make such a claim. The government needs to take a more active role in assessing the problems of the poor and marginalized in our society. The poverty gap widens every year and those at bottom are stuck. You need to realize that you can’t be a grassroots movement because are actually in the wealthy, educated upper class. You need to stop focusing on your wants and pay attention to the needs of the lowliest.
    I hope I don’t come off too strong, but take a good look at yourself; according to CBS as well as the New York Times you’re wealthier and better educated than most of the country. It is well cited by Raymond Johansen as well as NPR that your movement is funded by corporate billionaires to serve their personal political agenda. On your website you claim to be “the voice of the true owners of the United States, we the people.” but by definition a grassroots movement starts from the bottom of the community: the poor, marginalized, working class Americans struggling in a system built against their favor. You represent the well off. Mr. Tea party, you are the high stem or even flowers of the American prairie grass, not the root.
    NPR’s Michel Mitchel does a good job of addressing your paradox. You are upset with the American political system, and you have every right to be. But instead of solving problems, you imply that the marginalized should be grateful they’re lives aren’t worse. I don’t think you have the perspective to suggest you know what’s best when it comes to social change. In the American system, you are extremely well off. As according to Mitchel, change should start from a vision for how the world ought to be, not simply gratitude for our current system. Especially when our current system is flawed.
    I don’t mean to assume, but statistically you just don’t have the same background as American poor. Without this you can’t realize those people stuck within the bottom socioeconomic rung of the ladder have little chance of moving up.  Public schools in troubled areas barely graduate their students, let alone prepare them for continued education. Drop outs struggle at a barely livable minimum wage job hardly earning enough to live, let alone move up in social class. One way this system could be fixed is taxes, which could go towards making a more effective education system, or increase welfare for those with minimum wage jobs so they may have a chance of escaping their chains of poverty.
    We can’t cut taxes when so much more money is necessary to support our fellow Americans. There are people who make nine digit salaries while there are those who barely make five, and those are lucky to have a job. I challenge you to look beyond your current perspective and regard your moral obligation to those people. You did work for the money you earned, but should feel a pride in knowing you are helping those who are struggling by paying taxes. Step outside your current opinions and look at the other side. Be aware of the implications of your actions for everyone, beyond your own personal wants to those all around.
Hope you take this well. I mean the best, really.
                                   
Most Sincerely, Michael Enich

MORE Design!?

So after working on my intro to theater design project until pub safe kicked me out of the theater at 1, and then waking up at 9 and heading straight over there and working until class' beginning at 12:45 I think it's fair to say that I've had more than enough aspects of deisgn for one day.

Buuut of course, we just happen to start our section on architecture.
It's ok, I'll make the best of it. I can cross reference information from both sources!

In design we talked a lot about the visual aspects of architectural time periods so if I were to create a set for, let's say, a play set in rococo period I would be able to capture the essense of that imagery. There's an intersting contast between only capturing the visual information and incorporating that art form into functionality. An arch may look great on stage, but in real life it also is fantastic at supporting weight.

I was intrigued by the description of Holland Hall. All the terms I read in my design book came to life. It is a real piece that does more than just symbolize something, it serves as a functional space. The details add nuances that reflect the educational atmosphere while still standing up, letting in loads of light and displaying the nature of the college. It's real life!

Swirling Thoughts

I just want to say I totally called the reference Zinn made to Locke philosophy, particularly on its dis concern for those who didn't have property to begin with.

Considering the hour, (which is punny because I'm up late after working on The Houre Which We Knew Nothing of Eachother) my thoughts are all over the place. But I'm going to try and pull something together, particularly in refference to a point brought up in class on Friday. We spent a lot of time talking about the dual nature of the declaration of independence as a list of grievences against a figurehead king as well as a list of reminders to those already living in America. I support this idea and it makes sense, but there is some subtle contrast and support between our Amcon opinion, that of Williams and that of Zinn.

First off, William emphasizes the use of pronouns in the declaration. Jefferson begins by speaking in broad humanistic truths of freedom and shifts into "He" attacking the King and "We" to speak to the responsibilities of Americans. Jefferson is approaching all the angles; he wants to appeal to a general philosophical audience, wants to eloquently list the grievances to the king and wants to rally Americans to a cause. His pronoun usage supports this, so I suppose there is less contrast between his rhetoric and our general opinion than I thought.

Zinn has a slightly different opinion. He seems to suggest that the early Americans were already itchin' for a revolution. They needed no reminding, and this document was only an official display from the aristocracy to the Royal Government as a list of grievances and really nothing else. It's debatable whether or not they actually expected to go toward after this or if they just expected to be comfortably reinstated as full English citizens. A full independence in the hands of an angry people lead to democracy, a scary thought to those holding power in an area full of uneducated fools.

Importance of Words

I know this is a commonly approached topic, but I'm going to bring it up anyway. Within the context of the declaration of Independence the early Americans assert their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.", an interesting contrast to the philosophy of Locke that it's based off of, "Life liberty and the pursuit of property.". From what I can recall life believed that a government's role was to do nothing but assure these rights and to keep a military to protect against violence. First off, it's interesting the founding fathers used this philosophy to start a country with an extremely complex governmental system reaching far beyond what Locke believed was necessary. What I wish to focus on is the change in words from property to happiness. There's a fundamental truth our founding fathers are getting at. I don't know if I fully understand the nuances of the change, but this alteration suggests that even those who aren't wealthy should have access to the same rights and freedoms those who aren't do. It's not about aquiring more valuables, but having the necessary freedom to discover who you are, be content and fearless in your life and to have access to what you need.

It's a constant challenge to make sure we are true to what our country's founding ideals are.

Motivationless

This week has been a constant struggle to gather the motivation to do absolutely anything. Which is pretty bad, considering it's the most difficult part of the semester. It doesn't help that next week I'll have at least two days a week that begin at 10:45 and go until 9, then I start homework. That'll be interesting. I've just reached a point in my life where everything is so up in the air and I'm just so confused about what's going on for the future, though this it's not necessary to know at this time.

I'm just going to sit down with my copy of Harry Potter and let my mind rest a little bit. Then I think I'll be ok.

"I never worked harder in my life."

"I never worked harder in my life." said Joshua Wyeth, who published one of the first participant accounts of the Boston Tea Party. "I never worked harder in my life." This phrase really stuck out to me. Out of the entire article, this is what I pulled out.

Revolution's not easy, and it's execution laid in the hands of the people who dumped that tea. It's people that make change, not figureheads or ideas existing on their own. Holton goes through the details of the individual people and how they made their impact. Every action in moving towards the goal of revolution is important. If the populous as a whole wasn't totally engaged in freedom, the revolution would not have happened.

The first example that comes into my head is the argument against vegetarianism. I'm not a vegetarian, but a common argument against it is "Well they're still going to kill the cows even if you don't eat them." That's true, but if more and more people become vegetarian the demmand for cow will go down, and thus less cows will be killed.

See the parallels? Not quite? Let me explain.

One person stands up for a certain cause. Bystander says "You're crazy, you don't have enough followers to do what you're trying to do!". But how will one get followers without speaking out?

A Real Tea Party

Over time, I've developed a very slight obsession with tea. I wouldn't say I'm a tea connoisseur by any means, but I do know details about tea that the average drinker probably doesn't, like black tea will get bitter if steeped in boiling water or in any temperature water for too long, rooibos is supposed to be helpful with combating allergies and chamomile is a natural muscle relaxant (that's why it helps you sleep and relieve tummy aches!). I've found a local tea shop in the Chicago area I like visiting, and it just feels so classy to sit around a pot of tea with friends, discussing the great topics of our current lives. I've even had a tea party here at St. Olaf on the floor of a friend's dorm room. Each person brought their own tea to the "table" and it was a teastravaganza!

I'd guess one of the reasons I started drinking tea was because of the classiness aspect. It's become associated with royalty, in European and Asian cultures. The Japanese tea ceremony is a highly refined art form, and all nobility would drink tea after meals, especially when it was still luxurious. According to MacFarlane this was true, but tea became an integral part of the working class life as well. If sustained laborers through the day, providing that extra boost to stay motivated in less-than-motivating work conditions. It truly became a staple of life; I wonder why that isn't more known. Where in history did we learn to associate it primarily with the upper class instead? Unless it is simply an error in my judgment, which is very possible. A possibility: somewhere along the way we stopped drinking it as frequently, and over time it faded from the commoner's mind but was still imprinted as a luxurious royalty item. Or maybe it's just because I live in America and it just wasn't as big of a deal here.

Either way, I'm far from aristocratic and I still adore the art of tea.

Tea Party... not so much.

Now this is going to be hard for me, because I do not like the tea party. Not a bit. Like, at all. However, there's a trend in America right now claiming that all the tea partiers are crazies going around shooting guns calling everyone socialist Hitlers. Now, there are people that do that. And believing all of them are like that makes the tea party even easier to hate than it already is. But there is a core of people who actually have political ideals represented by the tea party. From what I can understand their main belief is in the control of government. It's sort of like libertarianism, where they believe politics shouldn't too closely intervene in their lives interrupting their "freedoms" and taxes should be much lower than they already are. It's the platform I disagree, and that's why I dislike the party. The added hysteria is just another reason to tack on after the fact (and I definitely think there are a lot more hysterics in the tea party than in other parties, but that is completely my opinion and probably isn't based in any sort of reality). I'm less of a libertarian and more of a Rawlsian, but that's a discussion I'll leave for another day.

Virtue Ethics

I was really excited today during class when I saw all those ethical philosophies on the board, because all I could think about was my ethics class Junior year. I also was dying to explain them all, just because... I dunno, I would have felt cool. On Monday when we first talked about Ben Franklin's approach to being virtuous all I could think about was the bent stick remedy. I suppose I should explain this more.

In Aristotle's virtue ethics he believed that in order to live a virtuous life we must live the "golden mean" between to opposites. Between humbleness and zealousness there was just pride, or between fear and foolhardiness there was bravery. He believed that if you were too humble, for example, you would aim to be as egotistical as you could because you would end up landing at just pride- like if you have a bent stick you bend it past the midway point so it falls short settles there instead.

Benjamin Franklin used this exact method! And by striving to be the absolute maximum virtuous person, he settled on something in the middle; still virtuous, and still human at the same time. I wouldn't say that's a bad place to settle, would you?

The Root Runs Deep

I decided it would be best to respond to DeAne's comment on my previous blog with this post. Basically, I was asked why the American Dream present in Franklin's time doesn't exist today.

I can't say I'm fully qualified to answer that question. My understanding of social changes in America since the 18th century is minimal. However, one trend I can point out is education. With increased knowledge, more and more jobs have been created using new information. Since the 1700's, careers have expanded from simple laborers and clergymen to include options like biomedical engineers, or computer programmers. Because these jobs require a more comprehensive understanding of complex topics, more education is necessary. Because they are more complex, they also offer a higher salary. A person needs a higher salary in order to move up in socioeconomic standing.
The issue comes in when, for most people, educational availability did not increase with the growth of knowledge. Certain populations of our country were never granted higher education due to enslavement or rural location, for example. Now, all-legally-must offered an education, but in poorly managed schools or within circumstances that prevent them from devoting much attention to schoolwork. Sure, they have access to certain low-end jobs, but they don't offer a livable wage, or a wage they can increase their economic standing in.

I firmly believe that if we reformed our educational system, the American dream that once existed would blossom into existence once again.

Any further causal questions I cannot answer; my knowledge on the matter is not deep enough.

Franklin's American Dream

There is one reoccuring definition of the American dream. It has evolved since the foundation of America, but more or less it has always been around. It's the idea that should you work hard enough and commit yourself, you may move up in socioeconomic standing. In the past, people came to America expecting it to be a place where they could find new beginnings. It's been the dream of new Americans for decades, and for a while it held true to this image, like in the case of Benjamin Franlkin.

Franklin started in middle class. He was the youngest son, with siblings all working at a relatively early age. He was able to receive some education, but not fully complete it. Yet, he was still able to accomplish a multitude of things. He educated himself, worked hard at the job he was put into, saught out new opportunities. With hard work and conviction he was able to work himself into notereirity in politics, science and literature. He sure moved up, as any American who works hard is theorhetically able to do.

But how true is this image? I would say that in our modern world it's pretty much false. But that's something I've complained about enough already. No doubt it'll continue to come up.

Save us from the Shopocalypse!

This here is reverend Billy, who I mentioned in class yesterday. It's kind of hard to sum him up, but with a few words I'd say guerrilla gospel protesting. Reverend Billy is a character leading the church of stop shopping, devoted to "...supporting and advocating for sustainable consumption, encouraging and advocating for strong local economies, and defending the first amendment and public space." He takes a gospel choir to various establishments, including places like Walmart, Starbucks, or Disneyland, delivers a sermon on the evils of over consumption, sings a song and then is usually ushered away by the police. He challenges people to buy locally (as to support mom and pop stores), not to buy more than they need, to know where their products come from and to not replace gifts that could be heartfelt with ones that are expensive.

Now a lot of people believe he's crazy, and in a way he is. He's excessive because it draws attention and is better at getting the message across, if you don't immediately look away. I think anyone is more likely to watch a man making a fool of himself with a pretty good sounding choir behind him than a man on a box yelling on a street corner (another place where the beauty of art supplements a message of social justice... interesting). It's another person asking us to be aware of our habbits as Americans and how they influence other Americans and people around us,

The Roots of a Weed

I'm about to go on another rant about being upset with America's values (a common theme amongst my blog posts) so if you'd rather not listen click back now.

Now that that disclaimer's out of the way, I would like to announce that I've found the roots of one of our countries main problems; consumerism! Perhaps it's excessive to say that I discovered it alone, and that it is the sole root. Butler on page 154 suggests that Americans from the start imported plenty of European products. Was it ncessary? Probably not. But they rellied on luxuries from their home instead of compeltely distancing themselves, and comepletely detaching themselves from the consumerist attitude they came from.

That is one of the roots.

The other one exists within the American Dream. I was in a class called Justice Seminar last year, which I've probably talked about before. It was addressing social justice issues and we spent a lot of time on the evolution and devolution of the American Dream. The American dream, in theory, suggests that anyone may move up from their socioeconomic level by tightening their bootstraps and working hard. Cullen suggests that this upward mobility was fully available to early colonists, and was pioneered by Benjamin Franklin. Over time this has faded into nothing but an ideal. Socioeconomic levels have been concreted and harder to move about. It is the devolution of the American dream.

Hm, maybe that doesn't fit into my root metaphor. Oh well, I like it anyway.

Inventory Time

I kind of did this by looking around my side of the bedroom. I don't know how I managed to fit so much stuff into such a small dorm room space. The strangest part is if we're talking necessities, I don't need most of this to live.

2 chairs
I Winter jacket
3 sweatshirts
2 backpacks
1 Messenger bag
Nighthawks Poster
5 headed lamp
Desk with top
Alarm clock
Photos
500GB Hard drive
Sigg Water Bottle
Laptop (charger)
Cell Phone (charger)
Change Cup with change
Many books
Sentimental stuff (Bumper stickers, post cards, paintings)
Quote Jar
12 Xbox games
7 DVDs (2 movies, rest plays)
Sheet music
Trunk
Printer
Boots (Cowboy and Winter)
Stuffed Animals (Buddha, pig, dog)
Fridge
Plenty of food (Pop tarts, ritz bits, nutella, peanut butter, etc)
British Poster
Buddha Poster
Beehive Design Collective Poster
Two Plants (Silvester & Regina)
Chips
Clothes!
    4 Dressy Shirts
    3 Ties and a Bow Tie
    5 Pairs of Jeans
    5 Pairs of Shoes
    2 Pairs of Sandals
    Socks and Underwear
    Lots of Tshirts
    Shorts... They’re away now
    3 pairs of Khakis
3 Empty boxes
5 Cups
4 Mugs
3 Plates
Silverware
Cables for Electronics
Laundry Supplies (Tide, Stain Remover, Dryer Sheets, Hamper, Basket)
Paper Towels
5 Towels
2 Sets of Sheets
5 Pillows and
Plenty of Plastic Bags
Mattress Pad
iPod
Office Supplies (Stamps, Paper Clips, Pencils, Pens, Scissors, Post-its, etc)
Pills
Hole Punch
CDs
Hardcore Supplies (Ductape, Screwdrivers)
Sketchbooks
Reams of Paper
Lightbulbs
Hot Water Maker

What, What, What are you doing?

Dear Neil Young,
I understand you're an artist trying to make poetic lyrics for a song. But what, what, what are you doing? You're crossing all these lines and all it's accomplishing is the convolution of your point. I understand you're trying to connect nature with the Native Americans, but the aurora borealis can't be seen in anywhere in the continental US. I don't mean to crush your creative spirit, but at least try to get some accuracies right? Tepees are a plains Indians thing; Pocahontas wouldn't live in one. Also, I'll bet my bottom dollar that she never saw a buffalo. Maybe your overall message is supposed to go into the general native American experience, but at least title your song differently then, mk?

Love, Michael Enich
PS- Marlon Brando, what?

Life Bottenecking

It's kind of funny that we get the assignment to look at images of Pocahontas the day after I go to Beehive Design Collective and during the time we should be thinking about classes for next semester. Since highschool I've wanted to take an Art History class, simply because I love art but have never been particularly skilled at producing it. An art history class would provide that vital link between the beauty of a painting with the social constructs of the time, which I love observing. In my intro to theater design class we just did a project on the Gothic/late medieval period. My section was on historical, economic and social context. Seeing the connections between papal power and the vertical lines in a church, or the economic revolution reflected in the the clothes of people in paintings satisfied the side of me that loves synthesizing. In short, I'm obssessed with whether art follows life or life follows art.
The one question is answered for me though; no art history I classes are offered next semester. But, as you can see in my last post, Beehive Design Collective was an example where art is reflective of the time, this time deliberately to effectively convey a social issue.

All of this was simply rambling on how all the events are sort of coming together. It's a metaphorical bottleneck!

But I already have my overarching post for the week, so this must be reigned into the Pocahontas images we saw. What's most interesting about these images is how much the painters' perspective usually effected the piece. In Sully's Pocahontas  she maintains none of her Native American heritage, but is garbed in a western dress and put into a European portrait pose. The worst part is we have no way to tell how accurate this portrait is! And now I'm wondering what a Native American "pose" would be... How could we be more true to her character? How much of these portraits, tainted with western eyes influenced the current image of Pocahontas? Is it a bad thing that they have the artists' skew? Hopefully we can talk about this in class tomorrow.

Beehive Design Collective

The Beehive Design Collective is a group of artists, activists and researchers based in Maine. Together they live and do art based in social justice. They spend a great amount of time researching an issue, finding out every facet of it from community viewpoints to the western impacts. They've zeroed on 3 major issues so far including the free trade zones, the Columbian drug war and coal mining. The image you see above is the Coal Mining one, focusing specifically on the effects on Appalachia. Just the sheer scope is astounding! If you can see the detail, the animal metaphors reflect the history and culture of Appalachia, the corporate takeover and hijacking of the land, and the grassroots movement.
I'm fascinated by their artistic process. They go through such detail in their research, interviewing so many people and finding out the truth behind the issues they asses. I love when art is used as a tool to promote learning. It morphs a beautiful medium into a useful tool to promote awareness; it takes something aesthetic and turns it into something practical. Also, getting into a community and really trying to understand their perspective, and to contrast it with your own to produce such a wonderful art. It's inspiring!

Wild Animals

I was reading through White's "A True Picture", and there was something bothering me the whole time. It was his tone. Throughout the entire narrative it was if he was describing wild animals in their natural habitat. He observed every detail as if he were watching chimpanzees. The only emotional details he included would be to scorn the native population for valuing copper, or building boats differently than normal, or for not believing in the same one and only God. As it is a report for the queen I could understand, but I don't know... something about it irked me. It's as if by observation they seek to distance themselves. I know they did come in real contact with them, but observing every detail to interactions is no way to begin a friendship.

I could not get into the rest of the readings, at all. Hopefully our discussion tomorrow will help clear up some confusion.

One Breath

Last Saturday the Viking Choir sang in the Family Weekend concert, and if I do say so myself it was fantastic!
I'll have to give a little background on my vocal experience for this to make a lot of sense. I was told I had a good voice after I auditioned for the musical spring of my Junior year. I started taking voice lessons then and even tried auditioning for music majors at some schools. At St. Olaf I wasn't accepted, probably because I hadn't had any legitimate choir experience or music theory training and couldn't tell you where middle C on a piano is. So when I auditioned for Viking I was a little worried, but luckily I made it. And I am so happy that I did.
Being in a choir is just so fantastic! Together you make a wall of marvelous sound. The community is great and supports each other; if I loose my part I listen to the basses around me, or if I'm looking to have dinner I could have it with any of the other 93 guys and I'm sure all of them would be glad to join me. Besides loving the wonderful sound on Sunday, there was one moment where the entire choir took a deep breath at the same time, and you could hear the air moving into all of our lungs. It moved me, and was marvelous.

The Puritans talked about times in nature when we see fantastic splendor of God. In that moment in choir, I saw a moment of beauty in the universe. I felt free to continue producing harmonious sound. It was awesome, in the old sense of the word.

Columbia

Groseclose's article on symbols, specifically what we read about Columbia, make them come off almost as if they're organic. Depending on their environment and who they interact with they change and over time can even evolve into completely new identities. In Columbia's case, she started as a Native American woman warrior, representing the wild perception of all the Americas from before they were explored. Her fierce nature embodied the fear of the those still in Europe. As more people came over the fear of the wild dwindled slightly, and as that fear waned Colubmia become more westernized, more slender, beautiful, and delicate. Instead of a symbol of intense ferocity she represented one of liberty. While that is still a noble ideal, she lost the edge she had before. All that remained of her intensity were the feathers, remnants of a symbol long changed.
The fact that she had Native American feathers shows the fascination that Americans had with the early inhabitants of this land. To many back then they represented a fierce spirit that many Americans harbored within themselves, and may have brought to America to unleash to fight for freedom. It's all part of a symbolic cycle we all participate in without even realizing it.

Symbiosis

It was interesting to read Anella's article after discussing the value Puritans place on landscape. While both seemed to appreciate nature, each did so in different ways. The Puritans looked at nature with awe and splendor as a representation of God within our world. They took a spectator's perspective, just appreciating it from a distance. The Pueblos, on the other hand, appreciated nature by completely wrapping themselves into it and making it a part of their way of life. Their housing was built in symbiosis with their landscape, each aspect incorporating something from the world around them, such as the river that divided one settlement in half or the orientation towards a specific set of mountains. I was particularly interested in the town plazas aspect. Traditional western plazas close themselves off to nature, becoming a part of the city and enclosing those around them. It ignored the nature around them and maybe that's what eventually put them in their spectator position. Perhaps if we took the perspective of the Pueblos, completely open to nature and used as a space for gathering, we would have a better perspective on nature right now. Maybe the concept of sustainability would have traveled down through our generations, and being concerned about environmentalism would be engraved in our habits, not forced as it is now.

Home

Isn't is crazy to think we've been here for four weeks now? For four weeks we've slept in beds that weren't our own, waited in caf lines that wrap around the salad bar in Stav, and heard the echoing chimes while sitting in Adirondack chairs on the lawn. Through clubs and dorm dance parties we're all grown together into a wonderful community. In our readings this week we talked about landscape, and Lane in particular would discuss the idea of finding place, and not being lost in space. This place houses so many wonderful people and grants us so many opportunities... to me it seems like the perfect balance. Almost anyone here, on our microcity on a hill, will smile back if you smile at them walking to Buntrock. Any of the desk workers I've met at Hoyme are always willing to have a conversation, even if it's over something like my laundry. At the same time, we are free to explore the world at large! Our college adventure began and now we can go wander into the wilderness of the natural lands or serve the Northfield community. We can study abroad, throwing ourselves into a new place, knowing we can come back here and be just as happy as we were before. We have a new base from which we are free to explore the wilds of the world. This balance is what Lane says Americans long for; I'm blessed to have found it.

Little Ole Northfield

I grew up in Chicago all of my life and while I wasn't in the skyscrapery part, I was still a quick drive or train ride away from the loop. So I'd consider myself a city kid, even if the suburbs begin not too far from where my house is, and I live walking distance from three forest preserves. In Chapter 8 Lane discusses the American ideal of space, and how we seem to be in a constant struggle between finding freedom and feeling lost, and comfort and constriction. I would hardly consider my community constricting, but to some degree I've always been interested in that small town feel. The community he describes where it's impossible to walk anywhere because everyone offers you a ride is one I've sort of dreamed of living in. I've never experienced it in my neighborhood, so I thought Northfield might give me the chance. It's part of the reason I chose St. Olaf; I figured I could try small town life for a while (even if the campus is a microcity of its own) and see how it goes. So far, it's been in great. I'm excited to see where it takes me, and if I'll find the perfect medium Lane describes in the future.

The Trophy Lawn

Stilgoe's article on the American landscape, as well as Opal's blog post really got me thinking about what a lawn says about a person. We associate a beautifully manicured lawn with happiness and I don't think we completely consciously comprehend the reasons why. Well, take some time to think about it. If you have a lawn that means you can own property, suggesting status. The bigger it is, the more money it suggests you have to spend on land. If it's perfect that means you have extra time to tend to its every detail, meaning you don't work all the time to pay off your property or have to tend to other more pressing tasks in your life. By matching the lawn of the neighbors you show you fit perfectly into the society you've chosen to live in. I wonder if lawns are actually beautiful, or if we've just been conditioned to believe so.
If you look at a city, Chicago for example, you can see how the desire for a lawn comes into play. The upper class neighbordhoods have sweeping lawns, hugging their wrap around porches all of which is perched on top of a tree lined street. Middle class neighborhood have pleasantly sized lawns. Lower class neighborhoods have apartments with people stacked on top of each other, with little to no lawn space for every person in that building. Of course this is only a general pattern, as there are expensive apartment buildings and ways to get cheap land, but it symbolizes the value we put on a square of plant.

Plus I really don't think lawns are pretty. I'd much rather see a patch of legitimate prairie grass or even a zen rock garden than that green that's inefficient at fixing carbon and steals water.

You Go Girl!

Anne Hutchinson finally made the Puritans more interesting for me. Prior to this I found it hard to engage in the materials we've been reading, but now I'm hooked. To me, Anne Hutchinson represents the fundamental freedom America is built on- the freedom to pursue who you are truly meant to be. Anne Hutchinson fought for this freedom. She realized her own personal power and the power of women in general. She saw that her circumstances prevented that freedom, and strove to change the circumstance. In the other article I read the author describes the system the Puritan men had in place, and every aspect of that society was geared to prevent women from self-actualization. They were to remain submissive constantly, not even free to experience God in the same way men were. Hutchinson sought to level the spiritual playing field and open up the faith to women, and arguably eventually recreate the woman's role in Puritan life. There is something deeply respectable about her actions, and her willingness to stand up in opposition to all of those against her. I believe she is the model of a valuable American citizen. I just can't stop fawning over her courageousness, I find her truly remarkable and hope that we will read about more characters like her, and that all of us may strive to gain some of her qualities.

Love is all They Needed.

When reading the Model of Christian Charity I'm shown values I am familiar with. Winthrop teaches the values of justice and mercy. He realizes that in this new world that "every man [should] help another in want or distress." This idea of community is one that I believe has traveled up the ages, and now more than ever should be emphasized. FDR's freedom from want exemplifies this. As an American community we are bound by the foundation of our country to aid one another in times of need, simply because we are human. I feel like a broken record with how I constantly preach supporting those who are less privileged, but it's something I'm starting to realize that I am passionate about.

Winthrop's ideals clash with Bradford's description. I fail to see the "justice and mercy" in attacking the Native Americans the Puritans come in contact with. The beautiful ideal of equality under God disappears as the colony grows large and some become more prosperous than others. And the negative freedom of participation is never even granted to some in the community, like women or children born into Puritanism. There's some obvious disparities; ones that existed then and still, in some ways, remain now.

Glee- America in a Nutshell.

I'm just going to put this out there; I adore the television show "Glee." And while all of us watching it in the Hoyme lounge tonight may have joked about making a post about it, I am actually going to follow through, because I love it that much. The whole time I was wondering "How on earth and am I going to connect this to Amcon?" but I believe I have found a way!

Glee says more about the American value system than I have the willpower to type in one blog post. All of the characters on that show embody some sort of American high school stereotype. In essence it is nothing we haven't seen before- another teen drama with pregnant kids, on and off relationships and a gay teen. But it's somehow edgier; the music adds a whole new aspect and it's almost as if the show is saying "Yeah, we're another teen drama, but we've got music. What are you gonna do now?"

Despite its corniness I still think Glee challenges your average American teen. It tells them to speak out, to be themselves. To not be afraid of being the odd one out, and to follow your dreams! It's a challenge to the norm just because of its medium and because of its content. So yeah, it is another teen drama series. But it has music. Awesome music at that.

And that's all I have to say about that, since my friend needs his computer back.

The Thrilling Life of the New England Puritans

I don't know if it's because I had class until 5 today, or if it's because I'm easily distracted but I just could not absorb what Cullen is saying. He claimed that Puritans were not what we thought they were, but just proceeded to describe a group of people I was already fairly familiar with. They never struck me as extremists, just citizens of England fed up with a state that was becoming increasingly corrupt. They were the first of the ideal American citizen in that they gave up comfort striving for values they believed were important. Despite my misgivings Cullen's literature made me realize how fundamental the Puritans were as a building block for American society. Their Mayflower compact set a democratic tone for the rest of American society. As Cullen said, "... it is precisely the willingness to do something difficult, painfully, unintentionally mischievous or finally impossible that gives purpose to individual lives...". Perhaps in my laziness I failed to recognize how hard core the Puritans were, and how much of what we have now is thanks to them.

Learning to Love St. Olaf

Learning to Love St. Olaf- Tou and Enich

because it is in the middle of nowhere

because windmill hypnotizes you walking to Hoyme
because the fragrance of malt-o-meal fills the air
and because the hill is more dynamic than a field

because we say “Um ya ya!”

because we live in a dorm
we have eaten locally
and because the cold starts in September,

because I’ve started adjusting an inner warmth
my skin is chilled
my homesickness near the pit of my stomach

because I must wear shoes all the time now

because I have taken a risk with friends
because each one is welcoming
because I’ve seen them in the same place I am
because they relate to me too

because I have found a new community
because they will all support me
because we all chose the same place to be

because changing your mind is not an option
because it is time.

From my home, America

Haugen's poem regarding relatives coming back from America sent a few thoughts through my brain. Does America really fundamentally change the way someone appears? I would like to think that it is simply psychological, that this parent or sister simply thought that their child or sibling changed drastically because they wanted to believe they did. No one place should alter the feeling behind someone's eyes. Or should it... Well, not enough to confuse someone as much as this poem seemed to be.
But then I think back to my time abroad in London and Scotland, and my fellow Amconer Mike made a comment. There we constantly saw American symbols, could watch Friends at 11, and saw American news. "People here," Mike said, "must get tired of constantly being bombarded with American culture." The American ideal can alter the communities it comes in contact with, and it seems to be spreading. I don't doubt this individual was extremely altered by their experience. So I suppose yes, this all does make sense to me.

All or Nothing

I went to the Liberal Learning and Religion panel discussion today, and while at some times it was hard to follow the intense constitutional language, I think I got the gist of it. Our founding fathers didn't want to exclude any religion, but came from a background of generally protestantism. So later, when approaching issues of religion, that is what their template was.

What I found most interesting was Professor Casson's talk about religious symbols and their place in a secular state. He discussed how using religious symbolism can get messy when used on public lands. I am reminded of Chicago's Daley Plaza around the holidays. The Plaza is most famous for it's giant Christmas tree, but more recently a large Hannukah menorah has appeared as well as a flame that is supposed to represent the presence of Islam (I believe that's what it was, I don't quite remember).

It makes me wonder... It seems as far as religious symbolism goes you either need to represent all the religions or none of them. That cross in the desert would have more been acceptable if the Jewish Star of David and Islamic Crescent Moon were present as well. But they weren't, which means the symbol was hollowed and made to represent a secular idea instead.

Freedom-Bound Dreams

In the introduction to The American Dream Cullen mentions many different aspects of the American Dream, and how it has evolved over time. Towards the end I picked up on one particular aspect of what Cullen said, and it struck me;

"... all notions of freedom rest on a sense of agency, the idea that individuals have control over the course of their lives."

Thus freedom, security, and The American Dream weave themselves together to create this nebulous idea that the United States is founded on. Immediately I thought "What about those who can't control the course of their lives? Those who are stuck in their social situation with little hope of moving their life forward..." Where is their American dream?

T.T. Williams discussed the idea of an open democracy, which provides justice for all living things. In this open democracy constantly questioning and carrying a "healthy sense of indignation". I hate to sound didactic, but a sense of complacency on issues of justice isn't acceptable. Those loosing sight of the American Dream should not succumb to fear and silence themselves, and if they do, we should be their voice: a voice for the voiceless.

Beginnings

Had to start over for ease's sake, but here's the quote I started with again.

“If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.”
-Carl Shurz