But does it hold true?

In my Ragtime essay, I argue that three characters (Emma, Coalhouse and Tateh) all achieved the American Dream to some extent by casting off the social category labels that were placed on them. Tateh needed to set himself apart from the other immigrants; Goldman needed to remove the binds placed on all women, and Coalhouse was able to ignore his race until he was violently made aware of it. This is a somewhat disjointed description, because there are subtle nuances in each case that can't be described in a broad, sweeping statement. If you want to read my whole paper though, let me know! I'd be glad to send it to you.

Anyway, I was just wondering how true my thesis is to real life. Are those who are successful in America the ones who threw their social labels to the wayside? I'm trying to think of important people...Bill Gates out of Harvard. So he had to climb over the stereotype of the "college dropout" (and I would say he was extremely successful in doing so). Oprah Winfrey went from being an impoverished girl to a powerful Woman of color. A family immigrant friend went from living and working in the poorest Chicago neighborhood to being nurse manager in a cardiology unit. I'm sure there is a really obvious famous story I am missing, and plenty of lesser known, but equally important success stories.

I'm sensing a pattern in Doctorow's characters as well as the real people. It seems as if they abandoned one negative label to embrace a different, more positive one. Bill gates took the title of computer nerd to the next level. Tateh had no problem embracing his position as "artist". Americans are infamous for placing labels on everything; perhaps if we can't abandon labels completely, we should just switch to positive ones.

Getting Intimate with "Cross"

I read through all the poems tonight, and decided to get really intimate with one I didn't identify strongly with at first. That one would be Cross.

Cross
My old man's a white old man
And my old mother's black.
If ever I cursed my white old man
I take my curses back.
If ever I cursed my black old mother
And wished she were in hell,
I'm sorry for that evil wish
And now I wish her well
My old man died in a fine big house.
My ma died in a shack.
I wonder were I'm going to die,
Being neither white nor black?

There's an obvious meter between lines. This difference in rhythm helps contrast the two different parentages; the white man usually gets more syllables. In a way his surplus mirrors the emphasis society places on the white man. The driving conflict of this poem his the subject's mixed race; his father was white and his mother was black. We can imagine the story the story behind this poem easily. It was a wealthy estate owner who had sex with one of his female slaves. She gave birth to her child, and he fell into this nebulous space between the two races. (I realize now I'm using he, and I want to say that's because of the tone, but it could easily be a woman as well.) He lacks his father's high status in society and should be better off than his mother. Instead, he receives neither. Now he's lost both of his parents, and he regrets the frustration he probably vented towards both people. Part of this is just the remorse, but I'm sure he had his fair share of harsh words for them both when they were alive.

What I'm most interested in is the title. "Cross" has many connotations; the first I thought of was a biblical one. In a sense, this mix of race is the character's cross to bear. It represents all the struggles he must have faced. He is also a cross of races, which was his cross to bear. Perhaps it could even refer to his attitude; he is cross at his life situation. Reading this gives me a whole new appreciation for creating poetry. My statue of liberty poem does not make the cut.

Lost...

I've been writing sentences,
interpretting characters,
drawing arrows,
marking quotes,
talking to myself,
confronting Doctorow,
and so much more for a few hours now and I'm really just not feeling any draw towards comprehension of a topic for this paper. It just seems as if Doctorow isn't arguing anything except for necessity of good fortune to be a success story in the American dream. But then I have to use different characters.

This is me stream of consciousness typing.

If we look at Tateh and Goldman, their interactions are far from strongly correlated within the book. But we can theorize how their relationship looked. Tateh worked hard, he came believing in these American ideals and set to work for it. Goodman saw the same, but what made her realize that she couldn't succeed? She had seen more, I suppose. So is Doctorow making a statement on ignorance? no that's dumb.

Wait, apparently I just forgot about Chapter 8.
There's tensions between the two characters because of their view on the American Dream's existence. Tateh is a socialist because he sees the potential in the American people to achieve the equality he expected when he came to America, whereas Goldman has given up because of whatever reasons (she has seen more than Tateh has, and she is disheartened by the Patriarchal system and how she can never reach the dream anyway). These two perspectives are based on characteristics randomly "assigned" by fate. There's a ragtime feel in it where accents are unpredicatble, and that shapes your entire outlook and thus whether or not you change classes?

Hmm... i'll take this somewhere. Maybe Coalhouse could play a role too, considering his race prevented him from achieving a self-actualized American dream. But he got as far as he did because he didn't think he was black.

Maybe it's more about perspective.
These characterics shape the perspective on the American dream.
So what?

Social Commentary of Coloring Books

I know a few of my fellow amconners are in French 231, but I thought I would introduce this to our class in general as a topic that links back to our first semester. The first topic we discussed in our class was coloring books, and the difference between American ones and French ones. There are some pictures for you at the bottom (due to technical difficulties). On the left you see two pages, one of which is colored already, the other which has an outline of the same pictures. The right is completely black and white.  In France, a child who decides to start coloring is expected to color just like the images on the right. They are taught to follow rules early on. It coincided with a general French attitude on childrearing, where children learn manners and self-discipline early on so that during adolescence they may try out freedom. In America, we have the opposite. When a child is young they may color as they want. They can scribble and scratch with a crayon and the parent will reply with "Oh, how beautiful!". Then when the teenage years come around, all of a sudden there are restrictions, causing strife and this inherent need to rebel.
When I discussed freedom in my final paper of 101, I argued that freedom is the ability to choose to become the best version of yourself. This is an American definition of freedom, and here we see it. This child is conditioned when young to do as he or she pleases by not having a guide to color by. (According to my French book,) A child can do or say just about anything and they are granted with attention and praise. In this time of their life they already make choices; they are simple, small choices, but they are still free to choose. And through smaller choices we prepare ourselves to make the bigger choices that form ourselves. As a dense fact, these coloring books suggest much more than just basic knowledge of color. We want our children to acknowledge these values from the very getgo.

French Coloring Book

American Coloring Book

Ragtime the Movie

This is a little spoiler for those of you who haven't seen the movie yet; I just thought I would post my thoughts now.

Overall, I was disappointed by the movie. A lot of what we talked about regarding the novel mentioned the multiple plot lines forming a rhythm to the book that mirrored the rhythm of the ragtime music. Through the multiple narratives we got different emphases on different perspectives, all regarding the American identity around the turn of the century. Through this the famous and obscure stood next to one another. I thought the movie forced too much emphasis on a plot line that, yes, was essential to the dramatic engine of the story but hardly served as the only point of intrigue for it. We don't see Houdini's transformation, or Father's journey to the arctic, or Goodman at all. It's as if there were pieces of the composition left out, or bars where placement on the downbeat changed the whole feeling of a measure.

One thing I thought that was interesting though was the way the movie handled dialogue. If you'll notice in the book there are no direct conversations recorded by the narrator. Any dialogue is handled in a manner similar to "She said something along the lines of _____, and he cordially responded with ______". This left a lot of room open for interpretation of the character's voice and word choice, which has a large impact on how a character is portrayed. To me, all of them were slightly off. For example, Evelyn was much less aware of her beauty, and came off as quite the ditz in the film. I suppose this would just be my interpretation, however. In general it is hard to bring characters to life, and without any direct lines it must have been even harder.

Overall, I would give this movie 2/5 stars. It was lacked luster for a movie depicting the gilded age in America.

Schindler's List and Ethnicity

As part of Cantorei's reatreat this Saturday, Pferg thought it would be a good idea for us to watch Schindler's list together. I had never seen the American cinematic epoc before; I nearly cried three times during the movie (which is a big deal for me); Its black and white frames matched its macabre feeling so well; It was one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen.
But this movie goes far beyond a piece of art. It is a powerful statement on... well, many ideas. That's the monster that is the Holocaust. Through this we see the manipulation of power, the emotions in a circumstance of suffering, and the effects of the will of a man with much at his disposal.

What I would like to address though is the Holocaust. I cannot wrap my head around what a scar that event is on the history of humanity. I do not know if we can ever learn enough from what occurred to prevent it again-though I hope we can. What I can point out is the despicable reasoning the massacre was justified: ethnicity. Yes, there were other groups (homosexuals, mentally disabled) but primarily this was an ethnic cleansing. The article placed heavy emphasis on social communities forming ethnicity, and religion is a strong tie for social communities. These were people who created traditions in their relative communities, and the Nazies came in and destryoed it all. How can someone justify killing off entire ethnic groups? Many have done it; there are lesser known genocides that have occurred in Kosovo,  Rwanda, arguably Syria could be included now. What drives one ethnic group to kill another one? This is something to explore in another class.

Shameless Showtunes Post

 

"Happy to Keep His Dinner Warm", from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

(I should mention this is modeled after Beth's recent post on Ragtime.)

How to Succeed... has recently seen a Broadway revival, starring the lovely DanRad as the main character. In this song Rosemary sings about her wanting to find a rich husband and move to New Rochelle (sound familiar?) and enduring his understandable neglect because of his attention to his business. While she sings it happily, there's  a darker underside to her words. She's essentially placing herself in a less-than-adequate relationship because of the expectations placed on her as a woman. 

I could go into speaking about gender roles and h ow she is conforming to an image of the steadfast wife, shoving aside her needs to allow her husband to come first, but instead I'm doing to talk about wealth and success and its effect on relationships. In Ragtime we see Mother and Father's relationship slowly break down. Yes, it primarily has to do with the incidents following Coalhouse's disappearance; there are other subtexts though. Mother grows slightly resentful over Father's frugality with the money they do have. Father worries how irked she will be when he must return to work from Atlantic City. Beyond the parental relationship, Father notices his frail paternal connection to his son. Perhaps it is only Coalhouse that brought the stress to their family; call me pessimistic, but I think that only acted as a catalyst.

Facts on Social Stratification

I dug deep into an old binder for this one- I took a class senior year of highschool called "Justice Seminar". We took a look at Igantian Theology and worldview, and the Jesuit image of justice. Then we spent a lot of time looking at how our country is set up, and what contributes to inequality in the United States.

Here are some facts I'm pulling from a handout we got in class. The book's called "Dimensions of Inequality in the United States". These facts are from the second chapter.

• 3.3% of househoulds had annual incomes of less that $5,000. 17.2%had incomes of $100,000. 
• The gap between the average woker's pay and that to top corporate executives has shown a staggering increase from 40 to 1 in 1990 to 419 to 1 in 1998.
• The numbers at each end have grown, dubbing the term "Social Stratification"- like the rocks- because those two portions of "rock" at the opposite ends are growing.
• The U.S. Congress has deliberately avoided allowing the minimum wage to keep pace with the cost of living, thus keeping wages of the poorest Americans lower.
• 60% of those at the bottom 25 percent of wealth holders in 1975 were still there in 1995, with 21% moving up to the next 25%, and 12% of those people moving up to the next 25% group.

So what am I trying to get at? Well, we talked a lot about social class today. This suggests something; the middle class we all claim to be a part of is slowly dissapearing. What can we do to make sure it doesn't fade away completely? We all want to be Chases, but no one wants to be Tateh.

Commentary on Social Class

Pg 58-59:

"There was a strike in Pittsburgh. At the Homestead steel plant of Mr. Carnegie. And Mr. Carnegie decided to break the union. So he ran off for a European vacation and had his chief today, that infamous piece of scum Henry Clay, do the job. Frick imported an army of Pinkertons [private security guards]. The workers were on strike to protest the cutting of wages. The plant is on the Monongahela River and Frick towed his Pinkertons up the river and landed them at the plant from the river. There was a pitched battle. It was a war. When it was over ten were dead and dozens and dozens were wounded. The Pinkertons were driven off. So then Frick was able to get the government working for him and the state militia came in to surround the workers... We would revolutionize their struggle. We would kill Frick. But we were in New York and we had no money. We needed money for a railway ticket and a gun...I would have done it if I had to. It was for Berkman and the revolution."

There are some comments in here that really speak to the idea of social class. First of all, we have the upper class man with a problem he wants to avoid. Through the use of the funds he has gained through the expoitation of the striking workers he leaves his problems for a life of even less turmoil than his current one. Then, more money is spent to violently put down this group of lower class people. Here we see the will of the masses, unified together (engaging in their society, I would add) for a common cause. They are fufiling their roles as citizens by striking. They are choosing to peaceful engage an oppressor. That is, until the bloody battle. But after this battle waged in self defense, we see another member of this social class trying herself to the fight. The unification and determination of this class just comes off as infinitely stronger of the upper class. who runs away from their issues.

We just see a sharp contrast between the two far sides of the social class spectrum. While it has been a while since we have seen such violent protests, I don't think it would be absurd to say that a similar sort of tension exists. It has just evolved since then.

Lightning Strikes (Again)

Lightning strikes her-
       illuminating.
The monochromatic darkness cracks-
      river and sky.
Steadfast she stands-
     a maternal protector.


It's changed a bit since class, but I think it's just as enjoyable.

"Why 9/11 Changed Nothing"

Why 9/11 Changed Nothing, by Paul Harvey.

This article really brought new light to an attitude that seems to be commonly heald by our generation today. According to Harvey, 9/11 wasn't the defining moment that we seem to think it was. It was another step in a cycle of wars our countries has faced. He gave the civil war as an analogy, of sorts. The tragic event: slavery, as apposed to the loss of American lives. The result: a civil war, or a war on terror. The cause: Freedom for thousands of people.


While I agree with him on the principle that this is a cycle, I don't think it's correct of him to assert that it changed nothing. I'm sure the civil war changed the attitudes of many people on slavery. Many lives were lost in both incidents. 9/11 instilled a new hatred in people's minds, along with a new fear. It may have been another turn of the wheel, but I believe it's safe to say much has changed since then.

Lightning Strikes

This image begs one question to me: does freedom strike, quickly evolving as a mass movement with many people? Or is it different from this image; is it a drawn out process, full of planning? Looking at our history, I think it's safe to say it's evolving. Full of mistakes, downfalls, and triumph, all people are constantly on the hunt for liberty.

Photo is by Jay Fine, a New Yorker.

"The cost of freedom..."

This isn't quite the image I was looking for, but it says the same thing.
I've spent a good chunk of my summer at the Edward Hines Jr. Veterans hospital, being a volunteer research assistant and sitting in on a couple open heart surgeries. At the main entrance to the hospital a placque is mounted on the wall. It's probably 6 inches by 20 inches, with a modest navy background. In the foreground there is the veterans eagle, with the text "Edward Hines Jr. Hospital: The Price of Freedom is Visible Here." I suppose it only makes sense, considering only veterans may use this hospital's facilities, but at the same time, is this a message we want posted in a center for healing? I'm looking extremely far into it, but in a way this categorizes the patients at this facility as a down-payment for freedom. "These are the casualties necessary to live your democratic life." the sign said to me as I walked past. But at the same time, perhaps it is more of an affirmation. To the veterans it says "You have been injured, but your pain is not in vain. It is for our freedom. Let us heal you as thanks."