There were students from China back in the twenties?

I was browsing through the St. Olaf Catalog from 1926 and found that there were two Chinese students! There were also one from Japan and a 2 from Canada. It was a surprise for me since who would think that international students would come to a small liberal arts college in Northfield. However, Elma Thorson does not sound Chinese to me, So I wonder if she was a second generation Chinese? Or even third? Or an American studied in China? So I went to the yearbook, curious about what she looks like. Here's a description and a picture.

I think that "American school" really solve the confusion. It was just a cool discovery.   

Liberal arts at St. Olaf

What I learn from the reading today is that an liberal art education is not just the education that make you more well-rounded. A liberal arts college is a "freedom school". I think it still depends on the students in the school to make the institution free. We need to know "our own minds in order to be good citizens of a free society", and know how to make what we've learn in the school "free" in terms of make them our own. St.Olaf has been a co-ed school since the beginning, contributing a egalitarian system for both women and men to pursue this freedom. I think this freedom is a different from the freedom we talked about first semester last year. Freedom in this context means the complexity and fluidity of intelligence that can be used to different disciplines. Sometimes I wonder if an liberal arts education is necessary or beneficial. It is a great thing to do in college, studying different areas, integrating passions yet to be explored. However, what can you do with a liberal arts degree later in life? I probably have to go to grad school if i want to be a biomedical engineer. But what if I only studied biomedical sciences and had already become an expert in during my college. Now we have college graduates with liberal degrees but not specialized in anything areas. Others would argue that liberal arts education teach us how to be a leader, how to learn, and how to deal with life later. I feel like it is not very clear to say it teaches me to learn how to learn. what does it mean? I don't feel any difference. It would be so much easier if I could just get out of college with a D.O degree, taking out fewer loans and start making a career i love.

Boe

Boe seems to emphasize on his identity of being a Lutheran more than on his Norwegian ethnicity. I find this also true when I was doing my research about St. Olaf in the twenties. In Rolvaag chapter, he reiterates  that the great Norwegian heritage is somewhat superior than the rest of the American, and before Boe became president of St. Olaf, Norwegian pride was definitely more dominent in the school. Boe, on the other hand, not an immigrant himself, focused more on the church affiliation to try to unite the student body. He claimed in his letter to Ditmanson that St. Olaf stands for cultural continuity. I find him really pushing the idea of an American identity, which for St. Olaf, a liberal art college, is the mixing of Norwegian and other ethnicity and culture. This question is still pertinent nowadays, particularly to the diversity that has been talked a lot today.      

Ladies and Norwegian

In class Wednesday DeAne told us about the shack dances in the woman dorms in the 1880s. "Although dancing was supposedly forbidden at St. Olaf, evidence of a grand ball in the attic of Ladies' Hall in 1894 has come to light. And the outdoor platform built in 1888 provided a pleasant place and prospects." - Lady's Hall. I think it is interesting that women in the old times were not rule followers- much like college students today. It is not to say obeying the roles is a bad thing to do, but I feel that having this piece of information is crucial to the understand a Ole more than 200 years ago. When I thought about women in that period of time, I thought about women dressing in modest clothing and staying in their room all the time, and the description of the Ladies' Hall pull me closer to the women then. Along with DeAne's essay, on Norwegian religious, political policy and identity, I feel that student life was not just academic itself but with many other important parts to it.

Ántonia, childhood, and land

        Jim’s enduring love for Ántonia represents his nostalgia for the Nebraskan countryside and his childhood. This sentimental longing for the past, confused with affection for Ántonia, guides him to the path of finding his identity. Ántonia epitomizes a fraction of Jim’s identity, signifying “the country, the conditions, the whole adventure of … childhood” (5).  Years spent with her have comforted him in his new life in college and New York with a wealth of memories about the past. For Jim, Ántonia embodies the landscape and Jim’s childhood that he wants to last forever.

        The relationship between Ántonia and is reminiscent of the precious past that colors Jim’s adult life with melancholy. The old days spent in the prairies reflect a concern with his identity and self. To keep the past alive, Jim must romanticize it. He is attracted to her not based on desire but nostalgia towards the Great Plains and his younger self who used to lean his back against a pumpkin, feeling “entirely happy” with his best friend Ántonia (20). Ántonia perceives the childlike aspects in Jim’s adult body that he longs to obtain. His final words in the memoir, “Whatever we had missed, we possessed together the precious, the incommunicable past”, implies the memory of the old times they share together. He loves her for what she symbolizes: his childhood that he will never have again.

       Jim also sees Ántonia as the cultivated land. Ántonia belongs to the farm, is the trees, the land, and the wheat she plants. In Jim’s mind, Ántonia appears in the reoccurring image of the prairies and land, where Ántonia works “like a man” (87) Cather employs masculine features to depict Ántonia’s hard work in the fields: “She kept her sleeves rolled up all day, and her arms and throat were burned as brown as a sailor’s.” (87). Jim, the introverted boy who likes to spend time alone and with girls like Ántonia, does not have the same masculinity. Therefore, Jim has to find his masculinity through her.

          Jim searches for safety in the Nebraska plains because Ántonia’s presence reminds him of the memory in the land. His ambivalence towards growth and maturity makes him feel unsafe and empty when interacting with other women. He then returns to be obsessed with Ántonia, the familiar emotion of home. For example, his encounter with Lena reassures him of his feeling towards Ántonia: “I wish I could have this flattering dream about Ántonia” (169). A beautiful girl with a sheer femininity that is opposite to Ántonia, Lena confronts his sexual desire. Jim describes in his dream:  “I was in a harvest fields full of shocks, and I was lying against one of them. Lena Lingard came across the stubble barefoot, in short skirt, with a curved reaping-hook in her hand...”(168). Lena’s sexual appeal, glowing in her rosy bare flesh, short skirt, and soft kiss, contradicts with the “shocks” and “stubbles” in the barren land that is harvested by the reaping-hook. Ántonia represents the barren land, the background of Lena’s luscious figure, and the land on which Jim always finds a piece of himself. Jim never has a dream like this about Ántonia. He never will be kissing her like Lena, for Ántonia is already in his dream, and always with him as the everlasting farmland in Black Hawk.

          Jim’s childhood replays itself on Cuzak’s boys. Ántonia’s children, they thrive on the land, similar to Jim when he was young. Jim is finally back to Ántonia again after twenty year. Ántonia remains the same old Ántonia, the personified countryside that lures him back. Cather reinforces Ántonia’s fruitful nature as land by delineating the fruit cave:
 
         We turned to leave the cave; Ántonia and I went up the stairs first, and the children waited. We were standing outside talking, when they all came running up the steps together, big and little, tow heads and gold heads and brown, and flashing little naked legs; a veritable explosion of life out of the dark cave into the sunlight. It made me dizzy for a moment. (249)

Cather uses fruit to symbolize Ántonia’s children, reiterating the analogy between the bounty land and Ántonia herself. A nurturing womb, the fruit cave is brimming with vibrant colors; a fertile woman, Ántonia gave birth to Cuzak’s boys, who have the “veritable explosion of life” that is the rebirth of Ántonia’s spirit. Jim cannot distinguish between Ántonia and her children, for they all are products of the cultivated land.  

           Cather shares Jim’s nostalgia for the mood of the past. My Ántonia represents America in its country, materials, and history. For Jim and Cather, the purpose of time is to return to the beginning. Jim’s stories end in the last paragraph as he finds the first road he traveled with Ántonia “on that night when [they] got off the train at Black Hawk” (272). This road, both literally and metaphorically, returns him to Ántonia, to the country land and his childhood.    
                                   
                                                    Work Cited
Cather, Willa. My Ántonia. Germany: GGP Media GmbH, Possneck, 1996. Print.
 

A day of life as an ole idea

Today I was researching ideas for this paper and accidentally stubbled upon a list of books with colleges  their major characters have either mentioned or attended. Jay Gasby in Fitzgerald's masterpiece novel the great Gasby stayed briefly at St. Olaf and then dropped out. It sparks my interest about creating Jay Gasby, or James Gatz ( I have not yet decided which name) as my character. He is a English major, bright and poetic, however is kicked out of school because of plagiarism. The date is set on March 10th, 1928, when the economy is suffering. This day could also include a visit from Fitzgerald as a guest speaker/writer and Gasby tries to impress him with an essay he plagiarizes but has no conscious realization of his dishonesty. 

Transition

My author focuses his chapter on the assimilation and the Indians during the turn of the century. Dawes Act was passed in 1887, when private land property was allocated to individual Native American. However, the government was also authorized to sell any surplus and eventually break up the Indian tribes and assimilate them into the mainstream US culture. It was surprising for me that one of the reason they are pushing this act to pass was that some government officials like Dawes himself was to grant Indians the right and possibility to become US citizens. So citizenship = private land ownership? The process of accessing private property and be able to sell the lands off was the starting point of capitalism and was in the US culture of becoming a US citizen with full rights, which is not true in the Indian cultures where people advocate group cooperation, public property, and tribal union. A lot of them were not able to produce anything from their own land and was force to sell the land, having nothing at the end and no one to turn to. The natives are not technically immigrants since they were the native people on this land. It is interesting to see that they were treated as immigrants when it comes to issues like this. Yet the attitudes towards them were somewhat different from the rest of the immigrant groups such as the Chinese and Italians. Even though an act like the Dawes Act did not really benefit the Indians, at least the Americans passed an act to grant possible rights to them, whereas for the other groups, acts like the Chinese exclusion act was passed. 

the mother

 Abortions will not let you forget.

You remember the children you got that you did not get,
The damp small pulps with a little or with no hair,
The singers and workers that never handled the air.
You will never neglect or beat
Them, or silence or buy with a sweet.
You will never wind up the sucking-thumb
Or scuttle off ghosts that come.
You will never leave them, controlling your luscious sigh,
Return for a snack of them, with gobbling mother-eye.

I have heard in the voices of the wind the voices of my dim killed
 children.
I have contracted. I have eased
My dim dears at the breasts they could never suck.
I have said, Sweets, if I sinned, if I seized
Your luck
And your lives from your unfinished reach,
If I stole your births and your names,
Your straight baby tears and your games,
Your stilted or lovely loves, your tumults, your marriages, aches,
 and your deaths,
If I poisoned the beginnings of your breaths,
Believe that even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate.
Though why should I whine,
Whine that the crime was other than mine?--
Since anyhow you are dead.
Or rather, or instead,
You were never made.
But that too, I am afraid,
Is faulty: oh, what shall I say, how is the truth to be said?
You were born, you had body, you died.
It is just that you never giggled or planned or cried.

Believe me, I loved you all.
Believe me, I knew you, though faintly, and I loved, I loved you
All.

The author starts this poem by asserting  “Abortions will not let you forgot,” and continues to talk about the aborted life. I find the title “the mother” somewhat intriguing because this is the story of a woman who went through abortion, who is not a mother. The detailed description of the mother’s feeling towards the unborn child shows the suffering the mother has. “singers and workers who never handles the air” “you will never scuttle off ghost that come” “dim killed children.” What I get out of this poem is that she tries to convey that even though it was the mother’s own choice to not to give birth, she still attempt to revivify her dead child and by telling the children “I loved you all” and “even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate.” Abortion is always a difficult subject and writing a poem with such emotions has to be hard for her. For someone who is prochoice like myself, this poem gives me an image of the difficulties and an enlightening view of the other opinion.  

Chicago and Vaudeville

Beth, Enich, Paige, Mike and I are working hard on our skit for the Tuesday vaudeville performance. We were hesitated to choose this piece from the musical Chicago since it came out much later after vaudeville shows were popular. To our surprise that after some research we found that the original name of Chicago the musical is called, Chicago, a musical Vaudeville. I watched parts of the movies and listened to the whole soundtrack of the broadway version one more time this weekend. The story of Chicago to me, is told in the form and language of vaudeville. Every songs and scene is in the style of a vaudeville act. The main theme of Chicago is that in our country and culture, crime and other dangers could be glamorized into entertainment. Yet the most popular entertainment during the period, is vaudeville, through which this theme is played. Two main characters, Velma and Roxie, became famous vaudeville stars because they had committed crimes of murder. This satirical approach shows that anyone  who was famous for any reason could become a famous vaudeville star.  

Jobs and Ford

Steve Jobs was said to be the technology maketing genius in the 21st century while Henry Ford contributed  greatly to the automobile industry that made us the "nation of motorist". As I was googling Steve Jobs, it was interesting to see that people are not only comparing Steve Jobs to Henry Ford, but also to a great number of other pioneers in the history such as Thomas Edison and Walt Disney. The success Jobs achieved made personal computers and other personal electronic devices easier and more fun to use. Both Ford and Jobs hailed from middle class family and essentially reach the American dream that we have been talking about constantly Amcon. It is not the wealth they made that constituted the American dream but rather the innovations that improve daily life. Jobs, in my personal opinion, has great insights on market advertising and artistic vision, but was still less social effect than Ford. Jobs was smart on what people want. We always want new gadgets with sleek looks and multiple functions. So he made the ipods, iphones, and ipads. And there is multiple generations of these products. Customers were  still super excited to buy the first generation ipad two years ago, even they still felt a little disappointed that a camera was not built in it. Apple had already had products like iphones with camera, why was it so hard to build a camera in the ipads? Of course the next generation of ipads came out, with cameras and 3G. Jobs was a better market strategist and he created products he knew we will buy. Ford, even though not the first one to invent cars with engines, made better models of automobile that we cannot live with out that substantially makes transportation easier.  

Pullman

After reading this chapter I started to wonder if college could be an utopia, or at least could we make a college community into an utopian society? According to Pullman maybe if we only accept middle class while kids we probably would. But I think here at St. Olaf I don't feel there exist any social class, ethnics, and race issues and tension..It could be an utopian in some respect. However we all know that college like St. Olaf are trying really hard to bring up the diversity on their campus, which is one the most important aspect of choosing a college for most seniors. Pullman, in this case, lacks a fundamental diversity that balances the town, eventually resulting in the break down of the company and the town. Pullman had all the money to build his town and constructed it in his will to eliminate poverty and make all the residents middle classed. Like Gilbert suggests that the purpose of Pullman establishing his town was not to create a democratic society but a uniform culture as a model for Chicago. Does utopian and perfect = uniform? No.

Ferris Wheel

The world's first Ferris Wheel was built in the center of the Midway  by George W. Ferris, a bridge builder from Pittsburgh. The ride was the fair's most prominent attraction. 264 feet, it offers a breathtaking view of the fair and the city. If the other villages were there for educational purposes, the Ferris wheel, belly dancers, and the amusement park are definitely for entertainment. Being the most profitable amusement in the park, the Ferris Wheel is also the symbol, or in Gilbert's word, the centerpiece of the Midway. " Even the Fair, was the Ferris Wheel", says Gilbert. People would come to the fair just for a ride on it. It was a comfortable ride for the whole family. This crucial characteristic is probably why the Ferris Wheel was so overwhelmingly popular. It moved slow, outlooking a great view of Chicago. Another interesting point Gilbert mentions is the relationship between railroad and Ferris Wheel. They both carry people, in different ways and for different purpose, but have the same idea.  “The Ferris wheel epitomized the triumph of popular culture freed from the moderating controls of classic architecture and censorship." (115)   

How the other half lives

Liza and I talked about this photo in class today. We thought the caption for what Riis was trying to show was exactly the caption in the book: Bunks in a seven-cent lodging-house. We also added "crammed, dark, primitive condition". For the critics caption we said "the repetitive and continuous bunks and ceiling show the hopeless condition." The photo Steph and Marissa talked in class had many people crammed in a room full of stuff, while this picture has no one in it. Yet it is still terrible to imagine when these bunks are all filled with people.  I actually think it is more powerful to show an empty room than a full room to show the horrible condition.

Riis

Riis saw the tenements in the Lower East Side NY as central to the problems of poverty, crime, disease in the biggest city in the United States. In the pictures he took there are lots of back alleys and stairways, crowded apartments, people sleeping in the street. This is not what I think of when I think of New York city, yet the situation is inevitable in any big cities, where immigrants crowd the city for there first settlement. In genesis of the tenement Riis describes the transformation from the old days when the dutch controlled the city to Washington in the 19th century. The poor lives in slums and over populated tenements behind the grand houses the upper class owns. “Neatness, order, cleanliness, were never dreamed of in connection with the tenant-house system, as it spread its localities from year to year.” During the gilded age when economy was boosting and people were celebrating America's rapid industrial progress, the conditions of the poor is often overlooked. Reading this book feels like reading a newspaper, where usually has stories about how capitalists lure the poor to contract them into bad conditioned labor jobs.

Perfect Chicago

I spent my fall break in Chicago, visiting my sister who goes to DePaul University. This was my second visit to Chicago. I now notice how different my two visit are. Last Easter my sister and I went to Chicago to visit Depaul, and of course we went to all the touristy places: Millennium Park, The Art Institute, Navy Pier, Michigan Ave. I came to the conclusion that I love this city and I would definitely go back again. However this time I realized that Chicago was not my favorite city after all. As I was reading Gilbert on the bus back to Minneapolis, I wondered what has changed. Being a tourist and living in a city are different. Like Gilbert says in his book, the dreams of the leaders in Chicago are the generation of a uniform middle-class culture that is surround by different ethnic and religions diversity. Chicago is America's "second city". Leaders envisioned a uniform city that guides the new middle class professionals and businessmen. The connection I found between the chapter we read on Chicago and the previous work we have done is the connection to Ragtime. Ragtime, the novel of American social activism and reform in the Progressive Era, is the result of what was going on the cities in America. Unlike New York, Chicago is more diverse in terms of ethnicity and religion, and it is also more middle class oriented and more cosmopolitan. I found it interesting that Gilbert writes society is the frozen culture and culture is liquid society. I always thought society and culture are interchangeable. Now I find a relationship between the two. Culture is more versatile and society is more definite.    

Revision

Little Boy develops an increased sense of manhood after witnessing the transformation of Father and Mother’s gender roles. Doctorow describes his growth in self-awareness by writing that “He discovered the mirror as a means of self-duplication. He would gaze at himself until there were two selves facing one another, neither of which could claim to be the real one. He was no longer anything exact as a person”(117). The undergoing physical and emotional transition into maturity puzzles him, and he struggles in the mist of gender identities he perceives from his parents. He realizes the dysfunctional gender role Father plays in the family after Father’s return from the Arctic. Father finds it difficult to accept that “momentous change was coming over the United States”, while Mother represents this  “momentous change” (82). For example, Mother acquires knowledge of the family business during the patriarch’s absence, which sounds astonishing to Father that a woman can take responsibility outside of her indoor chores. Moreover, Mother generates a growing consciousness of her sexually and “she was in some way not as vigorously modest as she’d been. She took his gaze”(111). The drastic change Mother obtains annoys Father and confuses Little Boy. Little Boy’s confusion lies between Father and Mother’s converging gender roles. With the progress of shifting gender roles, he matures into the beginning stage of manhood, understanding the importance of coming to terms with a continuously changing environment.

These people yapped loudly of race, of race consciousness, of race pride, and yet suppressed its most delightful manifestations, love of color, joy of rhythmic motion, naive, spontaneous laughter. Harmony, radiance, and simplicity, all the essentials of spiritual beauty in the race they had marked for destruction（39).

Helga, under Larsen's depiction, exclaims such disagreement to the so-call advocates in racial issues. This is especially common in the black communities, where people fight for anti-discrimination and African American suffrage and rights detest the fact of them being black. "These people" in the passage above could refer to those people mentioned above, or it could also be applied to some of the white leader at the moment. It is the "love of color", the" joy of rhythmic motion" that's the most important for embracing one's race, not merely privileges. This topic relates to Gay NY we just finished last week: How people struggle within regulations and laws but forget to celebrate themselves. 

US Media

Public media in America is one of a kind in this world. When Mary asked the question about why mainstream America pop culture has such big influence not only in America but also across the world, along with Liza bringing up Lady gaga and her iconic gay rights' campaigns, the first thing that popped to my mind was what we see, read, and hear all the time. The discussion of American media and its impact on society has been addressed by many people, including concerning parents and educators. It is unquestionable that we have lots of sex and violence in the media we constantly receive, and also inaccurate portrayal and stereotypes of the minorities, especially the LGBT communities. On the other hand the advocating from a celebrity like lady gaga can be a big influence on dissolving the stereotypes the media has trapped us into. Can the media be somewhat campy?We usually find something as attractive and appealing because it is bad and ironic. The media grabbed our interests in continually viewing the extreme, on whatever ends, a good thing. 

DADT

Now that don't ask don't tell is gone, it is inevitable that unequal treatment is still present.  How does one soldier's sexual identity deviate from the military? Why is the topic of homosexuality within the military a taboo subject? What are people so afraid of when it comes to the homosexual lifestyle? Chauncey summarizes that "the anti-gay laws of the 1920s and 1930s were enacted in response to the growing visibility of the gay world and to the challenge it seemed to pose to fragile gender and social arrangements" (356).  Don't ask don't tell was issued to "stabilized a fragile gender and social arrangements" in the army if what Chauncey said was right about anti-gay laws. There wasn't much of a gender issue and social disable here to be discussed. The repeal of DADT took too long. For 17 years, gays and lesbians were required to remain neutral on their sexual preferences, all the while ignoring who they really were. Also, there's still the issues concerning transgenders and women in the military. In Gay New York, Chauncey reiterates again and again that gay men did not have to choose a "gay identity". They could be engaged in homosexual activities and still be consider straight. The situations are way different now. You can't be engaged unless you have a label. 

My section for tomorrow dealt with the common hangout place, including cheap restaurants and cafeterias.  Chauncey categorizes two kinds of Gay men. There were people who "boldly claimed their right to gather in public", and also the majority, men who "did not make themselves so noticeable, but claimed space in a large number of restaurants on a regular basis"(176). In describing the gathering place, Chauncey gives several examples of restaurants. They are usually inexpensive and have long hours of service, which is a predictable place in the 1960s NY for gay men to meet each other. I found it interesting that different restaurants and cafeteria had different tolerance. Who set these attitudes? Was it the owners of these restaurants or was it the gay men? There is a passage in the book talking about how gay men intermingled with the straight costumers, hard to be distinguished bu the police and others; and thus did not cause an uproar in the neighborhood regarding to this issue. People who didn't make themselves noticeable could enjoy the intimacy of each other without interference and they were happy about it. However, like Alex brought up in discussion Monday, there were people who wanted not only to be recognized by the gay communities but also by the straight communities. So choosing from the two were up to individuals. I think I would rather live a peaceful life even though I was not recognized by the society.   

It is interesting that I just finished my Ragtime paper examined gender roles and gender issues, and we are transitioning into Gay NY. Enich's blog Gay Labels http://enichamcon.blogspot.com/2011/10/gay-labels.html/ really helped me to think about gay culture and the problem of labeling: "Succeeding is linked to abandoning one's label or taking the most positive aspects of said label and using them for the best". His blog was lingering in the background of my head until I read a chapter about gay people in New York trying to create multiple  identities to participate in the gay world and the "normal" world as it called in the book. I think this is another way of labeling, except labels are not identities, although it has been used interchangeably. I think the difference between label and identity is that labels are being put on someone and we create our identities. We love to label one another into groups, sections and organizations, but creating our own identities is not as easy as assigning labels to others.Homosexuals in 1960s New York, were fighting against these labels and  trying to identify themselves. "There segregation from one another allowed men to assume a different identity in each of them, without having to reveal the full range of their identities in any one of them" (134). They couldn't be themselves, fearing that the revealing of one's self would cause seriously damage to their social status, yet at the same time they also want to reveal parts of the identity, making the process and resulting in complication.

I, too, Sing America

 After reading Hughes poems I noticed the one of the his major themes: The poet was not ashamed of being black. He even emphasized the theme of the beauty of being black. I found it incredible given the era. Through his poetry there was courage, strength, and uplifting spirits which encouraged the working class African Americans.  I enjoyed reading this poem, I, too, Sing America. My first thought was this is a response to the famous Whitman's I hear America singing. And it was. The injustice of the white to the black is well-known. But, in this poem, the poet asserts he is also an American person and so do all the African Americans. There is an attitude of change here. "Besides, They'll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed--I, too, am America." This is really powerful. 

Ethnicity.

The conversation about ethnicity and whether ethnicity can be a choice or not is heated because it can be interpreted many ways from different perspectives by people who either inherit or reject their ethnicity. It is complicated especially when it comes to the United States since I couldn't really think of a ethnicity that properly suits what we have here. The short history of America and its diverse population make it harder to define the American identity. No matter the type of social construction we have, ether the melting pot or cultural pluralism, Ethnicity is undefined. If I want to tell people who know nothing about me that my ethnicity is American, I think people will believe it. However, if the any one of my amcon classmates go to China and tell people their ethnicity is Chinese, I doubt that people will buy it. I don't think this is the issue of race, of whether you look "American" or "Chinese". Personally I find that an "American look" or "American ethnicity" is somehow easier to present. Not to fall into stereotype or classification, but after four years of living here, I think I can identify Americans from those of other countries.

Still on the topic of gender identity

Friday in class we talked about a few passages that were key to our discussion on gender and sexually in the construction of social identity. Going along with this topic and the discussion, especially the first passage about Evelyn Nesbit that Mary pointed out, I have some thoughts that I didn't get the chance to share with the class. We talked about how Evelyn was the commodity between the two men, Henry Thaw and Stanly White, and she was simply a possession but not a person of affection. I see this situation as a competition and approval-seeking opportunity among the men. These two men, in particular, have an equal status in class, wealth and power. So the manipulation and procession of women, in this case, the beautiful Evelyn, were more significant to "win" this competition. In the male's world, the approval of strength and power from other males and the winning of any competition among males, are way more important than getting approval from other females. One of the hot topic today we always talk about, the equality of gender is rather complicated because psychologically and naturally there is a gap among the two different sex, and taking this into account, equality is hard to completely realize.

Gender and Social Identity

This semester I am taking a sociology and anthropology class from Professor Nordstrom called Gender in a cross-cultural perspective. In the few classes we have had so far, we talked about gender roles, both in terms of biological aspects and social and cultural aspects. We also talked a lot about how human are shaped into their gender role from the particular society a person is from, and how the environment such as peers, parents, and other media of contact impacts a person. I think this is pertinent to our discussion of gender identity in Ragtime and American society. Ragtime is set in the era of significant women's movements. Women were employed away from home, their images had changed, and they were pursuing higher education and even a career. However, women were still women. Even today, sexual dimorphism is still very apparent- the society "excepts" a woman to act this way and a man to act that way. The intersection between gender and social identity in my opinion is that both men and women are seeking for the so-called correct or better class and identity by presenting, even exaggerating, their "gender expectation code".  By doing it, they get approval from the society, and thus gain a certain kind of identity.

Social Class

One passage in Ragtime that is related to social class:
pp130: "So that was it, the strike would be won. But then what? heard the clacking of the looms. A salary of six dollars and change. Would that transform their lives? They would still live in that wretched room, in that terrible dark street. Tateh shook his head. this country will not let me breathe."

In this passage Doctorow depicted a situation that is very common in the United States and other capitalist countries: The unequal distribution of wealth among the upper class and the working class. 
"By 1990 the top 10 percent of the population owned 70 percent of all wealth; the top 1 percent owned 45 percent. Income from rents, dividends, and interest surpassed income from wages and salaries for the first time ever."-From the PDF Social Class. This phenomenon is occurring in almost all societies, and the uneven distribution of wealth is usually ascribed to different levels of productivity in a particular country. Economists have debated over and over again regarding this topic because for me if we somehow manage to make the people in a country all have the same level of productivity, it is rare that people will end up with the same financial and social statues. As it has always been suggested, the total equal distribution of wealth and income will diminish productivity and development. There should be a better solution to this issue, but I couldn't came up with one since I am not an economist. The working class, who often seeks higher wages and other rights, form groups--voluntary associations among each other to have more power against the executives. Like Teteh said the amount raised is insignificant, but it does provide closure and companionship for the working class people.

Ragtime and America

          I was very excited to read the first fiction book we have in Amcon, until I realized the some of the familiar characters. I found it fascinating how Doctorow ties different characters intertwined with each other and the line between fiction and facts blurs within the story telling. The beginning of the new century was the beginning of technology and industries, when the Wright brothers made their first fly and Ford's cars driven in people's home. In Takaki's history book I didn't find anything particular about history in the 1900s but Takaki has a significant amount of descriptions and history about immigrants in his book. In the first part of Ragtime, Doctorow writes about immigrants too. In chapter 2, “Father, a normally resolute person, suddenly foundered in his soul. A weird despair seized over him" (13) when he saw the immigrants on the deck. The New Yorkers despised immigrants, yet ironically they were all immigrants or decedents of immigrants to this country. Takaki talks about the Irish, Chinese, Japanese in California, who had the same life and poverty as those in New York. I like how Doctorow jumps around in stories and characters but somehow they are related. Father saw the immigrants, the poor, and Teteh and the little girl connect to Evelyn, and then to Thaw. In the prison Houdini encountered Thaw. And Houdini's car crashed into the family. Everything and everyone is connected in this world, through events, people, and coincidence. Everything all together makes up the country. These are all pieces of the United States: we have the poor, the affluent, different classes of people, and different ideas. These all consist the beginning of the 20th century America. However, "The entire population seemed to him over-power, brash and rude"(39), as Fraud states, and "America is a mistake, a gigantic mistake"(39). I think advance technology and capitalist economy make our lives easier, but they also generates problems for the lower class. The poor were poorer, but paradoxically, people still "honor" the poor by decorating the ball room. Charity, they called it.    

Unveil Liberty

Edward Moran (1829-1901) Statue of Liberty Unveiled

Flags around the world,
French, American.
She reveals from the clouds.
Children, enlightened.
Sun peaks on
Victory, liberty.
Freedom shines
with world gathered for the great moment,
Motivated.

Like I said in class yesterday, it is great to be back to America, where freedom and democracy are floating in the air. I didn't mean that I was in prison in China, but no access to any news media made me want to get a ticket and fly straight to the United States.  A lot had happened this summer: Libya, Israel, another possible recession, hurricane Irene, Japanese prime minister etc. It seems that troubles always surround the world. One of the biggest news/tragedy that happened this summer in China was the crash of two high-speed train. Thirty-six people died from the crash, official said. Put the technical reason for this accident aside to another discussion, I was surprised to see so many "rumors" sprang from Renren (a social network like Facebook that is popular in China) and Weibo (Chinese version of Twitter). I called them rumors because they are different from what the official said and some were even denied by the officials. I, a 19-year-old who reads the news on the newspaper and the rumors from the internet just like everybody else, could not differentiate what is the truth. Is there even a truth to tell? I believe that they were more people died in the accident, not just 36, but I don't think the rumors of "the government made this happened" or "the government officials buried the parts of the train and lots of dead bodies". A common sickness of the society in China is that because of power and benefits, experts and officials do not speak the truth. They become the origins of lot of lies and rumors, which result in a untrusted society. Putnam's social trust no longer exists. Therefore people not only won't trust the experts but also won't trust the government because they always hide from us.

 The situation in Libya is more likely to directly affect US foreign policy than the death of Bin Laden. While his death does not substantially change the plane field in Afghanistan against terror and Al Qaida. Our involvement in a potential Libyan revolution could result in a drastic changing in a US and Libya Arab relation. I feel that the media now has focused less and less on this issue and I had to delve to look for news. I read in the paper that in some of the liberated areas, the Libyan people have set up democratic committees to solve daily problems of governance such as political decisions and house keep business such as clearing the streets. I found it interesting because I think this could be the start of voluntary associations in Libya that people came together to work at something that benefits more people, especially in the situation of war.

William Miller on the Death of Bin Laden

After the Great Disappointment, even though people don't believe in what I am saying anymore, I am still waiting devoutly for the second coming of Christ. I know it will happen, and it is just a matter of what time. Now Christ still hasn't come, but Bin Laden was killed. I'd say I predicted 9/11 or reiterated it again since the book of Daniel and Revelation already told us that the Apocalypse would happen: Terrorism could be the start of this apocalyptic vision. I rejoiced when I heard that Bin Laden is now dead, but I didn't have the urge to go out and party. We killed him, our enemies, but should we really celebrate the deaths of our enemies? Al Quaeda is still a firm network Bin Laden created and the death of their leader is certainly going to spark more hatred and more terrorist activities. There is a legacy that he left behind. The war is still far from over, and I believe that it will never be over.   

Easter weekend

I went to Chicago last weekend, accompanying my sister Amy on her visit to DePaul University. First time being in Chicago, I was amazed. Not because of the vibes of a big city since I am pretty used to Beijing, but a different and special feeling that I never get from Olaf. I am so surprised that the ultimate college decision for Amy was between St. Olaf and DePaul. One is a comparatively small Lutheran college in a small college town in Northfield, Minnesota, and another is the biggest private catholic university located in the one of the busiest city in the United States. I liked DePaul. It was different, and very fun. But the idea of going there scares me. There were cars and people everywhere. And you are studying in the heart of a loud noisy city ( Too many distractions in Chicago!). Amy brought up something when we were having the tour on campus and I thought it was very interesting and kind of relates to something we have talked about in class. She said that she likes to go to college in a big city because she thinks that people interact with each other more: Not only people inside the college community, but also people within the city, and especially in Chicago, in DePaul, where we can find the most diverse community.

The US is such a horrible country

The first time I have been to the United States, I had such a bad impression: there were no first graders with flags and balloons welcoming us in the airport. I felt disgusted as I walked around, seeing birds, squirrels, dogs, and cats everywhere. It was very disagreeable to the sight.

The education system here is so under-developed. Students my age are all very ignorant. They are wasting lots of time on worthless activities like sports, theatre, and choirs but not math and science. I even had time to watch TV for an hour on a school night my junior year! Speaking of watching TV, I happened to watch a car racing competition out of boredom because school was so easy and I had all these free time. After watching it I felt extremely disappointed in this country because I saw people from the animal protecting organization with the banner “Go Away” on the screen. There were residents protesting in this world-class championship, and the government allowed such thing to happen? Unbelievable. We can see how incapable the government is. If these unharmonious slogans appeared in my country, from the mayor of the city to the mayor of the state would have been fired. As far as I know, those people who were protesting were claiming that car racing would kill animals. How ridiculous. It would not even matter if you hit a person in my country. And of course, in my country it is impossible to run over anyone, because all the roads are blocked three days in advanced. In such a big competition like this, everyone in my country is supportive, since any move that is against the government would cause you to lose all the rights you have.

After I was done watching TV I went for a walk in the park. There were a couple walking their dog and stopped to talk to me. How stupid they were. You don’t talk to strangers like me in my country even though they are my neighbors. When they heard that I was from China, they invited me to their house for dinner the Saturday after. I realized from the education I got from elementary school that all Americans are trying to expand their evil capitalist thoughts into our innocent mind, so I refused immediately.     

Alcott

Alcott sarcastically depicts the life of the transcendental life in her community. The community tried to change the society by enforcing an idealistic, a utopian way of living. And it failed when the storm came. Women, of course had to do all the work, while the men only needed to talk about the ideas and debating about them. Not only is Alcott opposing this unpractical way of living but there are also sparks of feminism emerging. The ideology of men makes women's lives harder because men seemed to always be the "intellectuals". They discussed and made rules freely, while women are forced to bear them patiently. Women have all sorts of responsibility such as taking care of the children and doing housework and representing the family. But as for man, on the other hand, could afford to come with anything that they think will change and benefit the society, and it is not their problem if it won't work in the future.  There's a little Hutchinson here.  

Thoreau and Zinn

"The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs."
                                         Thoreau, On Civil Disobedience
I think this passage also relates the the idea Thoreau brought up in Walden about being awake and asleep. Here he thinks the mass of men are machines and tools, being manipulated unconsciously, just like being asleep. They are paying attention to anything because there's no need to. He hadn't pay tax and spent a night at jail, but he thought he was actively paying attention and thinking. The quote I found from Zinn reiterates the importance of voicing and thinking that are both beneficial for democracy. De Tocqueville will probably say the same thing.

Where I Lived, and What I Lived for

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. "


I believe that this quote shows HDT's view of life and humanity thoroughly.  It is interesting to think that someone wished to live deliberately. I see it as two meanings. First, to live deliberately could mean to choose a particular path of life that is only subject to himself. Second, it could also mean that even though we are not really able to "choose" to be alive, we can somehow make life meaningful deliberately and different from everybody else. What are the essential facts of life. Necessity of material for being alive is important, but there is also something beyond necessity. I think he is trying to convey that there is a core of human existence. And without this core people "had not lived". He is influenced by Emerson. Emerson focuses a lot on how minds work with nature, and souls and spirits and the eyes for discovering the beauty and nature are crucial for human. Thoreau’s building of a house on Walden Pond is like the creation of the world for God. Here he mentions the spiritual freedom and divine freedom that everyone is the receiver of this kind of freedom and we should cherish and develop it.   

Nature

Emerson defines nature as anything that is not "me", that is something external to ourselves. We distract ourselves and the nature by theories, histories, and what other people think. What really matters is what we are personally experiencing from the nature, which is a lot accurate than others' accounts. I love the passage where he said that nature's beauty should be viewed as a whole but not as individual parts. I feel that in today busy life, we, as college students, are drown ourselves in the swirl of little different things was too much but forget about how wonderful life and nature really are. Even though Emerson said that only poets like him would be able to integrate nature, I believe that everyone is capable of doing it. It seems not that difficult to fit myself into the pattern of integration if I try to ignore the little and unnecessary emotion and troublesome. He mentioned the cycle analogy a lot: a cycle is simply perfect. Landscape, life, and beauty can all be compared to this perfect cycle. The way I see it is that nature and our lives are ordered and united.

It was such a beautiful day today. Siting outside on stairs near Regents, I read this essay with Bob Dylan playing in the background. I finally understood what DeAne meant when she said "read Whitman again and find the passage that sings to you." This entire essay just sang to me.

"The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of a child."

This is probably my favorite line. It is beautiful. He describe a different and profound way of seeing the nature: like a child. Adults lose a sense of wonder in perceiving the nature. Adults see nature, but they do not truly appreciate the way children do. Remember when you were young and the world was just like a treasure box? Children see with their hearts as well as their eyes. They are full of wonder and have not yet taken the beauty of nature for granted. I am not a child anymore, but I could be one when I see myself as a piece of this whole integration of the world.

Bowling in Life Story

Every Tuesday afternoon I go to the hospital to volunteer at the the Long Term Care Center. I enjoy spending time with the residents, and I'd like to believe that they enjoy my accompany as well. My visit usually includes a greeting from room to room, chatting with the residents about what had been going on since last week I saw them. Then I ask people to come to the dining room; we either play games or have conversations about anything we want to talk about. One of our favorite games that we have played almost almost every single week is called "life story". It is very easy to play: each player roll the die and move the piece forward. Each space corresponds a different color of card, and the player should pick up the card and read the question and answer it. There are four colors, and the categories are etchings, memories, valuable and alternative.  Questions like "Describe one way that you and your father are alike" is usually found in Memories, and "What is the oldest photo you own" is a typical valuable question. The residents love this game. Not only because everyone wins the game, but also they all have a life full of life stories to share. They will go nonstop on something that sparks their memory and they describe every single detail of what happened.

One of the residents picked up a card from the Etching pile today. "What was your favorite athletic related thing to do in the past." She burst out without taking any seconds to think: "Bowling in a bowling league!"Then she started to talk about what a great time she had, and how she met her husband when she was bowling, and how their league won a tournament one year and the bowling alley let them play a day of free games. I couldn't believe now I know someone who played with a bowling league now. I asked her how long she played and she said many years that she couldn't remember how long. She then said her sons hated that she played, and she once told them to join a bowling league and just to have fun, but non of them were interested. I just think it was so fascinating that a game can related to class and what Putnam said in his article about the generation decline actually seems true. There were people who really enjoying bowling league and there were people who did not. Maybe I should have asked her something about social capital but I thought it would probably not be a good idea in the given context. Next time when I talk to her one on one I will probably ask.

Another thing that I forgot to mention to people. My family owns a bowling alley. It is part of my parents' business. I didn't go there often because I barely had time and also bowling is not the "cool" thing for teenagers, at least in China and maybe it is completely different here. Maybe I should take my friends advice to ask my dad to invest in laser bowling so more young people will come.       

Trains

I remember the conversation I had with people about the railroad when I first came here. I was surprise because when people travel here, everyone either flies or drive, and no one really travels by train. This came as a total shock because everyone takes the train to go places back home. The reason as far as I know from asking people about this issue is mostly that flying is just so much easier, faster, and cheaper, and we don't have a really developed railroad system here that connects the whole country. In Cronon article the talked about how before the railroads every little town had its own time, and now they are more united and have time zones regard to the time difference. Even though railroads are not playing a huge role right now (maybe they are I just know really know the their importance), they still changed people's life in the 19th century in ways such as physically transferring people from places to places, and because people are more mobile a lot of amazing things are happening. Markets, trades, and fusion of cultures and ideas are all moving from one place to another. I personally think that traveling by trains are better, at least in China. They are so much more reasonable, environmental friendly, and safer comparing to cars and planes.

Blessed Are the Organized

"The first is the way we connect the experience of people with big ideas. The second is the way we function as learning organization. The third is the fact that we don't depend on a single strong individual."
Even though this is only a conversation between Stout and Cortes in the airport, I think it is very crucial to what we are talking about right now in class: the connection between people and how this connection works and increases social capital, and finally we should all work as a collective group rather than single unrelated individuals. I think these three things are really important for the" network of citizens",  especially the third one. I feel that right now people are living in a community with many other people, and we think that since this is such a big community that has this many great people, if I don't participate or do anything, someone else will, someone who is maybe even better than I am. In psychology there is a study called bystander effect. It refers to "cases where  individuals do not offer any means of help in an emergency situation to the victim when other people are present." I think participation can be related to "offer means of help" to our social capital and civic engagement. A collective group of individuals: individuals make up the group. Without everyone's engagement the collective group won't even exist.  

Does it matter that we are bowling alone?

I found this article by Mark Chaves called "Are we bowling alone? And does it matter?" Of course it matters- we know it even before reading it. This article summaries the idea that Putnam suggests both in his original essay and his book in response to the response he received. I found it interesting because Chaves mentions the difference between "change" and "decline". Maybe the phenomenon we are having right now is just a change in society and maybe it is not necessarily bad. Technology like internet and TV maybe hinders the face to face interaction between people, but it also connects people from all over the world. It is impossible to have face to face relationship with someone who is thousands and thousands miles away, but at least with the internet we can get some form of communication and bonding. I found out that someone from Australia was reading my blog. You can never do that without technology. Also, Chaves said that Bowling Alone is an optimistic book despite Putnam's worries about the collapse of social capitals in the United States. It alarms us about the social trend right us, but it also "shows that our current situation is not without parallel". I think that the associations we have right now are either the ones that developed from the old association or newly formed followed the old ones. So even though the numbers and participation are declining, it is good that they exist still.

On another note, I read Enich's post about movies and I just realized how true it is that we spend way too much time together just to watch a movie. I mean I enjoy watching movies a lot, but at the same time I know that watching movies seems to be the easiest way to hang out with people without trying to figure out other things to do or engaging conversations. It is good that we don't have cable in our dorm otherwise we will probably be watching worthless TV together all the time.

Paying attention

The sense of individualism is always here in America. Bellah talks about how Americas are losing attention and getting distracted. Democracy comes from people paying attention to civic engagement. One of the topic we talked about in class was the distinction between obsession and attention. I just want to response to it that I agree that we can't really identify an worthy object to get a large collective people to pay attention to, but I feel that it is important to some how unite a group of people to care about a significance event or a cause. And yes, following celebrities is very significant for some people. But I don't think following celebrities is creating any social capital.The author is hoping that we can use our institutions to create democracy, and in the culture of focusing on individual and individualism, it is not that easy. We need to go out of the individualistic wall and learn to pay attention to what we are dependent on and responsible for.

Bowling Alone

In Putnam's essay he points how that Americans have been increasingly disconnected from our families, neighbors, friends, and our social structures. Based on his examples of people leaving the voting booth, not participating in religious services, and disconnecting from their neighbors, civic engagement for Americans is decreasing, the opposite of what de Tocqueville predicted. I think it is very interesting for him to points out the idea of social capital. He states that ""social capital" refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. " It sounds like social capital is the voluntary association we talked about since they both focuses the coordination and cooperation. But I feel that social capital has a larger broader. In the essay, Putnam regards volunteering associations as the prime sources for social trust, social networks, and civic engagement, and I think all of these are the social capitals. Moreover, participating in he associations contributes in social capitals. I agree with him that it is the experiences of communicating and interacting with people that brings people together. Especially in today's situation, we have people from different backgrounds that need to be brought together as an united whole to solve some of the common problems we faced. We learn to trust each other more not from watching TV or other types of advanced technology but through conversation and the process of get to one another. The voluntary association represents one of the main platforms for interaction of this certain type.

March 4

For de Tocqueville, the problem is whether we should pursue equality in freedom or the equality in sovereignty. There is different kinds of equalities and I feel that even today it is still a huge problem. De Tocqueville when he is talking about equality he is more addressing rights and powers. For example right now in the central government, we are passing lots of civil laws and acts. It is good that we are trying to make the country better by making more legislation but at the same time the central government is getting more power over states. I feel that the central government is getting too big, and maybe a third party should step in the bicameral system. I feel that there should be a change because right now the numbers are too close and not enough reforms are talking place. 

Legislation

De Tocqueville talks about the"defective and incomplete" legal system and law making in America. He says "American democracy if often clumsy, but the general tendency of its law is advantageous." I wonder what the general tendency of law is. It seems that he is suggesting that Americans can afford to make laws that are bad laws in order to maintain democracy because those are all "retrievable mistakes". I feel that a legislation system should be the most important system in any country because it is most directly influential to a county's citizens - both the majority and the minority have to obey the law. Passing "bad" laws just to make sure everyone is happy seems not efficient at all. However, even though aristocracy has the benefit of having a more skillful legislation, we obviously do not choose it over democracy. What is a bad law then? A law that is noticeably wrong? From who's point of view? Or should a bad law be a piece of useless and defective writing for the perfunctorily purpose of reinforcing the status of the government. A democracy is hard to maintain just like de Tocqueville mention because it is hard when it comes to counting every single person. But because everybody is involved, the decision people made is the best decision. So I guess laws that were made by the people, no matter good or bad, are always beneficial since democracy is practiced? 

De Tocqueville and American Democracy

I didn't get the chance to post anything about de Tocqueville last week. One thing that I wanted to bring up was that it seemed to me that de Tocqueville never really directly argues why freedom and democracy are necessary and what they really are like I thought the book was going to be.There are way too many people talking about their notion about freedom, equality, and democracy right now. De Tocqueville's freedom is is more of a “local" freedom. I tried to find a more appropriate word than local. local is the opposite of an abstract, big, universal, and hard to manage freedom. After reading Enich's blog about press
http://enichamcon.blogspot.com/2011/02/scale-of-press.html

I agree with him deeply that the bloom of press and media don't really add much to the overall quality. One thing I notice about newspaper and media is that in countries that doesn't have a "democracy" the newspapers talk about how happy and safe people are living under the directing of the government, and in countries like the Unites States I feel that the newspapers talk about both good and bad, and maybe more of the bad. I don't just want to read about how great the government is all the time in China. I want to know what is really happening right now.

I wrote several paragraphs as an response to de Tocqueville, but it was in Chinese! Enich said that I should post it but I think I will do that later after translating so it makes more sense :)

Sentence + Democracy

The sentence I picked was from pp100 of Cullen:

In the decades that followed, countless admirers proclaimed themselves disciples of the Dream, spreading the Good News to anyone who would listen: that in America, it was possible to make your own destiny.

My rewrite:
After a heavy snowfall, countless skiers gathered on the top of the Lusten mountain, enjoying the last chance of a joyous run: that in Minnesota, everyone should have fun in this winter wonderland.

Democracy in 25 words:
 A political system with active participation from the whole population in electing government and voicing opinions in political, social and economic life.

Jasmine Revolution

As I was going on Renren, a Chinese social network exactly like Facebook, to get in touch with my friends in China as usual, I noticed some weird statuses posted by a couple friends. And within seconds, those statuses disappeared instantly and the status update feature was unavailable. Those statuses I saw all had some of the same words- translated to English, "jasmine club" "government" "police". I was curious what exactly happened so I googled it, hoping that I could get something. The Chinese key words I typed in didn't really have relating results, and the English key words I typed in brought me to the Tunisian revolution, and jasmine revolution refers to the protest in changing the government. I googled again today and I found two articles that sort of summarized what happened :

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/asia/21china.html?ref=china
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-20/china-blocks-coverage-of-jasmine-revolution-protests.html   


Even though I don't completely believe in everything the articles say. I mean I believe in what happened but sometimes I feel that the western media always exaggerate details to reach the effect of making people angry, and blaming the Chinese's social, political, and economic system. But anyway, since we are talking about democracy and politics in class right now, I think this "revolution" that did not happen does plays some role in understanding democracy not only in America but also in the world. China saw what happened in Egypt that an authoritative government was overthrown. China has to make sure that it wouldn't happen in China, and of course the situation in Egypt was way worse. My opinion on this event is that I think everyone gets a say in what the government should do. And people should have the right to protest and show opposition instead of being arrested for using the "freedom of speech." There isn't really any freedom of speech if you can't say anything except praising the government and the communist party. I could understand why China blocked Twitter, Facebook and youtube since these are all American social networks. And I even in some ways support this action. American values, thoughts, ideas, and cultures are extremely different from those of the Chineses'. By over exposing these ideas to a newly developing country where people are not as educated and extremely patriotic is dangerous in many ways. But I can't believe the government even blocked some function of its own social network and even stopped the phone service. This has gone too far. I feel that the human rights and privacy are hugely invaded. Who would like to live in a place where if you wear a jasmine flower on your clothes you would be arrested and be convicted of treason. Under this system, people are afraid of saying anything that seems to object what the government is doing. It is just really depressing.

Pietism and the American Character

"American pietism is the belief that every individual is himself responsible for deciding the rightness or wrongness of every issue in terms of a higher moral law; that he must make this decision the moment he is confronted with any question in order to prevent any complicity with evil; and having made his decision, he must commit every possible method to implement his decision not only for himself and in his own home or community, but throughout the nation and the world." (pp173)

I think this sentence not only defines what American pietism is but also summarizes the moral code for American. We, as individuals, are the moral judges for ourselves. Any decision we make will have an impact not only on ourselves but also through out the nation and world. I relate this to what Paige said in class today. America as a whole right now are placing too much orders to try to "make America a better country", or even force the American ideology to other countries to try to "make the world a better world". I agree that certain orders or laws have to be enforced, but the decisions should be on individuals, and at the same time other countries have a say on their own problems and America shouldn't be the authority for other countries business. I was trouble to know that here in America there is a legal drinking age when I first came. We are adult once we turn 18, and we can't even make a smart decision on drinking but have to have a law to restrict us? I am not saying that there shouldn't be a law, but I feel that we be responsible for the decision we make. And the decision of drinking or not  drinking should be made based on our intelligence and moral code rather than a law.   

Hatch

Nathan Hatch's post-revolution and post Second Great Awakening account on the democracy of American is an interesting one - The way he describes it in his opening paragraph suggests that the religious movements during the Second Great Awakening bound the marginal people, common people, as we talked in class, a majority, without authority, and the most influential people, together in a supportive community, and democracy emerges through these movements throughout the nation. Whitman believes that if we want a democracy in America, we have to have people who are mentally capable of conducting democratic behaviors and reactions, and the importance of a national literature gives people this capability. I found the difference between the two is that Hatch emphasizes more on the the religious movements as a whole and how they affected the common Americans, and how America benefited from them. Whitman on the other hand, focuses more on a certain group of people, including himself, should preserve the culture and help the others. I don't think they contradict each other, but in a way they complement each other, just like democracy and government or authority do not contradict each other.

Monday, Feb 14.

According to our guest lecturer Amy Frykholm, the Evangelicals believe that the true believers will, at some point, be raptured in heaven. For those we are left behind have to fight between good and evil. It really surprise me that people, from the story of William Miller, were anxious and excited to see the failure of the world. I think one of the reasons why people like to predict the end of the world, and talk about 2012 constantly and search for evidence that an apocalypse, a disclosure, a revelation will be reveal is that the having a set date for a tragic event like this fill in the space for uncertainty. We don't know when the rapture will come, and no one likes to work and live an purposeless and unprepared life. I agree with the postmilleanialist view that the kingdom of God can be achieve by our work (at least the optimistic idea since I do not believe in God). In class we also talked about whether America nowadays are leaning towards premillieanialist more or postmilleanialist. I just think it is very interesting how these two endtime theologies still applies to today's religious view, especially right now we are paying much more attention to the world, the environment, revelation, and beliefs. 

Walt Whitman and David Brooks

Now it is finally the time to catch up all my posts for last week- the first week is always a struggle: New schedules, classes, professors, and classmates. Luckily Amcon is still Amcon from last semester, and I like it.

We read the famous Democratic Vistas from Walt Whitman and an essay by David Brooks flattering everything Whitman had said last Wednesday. In class we discussed we debated about whether, according to Brooks, Democratic Vistas should be considered as the most important political sermon about democracy in America. I did not have the courage to sit in one those chairs but I did have an opinion arguing against Brooks. Just like some of our classmates pointed out in class, I haven't read enough political sermons to make the assumption, but I believe that I have somewhat read, hear and seen enough to form a solid point. Despite the inconsistent and confusing writing style he has, I agree with Whitman on some of the points he has suggested, for example how democracy should rise from the characteristics of cultures, and individualism should be the basics of all democracy. But when I was reading Whitman, I also found him really hard to understand and self-contradicting. Firstly, the part where he was talking about how he wants to become "the American poet" who brings out the importance of literature. It seems that he, the individual, has the ego to become the authority of all the nation's literature, which to his extend, the culture as well. Isn't the so called authority contracting to democracy that men are all equal and no one should command/rule over other people?
Secondly, Whitman recognizes that he is contradicting himself, and Brooks notices it too. I still find it extremely hard to grasp why he keeps criticizing the Americans and praising them at the same time. Maybe he is arguing both the good side and bad side of human nature, and thus saying that democracy is both good and bad because humans are behind the idea? I really don't know.

Democracy

 I don’t think I have the privilege to say anything about democracy in our America: I am not one of the people in “the government of the people, by the people, for the people” by law. I don’t get to vote, even though I have my own clear idea who to vote for that will benefit the United States most. Majority rules doesn’t make sense at all if you are among either the majority nor minority. However, just like the point mentioned by Chris in class Monday, when you are in the mist of everything that is going on around you, it is hard to notice some simple aspects that are obvious to an outsider. I am that outsider.

Whitman said that he would “use the words America and democracy as convertible terms”(758). I agree that America is probably the freest and the most democratic country in the world, and it is true that the democracy Whitman was talking about changed over last century. I am just not sure if America has reached the state of democracy that America is democracy. The democracy America has is American democracy, not just democracy. And of course China has its so-called Chinese democracy. I think the difference between the American democracy and an ideal democracy is that democracy should be universal. This democracy should be applicable in the world of the people, by the people, for the people. Americans, born with democracy and freedom implanted deeply in their souls, assume that other countries should embrace this American democracy too. But look at the Philippines, Taiwan, Chile, and Thailand. They all try to follow the steps of American democracy, but does it really work? I don’t think so. The American democracy makes America the number one country in the world, but some of those countries who are practicing/have practiced American democracy cannot even produce a car or cannot defend their own land and benefits when the more powerful countries invade. A democratic political system is extremely inefficient. Just imagine a country that is suffering from starvation and poverty, freedom and democracy seem to be less important than survival and living a basic life. I am not saying that democracy is inefficient so it is bad. There is a cost of democracy, and not everyone can afford it right now.

Then what and where is that universal democracy? I still need more time to think about it, but as of right now, I believe that one day the human race will all come together as a whole on earth, that there no longer exists the benefits and lost of different countries. And people are all educated and independent. This might sound way too idealistic but I don’t think it is impossible. During the election a couple months ago, I really wished that I could vote. I could tell you I would vote for so and so because of so and so, and a lot of people would buy it not because of the person I wanted to vote for but because of the reason. Erik raised a question Monday about whether or not a Mexican gets to vote right when he is crossing the boarder. And I heard some “No”s in unison. But is it reasonable for me, a fairly smart (at least personally I think I have the ability to make a logical decision after thinking critically) college student that have lived in America for about three years but not a US citizen, be able to vote if there was no law saying that I was ineligible? I bet some people are going to say yes. Americans have been debating among themselves about where the line should be drawn between educated people and the uneducated, and why are there people who are uneducated. There hasn’t been an answer to this debate, and I don’t think this debate is going to end any time soon. And even if magically in my case I did get the chance to vote, then where the line should be drawn between me and any other Chinese?