Make the Season Bright

The holiday season is upon us. It's that time of year when we feel a little more giving, weather it's giving money to charity or to ourselves with fantastic discounts at our neighborhood chain stores. It's the season to blast your radio on high with cheesy holiday music and sip a nice cup of hot cocoa. And don't forget all the luminously  decorated houses! Well, all the houses except for mine.  

Every year I ask my mom why we can't put up holiday lights. Her answer: "We're Jewish".


 Despite her claims I do not think this is a valid excuse. Sure the lights are a Christian tradition, but according to my partner in crime, Wikipedia, "the use of celebratory lighting during winter solstice festivals pre-dates Christianity." So we are not using the lights in a religious sense, just as an ancient thing that humans enjoy to do.

Plus, holiday lights are no longer strictly religious, but also cultural. It has become an american tradition to decorate our houses to the nines. So being American, I vote that my family over decorates the exterior of our home as well. We can put blue and white lights over our bushes. It's just Chanukah Americanized. After all, Chanukah has already been Americanized with the idea of giving presents.

So being Jewish is not an excuse for not brightly decorating. Chanukah, after all, is the festival of lights, hence we should have lights. What is an excuse is the electricity bill cost.    

Meh

Isn't "Meh" a great word. This one little sound can convey so much yet say so little. It's the perfect response to any question, because in essence you can never be wrong.

For those of you who are not literate in the language of the teenager, Meh can mean yes, no, indifferent, I don't care, sure, I'm ignoring you, and many many others. In totality, Meh is a verbal shrug. According to urban dictionary, "This is a universal, non-commital answer to every question ever posted." So you can see why I enjoy the word so much.

The famed Oxford English Dictionary says that Meh... wait. The Oxford English Dictionary does not recognize Meh as a word. And no dictionary, I did not misspell the word "me". So why did we talk about how great Oxford English Dictionary is in class? Am I mad? Meh?

My Blog: A Platitude

My blog is sorta boring. Well to be quite honest it's vapid, arid, and at times irksome.  I swear having to reread all of these posts again in their entirety made me a more lethargic person then I was before I read them. They are just so boring.

I have to admit that the award for the biggest humdrum goes to my blog about racial tokenism. The topic itself can be quite fascinating, it's just that I had absolutely no spark in it. The topic does not hold my interest and therefore my personal dullness of the subject was transfered over into the post. My lack of interest in many of my blog topics has made my writing less then satisfactory.

Also, my posts seem really long. To be earnest (after all there is special Importance of Being Earnest) no one really wants to read a long blog post. Blogs are suppose to be a way to express your thoughts enjoyably to other readers, not a tedious task. For example in "Statues of Our Past" it took me half way through the post to get to my idea. What I should do is cut straight to the point. It would make reading my posts less of a drag.

Something I have noticed reoccur in my newer entries is this vain obsession with myself. Okay, maybe not an obsession, but I am mentioned a lot. In my three most recent posts the word "I" or "Me" is in at least the second sentence. I know that this blog is about me, after all it is my blog, but no one wants to hear about other people (well, unless they are a celebrity).
So I guess to sum this sucker up, I just need to make my entries more readable. What I really need to do to is write about stuff that I actually care about versus just writing a blog because it is my assignment. Then, I think, I will really start to excel.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor you may grade this entry: To Have Faith in Education

Statues of Our Past

I must admit, I am a little bit of a history nerd. It’s just so… captivating. For this reason my favorite museum in all of Chicago is The Field Museum of Natural History. All around the museum they house many statues of people and animals. A large amount of these works of art are of African peoples. And I don’t mean modern Africans, but of pre-westernized Africans.

            I have never given these statues much thought. They were just old works of art that could have dated back to 1893 when the museum was founded as a part of the worlds fair. But in class on Friday we talked about how African people use to be depicted as more primitive then those of lighter skin.

We looked at picture artist drew comparing and contrasting those of the chocolate complexion verses those of the sugar complexion. Usually the black people were drawn too look more like a monkey or a gorilla then a human while the white people looked normal.

            It then hit me, the statues in the Field museum seemed to depict the Africans of looking like a primate. For example, a statue of a woman and her child. The mother in the picture is carrying her child on her back, a pose more famous for how a gorilla carries a baby.

            Another statue is that of a man holding a chicken. They way that that a human would normally sit is to be cross-legged or to at least have their feet sprawled out in front of them. Well apparently not this guy. His stance is more similar to how a gorilla would sit.

            I am not saying that the Field Museum is racist in anyway. After all they do have a permanent exhibit on modern-day Africa that is extremely insightful for person who has never left North America. I am actually saying that displaying these statues is kinda cool. These statues represent a dark part of our history that we can’t neglect, therefore we shouldn’t neglect.  Having these statues shows us that there was a point in time when our white ancestors were so dimwitted that they thought that our black ancestors were less evolved. Knowing this is just as important as knowing that people use to believe the world was flat.

            By knowing now that we all are one in the same shows that we are slowly evolving into a more excepting, less cocky, and intelligent species.

Society Really Revs my Engine!

Ever since I was a little girl I always knew exactly what kind of car I wanted. A British racing green BMW Z4 with tan seats and a mahogany interior. For those of you do not speak car this is a two-seater BMW convertible in a forest green. I remember expressing my enthusiasm of this automobile to my mother. She just looked at me and said, “Where are your kids going to sit?”

A Sketch of my Dram Car

            This question has always baffled me. Why can’t my future husband own the reasonable car and I get the awesome sports car? It seems to me that more often then not, the husband gets to have his dream car while the wife get’s stuck with the honker of a car called a minivan. Sure, it may be that the female just doesn’t care so much about the type of car she drives. But I can’t be the only girl in the world who wants a expensive convertible when she grows up.

            Talking about female and male roles during class really made me think about how society has installed in us the “rules of the sexes” since a young age, even when it comes to fantasy cars. When you ask most young girls what car they want when they grow up they’ll say a prius or an SUV, both reasonably sized and have room for company. Boys will go all out saying a Ferrari, a Lamborghini and the crazy ones will say the bat mobile.

It seems just part of American society to have the stereotypical caretaker, the female, to have the more child friendly car and the stereotypical breadwinner, the male, to have the flashy car. But now, these stereotypes are not the case. Women can be the breadwinners and the men can be the caretakers of the children. If roles have been switched, I think cars can be too. So let me say, I will have my Z4 someday! (Ha! That rhymed!) 

Today in American Studies we were talking about Tokenism. This immediately made me think about a character on the show, and my guilty pleasure, South Park. The only black character on the show is named Token. Token Black actually. I never really realized this little joke until today in 
class.

Token from South Park

It seems to me that children's television is the worst when it comes to tokenism. For example, just look at some shows playing on the widely popular Disney Channel. On The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, London is the token asian and Mr. Moseby is the token Black. Even on the mega hit Hannah Montana, Oliver is the only Jewish person. Of course the channel is taking strides to become more diverse. For example the show Wizards of Weaverly Place was the first Disney show to showcase a latino family. But you can still feel Disney pushing for diversity.

The other big children's network is Nickelodeon. Their show Victorious has a token black character Andre, but another show of theirs, ICarly, does not have a token character. None of the main characters on ICarly are black, but rather they are all caucasian. Is this something good or should the show be ridiculed for this? It really makes me think if tokenism is a necessarily bad thing.

I also wonder how this tokenism effects a generation if it does at all. In the movie, The Holiday, Kate Winslet's character says,"You're supposed to be the leading lady in your own life, for God's sake!" I wonder if minorities don't feel like the leading character. As kids they learn from watching TV that they are  just a side character there to give color to an otherwise bland cast.

So is tokenism bad? Would you praise a show like ICarly for having all the main characters be the same race or would you rather praise a show like The Suite Life of Zack and Cody which has a more colorful cast, pushed as it may seem?   

To Have Faith in Education

In the United States there are 244 Catholic colleges, 50 Jewish colleges, even 1 Hindu college and in Berkeley California a new college has sprung up. But this college isn't affiliated with the above religions. Zaytuna College is the first Muslim university in the United States (Click Here to see a video and USA Today article on Zaytuna College). 

Not everybody is thrilled about this new university, in fact there is much controversy over it. According to the USA Today article mentioned above Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Frank Gaffney, believes that the school is trying to spread Islam in America. 

But when you think about it, America is littered with various religious affiliated schools that include Notre Dame, Brandeis University, and many others. No one seems to have a problem with these schools, other then the occasional sports rivalry.

So why is it then, that this small college of 15 students has struck such a nerve? In American Studies we have been talking about how since 9/11 many Americans have an unclear perspective on the teachings of Islam. The ironic thing is that one of Zaytuna College's goal is to teach non-muslim americans about their world to give a better understanding and less resentment against their culture, but at the same time these non-muslim americans are the people who are not supporting the school. 

I believe the only way to stop this bias is the same way that Zaytuna College is trying, which is to better educate people on the beliefs of Islam. But how should this be taught? It seems as though many americans don't want to learn about this religion and if the information was just shoved  down their throats, they wouldn't respond well. Maybe what has to been done is to teach students in school about various religions. I know for me, I was taught about religions in World History class freshmen year. If every child in america was given the same information I got, maybe my generation could be the generation to change things, but until then we'll have to persist on with these stubborn, non informed americans.

Make 'Em Laugh?

On the first full day of school we found out that one of our American Studies teachers, Mr. Bolos, "died" and in his place was our substitute teacher Mr. Solob (okay so it really was just Mr. Bolos in outdated glasses). Mr. Solob had a very unique accent, and each time he mispronounced our names everyone, even me, would erupt with laughter. It was funny, but was if right?
What if something really did happen to Mr. Bolos and we really did have a sub from a different country, would we have laughed at his accent? Probably not, because it's just not right. According to Migrationpolicy.org, around 1.1 million to 1.3 million legal immigrants come to America each year and it is very feasible that one could become a substitute teacher. These teachers probably have accents and say our names weirdly. I would hope that the class wouldn't laugh and give them credit for trying.
But at the same time making fun of how someone talks is not a new form of comedy. Just look at Elmer Fudd from Loony Toons. Whenever he says "Wascal Wabbit" you can't help but laugh, but really you’re laughing at a speech impediment when he can't pronounce his R's. On The Simpsons the Characters of the Indian Apu and the Scotsman Willy have very stereotypical accents that are a big punchline in the story line. Even in one of my favorite movies, Singin' in the Rain, one of the biggest jokes is Lina Lamont's extremely nasally talking voice. I hope that if most people met someone like these in real life they wouldn't start laughing.
The truth is that America is very diverse with MANY different accents within it and almost all of them have been made fun of in one way or another. But I still wonder, is it right?