Reconstructing the Nation

These reconstruction projects that we have been working on in class have been quite tricky.  No matter what path we choose to take, there will always be complications and criticisms.  One of those big issues is money.  The country needs money for many issues, but there is very little extra money to throw around.  There is physical damage that has to be paid for.  Schools and other public institutions that have to be built and payed for.  Almost anything that might aid the country must be paid for somehow, so the question is: where do we get all of that money?


After the war, there were not a lot of sources to get money.  Since the South lost the war, it would make sense to get money from them.  Unfortunately, all  the rich Southern plantation owners had invested their money into confederate bonds, which were now useless.  Another option is to tax cotton.  But with slavery abolished, it was very likely that there would be a decline in cotton production, since the main labor force was slaves.  Another option was to subtract from the defense budget, since the war was over.  But after a war on our own soil, our country would be especially vulnerable, so subtracting from the defense budget may make us susceptible to attacks or wars from European countries.  Almost anywhere there was money, it was untouchable.  This lack of money plagued the country.


I wonder, though, if any of the lessons that we learned back during Reconstruction are applicable today.  Obviously the economy is weak, and we need to exit this depression.  Do any of you have plans on how to get money in your reconstruction project that you think would be applicable today? And do you feel that today's issue can be dealt with the same way as it was 140 years ago?

Reconstructing the Nation

The More Eloquent Side to Jay-Z

  A couple of days ago, Doc Oc mentioned how his least favorite college basketball player, Nolan Smith for the Duke Blue Devils, has been described as being a “surprisingly articulate” young man.   We discussed the racial problems that are associated with that description.  Is it just naturally assumed that all whites are articulate?  I’ve heard some very insightful Caucasian speakers, and yet never heard of them being “surprisingly” good with words.  Also, on the other end of the spectrum, would a white person who don’t speak too good be thought of as surprisingly unintelligent?  And then does our society feel that the majority of African Americans do not speak very eloquently?  I would hope not, but I think that I have proved myself wrong.
    It would be hard to find a teenager in America who doesn’t know who Jay-Z is.  He is one of the most famous rappers in the world, and appeals to a great number of teenagers.  I personally prefer other genres of music, but I acknowledge Jay-Z’s talent and success.  Jay-Z, like most other rappers, raps about drugs, sex, and murder.  He also tosses around curse words as if no one would take offense.  Jay-Z is, quite honestly, not the type of person who I would think of as articulate.  Yet Jay-Z proved me wrong when he appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher (click here to watch a segment).  In this interview, Jay-Z touched on some very important issues, and spoke with high intellect.  I remember being surprised at how insightful he was.  It took me by surprise that someone who uses such vulgar language for a living could speak with such grace and intellect.  I would like to think that the only reason that this took me by surprise is that he is a rapper, and that I would think the same think for all rappers, regardless of race.  Yet, I can’t help but wonder whether this is more of a  racial issue than it appears to be.
 

Can I Eat Fried Chicken?

As we finished up Adventures of Huckleberry Finn this week, we touched on one last issue involving the portrayal of African Americans.  We discussed how they appear in the media, and how those appearances shape our opinions of African Americans today.  I said how they are portrayed to be users of vulgar language, due to rap songs and press conferences with African American  athletes, where there are almost always words that are censored.  Anyways, The channel that I watch the most in my free time is ESPN.  Since so many professional athletes are African American, and there are also many commercials involving African American actors, I am constantly seeing the media's portrayal of them.  In the commercials, it is very evenly balanced.  Both black and white people are shown doing stupid things in beer commercial, both black and white people are shown buying and driving cars, and both black and white people are shown evenly in almost every type of commercial.  The one red flag that I found though, is fast food.

It is a common stereotype: African Americans love fried chicken.  Even though a large portion of African Americans may enjoy fried chicken, it is still rude to group them all together, and make it seem like there is not a single African American who doesn't like fried chicken.  I thought that the commercials on ESPN would try to be more balanced, showing both whites and blacks enjoying fried chicken.  In McDonalds commercials, Taco Bell commercials, and Burger King commercials, there are both blacks and whites.  Yet, I still remember a certain Popeyes add that made me cringe.  I could not find this specific add on YouTube, but I found plenty of others that showed only African Americans eating their fried chicken.  Personally, I love fried chicken, and would eat it all the time it it weren't so unhealthy.  Yet it seems like in our society, fried chicken is viewed as an African American's food, which is an unacceptable stereotype.

Land vs. Water

In our shortened week, we discussed the difference between land and water in Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  The water is viewed of as a safe haven by Huck.  Whenever he gets in trouble for lying, or whatever it may be, he escapes to the raft, where he is safe to be himself, and he does not have to worry about problems.  Dry land, on the other hand, is problematic for Huck.  When he is on land, he has to always be scheming of how to not get caught.  Also, he is separated from his only companion, Jim, when he is on land.  There is a clear difference between land and water in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and I wonder whether or not this difference holds true in the real world.

The first thing that came to mind relating to this topic is Holy Water.  I do not know a lot about Holy Water, but I know that babies are baptized with it.  So there's one real life example supporting Huck's viewpoint.  After that, I tried to think of more...but none came to mind. Other than that one example, I could not think of anything to support Huck's thoughts.  In fact, I personally feel the other way.  On dry land, I feel at ease, whereas in the water, I might drown.  That is just my opinion, though, and if you feel differently, please tell me why.  Also, if you find more examples than Holy Water, I would like to know.

How to Deal with Guilt

In class this week, we got together with small groups and discussed different aspects of Twain's novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  My group was assigned Huck's guilt.  One thing that I noticed about how Huck deals with his guilt is that it is very unpredictable.  He feels guilty in many spots in this book, and each time, he deals with this guilt in a new way, most of which are somewhat obscure.  When the Duke and the King con the Wilks family, Huck feels guilty about stealing copious amounts of gold from such nice people.  What I would do in this situation is simply tell the family that they are being conned.  Yet Huck, for some reason, resolves that "There ain't no good way but one.  I got to steal that money, somehow; and I got to steal it some way that they won't suspicion that I done it" (147).  I personally fail to see the logic behind this decision.  If he were caught, then he would get in trouble, and regret his actions.  If he was not caught, then the Wilks family would be in even more distress, since their money was stolen.  Either way, it is a lose-lose situation for Huck.  Perhaps others are seeing something here that I am not, but regardless, I think that this was a stupid decision of Huck's.  Do you think that this was the right decision by Huck, and if, like me, you disagree with his actions, why?

Metablog: the Sequel

To be honest, I don't think my blogging has changed during second quarter as much as it did first.  I was a new blogger, completely lost, and experimented with many different techniques during first quarter.  After the first few blogs, I kind of settled down into a style that I see in the majority of my posts.  I feel that my style consists of a short, but to-the-point body about a singular current issue coupled with a question or opinion at the end.  This has remained consistent throughout second quarter, but there are three small details that I have changed, or am at least trying to.  First off, I have been putting more links and sources in recent blogs.  Next, the ending sentences to my blogs have changed as well.  The final variation in my blogging experience has to do with my attitude towards blogging.

I am inserting more links into my recent blogs because this website said so: Blogging Tips.  Sarcasm aside, I am really doing this because it is mutually beneficial for my readers and I.  Out of my first quarter blogs (excluding the first Metablog), 4 of them came without a link, and none of them had more than one link.  In my second quarter blogs, however, only two have no links, and one blog has a whopping THREE LINKS!  That blog is from 12-11-10, and is titled "Julian Assange: The International Manhunt".  I provide a link to a video that I talk about, and also give links for two articles related to the topic I am talking about.  When I bring up a topic, such as Julian Assange, that some people may not know a lot about, it helps for me to include a link to a page that talks solely about Assange.  This way the reader can have a better understanding of the context, and in turn will lead to me having a more successful blog.

The next topic I'll talk about that has changed in my second quarter blogs is the nature of my ending sentences.  First quarter, all I did was pose a question at the end of each post.  Even though some of these questions were insightful (of course there were those that weren't), they were one-dimensional.  They only asked one question, and nothing else.  Now, I am ending my blogs more openly.  Rather than narrowing down the ending idea to one issue, I leave them more open ended.  This way, the comments on my blogs (if I ever get any!) can be on a variety of topics.  For example,  my blog from 1-8-11 titled "The Game of Life" ands more broadly.  I provide one real life example to support my opinion, and rather than asking a question at the end, I asked my readers if they had any examples.  This way there could be a variety of topics broached in the comments, and perhaps promote more comments.  All in all, leaving the end of my blog in a more open ended way could lead to having my readers be more inclined to comment.

One last detail that has, unlike the others, been a undesired change, is my attitude towards blogging.  During the first quarter, I never missed a single deadline: all nine of my weekly blogs were completed punctually.  However, I skipped two weeks during second quarter, and had to make up for that by doing two extra posts.  Hopefully this isn't a trend, and I will be back on track third quarter.  At least I got the Metablog in on time.  But to sum it all up, my second quarter experience with blogging has gone through less change than first quarter, but has still been an enlightening one.


p.s. the blog i want looked at is "Julian Assange: The International Manhunt", from 12-11-10