My Final Reflection - Meta-Post

So, this is it, after two semesters of blogging it looks like this is the last time I will be required to update this blog. So here goes...the post that I am most proud of from this quarter is...

"The (Insert Issue Here) Cycle"!

This is favorite post from this quarter for a few reasons. First of all, I took a theme that we have been discussing in class (gender discrimination), and I took that further and looked for a link to that topic today, rather than to the 1800s, the setting of the Kentucky Cycle. I found research that had recently been conducted at Cambridge, which talked about that exact subject. I not only learned a lot from the overview of the study, but it also led me to ask for an opinion from my readers. I only got one comment, but it was still very insightful!

Overall, I was pretty happy with my blogging this quarter. I was often at a loss for interesting things to blog about, but I always tried my best to keep my posts interesting. But every time I struggled to think of a topic for a post, it led to me think even more critically about our society, which is the greatest thing that blogging has taught me. This combined with the class has helped make this year so great. I have learned a lot, and I know that I will use the skills that I learned in American Studies throughout the rest of life, so thank you both, Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor, very much for teaching me how to enter into a conversation and think in a way I had never even imagined about society.

Remembering Gil Scott Heron

Just last week, poet/musician/author Gil Scott Heron died at the age of 62. He was one of the earliest "rappers", who spoke his mind by putting his anger into song. Since this relates to my junior theme, I figured I would talk about this a little bit.

Living in New York at a time when the inner city was just about the worst place you could be in, Heron was angry at the disparities that existed been whites and blacks as well as upper-class and lower-class. Because of these disparities, many youth in New York resorted to violence as a means of letting out their anger. Heron, however, had a different method. A talented young writer, he put poems and stories to a beat, hoping that somehow they would reach the attention of the world. His songs "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and "Whitey on the Moon" are two of the best examples of these themes (and also his most popular).

His music not only became the roots of rap music, but he helped change New York. Because of music like this, kids began to express themselves in rhyme and song rather than using violence. Rap music became an escape for these kids, and, I think Heron would be quite happy to know that these stories have reached a mainstream audience. He started a revolution that not only changed how African-American kids in low-income areas view the world, but also how the world views them.

Coming Together

As most of you probably already know, a very deadly tornado hit Joplin, Missouri a few weeks ago, killing many people. It was a horrible event, but the events that followed caused me to think about something that seems to happen frequently here in America, and it is very interesting.

It always seems that our society is very separate. The different social classes don't really seem to interact with one another and people just seem very stagnant about where they are in life. However, whenever some sort of disaster happens, people from all classes seem to come together to help one another. In the case of the Joplin tornado, people from other states came to help the Joplin residents clean up and get their lives back in order.

The same thing happened in the days following 9/11. People came together, and the nation really seemed to be one connected country. It didn't matter what class you were from or your background, people respected one another and came together. However, not long after, things went back to the way they were before the events of 9/11 even occurred. I have just been wondering why this happens. People come together for a little bit after a tragic event, but then things go back to the way they are not long after. Is it because classes have a difficult time interacting with one another, and helping each other in times of need is their only true way of interacting and they feel that it is nice to help? I am really not sure.

The (Insert Issue Here) Cycle

Currently in American Studies we are reading a series of plays called "The Kentucky Cycle". Each play takes place on the same plot of land in Kentucky, and the play discusses how society has changed over time. I began thinking (not just because our final paper is about this i promise) about whether our society actually has progressed over the years or whether it is just a myth that we as Americans subscribe to. I did some quick research on modern-day gender relations. I know that in the past women were expected to work at home, get paid less if they did work, and everything like that, however I was quite surprised to find out about what is going on in modern times.

A quick search brought me to the University of Cambridge, where they are doing a study on just this subject. In the article it states that while there has been a general change in how males and females are viewed in society, some things have stayed the same. For example, women no longer are expected to work at home, and many of them are working the same jobs that men would have previously been expected to work. However, women are still being payed less than men overall. Why is this? I am really not sure. I can a guess though, and that is that our society is used to thinking of women as less than men. Even though we think that many things change in our society, it seems that some states of mind never do. Because we still think of men as the prominent workers in a family, it seems right in our minds that they should get payed more.

Looks like it is a cycle after all. But that's just my opinion. How about the rest of you, do you subscribe to the myth?

It's All About the Benjamins Baby

Yeah, that's right, I quoted a P. Diddy song (or I guess we should call him Swag now...). But in all seriousness, this blog post has to do with making money. Being a junior, I've been thinking a lot about colleges, and not just where I'm going, but what I am going to study when I get there. I would love to study music composition, and hopefully be a professional composer, but my parents aren't so sure about the idea.

Of course I know that it is very very difficult to make it in the music industry. I would not only need talent, but I would also need connections. Because of this, my parents want me to make sure that I make a good living, and they want me to double major. Now I definitely understand this, but it just made me think about our society and our values.

We have talked in class a lot about the American Dream and what it means to people of different classes and backgrounds. Generally, the American Dream is that a person can always make a better life for themselves. They can earn more money, get a bigger house, and overall have a better quality of life. It seems that, because this is so engrained into the minds of people here, this is what is causing my parents to want me to make a living doing something that I may not be fully committed to. It seems that even if I am unhappy in a job, everything is great as long as I am making a good living. And while I agree (because it is engrained in my mind too), I have to say that it makes me wonder if having another job and almost securing earning a good living would truly make me happy. I could always keep music in my life and do it on the side (Mr. Bolos does this), but I am really not sure if that is what I want to do. Oh well, while I think about it, I'll be looking into more colleges!

Trying to Stay Focused

Today in class we had quite a long discussion about art, and how it has changed over the years, specifically in how people view it. Points were made about how movies are now more for entertainment, people watch them while doing other things instead of just focusing on them, and the same things about music and other art forms. I would just like to put in my two cents about this.

I specifically wanted to address a point that Doc OC made in class today, when he mentioned how musician Andrew Bird only listens to music when he is fully engrossed in it. He doesn't use it as background music at all, and we were debating on whether music should only be listened to in situations like this. I personally don't think that it's wrong to listen to music as background music, no matter how brilliant or complex it is. Being a musician myself, I know how when I truly sit down and listen through and album, I get a lot more out of it than when I listen to it as background music, however the music is serving a different purpose in each of the situations. It is still the same piece of art, however, when used as background noise, I use it more to focus (it sounds counter-intuitive but it helps me focus) and, honestly, to just have something there. Whereas when I really listen, I'm listening to specific chord structures, notes, the sort of things that require a lot more concentration.

Thus, I think that Andrew Bird is taking his music almost too seriously. While there is certainly a time (and a need, depending on the album) to sit down and fully examine the music, I would definitely go so far as to say that one cannot listen to music in any other setting. This leads to a similar point that was brought up many times in class today. The two types of listening serve different purposes, and neither one is right or wrong.

Stayin' Classy

As we start the F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby", we have been talking a lot about class, as it is a major component of the book. I figured I would just add to the discussion a little bit.

On Friday, we looked at a "class calculator" put up by the New York Times. This calculator basically says that class is calculated by occupation, education, income and wealth. However, we talked in class that maybe those aren't the only factors. For example, behavior may be a major component. If someone is wealthy but is a bad person or just acts not like one would expect a high-class person to act, would they still be considered high-class? I began to consider celebrities who act like this. They are clearly very wealthy and have a lot of influence, however the ones who act in completely inappropriate ways are still seen as high-class by many people.

There really is no one way to define class. It is really just a matter of opinion, because class is different to everyone. Ones perception of it is completely relative to where they grew up, how their childhood was, and how they have been influenced by other people.