The map I have chosen depicts America in 1640, and can be found by clicking the link below.

MAP

1. When first looking at the map it is apparent how little is known about the West Coast in comparison to the East Coast, as seen in California being a separate island. On the East Coast, however, there is a great amount of detail, especially in the South East. In this region many rivers and lakes are mapped out. In addition, wild animals are drawn in to represent the wildlife found in the area. Switching view to the top left portion of the map, there is a drawing of half-naked Native Americans carrying weapons such as bows and arrows. Then they are again displayed in the bottom left part of the map where they appear to be worshipping some kind of sphere/idol.

2. This map seems to narrate America as an untamed and relatively unknown region of the world. The fact that the majority of America is left blank implies that little is known about the area. The fact that Indians were shown in a rather dehumanizing fashion adds to the untamed and dangerous depiction of America that many Europeans saw. While the map makes quite a few assumptions, mostly involving wildlife and geographical elements such as California, they do make one assumption about Native Americans that sends a clear message. This assumption is that Native Americans are all dangerous and wild people that pose a threat. I inferred this from the fact that every Native American depicted on the map is either carrying a weapon or performing a ritual of some kind. With all this in mind, it is clear that this map runs parallel with the writings of John Smith and Valerie Babb. In Smith's writings, natives are constantly described as savage or violent,  most notably when attacking or capturing him. In the case of Babb, she also talks about how the common "white" view of the time was that natives were animalistic and of an inferior race. This view is well shown when Babb writes, "The chosen ones are chosen not only by faith but also by race, and conversion is not sufficient to remove racial traits. Racial difference is immutable, unalterable." In this excerpt Babb is describing how white people of colonial times saw natives as so far below themselves that not even converting them to Christianity could stop them from being "savages".

Great Gatsby Blog

After watching the film version of The Great Gatsby, I was struck by how similar the novel and the movie were. It was honestly one of the most parallel book-movie combos that I have seen. That being said, there were some distinct differences between the two, and it is those variances that I will focus on.

The first main difference, and certainly the most notable one, was the fact that Nick Carraway was recounting the story from therapy, where he was being treated for alcoholism. In addition, it is shown that Nick is the one writing The Great Gatsby. This contrasts with the book in a variety of ways. Primarily, there was never any hint in the book that Nick, a man shown to be the most careful and level-headed character in the entire novel, was destined to become a morbid alcoholic. Secondly, the novel is written in the present tense throughout, and never mentions Nick writing the novel in the future. The only instance where it even suggests that Nick is recanting the story is in the very last chapter where Nick writes, “After two years I remember the rest of that day…”

Another disparity can be found in the relationship between Nick and Jordan. In Gatsby, it is clear that Nick and Jordan had a fairly intimate, albeit complicated, relationship. Fitzgerald never gives the reader a clear indication of just how close the two were, but it can be inferred that they did have some sort of relationship. In the film, however, Nick and Jordan’s relationship is all but cut out for sake of time and simplicity.

A final, yet rather significant change made, involved Tom Buchanan. Throughout the majority of the film, Tom is portrayed exactly as in the book—a racist, (although this trait is downplayed in the film) pretentious, and adulterous man. Then preceding the death of Gatsby, there is a split in Tom’s portrayal. In the book, Wilson is said to have traced Gatsby’s yellow car on his own after many hours of wandering around Long Island. On the other hand, the film shows Tom giving Wilson Gatsby’s name whilst putting the idea into his head that “something ought to be done” about him. This plot differences leads to a large difference in the depiction of Tom. In the book, Tom is left as an unlikeable character; in contrast, the film makes Tom out to be a cold-blooded killer.

Synthesis Essay

            Although for many people the American Dream, and the idea of social mobility, may seem nonexistent, I believe that it is still a thriving part of today’s society. In order to argue for or against this notion, however, it is necessary to first define what is meant by the American Dream. Contrary to what some people seem to think, the American Dream is NOT that if you will become automatically become rich if you work hard. In the words of Nicole Doñe, whose parents were immigrants, “…this American dream is an interpretation of a white poor man’s dream.” The American Dream is simply the following: the opportunity for anyone to rise upward in social class through perseverance and hard work. The key word in this sentence is opportunity. If that word is taken out, then the American Dream’s identity becomes something very different. It becomes the idea that if you work hard, you WILL become rich, but this is not correct. You simply must have the chance to rise up in social class; just because you don’t does not mean that the American Dream is fading. Having made this clarification, I deem the American Dream alive based on the following facts—social mobility is prominent and not at all diminishing, and rising gaps in class don’t impact the American Dream.

            Despite a number of people pointing toward social mobility decreasing, I would argue the exact opposite. After reading the arguments surrounding the notion, it is clear to me that they have little pertinent evidence supporting them. For example, in an article titled “Social Mobility in America: Repairing the Rungs”, the author states, “Back in Horatio Alger days, America was more fluid than Europe. Now it is not. Using one-generation measures of social mobility-how much a father’s relative income influences that of his adult son- America does half as well as Nordic Countries”. While at first this seems like a strong point, the author provides no evidence to support his comment, nor does he explain how he determined social mobility in the days of Horatio Alger. Instead of showing the reader why his statement was valid, he quickly moves on to the next part of his argument, talking about how the gap between test scores of the rich and poor have increased. In doing so, he completely abandons his argument that social mobility is decreasing, leaving its only support with the aforementioned vague, meaningless statement.

            Another way people who think social mobility is decreasing argue their point is through the use of specific examples. This strategy is shot down by Jonah Goldberg in his article “Economic Mobility is Determined by Personal Choice”. In the article, he shows how opponents of the American Dream warp facts so that they seemingly support their opinion. In the article he cites one study that talked about decreasing chances of upward mobility in the middle class—specifically saying that 50% of people born in the middle class either stay where they are or move down in income level. The study then uses the example of two women who became history teachers and shows how their income had decreased a great deal in comparison to their parents. Goldberg digs deeper into these examples, however, and finds the following, “In both instances, Hartman (the author of the study) profiles women whose fathers were doctors but the women themselves opted to pursue PhDs in history with the aim of teaching…and we’re supposed to be surprised they make less than their parents?” Later in the article Goldberg highlights a major problem within the argument that social mobility is decreasing—it doesn’t reflect personal choice. This is a point that can’t be ignored, since choice, while a hidden and unmeasured statistic, is perhaps the most important statistic to consider. How can we know how many people have decreased incomes from their parents simply because they preferred teaching to being a doctor? It could be that it is this “choice” statistic is actually the one that is on the rise, not decreasing social mobility.

            On the other hand, there is actually a good deal of evidence supporting increased social mobility. An example of this can be found in the Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations report. In this report, two graphs are shown, which both support increasing social mobility. In one graph, family incomes are compared between generations. In this graph, ALL income groups are shown, on average, to exceed their parent’s income. One fact that I found especially interesting was that 93% of people in the bottom percentile had family incomes greater than their parents. As for the second graph, it breaks down each economic quintile and shows where people ended up in relation to where they began. For example, one statistic that is shown is that 57% of people who were born into the bottom quintile ended up in the second quintile or higher. In the second quintile, 51% of people ended up in a higher quintile as an adult. These graphs clearly show that the opportunities to increase in social class are present for a majority of people. If this doesn’t support the notion that the American Dream is well and alive I don’t know what does.

            The other central argument to my case is that rising gaps in class don’t have an impact on the American Dream. This concept takes far less explanation and fact than the argument of social mobility. As I have stated, the American Dream is nothing more than the ability to increase one’s lifestyle/social class through hard work and perseverance. It says absolutely nothing about how large the gaps between the classes are. As long as social mobility is a tangible and present force, then gaps in classes do not matter. As stated by Yasmina Shaush on National Public Radio,

            “Regardless of birthplace, 310 million Americans face the same expectation. To be born in America is a gift, one that should never be wasted. Even through today’s pessimistic climate, I find it easy to be optimistic, simply because of where I live. While my mother grew up in the shadows of             communism, I was raised in the light of freedom and democracy. Anything is possible in America, anything.”

This excerpt from Shaush sums up this argument perfectly. She hits on the head the idea that the American Dream is alive because no matter what, people can still become the best they can be. There is no dictating government restricting them, nor an inherent set of boundaries that contain them.

            Keeping both of these fundamental ideas in mind—that social mobility is prominent and well, and gaps in class have no effect on the American Dream-- it is clear to me that the American Dream is far from gone.

            

Social Class

After taking the Christian Science Monitor quiz, I was given the social class of Bourgeois Vous. I thought that this was a fairly accurate social class to be put in since it described me pretty well. There were a few minor things such as taste in songs that weren't correct, but other than that I agreed with the class I was put in. When looking at the quiz as a whole, I think it does an above average, but not perfect job of defining social class. The questions seemed to strike at someone's personality and mindset rather than just focusing on simple questions like "how much money do you make?". On the other hand, every person can't be easily placed into a class based on whether or not they stop for a pedestrian or like country music. Those questions struck me more as individualized and not necessarily belonging to any one class.

With this new information in mind, I decided to connect the other texts we have studied to the characters from The Great Gatsby. When I read "Money Always Talks" by Daphine Merkin, the main message seemed to be that money changes people, regardless of the person. She specifically stated, "They're worse, and they’re better, reviled and adulated. They stir up envy, and they invite respect". I focused especially closely on the last part regarding envy and respect and found a lot of truth in it within The Great Gatsby. In particular, I thought about how Jay Gatsby seems to fit that description perfectly. Throughout the book, he is revered by society and everyone around him due to his vast wealth and mystery. It is hard to think that this would be the same if he were poor, as he draws much of his courage and self-confidence from the fact that he is so wealthy. An example of this is when he takes extra care to show off his house to Daisy, so that he can impress her.

The other text I examined, "Shadowy Lines that Still Divide", argues three main points: class is becoming harder to see, it is becoming harder to move between classes, and class differences are becoming larger. Out of these three points, I examined the last one and how it compared to the corresponding message in The Great Gatsby. In my opinion, the two texts take very different stands on the issue. While "Shadowy Lines" states that class differences are becoming larger in terms of health and education, Gatsby would seem to argue the opposite indirectly. I say this because in Gatsby there is an enormous gap between the rich and the poor. While the book doesn't necessarily display the poor often, it does display the rich. It shows them as having near infinite money at their disposal as seen in their partying and careless spending. When considering that this book was written during the 1920's, a time where medicine was still coming onto the scene and only the rich could afford healthcare, it seems to me that there was a large gap in health care. Compare that to today where now everyone is required to have health care. The difference is clear. With respect to education, the same holds true. In the 1920's and today, wealth played a part in where you went to school and whether or not you could go to college. Unlike today, however, there were no government regulations that made colleges accept a certain number of people from minority groups, and this led to rich, white people completely dominating the top colleges. In all, The Great Gatsby clearly contradicts the statement made in "Shadowy Lines that Still Divide", which said that class differences are becoming greater.

Biggest Fear

While I’ve never had any problems with swimming or being in the water, I have been afraid of drowning for as long as I can remember. This fear was only cemented further into my mind when I visited Mount Olympus for the first time when I was ten. My parents had planned the trip for mid-August back in July, and I had been anxiously waiting for the day that we would go.

On the day of, I woke up bright and early, which is not like me at all, and eagerly packed my things so that we could leave. Soon enough we were off to the park and everything was going great. When we arrived, my brothers and I jumped out of the car and rushed into the park, unable to contain our excitement. The day was shaping up to be a good one as I rushed into the wave pool. Instantly I wanted to go out as far as possible in order to get the huge waves. So I went, past three feet, then four, then five, and finally stopping at the six feet marker. It’s important to note that when the waves were going, It was more like four feet (when they weren’t crashing into you).

I swam, jumped, and “Super-Manned” through the waves until I felt the urge to go even deeper: I wanted go right out to the buoy. With that in mind, I swam towards it, fighting through the progressively larger waves all the way. Upon finally arriving, I already felt fatigued from the swim and doubted the intelligence of going out so far. As the thought crossed through my head, I was struck by an enormous wave that sucked my under the depths of the water. An invisible force stopped me from being able to come to the surface as I struggled under the waves. The initial crash had knocked most of the air out of me, and I was beginning to blackout when finally I managed to escape the grasp of the wave and surface. Gasping for air, I looked around to find that I was standing in just over one foot of water – I had been sucked under the water and carried nearly a 100 feet back to the entrance of the wave pool!

Ever since that day, I have been especially scared of drowning as I know how frightening and out of control you feel being trapped under the water. Luckily it isn’t something that affects me on a day-to-day basis, but every time I go swimming there is part of me is always thinking about my trip to Mt. Olympus.

Sound and Fury

After watching Sound and Fury, I was left with a completely new viewpoint about deaf people. Before the film, I had always thought that being deaf was a handicap and a curse; however, Sound and Fury brought many original ideas to me such as the awareness of “deaf culture”. It is this idea that is the driving force behind not implanting a cochlear implant into a deaf person. On the other hand, there are also many strong arguments for why a child would benefit from having a cochlear implant such as the idea of “living in both worlds”.

With this in mind, I decided to take a deeper look into the backbone of these arguments and how the film expresses them. The main reasoning behind a child not receiving a cochlear is the fear of that child losing their “deaf culture” or the way of life for a deaf person. For example in Sound and Fury, Peter and Nita worry that if they give their daughter Heather an implant, she will forget that she is deaf. Heather will mold to the hearing world and try to distance herself from the deaf world. The movie does an excellent job of portraying Peter and Nita’s feelings about this, allowing the viewer to understand them without being deaf. Another argument the film brings to the table is the idea of the implant not working well. While success rates are generally high in younger children, Peter and Nita feared that if something were to go wrong, Heather would be shunned from both worlds putting her in a separate “cochlear world”. I believe that these arguments are quite effective as they personally allowed me to sympathize with them and at least understand their reasoning behind not implanting their daughter, even if I don’t agree.

Switching gears to the other side of things, there are also many strong arguments that support having a cochlear implant. The main one shared in the video was the idea of being able to have all the doors open for the child, not being limited by their deafness. This is the main drive behind Chris and Mari’s decision to implant their son. They don’t want him to be held back by his deafness and later resent his parents for not giving him a cochlear implant. An example supporting this is when the movie shadows Peter for his normal work day. He constantly needs help from a translator in order to work, thus stopping him from moving and further up in his company. Another argument that was brought into the film was that deaf schools were not as suitable as hearing schools. Sound and Fury talks about how some deaf children graduate high school with a fourth grade reading level. It was because of these reasons that Chris Mari chose to implant their son. In my opinion, it was the right choice. Unlike Peter and Nita, deaf culture isn’t as big of a factor since both of them can hear. With this in mind, it seems that the positives of the cochlear would outweigh the negatives for a hearing family, while for a deaf family it is really just a personal choice that has to be made.

After having said all of this, on the whole I thought the movie did an excellent job of showing both sides of the story and not letting bias become a factor. It simply provides all the facts and all the opinions, so that the viewer can make an informed decision for themselves. I believe that Sound and Fury is an eye-opening film that makes the viewer re-consider all they know about deaf people and their culture.

Julian Assange/WikiLeaks

After having read Schoenfeld's article, I am somewhat split on how I feel towards what WikiLeaks does. I believe it is important to not only take opinion into the matter, but also the legal aspect. In my case these two aspets contradict each other.

When looking at WikiLeaks from a legal standpoint, it seems clear to me that Julian Assange and anyone else associated with WikiLeaks are innocent. In Schoenfeld's article he clearly states that in order for them to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 Assange must have intended for the information to hurt the U.S; however, it would be extremely hard to prove this point. Personally, I don't think Assange's goal was to hurt America; he almost certainly just felt that the citizens of the U.S. should know what's going on in there own country. When this as well as the first amendment are considered, I think it's clear that Assange is innocent in a court of law.

Despite how I feel about WikiLeaks and Assange from a legal standpoint, personally I think that he had no right to publish classified documents without government permission. Assange can't know the repercussions of his work. Assange may have unknowingly killed an American spy or gave away the position of American troops. In return, all that is gained is information that the public will forget within a month. In my opinion Assange was and is too impulsive in how he runs WikiLeaks, and I completely disagree with the idea of a website that releases classified information.