American Studies Day and Junior Theme Reflection

As I was thinking about American Studies Day (which was awesome), and doing our reflections in class, I thought about Maria Finitzo's work and how it relates to ours, specifically with junior theme. Our junior themes, which we recently finished and turned in, required us to invest a topic we found ... interesting. I know for me, the huge freedom we were given in choosing a topic put more pressure on me to find one I was actually curious/excited about. But I did, and ended up researching genetic engineering, a topic I had previously no knowledge about. We had to come up with a why question and investigate our topic through a variety of sources, without taking a side on the current issue (as many of the topics people chose had sides and controversies). After our discussion with Ms. Finitzo, I realized the process she went through in creating her documentary on stem cell research was very very similar to what we went through, like it was her own "junior theme". Her task was to illustrate stem cell controversy and how it effects us today, without showing her bias and by incorporating many different voices. Just from what we saw on thursday, she had 2 personal stories intertwined together and she interviewed a Catholic bishop. What really impressed me though, was the dedication that Maria Finitzo took to submerge herself in her topic, research and understand it, so that she was sort of an "expert" on stem cell research, just as we were on our topics after completing our junior themes. Ms. Finitzo was extremely knowledgeable on stem cells and a lot of the science, and was able to answer everyone's questions during the discussion. The work that Maria Finitzo does to create intriguing documentaries mirrors what we are taught to do in American Studies, in the regards to thinking critically about the world around us, asking probing questions, and investigating issues that are important to us.

Overall, I really enjoyed American Studies day, especially the Slam Poets at the end of the day. They were exciting and engaging and really wrapped up the day nicely. I think its cool that the day showcased a variety of talents - a journalist, a film maker, slam poets, and student/teacher panels.

Facebook...for first graders

I recently stumbled across an article on Yahoo, "For Children, a Social Network With Training Wheels" (from the New York Times), about a new social networking site intended for children age 6-10 and their parents. The site, Togetherville, was created by Mandeep Singh Dhillon and according to the article, aims to " "keep children safe from cyberbullying and other online dangers while allowing them to become comfortable with online interaction". Dhillon designed the site so that it is very safe and parent/children friendly. Parents can create social circles of their friends and friends of their children, and choose which applications (games, art projects) that their children can do. Furthermore, kids can comment on their peers posts using preselected phrases.

Mr. Dhillon believes that it is important for children to develop these online social skills at an early age, as our world is becoming more and more technologically advanced. In "The Future Brain", Ray Kurzweil argues that technology is increasing exponentially, and in class, we have discussed our society as becoming more and more data driven and influenced by the media.

But is social networking for first graders appropriate and or necessary?

In the article I read, Vicky Rideout, who studied children's media use for the Kaiser Family Foundation, states, "I'm not sure what the benefit is. Believe me, kids will learn how to use technology and media when the time comes". But has the time come? At 6 years old is it important to develop online relationships and learn how to post pictures and communicate successfully on the web? After all, one could argue that it is just preparing them for Facebook and Twitter, but in a manner that is safe and controlled. But personally, I think that children should be learning how to foster real relationships with people, because interacting with humans in real life is an important skill that will be useful and needed in all aspects of a humans development. It just seems healthier for me for kids to be having playdates, playing outside in the backyard or going to the park, as opposed to sitting inside "interacting" with people online.

Image from: http://wiredpen.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fb_togetherville_05a.png

Junior Theme update 2

As I am trying to edit and revise my paper, I am realizing how hard it is to cut things. In the beginning, I found it extremely hard to condense all of my information and pick the best quotes and support to prove my point. Now, going back, I am trying to make my paper to the point and sharp. I cut out one paragraph that strayed too far from my thesis and the goal of my paper, but I am still worried that within the nine pages-ish that the reader will get lost, so I am trying to make my thesis map as clear as possible and keep everything on track.

It was also difficult to choose the best order for my paragraphs to go in. I wanted it to be logical and flow well so I played around with switching some paragraphs. I also realized how many sources I have, and still others that I didn't get a chance to use in my paper, but still helped guide me throughout the research process.

Jt update

So far I think the hardest part about junior theme has been coming up with a direction/focus of my paper and my thesis idea. I have been finding lots of articles and at first I was a little overwhelemed about all the information I had and how to narrow it and make connections with all of it. I have found lots of articles about the history of eugenics in the US, but I am still looking for more articles about genetic engineering in our society today. I am also reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, which is very pertinent to my topic. It is fairly disturbing but really good!
The question my paper is centered on is why are we trying to engineer the composition of American society? And my tentative answer to that question is: While historically the American goverment has tried to shape the characteristics of society in order to maintain a certain image of America, today engineering (need a different word there) is occuring on an individual basis because we strive for perfection. I know that this is a little wordy right now and there are some words I need to change to make it a little clearer. I want my paper to reflect the fact that, in the past, the government set in place certain laws and restrictions because they were trying to control how are country looked - they wanted it to be "white", "intelligent", and "American". The laws were all set in place for the improvement of society as a whole. Now however, most people would agree that using eugenics to shape society such as allowing all humans to design their children, would not be a good idea for society and could possibly reflect a distopia (like in Brave New World). Yet, on an individual basis, parents are competitive. And they want what's best for their child. They strive to create the best baby they can, and if technologies could make their baby prettier, smarter, more athletic... why wouldn't they?

Junior Theme

After much switching around, I finally found a topic that I am interested in researching and writing about. I started off thinking that I was going to do my junior theme on alternative medicine and how it has increasingly become a part of healthcare in the US. However, there were some complications with that topic so I moved on to healthcare and the new reform. After thinking about it and beginning to do some research, I decided that topic was not interesting enough for me, but now I have my final topic/idea. I am going to focus on the image we have in American of the "perfect" or "ideal" American family and how new science technologies -- like choosing genes and designing babies -- is changing the way we view the American family. I do not have a why question yet, though. However, I really find the topics of eugenics and designer babies extremely interesting!

Recess... with rules and a teacher

According to an article I read, in an elementary school in Newark, recess is no longer a break for the students - instead they spend the 30 minutes under the control of a recess coach, who, with a whistle around her neck, makes all of the kids participate in organized activities. No sitting, no relaxing, no "just talking with friends". Under this new program, implemented at Broadway Elementary School, injuries, bullying, and disciplinary referals are occurring less, as the children are no longer left alone to be excessively wild, hog equiptment, or fight. Supporters of the program advocate that it is helping children stay healthy and be social. Yet when I read this article, I didn't really think about these positive aspects of giving up recess for a more gym-like class. Instead, I feel like the definition of recess goes against the structure provided by the school's new program. Kids have to sit still all day, learn, and demonstrate appropriate behavior. They need time to relax without having to continue to participate under rules, in a structured recess period. What do you think? Do the benefits of this new program out way the negatives?

I thought about this idea of structure and how it applies to New Trier. I know that there are students here who go without lunch periods, take early bird classes and then fill their schedules to the brim with classes. New Trier even permits students to skip lunch (although they do not recommend it). I think that our school and our culture value structure, because it seems to equate with productivity. And not that its a bad thing - we absolutely need structure in our lives in order to function and thrive. But I also believe that people can be productive during brief unstructured periods, or breaks. Do you think this is true as it applies to our school and culture?

Picture: http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2001_Recess:_School%27s_Out/recess_school%27s_out_013.jpg

Everyone's doing it

It seems like teen pregnancy is becoming more and more apparent in the media - with the Secret Life of the American Teenager, The Pregnancy Pact, MTV's 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom, the once taboo subject of teenage pregnancy is now making itself comfortable in our American culture. Celebrities too, such as Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin, are also taking teen pregnancy public. For the most part, shows such as the Secret Life and 16 and Pregnant show the heart break and struggles with such challenges at a young age. These shows claim to work to educate other adolescent girls so they can make smarter, more informed decisions, and not limit themselves. Yet, by focusing so much on the issue, are we making something rare and inconvenient seem commonplace and normal? Or are these TV shows sending the message that 'yep, I can survive with a baby in highschool and If Ican do it, so can you'? I personally think it's good that we have gotten the issue out in the open, so it is easier for parents to have conversations with their daughters about the realities of sex and babies in highschool. And the fact that these series' show the messier and heartbreaking sides to the story is beneficial. But what I wonder if other people get the same message that I do.

Picture: http://posting.mtv.co.nz/gsp/Music_Entertainment/Shows/16-and-pregnant-logo-281x211.jpg

Town Deals with Past Discrimination

An article I saw recently from the New York Times, "Michigan Town Makes Amends for Discrimination", reminded me of many things that we have been recently discussing in class. In Hamtramck, Michigan in the 1950s and 60s, "black areas" in the town were obliterated through urban renewal projects and hundreds of African American families were displaced from their homes - just for being on the wrong side of the color line. While a federal judge found the town guilty of this racial discrimination in 1971 and ordered Hamtramck to build new houses for the families, the town did not follow through. Many of the families had to live with relatives and friends, and the effects on some children such as now 60 year old Sallie Sanders were so devastating that Sallie "has trouble recounting the ordeal without breaking into tears". Imagine having to leave your house or the place you've grown up in as a young child without knowing why, or knowing that because of the color of you and your family, you can't live in a certain area.

However, brought on by the recent economic down turn, reparations are now being made to the people discriminated against, in the form of providing new, affordable housing (paid for by local and state money) to families previously displaced, or their remaining living family. Ms. Sanders was able to move into a new home, and not only that, the town of Hamtramck has been experiencing many positive changes. The once segregated town is now home to many immigrants from countries such as Bangladesh, Yemen, Albania, and Lebanon.

This article brings to light some of the discussions we had in class regarding when reparations are necessary and also about the "invisible" aspects of how certain towns are constructed. Mr. Bolos's example in class was of the man whose occupation was sometime of repair work and who couldn't live in his neighborhood because laws prevented him from having his large "repairman" truck sit outside without getting fined everyday. In reality, these laws allowed for people with only certain jobs or possibly of a certain social class to live in the neighborhood. In the case mentioned above, the town went about constructing a white, homogenous neighborhood by heading it under the category of urban renewal projects, or land redevelopment programs. Their actions were clearly racist and clearly wrong, and while they are redeeming themselves now, is the town's actions enough? What other ways do you see towns and villages constructing certain types of societies by enforcing laws and both directly and indirectly discriminating against certain groups of people?

Picture: http://www.dotcomgiftshop.com/files/imagecache/product/21524_0.jpg

Santa who?

As soon as november rolls around, Christmas decorations are up in stores and malls - a friendly reminder to the world that the holidays are not far away, time to start buying. By the time that December comes, Santa Claus is visiting stores and children are happily sitting on his lap - a Christmas tradition. This year, people will be reminided that spring is coming with the appearance of the Easter Bunny in many stores. According to a Chicago Tribune Article, the "Easter Bunny is slowly and skillfully creating a comfortable throne for himself in America's shopping mall atriums". Becoming sort of an icon for spring, the bunny is used to attract customers, especially when Easter candy sales and clothing sales are down, as they are this year. To me, it seems like the Easter bunny has gone from being a part of an important religious holiday to a more universally accepted marketing ploy/icon. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, I guess. According to the article I read, Respect the rabbit: Easter Bunny creeping up on Santa’s mall turf, cultural anthropologist Pamela Frese thinks that "the Easter Bunny's popularity demonstrates how Americans have increasingly turned to malls as community centers, where people of all religious backgrounds can celebrate so-called civil-religious holidays together". So the Easter bunny, while getting people to spend more money and feel happy about spring, is unifying for communities. What do you think?

Another thing that I found that was interesting from the article was that it described the ways in which the Easter Bunny's look has changed throughout the years. During the Great Depression, the Easter bunny was illustrated as a factory worker, and during the Civil Rights era, the Bunny had brown fur. Given the struggles that our nation is facing today, what should the Easter bunny wear, or be physically depicted as?

Picture from:http://www.costumzee.com/view/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/easter-bunny.gif

Asylum Granted to German Home Schoolers

Homeschooling is pretty rare in the US, but in Germany, it's against the law. I read an interesting article from the New York Times, Judge Grants Asylum to German Home Schoolers, about a German refugee family living in Tennessee. The Romeikes family chose to home school their children because they felt that other students' bad behavior was unhelpful to their children's learning and because they believed that the stories in German readers - where "devils, witches and disobedient children are often portrayed as heros" were not good examples for children to be reading. The Romeikes worked with a curriculum from a private Christian correspondence school. However, it was not recognized by the German government, which enforces that all students must attend school, whether that be public or private. The law maintains that going to school allows for "social integration" and is necessary to "ensure exposure to people from different backgrounds and prevent what some call 'parallel societies.'" The Romeikes eventually faced fines up to $11,000 and almost lost custody of their children, so their lawyers petitioned for asylum (Protection and immunity from extradition granted by a government to a political refugee from another country), and it was granted because the Romeikes would have faced persecution had they returned to Germany.

Should parents be allowed to home school their children? Ultimately, I believe that parents should be able to choose whether or not they do, regardless of the circumstances - as long as they follow a set curriculum. Parents have the right to raise their children the way they think is best, and in a way that does not compromise their beliefs. However, I do see truth in the reasons for which Germany prohibits this schooling method - I believe social integration is important for children to develop into aware and tolerant individuals. In the case mentioned above, Mr. Romeikes said, "I want my children to learn the truth and to learn about what’s going on in the world so that they can deal with it.” What do you think?

Another Comment on Reparations

I wanted to write a follow up blog to my previous blog on why it is still necessary today that we provide African Americans with reparations, most importantly in the form of an apology. In keeping with the idea of who should receive reparations, I came across an article in People magazine about a new book by Rebecca Skloot, "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks". Henrietta Lacks was a poor black woman who passed away in 1951 from cervical cancer. Scientists used her cells to create a revolutionary immortal cell line, called HeLa. The magazine's summary of the novel said that Henrietta's cells were put to extraordinary use: they were used to develop the polio vaccine, were the first cells sent up into space, and the first cells ever to be cloned. So many of our life-changing scientific discoveries as a country would not have been possible without these cells.

Yet while so many people benefited from Henrietta's cells, her family did not. They had no money and no health insurance. Later, in the 70's, when scientists went to track down her family, Skloot says, "[her] husband had a third-grade education. He thought they had part of his wife alive in a laboratory, they'd been doing tests... he didn't understand." Henrietta's family continued to struggle, most notably one of her sons becoming 150,000 dollars in debt after undergoing surgery.

To me, this another example of when reparations need to be due. In this case, I believe an apology and monetary reparations are necessary. To think that the the future of this family in 1951 could have been vastly different is extremely sad. And it is ironic that while Henrietta's cells were being used to fuel research and monumental discoveries that would help improve and educate the lives of others, her family was left disregarded, uneducated. I wonder how much Henrietta's family's race had to do with the scientists and governments decision not to compensate or help her family.

Like I said before, we can't go back and change the decisions that were made in the past. But hopefully, Rebecca Skloot's novel will bring light to the Lacks family's situation (Skloot has launched a foundation: www.henriettalacksfoundation.org), and reparations can be given to the descendants of her family, including health insurance, scholarships, and other monetary reparations. In this situation, I believe they are definitely due.

Reparations Still Necessary?

Today in class we discussed reparations for those who have been discriminated against, harmed, and enslaved in the past based on their race. This idea of trying to make amends for an injustice committed is something that I think is definitely necessary. We discussed countries paying reparations after wars (usually monetary reparations), and I'm pretty sure that the government has just recently begun to give reparations to those who have been wrongfully accused and imprisoned for murder, after being cleared by new DNA technology.

So shouldn't African Americans receive reparations then, too? Honestly, no matter how much we do, I don't think we can ever make up for what happened 200 years ago (and forward) in our country. But that doesn't mean we can't try. We can't go back in time and change the past, but what we can do is acknowledge that these atrocities took place, and issue an apology to all African Americans who have been enslaved and discriminated against. And I think the government could go further and mirror the way the Holocaust has been dealt with in the United States, regarding museums: we could rightfully honor the African Americans who suffered in slavery and under unjust laws with memorials and museums. It is important that everyone understands what happened, and that it is not denied or ever forgotten.

I believe that reparations are still necessary today. Just because time has passed does

not mean that it is too late for our government to take action. It's never too late to apologize.

Are We Protecting the Innocence of Our Children?

My last blog centered on the Haitian children suffering in the aftermath of the earthquake, and dealt with the topic of "loss of innocence", and whether or not children who have "lost their innocence" can still be considered children. Later, I found an interesting website where author Michael Medved wrote about how he believes our country is not protecting the "innocence" of our children, but instead following a different path. He says, "we now go for a preparation model. That is the emphasis on American education. 'Let's warn the child about all of the dangers, about all of the horrors in the world."

Mr. Medved gave many examples in his article of ways in which our education systems are trying to "prepare" children for the real world, in sometimes harsh ways: Children in elementary school through highschool are being taught, "We're doomed! In the future there will be no clean air, there will be no clean water! The sky is falling!" (when in reality he says that the truth is, there have been many governmental success stories regarding the environment, and cities have more clean air than they did 20 years ago). I know that a couple years ago, my little sister learned about global warming in third grade. She came home and couldn't sleep with a stomach ache because she was so scared about how our world was going to survive. And, most shocking to me: the website said that in Minnesota, first graders are being educated on AIDS.

Is this right? Is there a certain age that is too young for children to hear about this kind of stuff? I am not an idealistic, and I believe that at somepoint everyone needs to find out about AIDS and be educated so that we can work to stop the epedemic, and everyone needs to learn to be aware in how they treat our planet. But why do first graders need to be conserned about AIDS? I think children need to have a higher level of maturity and brain development to handle topics such as that. And that goes for the environment, too. I believe that children in elementary schools should be taught the necessary fundamentals that will prepare them for their secondary educations, but not in a way that burdens them.

The author of the website said that children should be able to be optimistic, have a sense of wonder, and feel secure. But are we preventing them from having these things through our education? What do you think? Should we, as a country, be protecting our children - or educating them about the harshness of our world to "prepare" them for the future?

The Website: http://www.mfc.org/pfn/97-6/medved.html

Picture: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/images/deps/alphabet.jpg

Loss of Innocence

In light of our class theme revolving around children, I read an article, Children Adrift in a World of Unfathomable Chaos, about the suffering of children in Haiti. Just by reading the first few paragraphs of the article, I realized the title was true: the chaos and horror that these children are facing is unfathomable to me. A young girl, Daphne, recounted how she had to watch her mother's "lifeless" body be carried away in a wheelbarrow. Tons of children have lost their parents and homes, and almost all of them have lost their schools. Of course, with such great a tragedy, there are enormous concerns: "There are health concerns, malnutrition concerns, psychosocial issues, and, of course, we are concerned that unaccompanied children will be exploited by unscrupulous people who may wish to traffic them for adoption, for the sex trade, or for domestic servitude," said Kent Page, a UNICEF spokesman.

How do these children survive? Haiti's first lady said that without help, the Haitian children will have "lost their childhood, their innocence,". The term that resonated with me was "loss of innocence". This reminded me specifically of what we have been talking about in Huck Finn. At the age of 13 or 14, Huck has had to take care of himself, fend for himself, and make important decisions for himself. Personally, I believe that Huck although still a child, has "lost his innocence" through all of the life-experiences and challenges he has encountered. He, just like many children in Haiti, has had experiences with death, something no child should have to experience. But I don't think Huck is necessarily an adult. He is still figuring out life lessons and constructing the type of person he is going to be, which we see evidence of in his conflicts over what is right vs. wrong. Yet, he is clearly not an innocent or naive kid.

Does "losing ones innocence" mean that one loses their childhood? Or can you still be a child without it? What do you think? Is childhood defined by innocence?

Picture: http://www.france24.com/en/20100118-vincent-grammont-humanitarian-aid-worker-haiti-earthquake-port-au-prince-delmas

3D TV

The other day in class, we were told an extremely shocking statistic: the average American watches 4.5 hours of TV a day, or about 14.5 years of their life (with 72 being the average life-span) are devoted to watching TV. 14.5 years of one's life living in a separate world - think of how much you would miss if you spent a continuous 14.5 years watching TV! I'm only 16, but if you subtract 14.5 years, I'd only have lived 1.5 years of my life! Obviously, the 14.5 hours is just an average, and it is spread out over a much longer period of time. But to me, the statistic is horrifying.

Yesterday, my dad had NPR on when he picked me up after school, and there was a broadcast about the technology fair in Las Vegas happening these next couple of days. The woman speaking was talking about one of the bigger gadgets to be featured: 3D TVs. At first I thought that sounded extremely cool, who doesn't like going to IMax theaters and seeing movies in 3D? I personally really enjoyed the Polar Express in 3D a couple years ago and I know 3D Avatar has been a big hit. Yet when I started thinking about it, the prospect of 3D TV kind of scared me. When you watch TV, you are able to leave your world for a little and for lack of a better word, "watch" an alternate world. But if this world was taking place 3D around you, it would be like you were actually a part of this other world.

To me, this new type of television watching would most likely raise the amount of time people spend watching TV, and limit the amount of time they are exposed to the real world. Why go to a football game if you can watch it on a huge screen with surround sound and 3D images? It's like you're right there. I personally do not spend a lot of time watching TV; I don't have time and I'd rather be out doing stuff in the real world. But will these new TVs have a negative impact on our society? How will our future be impacted by TVs that draw Americans out of the real world?

picture: http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/3D-glasses-404_675044c.jpg

Vegetables or a Face

The other day I learned about a man who suffered from severe epilepsy, so he received extreme treatment: the severing of his corpus callosum, a part in the brain which connects both the left and right brain hemispheres, allowing information to be transmitted to both sides. It was like the man had two different brains, but he was still able to go about his daily life. In one experiment the man took part in afterwards to help a scientists research study, he was asked to sit at a computer and look at images either on the right side of a divider on the screen or the left side. The images we see on the left are sent to the right side of the brain, which sees only the whole image, not the individual parts. The images we see on the right are sent to the left side of the brain, which only sees the individual parts. The left brain (which sees the individual parts) is the organized/planning/logical/sequential side of the brain. The right side of the brain (which sees the whole picture) is the artsy/big picture oriented side

The Man was asked to look at pictures made by the artist Giuseppe Arcimboldo, who is famous for his pictures of faces made out of objects such as vegetables, fruits, and books. Interestingly, when the man saw the picture on the right, he only saw the vegetables. However, when the image was flashed on his left, he reported only seeing a normal looking face.

This got me thinking about construction: the process vs. the final product. This man can experience something none of us can- he can look at a final product, see it, and then look at it differently and see all of its parts. A pile of vegetables is not very unique or special, but put together into a face, it's an artistic masterpiece. We don't have this opportunity to look at something and see the individual parts, the process. Which, can sometimes be a lot more important than the final product, in my opinion. Personally, I think that teachers value final products a lot more than the work and parts involved. Does our ability to only see "final constructions" inhibit us from appreciating things to their full extent?

picture: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/crazy/images/eye_trick_vegetable_man.jpg

Unity Through Adversity

I read an article, Shedding Old Rivalries and Pulling Together, about two different ethnic groups unified together in the face of adversity. Chicago has many interesting neighborhoods, with a large mix of people. In one such neighborhood specifically, on the corner of Western and Devon Avenues, about 200,000 Indian and Pakistani Chicagoans live and work side by side. While Indian and Pakistan have a rivalry over land in between their two countries, the Kashmir Valley, these Chicagoans of Indian and Pakistani descent are according to the article, unified in the face of the slumping economy. Many of the inhabitants of this neighborhood make a living selling electronics, telling fortunes, and driving taxis. However, with the downturn of the economy, tons of the residents have lost their jobs. Instead of arguing and fighting against each other over headlines involving the Kashmir Valley, Quoted in the article, Anwar Rajput said, "We discuss how we are going to pay our bills, kids, family. Of course, we talk about politics, both here and there. But what is everybody concerned about? The economy."

In times of adversity, people join together, putting aside their differences, at least in this neighborhood on the

North Side. But after reading the article, my question was: when the economy gets better, will these residents or any group of people/small business owners/workers that have been united because of a common fear, continue to work and live in solidarity? Does it really take everyone being on the same page, struggling with the same weakness, for there to be this comradeship? The economy unified two rival groups of people, but without this universal struggle, will their still be a union?

Picture from: http://www.ssa.gov/history/pics/acoffee.jpg