Alright, so this week we have to write our blogs about our top 10 favorite movies. Instead of talking about what I like about them, I'll talk about the strongest memory I have associated with a couple of these movies, or what each makes me think of, and where I was when I saw it for the first time.
So the list is:
1. Pan's Labyrinth
2. Stardust
3. Harry Potter 4
4. Enchanted
5. The Labyrinth
6. Premonition
7. Mean Girls
8. Alice in Wonderland
9. Definitely, Maybe
10. P.S. I love you
I saw Pan's Labyrinth when my mom rented it from Netflix. When she first told me it was in Spanish i immediately decided I couldn't possibly get anything out of it, even with the English subtitles. But I walked into the living room a couple minutes into the first scene and never left...It was just that good. So I basically associate this movie with my mom, especially because every time I watch it, I'll ask her to repeat a few specific words that I didn't catch...
I found Stardust on a complete whim. I think I was going to blockbuster before one of my friends was sleeping over, and I just picked it up because the cover looked pretty. But once I watched it, I decided it was fantastic...I then proceeded to force most of my friends watch it at least once...the main time I remember this was when I projected it on my garage for one of my birthdays...I'm still convinced it was totally worth it.
I saw the Labyrinth for the first time at my cousin's house when I was around 7 I think. I remember liking it, but for the longest time I couldn't remember what the movie was called. When I was around 10 or 11 I figured it out, and ever since then I'm pretty sure I must watch it at least once a year...
I don't even remember the first time I saw Alice in Wonderland. My parents had this live action version I ADORED. And still do love. I would read the book all the time, my mom had given me a version with both the first book and Alice in the Looking Glass in it. I remember watching the movie, and my biggest criticism was that the Alice in it wasn't blonde. How on earth could this be right, when the cartoon CLEARLY showed that she had gold hair, not brown! I secretly wanted to be Alice...just a little bit.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
3 Themes in DOAS
One prevalent theme in this play is time. The play switches back and forth between past and present many times, and often with little or no clue to the reader. When we're in Willy's mind we're never quite sure what time it is, only that it is the past. Willy lives in the past, and when he sells his heirloom watch, it is symbolic of him selling his time for money. Willy is stuck in the past, and his giving up of the watch symbolizes his giving up his choice of what to do with his time; he will do nothing but work.
Another theme is success vs. failure. Willy seems to judge everyone immediately on whether or not they are a success at whatever they do. All of his relatives have succeeded, whether by hard work or cheating. Willy, however, has failed, and feels his family has failed as well. He understands this, but doesn't know how to change it, other than to just keep working. He gets sucks in this mindless circle of work with no progress. He feels a need to provide for his family, and when he can't, this is perhaps his biggest feeling of failure.
Things breaking and repairs are another theme. Willy feels the need to fix material things that are broken, such as the porch, or the house, because he judges success based on material possessions. However, it is the non material things in Willy's life that are truly broken; namely his family. Because Willy has spent his entire life working, he has failed to notice his sons growing apart from him, or his wife noticing his slip-ups. Building things also gives Willy a temporary feeling of success, because he feels that he has finished something, which is a principle he instilled in Happy and Biff. He, however, feels that he must keep working until he has "succeeded", or he has not finished his job.
Another theme is success vs. failure. Willy seems to judge everyone immediately on whether or not they are a success at whatever they do. All of his relatives have succeeded, whether by hard work or cheating. Willy, however, has failed, and feels his family has failed as well. He understands this, but doesn't know how to change it, other than to just keep working. He gets sucks in this mindless circle of work with no progress. He feels a need to provide for his family, and when he can't, this is perhaps his biggest feeling of failure.
Things breaking and repairs are another theme. Willy feels the need to fix material things that are broken, such as the porch, or the house, because he judges success based on material possessions. However, it is the non material things in Willy's life that are truly broken; namely his family. Because Willy has spent his entire life working, he has failed to notice his sons growing apart from him, or his wife noticing his slip-ups. Building things also gives Willy a temporary feeling of success, because he feels that he has finished something, which is a principle he instilled in Happy and Biff. He, however, feels that he must keep working until he has "succeeded", or he has not finished his job.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
DOAS Homework...
1. He teaches them that it is more important to be well liked than successful, and that is is wrong to steal, but okay if you're well liked
2. I think these are worthwhile for a father to teach his sons, but not if he doesn't teach them the value of hard work too. To be well liked is important, especially as far as communicating effectively with other people. People skills are necessary in the professional world. However, if the boys don't have the values necessary to break into the professional world, they won't be able to put their people skills to use anyway.
3. The inconsistencies tell us that Willy is a very indecisive and confused person. This could be reflecting that his mind is going, and that he is progressing into a stage of life where he simply does not care what he says. Willy might say one thing because he is convinced he believes it in one minute, and then change his mind the next. His character isn't defined by any specific ideals because he really doesn't have any.
4. Linda reacts to him in a way similar to Ms. Green from the story we read last week. She is very conciliatory to him, and tells him he is always right, regardless of if he has just contradicted himself. Linda overall helps him, because all Willy wants is positive feedback in his life to counteract how miserable he feels about his progress, especially in work. At the same time, however, she nurtures his contradictory nature, and doesn't even attempt to propose to Willy that he might be incorrect, or mistaken about something.
2. I think these are worthwhile for a father to teach his sons, but not if he doesn't teach them the value of hard work too. To be well liked is important, especially as far as communicating effectively with other people. People skills are necessary in the professional world. However, if the boys don't have the values necessary to break into the professional world, they won't be able to put their people skills to use anyway.
3. The inconsistencies tell us that Willy is a very indecisive and confused person. This could be reflecting that his mind is going, and that he is progressing into a stage of life where he simply does not care what he says. Willy might say one thing because he is convinced he believes it in one minute, and then change his mind the next. His character isn't defined by any specific ideals because he really doesn't have any.
4. Linda reacts to him in a way similar to Ms. Green from the story we read last week. She is very conciliatory to him, and tells him he is always right, regardless of if he has just contradicted himself. Linda overall helps him, because all Willy wants is positive feedback in his life to counteract how miserable he feels about his progress, especially in work. At the same time, however, she nurtures his contradictory nature, and doesn't even attempt to propose to Willy that he might be incorrect, or mistaken about something.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Classic Halloween Debate
In homeroom a couple of days ago one of my friends informed me that a town in Illinois was trying to pass some Halloween legislation that allows any trick or treaters over the age of 12 to be fined 100-1000 dollars.
I think that's ridiculous. I still trick or treat, and I KNOW it was definitely okay to trick or treat in 7th grade. I fully plan to trick or treat this year and next year. After that is college, so it's a good time to call it quits
I understand the basis of the law. They don't want older kids scaring the younger ones, or dressing up in a costume that shows absolutely no effort and going around asking for candy that the younger kids could be getting. I do get that. But I personally think that as long as you put a legitimate amount of effort into your costume, you should be able to trick or treat. That's all in the spirit of the holiday, isn't it?
Maybe what they're objecting to is large groups of high schoolers roaming around together at night. If that was really an issue, why couldn't the town just encourage parents to make sure their kids didn't go in a large group? That's always been something I've considered, because it's kind of intense to have like 10 people show up at your door at once. Ever since, oh maybe 8th grade, my friends and I have always been careful about splitting up into small groups.
Anyway, I think this law is ridiculous. You should be allowed to trick or treat as long as you do it right, and don't steal candy, or kick pumpkins, or whatever else this town seems to be afraid of. Split up in small groups, put effort into your costumes, don't be obnoxious, and don't scare little kids. That's all there is to it.
Happy Halloween!
I think that's ridiculous. I still trick or treat, and I KNOW it was definitely okay to trick or treat in 7th grade. I fully plan to trick or treat this year and next year. After that is college, so it's a good time to call it quits
I understand the basis of the law. They don't want older kids scaring the younger ones, or dressing up in a costume that shows absolutely no effort and going around asking for candy that the younger kids could be getting. I do get that. But I personally think that as long as you put a legitimate amount of effort into your costume, you should be able to trick or treat. That's all in the spirit of the holiday, isn't it?
Maybe what they're objecting to is large groups of high schoolers roaming around together at night. If that was really an issue, why couldn't the town just encourage parents to make sure their kids didn't go in a large group? That's always been something I've considered, because it's kind of intense to have like 10 people show up at your door at once. Ever since, oh maybe 8th grade, my friends and I have always been careful about splitting up into small groups.
Anyway, I think this law is ridiculous. You should be allowed to trick or treat as long as you do it right, and don't steal candy, or kick pumpkins, or whatever else this town seems to be afraid of. Split up in small groups, put effort into your costumes, don't be obnoxious, and don't scare little kids. That's all there is to it.
Happy Halloween!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
12:35, and it's raining on a friday.
I'd be the first to tell you that I'm not a particularly poetic person. I understand that it's sort of the painting or drawing of words, and intended to evoke certain emotions or pictures in peoples' minds when they read it, but I personally just find it slightly superfluous. If I'm going to be inspired by a miraculous snow storm with snowflakes falling in perfect form and sticking to the grass like a fresh coat of fairy dust, I'm gonna want to see it with my own eyes first.
That being said, as a student who has written poetry for classes over the years, I'm perfectly aware that a good poem has to come from some inspiration of its own. That's really where I'm trying to go with this blog post: Inspiration. What inspires us to express ourselves?
Recently, whenever I've felt like expressing myself through any material method, I've written letters to some of my friends in college. There's something nice about getting a letter via snail mail...even if it takes over a week to get a response. I write to them because I miss them, or I'm remembering some good, bad, or crazy time we lived through together. So I guess, because of that, I've sort of started to associate inspiration with memory.
I feel like that's a pretty normal inspiration. But it's just interesting to see how it developed. A year ago if someone asked me what inspired me to do anything at all, I probably would have spit out some preformed line about how working towards that single spotlight on a Broadway stage gave me all the inspiration I ever needed. Who says melodrama is a bad thing?
They say what inspires us is what we hold the closest to our hearts. What do you think?
That being said, as a student who has written poetry for classes over the years, I'm perfectly aware that a good poem has to come from some inspiration of its own. That's really where I'm trying to go with this blog post: Inspiration. What inspires us to express ourselves?
Recently, whenever I've felt like expressing myself through any material method, I've written letters to some of my friends in college. There's something nice about getting a letter via snail mail...even if it takes over a week to get a response. I write to them because I miss them, or I'm remembering some good, bad, or crazy time we lived through together. So I guess, because of that, I've sort of started to associate inspiration with memory.
I feel like that's a pretty normal inspiration. But it's just interesting to see how it developed. A year ago if someone asked me what inspired me to do anything at all, I probably would have spit out some preformed line about how working towards that single spotlight on a Broadway stage gave me all the inspiration I ever needed. Who says melodrama is a bad thing?
They say what inspires us is what we hold the closest to our hearts. What do you think?
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Every Bird Needs a Right Wing and a Left Wing to Fly
So when our topic in class on friday turned to gay rights and the Laramie Project, we started talking about the discrimination that comes as a part of that from organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church. In class we were unanimous in that what that group does is wrong. But we live in a pretty liberal state. And so I started thinking about those two ends of the spectrum. Although most people, especially in our area, believe that what the extremist right wingers do is wrong, what about the extremist left wingers?
I want to make it clear before I go any further with this that I, personally define myself as liberal. And any offensive stand point I may take in this is purely for the sake of argument and is not intended to offend.
So. Let's say the WBC is the right most of the right wingers. Where are the left most of the left wingers? I honestly can't really think of a definite group. Sure I know people who are gay, people who are very pro gay rights and work towards them, feminists, and other types of people who are generally defined as left wingers. But I can't think of someone so on the left, that they offend a fair majority of the population because of their beliefs or actions.
I think there are two possible reasons for this:
1. That super liberals just plain old aren't offensive to a lot of people like the super conservatives are.
2. That they are offensive to SOME people, and we just can't see it because we live in a generally liberal environment.
So, where I'm going with this is, we see what the WBC does as morally wrong, and a enormous detriment and wound to society. Most people in the middle of the spectrum, with no opinion either way would probably agree. But what do those right wingers see? What if the thought of a man marrying a man makes them as sick as us thinking about a Marine's funeral being protested?
It's obviously not the same though. I can tell because I looked up for about 5 seconds and completely lost my argument. But maybe that's because I'm operating from a liberal bias. That's not a phrase you hear too often, is it? Liberal Bias.
But if conservative bias exists, why not liberal bias?
I want to make it clear before I go any further with this that I, personally define myself as liberal. And any offensive stand point I may take in this is purely for the sake of argument and is not intended to offend.
So. Let's say the WBC is the right most of the right wingers. Where are the left most of the left wingers? I honestly can't really think of a definite group. Sure I know people who are gay, people who are very pro gay rights and work towards them, feminists, and other types of people who are generally defined as left wingers. But I can't think of someone so on the left, that they offend a fair majority of the population because of their beliefs or actions.
I think there are two possible reasons for this:
1. That super liberals just plain old aren't offensive to a lot of people like the super conservatives are.
2. That they are offensive to SOME people, and we just can't see it because we live in a generally liberal environment.
So, where I'm going with this is, we see what the WBC does as morally wrong, and a enormous detriment and wound to society. Most people in the middle of the spectrum, with no opinion either way would probably agree. But what do those right wingers see? What if the thought of a man marrying a man makes them as sick as us thinking about a Marine's funeral being protested?
It's obviously not the same though. I can tell because I looked up for about 5 seconds and completely lost my argument. But maybe that's because I'm operating from a liberal bias. That's not a phrase you hear too often, is it? Liberal Bias.
But if conservative bias exists, why not liberal bias?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Driver's Ed....
So I'm almost halfway through my driver's ed class on a Wednesday evening. Katie's next to me, and all other people I could wish to make contact with are within about 5 feet of me. And I just found out that we're not getting a mid class break...which I'm alright with, considering I ate before coming here. Katie says hi.
We're reading through the new texting law, which, by the way, covers a lot more than texting, and is officially in action tonight at midnight (yesterday?). So there's obviously no texting, but there's also no phone, iPod, mp3, or any electronic device usage of any kind while operating a vehicle.
By the way "in operation of" also means while stopped at a sign or in traffic...even if you're in park. Which kind of sucks. It also counts if you're on the side of the road and parked. You're only safe on the shoulder of the road.... Or if you're having a mental breakdown.
I'm sure you're wondering how this relates back to the Crucible. Well. The law exempts those of us who can claim a temporary mental breakdown. This works for most, if not all, of the laws today. If law has always been law, it seems funny that back in Salem people didn't think about mini meltdowns, but they were absolutely positive that Satan was embracing their town.
Point: What if the girls were just a little crazy? Imagine growing up in a society that literally dictates EVERY part of your life? How can you save any semblance of individuality you could have once had? Answer: You Can't.
So it really doesn't seem like such a crazy idea.... Does it?
We're reading through the new texting law, which, by the way, covers a lot more than texting, and is officially in action tonight at midnight (yesterday?). So there's obviously no texting, but there's also no phone, iPod, mp3, or any electronic device usage of any kind while operating a vehicle.
By the way "in operation of" also means while stopped at a sign or in traffic...even if you're in park. Which kind of sucks. It also counts if you're on the side of the road and parked. You're only safe on the shoulder of the road.... Or if you're having a mental breakdown.
I'm sure you're wondering how this relates back to the Crucible. Well. The law exempts those of us who can claim a temporary mental breakdown. This works for most, if not all, of the laws today. If law has always been law, it seems funny that back in Salem people didn't think about mini meltdowns, but they were absolutely positive that Satan was embracing their town.
Point: What if the girls were just a little crazy? Imagine growing up in a society that literally dictates EVERY part of your life? How can you save any semblance of individuality you could have once had? Answer: You Can't.
So it really doesn't seem like such a crazy idea.... Does it?
Friday, September 24, 2010
Play by the Book
It's really no secret that plays are easier to read than book literature. As we're reading the Crucible, and I'm in my living room at midnight with 40 pages to go, I find myself thinking "Well hey, at least it's not Great Expectations".
So why, exactly, are plays so much faster and easier to read? The answer can be found in the secret to all literary authors' successes: DESCRIPTIONS.
Novels will go into epic descriptions multiple pages long about the character's feelings or surroundings. The action of the story is sprinkled in amongst these block texts of boredom. Plays are written solely to progress the plot. They have to be, because characters can't exactly turn out an analysis-ready, 5 minute long monologue describing a tree their cat is in. Let alone the image of the poor kitten sitting up in the branches with no want or way to get down.
Any non-active parts of plays will be written in the italicized stage directions, but you don't really have to read those. I never do unless I'm trying to block a scene or something. You can read the dialog in a play and get as much information about the story, but in much less time. Most lines are also easy to understand, because the actor has to be able to grasp their meaning quickly so that they can play the character.
And this is why plays are much easier to read than novels.
So why, exactly, are plays so much faster and easier to read? The answer can be found in the secret to all literary authors' successes: DESCRIPTIONS.
Novels will go into epic descriptions multiple pages long about the character's feelings or surroundings. The action of the story is sprinkled in amongst these block texts of boredom. Plays are written solely to progress the plot. They have to be, because characters can't exactly turn out an analysis-ready, 5 minute long monologue describing a tree their cat is in. Let alone the image of the poor kitten sitting up in the branches with no want or way to get down.
Any non-active parts of plays will be written in the italicized stage directions, but you don't really have to read those. I never do unless I'm trying to block a scene or something. You can read the dialog in a play and get as much information about the story, but in much less time. Most lines are also easy to understand, because the actor has to be able to grasp their meaning quickly so that they can play the character.
And this is why plays are much easier to read than novels.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Which came first, the character or the story?
From analyzing the different archetypes of literary characters in class, it seems like if your characters are lacking in some basic qualities, your story will fall flat on it's plot-failed face. But, according to the kind of success books like Twilight have with their admittedly addictive and enthralling plots, but characters that lack the depth of a puddle in July, are fully developed characters really strictly necessary to satisfy today's readers?
And then take all of the teen novels that girls all over the world spend hours and hours reading. The kind of books that cause you to spend a straight 6 hours one day getting through because you can't put them down, but that you know you will never remember the main character's name of, or the town it took place in. Now take Harry Potter. Where does THAT take place? Alright, so it's a series AND a movie. Maybe the facts get beaten into your head around book number 3, or movie number 2. But what about the main character's name in the popular "City of Ember" Trilogy? That one's a movie too.
Now this isn't to say that the City of Ember books aren't entertaining, and don't have a great plot line. They do, infact, and from what I've gathered from reviews, and from my own reading, the plot is precisely what makes the books such page turners. But the characters have no internal conflict, and not much depth. Their sole purpose seems to be to propel the plot along, and nothing more. Can a book survive on plot alone?
Now lets look at a book whose plot may be slightly less appealing to today's day and age. Great Expectations. Remember the main character's name? How about what country it takes place in? But I'm going to be honest; maybe it's my astonishing lack of literary class, but I did not find Pip's story to be a particularly quick moving read. Is it a coincidence that the globally acclaimed classics with brilliant writing tend to have more to do with the characters than the plot?
How about Catcher in the Rye? Sure, you could spend hours analyzing the plot, and how symbols in it relate to the characters, but the book would be nothing without Holden's crazy, contradictory internal monologues. These two books are examples of how books can indeed, be wild successes from the characters alone, with some side help from the plot to give the characters something to work with.
And that brings us to Twilight. This book seems to be the biggest exception to the rule that characters make the book. Everyone knows where Twilight took place. They know the character's names, their history, even their favorite colors, foods, and what car they drive. But any critic will tell you that Twilight's characters are nothing special. They're as flat as a piece of paper, and quite honestly, about as blank. But the population for the past couple years has been Vampire obsessed. And it's not just that more people are watching Buffy. So what is it that makes Twilight so ridiculously addictive?
The plot. It's connectable, an easy read, moves quickly, and is almost never lacking in action. And what teenage girl hasn't put herself in Bella's shoes? But that's just it; girls don't identify will Bella specifically because there isn't much to connect to, other than the basic qualities everyone would like- kindness, ingenuity, and a little clumsiness (only enough for her to fall so that Edward can catch her). No, girls identify with the plot. Because who wouldn't want to fall in love with the perfect boyfriend archetype, only in vampire form? And Bella is the MOST developed main character in Twilight, being the sole human. The rest of the characters rely on the "fate" or "expectations" of their kind to drive their string of the plot. Twilight's plot is what gives it such wild success on paper and in theaters world wide.
And yet, as a whole, people seem to be satisfied with Twilight. Is the whole nation lacking in literary selection skill? or have books like Twilight simply become the norm of what is an acceptable read? It's not like the nation goes around reading Charles Dickens before bed any more.
And then take all of the teen novels that girls all over the world spend hours and hours reading. The kind of books that cause you to spend a straight 6 hours one day getting through because you can't put them down, but that you know you will never remember the main character's name of, or the town it took place in. Now take Harry Potter. Where does THAT take place? Alright, so it's a series AND a movie. Maybe the facts get beaten into your head around book number 3, or movie number 2. But what about the main character's name in the popular "City of Ember" Trilogy? That one's a movie too.
Now this isn't to say that the City of Ember books aren't entertaining, and don't have a great plot line. They do, infact, and from what I've gathered from reviews, and from my own reading, the plot is precisely what makes the books such page turners. But the characters have no internal conflict, and not much depth. Their sole purpose seems to be to propel the plot along, and nothing more. Can a book survive on plot alone?
Now lets look at a book whose plot may be slightly less appealing to today's day and age. Great Expectations. Remember the main character's name? How about what country it takes place in? But I'm going to be honest; maybe it's my astonishing lack of literary class, but I did not find Pip's story to be a particularly quick moving read. Is it a coincidence that the globally acclaimed classics with brilliant writing tend to have more to do with the characters than the plot?
How about Catcher in the Rye? Sure, you could spend hours analyzing the plot, and how symbols in it relate to the characters, but the book would be nothing without Holden's crazy, contradictory internal monologues. These two books are examples of how books can indeed, be wild successes from the characters alone, with some side help from the plot to give the characters something to work with.
And that brings us to Twilight. This book seems to be the biggest exception to the rule that characters make the book. Everyone knows where Twilight took place. They know the character's names, their history, even their favorite colors, foods, and what car they drive. But any critic will tell you that Twilight's characters are nothing special. They're as flat as a piece of paper, and quite honestly, about as blank. But the population for the past couple years has been Vampire obsessed. And it's not just that more people are watching Buffy. So what is it that makes Twilight so ridiculously addictive?
The plot. It's connectable, an easy read, moves quickly, and is almost never lacking in action. And what teenage girl hasn't put herself in Bella's shoes? But that's just it; girls don't identify will Bella specifically because there isn't much to connect to, other than the basic qualities everyone would like- kindness, ingenuity, and a little clumsiness (only enough for her to fall so that Edward can catch her). No, girls identify with the plot. Because who wouldn't want to fall in love with the perfect boyfriend archetype, only in vampire form? And Bella is the MOST developed main character in Twilight, being the sole human. The rest of the characters rely on the "fate" or "expectations" of their kind to drive their string of the plot. Twilight's plot is what gives it such wild success on paper and in theaters world wide.
And yet, as a whole, people seem to be satisfied with Twilight. Is the whole nation lacking in literary selection skill? or have books like Twilight simply become the norm of what is an acceptable read? It's not like the nation goes around reading Charles Dickens before bed any more.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy"
The Puritans, although through methods that can now be viewed as wrong, or unnecessary, have definitely contributed to the American Dream. They came to America not to pursue an already established religious settlement with ideals that matched their own, but rather to create their own settlement. In a way they accomplished both main parts of the American Dream- Finding freedom, and creating a new, and better life for themselves.
The Puritans came to America to create a more "pure" church environment. Although they decimated the Native American population, and destroyed most of the future settlers' hopes of getting along with them, they did accomplish their goal. And is that not a corner stone of the American Dream? To accomplish one's goal? They came to create a new environment, and they did it. They deserve some credit for that.
Puritanism was defined by H. L. Mencken as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy". This definition in and of itself clues the reader into the fact that the Puritans were not a particularly easy-going bunch. The Puritans destroyed much of the Indian population, and refused to accept any theology that wasn't strictly, well, theirs. Ironic, considering the original reason they came to the new world was, in essence, for religious freedom. Perhaps the reason they rejected all other theologies was the heart of their own religion- Predestination. The Puritans believed that from the second they were born, they were destined for heaven or hell, regardless of their actions in life. With such an extreme center of religion, is it so unbelievable that those who believed they may be destined for heaven after all might not want to tempt their chances with strange and unusual theologies?
The Puritans did contribute to the American Dream, but they definitely deserve their reputation in history. They were an intolerant people, especially to those who lived on their land before them. They massacred the Indian population, and shunned any new American Dream seeking settlers if they didn't share their strict religion.
The Puritans came to America to create a more "pure" church environment. Although they decimated the Native American population, and destroyed most of the future settlers' hopes of getting along with them, they did accomplish their goal. And is that not a corner stone of the American Dream? To accomplish one's goal? They came to create a new environment, and they did it. They deserve some credit for that.
Puritanism was defined by H. L. Mencken as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy". This definition in and of itself clues the reader into the fact that the Puritans were not a particularly easy-going bunch. The Puritans destroyed much of the Indian population, and refused to accept any theology that wasn't strictly, well, theirs. Ironic, considering the original reason they came to the new world was, in essence, for religious freedom. Perhaps the reason they rejected all other theologies was the heart of their own religion- Predestination. The Puritans believed that from the second they were born, they were destined for heaven or hell, regardless of their actions in life. With such an extreme center of religion, is it so unbelievable that those who believed they may be destined for heaven after all might not want to tempt their chances with strange and unusual theologies?
The Puritans did contribute to the American Dream, but they definitely deserve their reputation in history. They were an intolerant people, especially to those who lived on their land before them. They massacred the Indian population, and shunned any new American Dream seeking settlers if they didn't share their strict religion.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Finding the American Dream
How does the American Dream affect my family? To be honest, when I first thought about it, i had no idea. My family's lived here for a pretty long time, they didn't make an epic journey upwards through the social classes. They were always living comfortably in the middle class. My immediate family is the same story. Middle class, comfortable, not immigrating from anywhere other than Illinois or California. I'm blessed and privileged and I know it.
But the more i thought about it, the more I realized it had to come from somewhere. Somewhere along the line my family did immigrate from somewhere, and come here. I knew I had European relatives, and that my mom had a book my great grandfather wrote about our family's history on her side, but I'd never paid it much attention. So over dinner I talked to my parents and tried to come up with something. And this is what I've got.
My Grandpa's Grandparents immigrated to America. They lived on a farm in Iowa. When my Grandpa was growing up on the very same farm with his 5 brothers, German was still being spoken in the house as the predominant language. They all grew up with a tie to German culture and language. But none of the 5 sons wanted to be farmers. Somewhere along the line they adopted the idea that they could become more than what they were. My Grandpa became a nurse aboard ships in WWII, and a YMCA executive. Another son became a pastor, another a teacher. The last two were a doctor and a Sociologist.
From here I know what came next. My Grandpa got to travel all over the world establishing YMCA offices. He lived in Hong Kong for years with My grandma, my Dad, and my Aunt. He traveled all across Europe, to Indonesia and India.
He started out on a farm in Iowa. An average farm, with 5 sons, and parents and grandparents who hadn't even adopted English. He broke the mold, and became something different.
And not one of the 5 sons were farmers.
But the more i thought about it, the more I realized it had to come from somewhere. Somewhere along the line my family did immigrate from somewhere, and come here. I knew I had European relatives, and that my mom had a book my great grandfather wrote about our family's history on her side, but I'd never paid it much attention. So over dinner I talked to my parents and tried to come up with something. And this is what I've got.
My Grandpa's Grandparents immigrated to America. They lived on a farm in Iowa. When my Grandpa was growing up on the very same farm with his 5 brothers, German was still being spoken in the house as the predominant language. They all grew up with a tie to German culture and language. But none of the 5 sons wanted to be farmers. Somewhere along the line they adopted the idea that they could become more than what they were. My Grandpa became a nurse aboard ships in WWII, and a YMCA executive. Another son became a pastor, another a teacher. The last two were a doctor and a Sociologist.
From here I know what came next. My Grandpa got to travel all over the world establishing YMCA offices. He lived in Hong Kong for years with My grandma, my Dad, and my Aunt. He traveled all across Europe, to Indonesia and India.
He started out on a farm in Iowa. An average farm, with 5 sons, and parents and grandparents who hadn't even adopted English. He broke the mold, and became something different.
And not one of the 5 sons were farmers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)