truthful

In AS class, we discussed which of these photos is more truthful. This one:

 Or this one:

Which one is more truthful? Personally I think that this is an easy topic to argue but also I think its impossible to argue. If a person was standing and seeing that event from two different positions, they be getting different, more or less cropped view. But isn't everything we see cropped? A human doesn't have 360 degree vision. Therefore rendering it impossible for someone standing 5 feet away to see as wide as someone 10ft away. Personally I've never thought that the closer person is seeing something less truthful, or more truthful for that matter. Some people may argue that the closer view gives more truth because there is more detail that can be seen. Others may argue that the bigger view is more truthful because you see more of the scene, the context that it's in. Personally I think that it is impossible to determine.

Does someone who has weaker vision get less of the truth? Is someone who is colorblind get less of the truth in what they see? I guess it depends on how you define "truth".

Meta-Blog

Blogging has definitely become easier for me as a writer. I find it easier to establish an idea and expand on it throughout the entire blog seeing that I no longer need to talk about myself as often. In my first 3 blogs, it almost seems as if I am trying to fit my writing into a template. In my first blog, I talked about what we did in class, the news article that relates to the class topic, and then connecting the story somehow to my life. Also, in the first 3 blogs I relate everything to myself! I cannot believe how self-centered I was writing! In my blog post titled "Life graphs" I ask two questions: "But should I be aiming to better my life?" and "what does it mean if my life graph is a straight line?" These questions do not make a reader want to give their opinion because all I talk about is my life not anyone else's. And in the next blog post about StoryCorps, I use the pronoun "I" 6 times within my last 3 sentences. Fortunately, in my last few blog posts I have not used my own stories but have instead expanded further on my idea. And it shows because I've gotten more comments. In my last post, I am able to simply talk about one topic without needing to add my own pointless stories inside.

My writing has also expanded in the sense that my blogs have become less and less exactly related to what we talk about in class. My first 3 blogs were about deciding whether something is a fact, life graphs, and StoryCorps. All 3 of these idea's were directly taken from our classroom discussions. I've found that in the past 3 I have taken what we've discussed in class and blogged about something related but not directly the same idea. For example, in my blog about "The Real Housewives of...", I discussed how media has an influence over us by using the reactions of my classmates as an example. I say, "Now I don't blame these reality TV women for changing our class's view on the word "housewife", but I do think that the media can be held accountable in these situations." I could have simply talked about whether or not I believe "housewife" has a negative connotation. Thus, it has been easier for me to blog because I no longer keep myself talking about exactly the same topic as discussed in class.

What I found particularly surprising when I reread my blog posts is that I actually liked them! I found it very enjoyable to have a place to look back and see my writing. I honestly I am not sure if I would blog consistently if I didn't have to, but I've found that it is a great way to make a point that I didn't get to talk about in class!

( Please grade "The Real Housewives of..." post. Click here)

Slavery in Modern Day America

I've always thought that slavery had been abolished in the United States. But what this is unbelievable untrue. What is human trafficking? It's the recruitment, transporting, transferring, harboring, or reception of people for the purpose of exploitation through slave labor or prostitution. Exploitation is defined  as forcing, people mostly women and children into prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation or slave labor or indentured servitude through the use of fraudulent and deceptive means. Traffickers set up immigration agencies that falsely "help" women get into the country but then strip then of their legal papers and force then to work as prostitutes. Language barriers usually keep these women from getting aid and so they become trapped in a world of forced prostitution. Approximately 50,000 people are trafficked into the US each year, 80% being women, and 70% of those women are forced into prostitution. Read more about it here. If you type into google, "when was slavery abolished in the US?" you'll find that most cites say 1865. But how can slavery be considered abolished when there are people into the United States and forced into prostitution?

The Real Housewives of...

In class this week we were discussing what "housewife" meant when it was used to describe Florence Scala, an activist in the movement against using the Harrison-Halsted community as the site for University of Illinois in Chicago. Most people in our class thought that without doubt "housewife" had a negative connotation. After a long discussion, Mr. O' Connor pulled up the Oxford dictionary definition of housewife; usually a married woman that is in charge of the household. There were no definitions that suggested a negative meaning for housewife nor had the word ever been used negatively in the past. In fact, in the 1960's women only made up 35% of the workforce meaning that the majority of women were in fact housewives. So why did most people in our class think that the word "Housewife" had a negative connotation?

I believe that one of the reasons comes from the media. There are many different series' called "The Real Housewives of _______". After looking through my TV guide I found out that there are actually SEVEN different shows based out of Atlanta, Beverly Hills, Washington D.C., New Jersey, New York City, Orange County, and Chicago. (Personally I find it frightening that there is a big enough audience for these shows that they have to have seven.) I've never actually seen an episode but I've seen countless previews and they seem to speak for themselves. (Watch one here.) These shows follow a few "housewives'"in a certain city living their "lives". The show makes someone's average life into an over dramatic TV series. These women are all over the latest entertainment gossip and plastered on covers of trashy magazine. Is that what a "real" housewife is? 

 

The average American watches 5 hours of TV and is exposed to countless hours of magazines and the Internet. If this is the image of a "housewife" that people are exposed to, there is a definite chance that they might think that the term housewife is a negative term. The media does not only show real housewives, they show desperate ones too! Now I don't blame these reality TV women for changing our class's view on the word "housewife", but I do think that the media can be held accountable in these situations. If we see the term "housewife" to describe these types of women, I can see how someone might think that "housewife" has a negative connotation.

Racial barriers: where do they stem?

In AS class in the past few weeks we've been discussing racism and slavery. We were asked the question: Do you think slavery is to blame for the racial inequality that still remains today? This includes standardized test scores, wealth, health, incarceration, etc. At first I answered yes! "Of course it's traced back from slavery!" I thought. In my head I argued that not all walls have been broken down and couldn't have been broken down in such a short period of time. Also, African Americans started developing way after white Americans, having been trapped in slavery for all those years. But then it hit me: we are keeping the walls up. 


I've always been under the presumption that advertisements that include people from many different races are making sure that they are advertising to everyone. After "critically thinking" about this, all it really does is put up racial barriers. Why should a company need to advertise to each "race"? Why aren't advertisements reaching out to the "American". Not a white American, not an African-American, not an Asian- American. Just a plain, simple human. By advertising to specific groups of people, these advertisements make a person believe that they belong to a certain group keeping up the barriers that were established with slavery instead of letting them fall.

As discussed in class, people don't talk about race. I think its our society's biggest taboo. If we don't talk about it, we are keeping up the barriers and so racial inequality isn't eliminated.

Why are the majority of Disney Princesses white? What kind of message does that send? We generalize the races so much in all of our media that we end up fitting ourselves into certain groups, into certain stereotypes.

Another example: Black History month. Believe me, I think its great and very important that African Americans are being recognized for their part in history. But why one month? Why do we have to recognize them this way? It's almost like we made another barrier among the races. Couldn't we have come up with another way? In our society we are keeping up barriers that separate races. They restrain us from moving forwarded and breaking the walls that slavery had originally built up.

We aren't organized, We organize ourselves

In AS class this week we talked about how the different area's of our community and cities are divided. Whether it be because of a railroad, a river, or a highway, there are divisions everywhere. Did people plan it to be that way? I know that in Wilmette, there are certain barriers that separate people such as the railroad. When I was little my elementary school was determined by which side of green bay road I lived on. When everyone was combined into middle school we all knew which area of Wilmette people lived in based on which school they came from. They were minor but barriers nonetheless.

The barriers are not specific to any region, they're everywhere. I visited Peru this summer and while I was in Lima, there was a clear line of where it was unsafe to go. We were in the city center which was right along a river. The bridge across the river had militia on our side, the side that wasn't covered in graffiti and smeared with dirt and trash. Why was it that 100 ft across the river was an area where no tourist could ever step foot when it was squeaky clean and 10 times safer where we were standing?

This is a photo of the militia by the bridge.

In class we discussed city planners being somewhat responsible. Personally I think that they have some part but that it mostly comes from people themselves. I feel like people make a connection to a place and bring their friends with them. That's why there's "segregation" in the different parts of Chicago. Like China town, for example. People move themselves with people they know and then it doesn't change. The children of the original people that moved to Chinatown didn't have to stay there. Other Chinese didn't either. That is when the barriers begin getting built, even though subconsciously. People start living in the same location. When there is a break in the normal pattern of streets and roads that sits near the edge of that location, the barrier is made and people stay within the same area,

In my math class, at first we were assigned seats but last week we were able to choose. Where did I go and sit? Right in the same desk as before. A lot of the girls came and sat in the same area, the boys in back, and the sophomores in there own little corner. Now everyday each person sits in the same seat. But can't we sit wherever we want? Yes. But would I now go and move to the other side of the classroom? Probably not. I've placed myself in "my" area and I wouldn't want to move even though I have all the right to. I've barricaded myself into sitting in that desk day after day after day....

StoryCorps

Recently in class we have been listening and talking about interviews and now we are in the midst of conducting our own interviews. Mr. Bolos suggested that we visit Storycorps.com, a website that contains different types of audio interviews.  I decided to listen to a few that pertained to 9/11, which we were discussing in class at the time. After listening to only one, I found myself bawling in front of the computer screen (I highly suggest you have tissues in hand if you decide to listen to some of them). Interestingly enough, when I decided to listen to interviews that were about seemingly normal relationships or experiences, I was equally captivated. Sure, the stories about getting sent to the principals office didn't evoke the same emotion as the story of a woman who was talked on the phone with her husband as he died in the World Trade Center. Somehow, each story was evenly intriguing. Somehow, the everyday occurrences seemed so important and were easy to get caught up in.

It might be credited to the fact that people love to talk about themselves and tell their stories. I believe it's much more fun telling a story about yourself than the story of someone else. Because of this, I feel like people put  much more passion into their interviews. They have the sentimental value attached to this story, even if it was simply a father talking to his daughter about how he met his wife. It is the importance that the interviewee puts behind their story that translates effortlessly to the listener. Or is it that the stories are easier to relate to? Personally I find stories about people who had a parent battling cancer only because I've been there myself. Its easier to listen to interviews between parents and children because I likewise have a relationship with my parents that I can compare the stories to. Fortunately, I did not have to experience 9/11. So as heart-wrenching as the stories may be, I have few experiences in my life that could possibly help me relate.