Journal 4/26/15
Hello, in this blog I will be attempting to answer the bolg prompt given by Mr. Hoffman, "Tennessee Williams was writing during World War II about the pre-war world. How does his literature reflect on the Great Depression? What position do you think he is (or might be) taking on capitalism?"
I believe that Tennessee Williams writing represents the Great Depression by presenting throughout the book a family that was largely impacted by the Great Depression. I believe that one of the sole intentions of the "Glass Managerie" was to inform the world on what the Great Depression was like on the common family. The reflection in his book is in the fact that even though it is a fictional story, the book focusses on the suffering that was present throughout the Great Depression. The literature of Williams presents a viewpoint on the Great Depression that may not be seen regularly by the people of that time, and if they did not see it they encountered something very very similar. More importantly, what these writtings do for us is give the people of today, a day after the Great Depression, a viewpoint into what many people experienced throughout the Great Depression; and it deisplays the effects that the Gread Depression possessed on a family.
I believe that Tennessee Williams takes both a positive and negative viewpoint on capitolism and then he shows it throughout the book by the utilization of the different characters in the book. I believ that there are differnet viewpoints presented by the different family members in the book. I believe that Tom and his mother possess the greatest clash of viewpoints when it comes down to capitolism. I believe that Tom's mother is in favor of Capitolism. but she at the same time wants the ability to control the family, and she feels like eveyone in her family should have a dedication not towards capitolism and the viewpoints expressed, but towards each other and the wellbeing of the family. I believe that there is also Tom himself who possesses a viewpoint that is directed towards great support for capitolism as he views that it will help him do what he wants to do, travel the world, and at the same time not care about a the obligations that he sees at his home.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Journal 5/20/15
In this blog, I am goint to be answering the journal prompt, "Do you think that the counterculture of the 1960s was productive? Why or why not?"
I believe that the counter culture of the 1960s was in a way productive because what it brought about was many new advancements within the civil rights. Some of these advancements occured during the 60s, and some of these occured after the 60s, but it is fare to say that they were effected by the cultures of the 60s. I believe that one of the largest examples of these would be the civil rights movements brought about by Martin Lutehr King Jr. and the Montgomery Bus Boycotts.
I am aware that these events did occur before the 1960's as the Montgomery Bus Boycotts were spread around 1955 and 1956, but I consider them to be part of the culture of the 1960's as they seemed to have caused a direct affect. Among many things occuring in the 1960's, one of the largest events would have been the contrasting culture that called for more attention towards the civil rights of individuals within the United States. These events were of course present before the 1960's, as Civil Rights issues have always presented themselves in America's history, but the 1960's would be where the civil rights movements were able to make their great advancements.
I myself consider the events around and closely related to other events inside the 1960's as partally events of the 1960's. Now, do you agree with "my" definition of the "events" in the 1960's? (as in do agree with my classification of the different events) Also, what are more events that were present in the 1960's, whether you want to use my definition or yours, that not necessarily possessed a counterculture; but events that possessed a great impact on civil rights? (as I know that I missed many of them)
In this blog, I am goint to be answering the journal prompt, "Do you think that the counterculture of the 1960s was productive? Why or why not?"
I believe that the counter culture of the 1960s was in a way productive because what it brought about was many new advancements within the civil rights. Some of these advancements occured during the 60s, and some of these occured after the 60s, but it is fare to say that they were effected by the cultures of the 60s. I believe that one of the largest examples of these would be the civil rights movements brought about by Martin Lutehr King Jr. and the Montgomery Bus Boycotts.
I am aware that these events did occur before the 1960's as the Montgomery Bus Boycotts were spread around 1955 and 1956, but I consider them to be part of the culture of the 1960's as they seemed to have caused a direct affect. Among many things occuring in the 1960's, one of the largest events would have been the contrasting culture that called for more attention towards the civil rights of individuals within the United States. These events were of course present before the 1960's, as Civil Rights issues have always presented themselves in America's history, but the 1960's would be where the civil rights movements were able to make their great advancements.
I myself consider the events around and closely related to other events inside the 1960's as partally events of the 1960's. Now, do you agree with "my" definition of the "events" in the 1960's? (as in do agree with my classification of the different events) Also, what are more events that were present in the 1960's, whether you want to use my definition or yours, that not necessarily possessed a counterculture; but events that possessed a great impact on civil rights? (as I know that I missed many of them)
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Journal 3/8/15
Today I will be answering the blog prompt, "What sort of forces drive people to return to the past, or "repeat the past", as Gatsby famously put it?"
I believe that what would cause a person to return back to their past or any type of past whether it be theirs or not, would be if they were in a form of desperation, or if they were in the need of answers. I believe that if an individual was looking for a type of guidance, for an example if congress was looking for a way to solve an issue, they would look to history. They would look to "their past" (America's past) to see how the government handled a similar or the same issue. I believe that they would look to it and if it seemed like a success, they would find a way that they could apply the same method to the issue that they themselves see in front of them; and if the strategy appeared as a failure in history, the congress would then understand there is a method which they must look at and acknowledge that if it has been flawed in the past it could also be flawed again. In general, I feel like a person finds the obligation to look into the past, when they have the need for guidance or counsel.
I believe that one other thing that could cause a person to return to the past is if they have a regret. If an individual made a mistake in their life, they might often repeatedly look back to the mistake and think of ways they could fix it.
Also, sometimes if an individual is living "poorly", you could say, the person tends to look back at the past. What I intend to say here, is when people say that an individual is "stuck in the past" when someone repeatedly wants to "live the past" because it was a time that was better than the time that they are currently living in.
Today I will be answering the blog prompt, "What sort of forces drive people to return to the past, or "repeat the past", as Gatsby famously put it?"
I believe that what would cause a person to return back to their past or any type of past whether it be theirs or not, would be if they were in a form of desperation, or if they were in the need of answers. I believe that if an individual was looking for a type of guidance, for an example if congress was looking for a way to solve an issue, they would look to history. They would look to "their past" (America's past) to see how the government handled a similar or the same issue. I believe that they would look to it and if it seemed like a success, they would find a way that they could apply the same method to the issue that they themselves see in front of them; and if the strategy appeared as a failure in history, the congress would then understand there is a method which they must look at and acknowledge that if it has been flawed in the past it could also be flawed again. In general, I feel like a person finds the obligation to look into the past, when they have the need for guidance or counsel.
I believe that one other thing that could cause a person to return to the past is if they have a regret. If an individual made a mistake in their life, they might often repeatedly look back to the mistake and think of ways they could fix it.
Also, sometimes if an individual is living "poorly", you could say, the person tends to look back at the past. What I intend to say here, is when people say that an individual is "stuck in the past" when someone repeatedly wants to "live the past" because it was a time that was better than the time that they are currently living in.
Blog 6/7/15
Hello everyone, I'm going to be writing this blog about the Journal prompt that asks the question about how people today communicate throughout the world, and how this impacts social changes. I am also going to slightly alter this question by comparing it to how individuals communicated throughout the course of history that we studied this year, and how the people in the past were able to impact social change.
I believe that today because of the internet and all of the available ways to communicate through use of the internet, such as chat rooms that take place in multiple countries, it is currently much easier to communicate with other people than it was in the past. There do exist many different social changes as well, and different ways to make these changes. I believe that social changes occur much more often they did, that social changes are always present, not necessarily that everything is always changing, but that these changes are always being encouraged even if they are for a bad reason.
We can look at the results of 9/11 as a social change. The events of September 11th 2001 were in themselves catastrophic and terrifying, and in the aftermath the social changes that ensued were the discrimination of Muslims/middle eastern. This was actually greatly increased by the fact that these different discriminatory ways were able to spread so easily via the technology of that time. Even though the technology of that time was not as advanced as the technology that we witness today, but the technology of that time was sufficient enough that it could spread the event and the discriminatory views across the nation and across the world.
Today, there exists much more advanced technology, and many more medians that may be utilized to transport these views. I think that because of these different means of communication and because there is so much media open to so many people, these views will spread and become more common and accepted much faster than they would have become before.
This is much different than in our nations history with groups such as the Native-Americans, and the African-Americans. These groups in order to create a social change for their acceptance were forced to go through great lengths in order to communicate their messages. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the Muslims did also have to go through a great amount of difficulty before they could achieve their acceptance and rid the discrimination against them, but I believe that it could have been slightly easier than the events that were required for the Muslims to be accepted.
Hello everyone, I'm going to be writing this blog about the Journal prompt that asks the question about how people today communicate throughout the world, and how this impacts social changes. I am also going to slightly alter this question by comparing it to how individuals communicated throughout the course of history that we studied this year, and how the people in the past were able to impact social change.
I believe that today because of the internet and all of the available ways to communicate through use of the internet, such as chat rooms that take place in multiple countries, it is currently much easier to communicate with other people than it was in the past. There do exist many different social changes as well, and different ways to make these changes. I believe that social changes occur much more often they did, that social changes are always present, not necessarily that everything is always changing, but that these changes are always being encouraged even if they are for a bad reason.
We can look at the results of 9/11 as a social change. The events of September 11th 2001 were in themselves catastrophic and terrifying, and in the aftermath the social changes that ensued were the discrimination of Muslims/middle eastern. This was actually greatly increased by the fact that these different discriminatory ways were able to spread so easily via the technology of that time. Even though the technology of that time was not as advanced as the technology that we witness today, but the technology of that time was sufficient enough that it could spread the event and the discriminatory views across the nation and across the world.
Today, there exists much more advanced technology, and many more medians that may be utilized to transport these views. I think that because of these different means of communication and because there is so much media open to so many people, these views will spread and become more common and accepted much faster than they would have become before.
This is much different than in our nations history with groups such as the Native-Americans, and the African-Americans. These groups in order to create a social change for their acceptance were forced to go through great lengths in order to communicate their messages. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the Muslims did also have to go through a great amount of difficulty before they could achieve their acceptance and rid the discrimination against them, but I believe that it could have been slightly easier than the events that were required for the Muslims to be accepted.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Blog December 16th
December 16th
In this blog entry, I will address whether I believe that there could be an end to racism. Racism is a concept that has appeared several times while we have been studying the course of American history. My definition of Slavery, would be a viewpoint that an individual has on another individual. I believe that this viewpoint must be directed towards the characterization of a person by their race, meaning the heritage that they have and the family that they are related to by blood.
I believe that there is actually no stop to racism. I believe that slavery is just a thought of the human mind, I believe that it is a habitual thought in a way, and by this I mean that you can not get rid of it. I consider racism and stereotypes to often go hand in hand. A stereotype is a conclusion based off of common observations that is used to better understand a race or culture. The only difference I really find between racism and stereotyping, is that racism is more generally applied to different races, and it is not applied to a culture as often as stereotypes. I believe that neither of these can be eliminated, as both of them are just a way of categorizing another human being, and that the only way to actually get rid of racism would be to view every human being as your equal.
In this blog entry, I will address whether I believe that there could be an end to racism. Racism is a concept that has appeared several times while we have been studying the course of American history. My definition of Slavery, would be a viewpoint that an individual has on another individual. I believe that this viewpoint must be directed towards the characterization of a person by their race, meaning the heritage that they have and the family that they are related to by blood.
I believe that there is actually no stop to racism. I believe that slavery is just a thought of the human mind, I believe that it is a habitual thought in a way, and by this I mean that you can not get rid of it. I consider racism and stereotypes to often go hand in hand. A stereotype is a conclusion based off of common observations that is used to better understand a race or culture. The only difference I really find between racism and stereotyping, is that racism is more generally applied to different races, and it is not applied to a culture as often as stereotypes. I believe that neither of these can be eliminated, as both of them are just a way of categorizing another human being, and that the only way to actually get rid of racism would be to view every human being as your equal.
Blog December 7th
December 7th
In this blog, I am going to talk about how America attempted to gain more territory, and attempt to increase their trade. I believe that America was right in the fact that they needed to further their trade, and make it slightly faster and efficient, but I believe that the time for starting this trade could have waited. I believe that if the Nation could not justify it's treaties with the Native Americans, and leave so much land to be considered as "enemy territory", then they should wait to trade. If the nation could not trade with themselves safely and efficiently, then I believe that they should not have attempted to increase their trade internationally.
This want for trade , lead to the attempt of capturing other territories for themselves, such as the Philippines. America freed the Philippines from the Spanish rule, and I believe that the Americans could have traded with the Philippines, and formed a treaty with the Philippines in order to use the countries ports and access to water as a resting and trading point. I do not think that America should have taken control over the Philippines, as it seemed like a waste of resources, and a waste of time.
I overall believe that the attempt of the expansion of America was not morally justified, nor do I believe that the expansion of America could be economically justified. I believe that America could have utilized several different methods other than utilizing violence in order to increase their trade, I also believe that America should have attempted to increase trade within the Nations, over land, rather than trading by means of ships. I believe that this venture was not economically justified, as America did possess a fairly strong economy at this time, but I believe that attempts such as the Philippines were not only a waste of resources but also a waste of time that could have been valuable somewhere else in America, rather than outside of America.
In this blog, I am going to talk about how America attempted to gain more territory, and attempt to increase their trade. I believe that America was right in the fact that they needed to further their trade, and make it slightly faster and efficient, but I believe that the time for starting this trade could have waited. I believe that if the Nation could not justify it's treaties with the Native Americans, and leave so much land to be considered as "enemy territory", then they should wait to trade. If the nation could not trade with themselves safely and efficiently, then I believe that they should not have attempted to increase their trade internationally.
This want for trade , lead to the attempt of capturing other territories for themselves, such as the Philippines. America freed the Philippines from the Spanish rule, and I believe that the Americans could have traded with the Philippines, and formed a treaty with the Philippines in order to use the countries ports and access to water as a resting and trading point. I do not think that America should have taken control over the Philippines, as it seemed like a waste of resources, and a waste of time.
I overall believe that the attempt of the expansion of America was not morally justified, nor do I believe that the expansion of America could be economically justified. I believe that America could have utilized several different methods other than utilizing violence in order to increase their trade, I also believe that America should have attempted to increase trade within the Nations, over land, rather than trading by means of ships. I believe that this venture was not economically justified, as America did possess a fairly strong economy at this time, but I believe that attempts such as the Philippines were not only a waste of resources but also a waste of time that could have been valuable somewhere else in America, rather than outside of America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)