Reconstructing History

The other day in American Studies, we discussed memory. First we made metaphors about memory: memory is a filing cabinet, a bulletin board, a dirty carpet, or a messy storage unit. Most agreed on that memories tend to pop up due to the experiences you are having at the moment and when they do they are completely intact. After the discussion, Mr. Bolos let us in on a little secret. When you look back and recall a memory, you are actually reconstructing the moment with your current emotions mixing in with the ones in the memory. Every time you look back you are changing that memory. A more detailed description of this can be found in the Radiolab episode, "Memory and Forgetting". So that made me think, if we change our own memories with our personal interpretation because of our feelings, what about history? Can we trust primary sources? Are our "unbiased" text books to be trusted wholely?

I also found another activity connected when thinking of how history might be misrepresented. Awhile earlier we discussed telling stories and how textbook editors can differ which subjects get put in a better light. Perhaps people "remember" things differently than another eye witness simply because of bias and mood. I believe that this often occurs in American society and history. We pose our actions to make them look like the right or only way possible. By simply changing a couple adjectives and leaving a few details out we can make murder of American Indians seem righteous, like in Bacon's Rebellion. Americans, it seems, are always looking for little ways to make themselves look better.

Patience and Hard Work

Today during my consumer education class we were researching possible career paths and their projected income and requirements. While on my computer, I overheard a conversation between my teacher and another student. She was asking him what career he found most appealing. I didn't hear what career he mentioned, however his "con", if you will, to the career was that it took a master's degree and that would take a long time and a lot more school work. Master's degrees can take from one to six years. It certainly would be a much longer time in school and thus more school work then simply graduating from a traditional four-year college. The values that are apparent in the aforementioned conversation are that speed and less work is better. What happened to "patience is a virtue"and not "taking the easy way out"? I think that patience and intense mental labor went out the window when technology became more advanced. This whole idea goes along with Mr. O'Connor's post about the Kindle commercial: "How to Read a Kindle". His interpretation talks much about how the commercial portrays the value of speed by the fact that new books can be bought in "less than sixty seconds" rather than the long period of time it takes to go to the bookstore and purchase a print copy of the book. The commercial also indicates that hard work is bad by the absence of it when the book is purchased over the Kindle. The man has to simply touch a button, rather than walking or driving to the nearest bookstore. Have the american values of patience and hard work changed? Has technology made us crave speed and effortlessness in all aspects of life?

This comic strip I found while surfing the web further demonstrates the negative reputation hard work has recently gotten. A man has just come back from his lunch break and his secretary informs him that he has "a few messages". Actually there's mountain rivaling that of the Himalayas of paperwork. The comic has the reader (looker?) feel sympathy for the poor man who actually has to do the labor. The mounds of paper work seem a tedious task. The sarcasm in the secretary's words, "a few messages", makes it comical because there is more than just a few.

Just Can't Resist Showing Off a Little

Mr. Bolos's blog post on "Suburban Castles" made me think about why people purchase massive homes, luxurious cars, and other expensive material items. I realized that it's mostly to show off. Many people's goal in America is to "make it big": be incredibly successful and rich. However, when some Americans reach this goal, they can't keep it to themselves. Everyone else around them must know that they are successful. They can't resist showing off. They buy a big house, a fancy car, another home in some far off land, and anything that their children ask for. Is it in the American culture to have the competitive drive to show that someone has "made it big"? Perhaps they are just "fishing for compliments" and looking for attention. They are looking for people to realize how great their life is now, or how great it appears to be. Whichever it is they just have to tell the world their good fortune. But maybe they have a right to. In a lot of cases the people who are prosperous, worked very hard to get there. If someone is born wealthy, then someone in their family history worked very to be successful because America was built by people ready to work to get rich. Perhaps it's just in our nature to want to spread the great news. However, should they?

Not Quite Conformity

The other day in class, we discussed the American dream and how it shows a sense of conformity. Almost everyone in the US seems to try to follow the American dream. However, when we each voiced our idea of the American dream at least ten different ideas were discussed. Many had the same idea but unique twists to them. The most popular one that I've heard many times, is that "anyone can make it with hard work and a little luck" or "rags to riches". However, what is the meaning behind "making it"? Most Americans each have a different view of what it is to "make it". As with the American dream each person puts a unique twist to their life goal. For example, one student in my class said that "making it" was to achieve prosperity and happiness, while another said it was to achieve the "white picket fence" which entails an upper middle class living with a quaint house and happy family. Each of these examples deal with happiness and living richly, however one is more specific towards what kind of happiness and just how rich. That discussion on the American dream showed that if a person simply glanced at the American culture, it would appear a conformist society, despite that if one looked closely into American society, they could see the distinct qualities that tint each individual.

When thinking this over, I realized that this individuality can also be seen in fashion. There are different styles, yet fashion allows the wearer to add a personal touch to his or her own style. From this new styles arise and more people add their personal touch to the new fashion. Each year people high in the fashion world decide what will be "in" this season and as it reaches the people, the styles either become more absurd or more understated depending on the wearer and his or her own distinct qualities. These examples of hints of individuality that lie underneath the conformist appearance are what make the American dream.