Zoot Suit Reflection

The youth of Malcolm X contrasts greatly with his adulthood. It contrasted so greatly that Malcolm himself diminished the importance of his youth in the development of the man he had become. I think there are a couple of reasons for this and I would like to discuss which reason is more viable. The concept of a double-v was used during Malcolm's youth to describe the current situation blacks found themselves in. A victory abroad without a victory over racism at home would be a failure. This sentiment manifested itself into many protests against the white establishment and the black involvement in it, for example, the zoot suit. 

Zoot suiters, Malcolm included, wore flashy suits that used up a lot of material. They were protesting efforts to conserve resources for the war while also rebelling against the dominion whites held over society. Malcolm later diminished the importance of his actions during this zoot suit era. Why would he do such a thing? Robin Kelley argues that this time was a very important influence on the man Malcolm X would become. I think that there are two possible explanations for the disregard of his past. The first would be the respect and prestige that he had garnered from becoming a Civil Right leader. His methods were at time radical, but everything that he did as an adult was towards the goal of racial equality. It is possible that Malcolm felt that the activities of his youth were not aimed at any greater goal, just actions to satisfy his youthful urges. The second explanation would be his religion. As an adult Malcolm converted to Islam and along with this comes many rules and guidelines to live by. The actions of his youth were in direct contrast with the teachings of Islam and I think that in order to legitimize himself in the eyes of his Islamic peers, Malcolm had to distance himself from anything in his past that was unsavory. This is indeed my interpretation and I am interested to hear other people's opinion on the matter. 

Gone With the Wind Reflection Post

It said that we could do reflection posts on movies I hope that is okay.  I just feel like we never got a chance to talk about them in length.

Although immensely long Gone With The Wind, was very interesting.  Scarlet O'Hara I thought was an iconoclastic women during the time period.  Not only did she rebuild Terra from ruins after the Civil War, but she also operated a multitude of businesses.  It seemed weird for women to have that much power during that time.  

Scarlet and Jo (Little Women)  seem to be very much a like.  They both break the mold of the ideal women.  The cult of domesticity was meant to conform women and keep them working in the domestic sphere.  However Scarlet building up Terra and managing business did not conform to the cult of domesticity.  And in the first half of Little Women Jo did not conform to the structured ideals either.  Jo instead wanted to become a published writer.  

Gone With the Wind not only made Scarlet an iconoclast, but made Rhett a rebel who did not support the south in the Civil War.  It was weird that Rhett did not go and fight for the south, but it was meant to prove a point.  The point was that a man that can still feel masculine without fighting can handle a women that is feminine but does not work in the domestic sphere.  Both Rhett and Scarlet were iconoclastic in their roles which created a different way to live instead of the American norms.  

Amos and Andy

This cartoon clearly relates back to the radicalization of African Americans.  The lips on the people in the cartoon are over exaggerated, along with and ape like appearance the fighting trainer gives off.  Also, Amos and Andy are seen as dead beats or guys that are lazy and cannot do much which goes along with the white hierarchy instilled in America.  The cartoon reminded me of two examples that Professor Hass showed in class, one was of a cartoon Jim Crow and the other was the African-American men in Birth of a Nation.  The similarity between all three images proves that the Jim Crow cartoon, Amos and Andy, and Birth of a Nation was developed by white people to instill this ape/moose like sentimentality of African Americans.  It is very clear that Amos and Andy was not intended for African-Americans to see, because it is extremely offensive.  

Reflection on Martin Luther King Jr. and Vietnam

Before reading the material for Prosperity and its Discontents, I had a pre-conceived notion of who Martin Luther King Jr. was. In my mind he has always been a champion of the Civil Rights movement and more specifically a voice for black people in America. Reading his speech about the war in Vietnam literally blew me away. Not only did this man care about people of his own color, he cared about all people. In his speech he spoke out against the misuse and poor treatment of soldiers, black and white, and also of the many Vietnamese citizens that were being displaced by the war. 

What I found to be most interesting is that MLK Jr. emphasized his role as a preacher many times in his speech. It was clear that he wanted his devotion to Jesus Christ to be known to all who were listening to him. This is a sentiment that I had never heard of regarding MLK. As I stated before he has always been a Civil Rights leader in my mind, rarely a preacher preaching the message of God. I believe that in light of this emphasis, all of his achievements and efforts towards peace seem even more admirable. MLK Jr. was doing what he believed the 'living God' had called him to do, preaching his methods and words to the masses. Again I just find it interesting the contrast of who I thought MLK to be and who he actually was. In either thought he was an admirable individual, but it is nice to know what exactly was compelling him to do what he did. 

A Consumer's Republic - Reflection

Lizabeth Cohen's "A Consumer's Republic" was in my opinion the most intriguing reading of the year. She literally focuses on one aspect of American Culture (consumerism), and analyzes how it has helped shape American history. She touches on topics from the government's role in regulating the market over time to how racial inequality was perpetuated by consumer trends.

One of the constants throughout history in relation to consumers has been the discrepancy between the purchaser consumer and the citizen consumer. Purchaser consumers were not beneficial to the market, as they simply bought things impulsively. Citizen consumers, however, Cohen argues were essential in history. They had the tendency to be much more lobbyist, and look out for the rights of consumers in general. I think the difference between these two types of consumers shows where the power is in terms of American capitalism and the free market. There are much more purchaser consumers than citizen consumers, and except for when the government needed an economic boost, purchaser consumers are really hurting their own cause. If 75-80% of consumers were citizen-consumers, then those would be the people who would be able to regulate trends in the free market. However, as it stands, (and it probably won't change anytime soon) corporations and the private sector in general has all of the power when it comes to marketing and consumer practices.

Overall, Cohen's writing was a very persuasive argument. She had a plethora of sources from which she compiled her information, and it was very effective. If people underestimated the power of consumerism, after reading this book, perhaps they will think twice before the next time they go shopping. It is truly amazing how an everyday, sometimes mindless task could have such a profound effect on the entire construct of the United States.

The Fog of War Reflection Post

This is the third class I have had in which we have watched Fog of War.  I personally find the movie very interesting.  Robert McNamara was one of the highest ranked officials in the Kennedey and Johnson administration that is still alive.  The first question I had was how did Robert McNamara become Secretary of Defense?  In the move it claimed that he was working for GM and then got asked to be Secretary of Defense.  Now I am not saying he did a bad job, because in the movie it seemed he was always true to the American people.  I just did not understand how a GM worker correlates with America's Defense policy.

I think he was true to the American people when he resigned from his position in 1968.  The movie claimed that he started to disagree with Johnson Administration's handling of the Vietnam War.  Even though his resignation was controversial, it seemed that he was more in tune with what the people wanted instead of what the President wanted.  

I have been trying to figure out the reason why three of my classes have now shown this movie.  I come back to this ideal, that it gives a factual portrayal of the Vietnam War that seems less bias than other movies on Vietnam.  Robert McNamara it seemed told the story how it was and was not trying to persuade the viewers that Vietnam was the right thing, because at the end of his term he too did not agree with the actions of the Johnson Administration.  

Crawford Reflection

Crawford's writing gives a first hand account of some of the war in Iraq. Considering himself an "Accidental soldier," he simply joined the national guard in order to get his tuition at college paid for. He had no idea that he would end up in Iraq, but did not question his duties when he was ordered to go there.

Crawford uses a few detailed experiences to represent the life of a soldier in Iraq. The experience of shooting the unarmed civilian was particularly shocking, especially when he nonchalantly states that he was unsure whether he realized before or after he shot him that the "enemy's" gun was broken. Probably the most interesting aspect of his writing, however, is not necessarily the text, but the style. There is a point in his writing when he simply tells an elaborate lie, something that did not really happen. Undoubtedly, this touches on the theme of what is true and not true. For the life a soldier, Crawford's writing seems to insinuate that the difference can become easily blurred.

As far as his claims of being an accidental soldier are concerned, I personally don't buy into it. Yes, he might not have predicted that he would end up in Iraq, as no one can truly predict when wars are going to break out. But, anytime someone signs up for the armed forces, they need to be aware of the potential duties and tasks that go along with that type of commitment. Just because he does not agree with his purpose in Iraq or expect to be there, it does not mean he is an accidental soldier. Instead, I would define him as an instrumental soldier, as his reasons for fighting are outside the realm of war. However, overall, I found Crawford's writing entertaining and intriguing. It was nice to read a war story that kept its reader on the edge.

Reflecting on Malcom X's Younger Years

The Kelley reading on Malcolm X's teen years and the environment in which he lived during this time shed light on the factions both between and within ethnic groups. I found this fascinating because it stood in contrast to other readings and course material that focused more on the color lines between racial groups (i.e. Black and White, Asian and White, Latino and White). Instead, Kelley's reading addressed the tumultuous relationship between the Black middle class and the lower class and the resentment each group felt for the other during the time period of World War II.

This tension between the socio-economic classes within the Black community makes sense to me, since each group seemed to be trying to achieve different goals. While the lower class fought to try to assimilate into "American" culture by applying the "Protestant work ethic" celebrated in America, much of the lower class rebelled against this way of life and chased less than legitimate pursuits. In my opinion, it is this sort of dynamic (e.g. tension within a downtrodden group) that made it so difficult to overcome the unjust societal makeup of the time.

Jo Ann Gibson Robinson Reflection

Jo Ann Gibson Robinson's account of the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the events that led up to it really opened my eyes to the recency of such unjust treatment towards an entire racial group. The latent racism that exists within America today seems so antiquated and intolerable, yet it is nothing compared with the disrespectful public policies that abounded in this country within the last 60 years. That these policies still existed in Montgomery and other places over a year after the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision came down displays an atrocious set of societal values for having let this remain the status quo.

When Gibson Robinson discusses the cases of mistreatment towards Blacks on the Montgomery city buses, especially Black women, it seems amazing that this sort of behavior was ever accepted. When I consider the fact that the seating arrangements of the city buses appear to have existed simply to keep Black people "in their place" behind Whites, I cannot believe that a majority of the city's population never came together to expose this race-relations travesty before the WPC finally organized an all-out boycott. It is embarrassing that it took such severe action before anyone did anything about this situation that denigrated all Black people.

Crawford Response

The Crawford reading was an eye-opener for me. I realize that the course has come full circle now that we are talking about the Iraq war. It’s saddening how much things have changed in America since World War II and Vietnam. We used to really value our soldiers. They were true heroes and many felt there was nothing more important they could do with their lives than fight for their country. Today, it seems like we almost ignore the individuals that are risking their lives. I know that it’s a controversial war, but any person brave enough to join the military and be shipped away deserves our unconditional support. It is a reality that soldiers fight for causes that they don’t necessarily understand or support, but that in the grand scheme we are all Americans and we might be fighting for something larger than we realize. Maybe it’s because many people these days don’t seem to know very many soldiers personally that are going to war (and dying), so it makes everything seem so far-removed. Regardless, I don’t know how I personally feel about Iraq, but I do know that every soldier over there has my 100% support.

King Tut Reflection/Question

In The King Tut piece by Melani McAllister, King Tut and Middle Eastern culture are commodified and made into something that can be bought or sold. Simultaneously, the same thing is happening middle eastern oil. In my presentation on this reading, I acknowledged this fact but also (perhaps without realizing it) focused on the corruption that our government seemed to be exhibiting through the exchanges described by McAllister. I couldn't believe the way that the government seemed to feign interest in King Tut in order to gain political and economic influence in the Middle East and its oil. However, I noticed that in class and in discussion we barely focused on that aspect of the King Tut phenomenon and I don't know why that was. Was it just understood that that happened? Did it not pertain to the class enough? Or am I making a big deal about something that just wasn't that important? Any ideas are appreciated. 

Ernie's War Reflection

Ernie Pyle's war correspondence from World War II paints a clear picture of the American soldiers' experiences during the war. His description of the storming of Omaha Beach reminded me of the intense battle scene in "Saving Private Ryan." The way in which Pyle talks about the destruction and dead bodies on the beach allows the reader to empathize with the soldiers in Europe, and it is kind of amazing that he was able to capture with written words the same scene that "Saving Private Ryan" was able to via visual images. I think it was his writing style and the details he chose to include that made him such an incredibly effective wartime correspondent.

Additionally, the way in which he was able to convey the humanity of the soldiers and their devotion to the ideals of America allows his readers to understand why Tom Brokaw would call this group of people the "Greatest Generation." This generation had to deal with growing up during the Great Depression, and I think it shows in their steadfast belief that they were fighting the "Good War." Although a lot has happened in America since then, I believe that dealing with the hard times of the Great Depression shaped that generation into one united in their support for America.

King Tut Reflection

I was very surprised and intrigued after reading the King Tut reading. The connection that was made between universal artifacts, oil and race were all very interesting. The fact that the government can twist cultural artifacts into making them universal and then later on using the same explanation to justify the need for cheap oil is impressive and astonishing. I personally believe that the government operates for economical reasons. Its main motive is how to enrich the nation’s economy even if it means by exploiting other countries. I feel that the argument that the government presented that the artifacts discovered in King Tut’s tomb were universal for cultural purposes was in actuality meant for economic reasons. The reading gave numerous examples on how people were able to gain economic benefits by selling King Tut memorials and relics after the exhibit was brought to the United States.

In addition, the government was in desperate need of cheaper oil. They were able to disguise the cultural argument about why oil was universal to satisfy their economic needs. I believe that this is an accurate image about the government. I personally believe the real motives for the government’s actions are all for economical purposes. There have been numerous events in history where this claim has been proven. Overall, I enjoyed the King Tut reading and the numerous connections it had made.

The Story of Stuff: Reflection

Annie Leonard presents an intriguing argument about America’s consumers and producers. She states how the nation over consumes products and that 99% of these products become trash in a few months. This concept is interesting to connect with the first wave of consumerism in the mid-twentieth and the today’s wave of consumerism. During the first wave, the government strongly advocated the public to consume at large amounts. This was the government’s method of stimulating the economy back to its original state before the Great Depression. However, Obama’s stimulus plan does not exactly take on this same approach of mass consumerism. Obama plans on stimulating the economy in other forms. For instance, Obama plans on engaging in vast government spending to help stimulate the economy.

The government plans to spend $32 billion on making energy more efficient. Conserving energy and resources was one of Annie Leonard’s main concerns. In addition, Obama plans on spending billions in repairing infrastructure, education, health care and science/technology. The responsibility of stimulating the economy is not put on the consumers like it was in the 1950’s rather it is put on the government.

Annie Leonard tries to emphasize the huge effects that consumerism has had on all aspects of our lives and environments. The public as well as the government are starting to see and acknowledge the negative effects of mass consumerism. Mass consumerism was a trend that was starting over fifty years ago and the practice continues to be present in today’s society. However, individuals such as Annie Leonard are realizing the negative effects it has had and are advocating an urgency to change these spending tactics.

Crawford Reading

I truly enjoyed Crawford’s reading on the Iraq war. It is difficult to portray the war in its true light due to many of the censoring laws on the media. During the Vietnam War the media was able to present the public with firsthand accounts about the war. This was a time when the government did not censor the media as it does today. Therefore, the soldiers today are the only ones that can provide truthful accounts on the war.

I believe that Crawford’s reading was very important for our generation to read. The Iraq War is focused on our generation’s men and women. Many people do not realize the severe impact it is having these soldiers. The consistent question of why we are in Iraq is not being answered either. Even Crawford who was stationed in Iraq for multiple months did not know the reason for this war. Once this war is over, it should be interesting to see the effects it has on the government, history, and our generation.

After reading Herr’s reading on the Vietnam War and after reading Crawford’s I personally saw many similarities between the two, which is alarming and thought provoking. Both wars seemed to be unorganized and questionable. Soldiers from both wars have to endure horrid conditions such as minimal amounts of foods, inadequate military equipment and lifelong psychological effects. It is sad to think that all of the time and effort that this country has put into the Iraq War will be put to waste and the public will forever view this war as a the shadowing war of Vietnam.