The Shared Experience of Absurdity

This past Tuesday President Obama gave a State of The Union Address. The basic feeling he was attempting to convey was optimism and hope for the country. He mentioned various people as examples of "normal" Americans, meaning that any of his examples could have been you. Obama used these examples to try and bring together both the nation, and Congress and the House of Representatives in the hopes of overlooking labels like Democrat and Republican and passing bills for the good of America. Obama commented in his address on the irony of the situation saying, "Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year." Everything he was preaching sounded good, a unified and happy America, who would not want that? But I questioned the realism of his ideas. Is it possible to bring together many random Americans with opposing viewpoints and accomplish a shared goal? 

 

A little while ago, my sister showed me a TED talk about a man named Charlie Todd who created something called Improv Everywhere in New York City. I am aware that it is long, but it is a truly hilarious video worth watching for at least a few minutes. In the video, Todd shares stories of how "his group, Improv Everywhere, uses these scenes to bring people together" (Ted.com). Specifically in the video Todd mentions my two favorites the No Pants Subway Ride, which is exactly what it sounds like, and the Best Buy improvisation where 80 people showed up at Best Buy in a blue polo shirt and khaki pants. Not only are these outrageous scenes successful in bringing together different random Americans with most likely opposing views to create the scenes, but they also make strangers interact and laugh together.

I believe the meaning behind this video is that once we look beyond our differences, we are all Americans and that collaboration makes the world a better and in this case funnier place. Clearly, it is possible to have different people work together and create something. If all of these ordinary Americans can, then why can Congress and the House of Representatives which are supposed to be full of intelligent people not pass a bill? Is America not a place where unity, teamwork, and collaboration are appreciated?

Meta Blog Post: Blogging About Blogging

As I look from my older blog posts to my newer ones, I definitely notice the themes of hard work and opportunity. I would probably categorize my posts into three sections: the beginning of the year until first quarter where we received comments on our favorite posts from the teachers, then until the day before New Year's, and the day before New Years until now.

In my first section, I was writing for my own enjoyment, about whatever floated across my mind. For example, my very first post, Yoga On the Rise, is about one of my favorite hobbies- yoga. This post and most of the others were not rooted in many texts, had simple and casual language, and had almost no correlation to America or American Studies. However, my speaking voice was well echoed in it, and was most definitely fun to read because I was writing about topics that interested me and I was passionate about.

After receiving comments about our blogs at first quarter, some of the good qualities from the first section were lost, but the problems from then were fixed. Many posts seem generic in the way that anyone could have written them- there is no clear voice. At times, they feel slightly like a checklist of requirements to accomplish. Nevertheless, previous problems like rooting posts in texts, American Studies, and America as a whole were no longer issues. One post that exemplifies these ideas very well is my post titled Is All Art Propaganda? Right off the bat, I say "In my American Studies class". This introduction makes it seem like I am trying to hard to accomplish the set goal of connecting the post to class. As the piece progresses though, I begin to ask more thought provoking questions like  "is propaganda in the form of art a bad thing?" One of my favorite parts about this question is that it makes the reader question their philosophy on art by asking is it. This was a good post because it was truly an extension of the discussions we have in class, despite the fact that it lacked an authentic voice. 

This last section from New Years until now is only just beginning. In all honesty, I am not positive about the origin of this change, but if I had to guess, I suppose I would attribute it to the New Year and the general feeling of opportunity like my first post of the section says. In that post I take it a step further by connecting ideas we learn in class like American values, connecting it to a relevant topic- New Years, and then I connect it back to the novel A Narrative In the Life Of Frederick Douglass. Not only do I bring it back to Douglass, but I cite specific evidence from the text: "Mr. Covey, 'succeeded in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit'". I then go on to explain the quote in the context of my blog post and do not just ignore it. Certainly this is only a beginning of the next section, but I believe that I am finally beginning to put together all of the good pieces from all the sections and leaving out the bad ones. My posts now are relevant, relate to class, have an authentic voice, are rooted in text, and are interesting. I think that I am starting to find the balance between taking what we learn in class and writing about the ideas from class that interest me the most.

suc·cess [suhk-ses]: the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like.

In my American Studies Class, we discussed success and what constitutes success in the context of jobs. The discussion took the route of the question: Is it better to have a job that you do not like that pays well, or a job you love that does not pay as well. I doubt that the class realized that an article came out just that day on Americans trying to succeed in business to help them live a more comfortable lifestyle. The article talks in length about how Americans enjoy much less mobility in terms of economic status than other comparable countries such as the United Kingdom and Denmark: "At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations". 

Rosie the Riveter, a classic symbol for
women of hard work leading to success
 post WWII.

A distinctly American value in my opinion is the ability to improve yourself financially, and try to surpass your parents. In the North Shore, a few northern suburbs of Chicago, known for being a wealthy community, children tend to follow similar patterns their parents took, speaking contextually about jobs and earnings. Unsurprisingly, the article mentioned something quite similar: “Family background plays more of a role in the U.S. than in most comparable countries”. I would accredit this trend of being well off in the North Shore to two factors. The first factor would be that in our North Shore society, living comfortably is valued and even expected. The second reason I believe is the precedent set on education. If my guesses are correct, than we can understand this cycle of stability in the community. 

However, earlier on in America's foundation, this continued wealth was not the case. In class we looked at an NPR interview conducted with Bill T. Jones, a famous American dancer and choreographer. He spoke about his upbringing and said "'I was in school was so that I didn't have to be out there with [my father]'". Here, Jones is explaining the privileges he was given from the sacrifices his father made by working "out there" as a laborer in the cold. After Jones received his college education, he was certainly able to succeed financially even though it was not an academia related field. For Jones, it was easier to excel more than his father had because his father was not a rich man. In a wealthy area like the North Shore, and in a country like the United States without large opportunities for financial mobility, how can we succeed more than our parents did?