1850

Who/where would I be if I had been alive in 1850....
I had to do a little bit of research before tackling this writing assignment just to refresh my memory on what was going on around the world in 1850. I was reminded that America was a very tumultuous place to be in 1850. We were a very young country, stil very much in the process of establishing our identity not only on this continent, but also on global scale. There was a lot of commotion as we had just expanded our territory from the East Coast all the way to the West Coast with the annexation of California and Texas in the 1840's. There was a lot of tension between the Northern States and the Southern States over issues such as State Rights and slavery.
I would have to say that if I had been alive during this time I would have probably been in some pretty unfortunate situations. Given my age and family background, I would most likely be lower-lower middle class. I am sure that there is a strong chance I would not have had access to much education growing up. Additionally, my home state, Texas, was just made a part of the U.S. after a decades long dispute/war with Mexico over the territory. I am sure that I would have probably seen a lot of death and war even at the young age of 23. However, this also got me thinking that during those times 23 was a pretty old age in comparison to how it is viewed today. I would, at 23, most likely already be responsible for providing for a family and potentially a couple of small children. I would have been brought up learning a trade, most likely farming or ranching based on where I live and what would have been there while I was growing up. I would imagine that right now, towards the onset of a new decade, I would be trying to figure out where I belonged in the whole scheme of things...
It would be a completely different world, with a drastically different set of problems and issues to deal with in comparison with my life today, however, there definitely would have been some similarities between a life then and my life now. I would think that as much as I enjoy the outdoors - camping, hiking, rafting, swimming, hunting, fishing - today, I would have been very content witn my life back then. Things would have been simpler in a sense: I would have had to interact with far fewer people on a daily basis, I would probably have a piece of land to myself that I would have enjoyed and cared for. But, conversley, I would miss a lot of the creature comforts that I have grown accustomed to in this life - A/C, vehicle transportation, readily available food and water, etc. One might argue that I wouldn't have missed these things because I wouldn't have known about them back then, which I would agree with, however, I feel like due to how active I enjoy being, I would have enjoyed getting to focus that energy on the outdoors and on life rather than on writing blogs and checking emails. Things back then would have moved much slower, the world would have seemed a lot bigger, and I am sure I would have thoroughly enjoyed the chance to be able to get away from civilization by simply going home.
Neeless to say, I think I would have liked living in the 1850's. I am an adventurer at heart, I love to be outside, and I often find myself hating how constricted and "on-the-grid" I feel at times in our modern, tech-hungry world. It would have been a harder life, without question. But, for me, I think it would have been a much more satisfying life to lead. Instead of just being innundated with worthless information for the better part of 23 years, I would have had to use my instincts and my intuition to teach myself how to survive in much tougher conditions. People today, in my opinion, and myself included, are much weaker, much lazier, and much more jaded than people would have been back then. I think that it would be nice to live in a slower, less nosy society. I'd do it if I had the chance I think... would you?

For the Final

For the final, I think that we should do a Jeopardy type game. I think that every person in the class should submit a couple of questions a piece over some pre-assigned topics. Our grade should be determined based upon the quality of the questions that we submit as well as the quality or correctness of our answers during the game (maybe like a participation based grade). I think that this would be a fun, yet constructive way to review the materials from throughout the semester. Each person would get a chance to participate without having a whole lot of pressure going into the final.

Identity

When reading this week's assignment, I was drawn to Culler's arguments about identity and how novels affect it. Culler points out that recent theory "can be seen as an attempt to sort out the paradoxes that often inform the treatment of identity in literature" (111). He also points ou that "fundamental identity of characters emerges as the result of actions, of struggles with the world, but then this identity is posited as the basis, even the cause of those actions" (111). These passages stuck out to me because of what Culler is saying: there is a duality between character identity and that character's actions, which makes perfect sense. The way Culler states it, there is a cause and effect type of interaction between literature and characters. A character's actions determine 'who' that character is, but 'who' the character is, is directly influenced by the actions, an interesting observation. In turn, Culler states, theis theme of identity in literature had played a significant role in the construction of the identity of the readers. Readers are always drawn to certain characters, even going so far as to let those characters dictate how they act, talk, interact in the 'real' world. As Culler continues to argue, "literary works enourage indentification with characters by showing things from their point of view" (112). Culler points out just how easily influence readers are and where a lot of our own self-identity stems from is due to what we read and what we associate to the characters we are reading about. If you think about all of the things you have read since you were a kid, think about how much characterization in those works of literature have influenced 'who' we are today. I know for a fact that many young boys read novels such as Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer and instantly are drawn to their behavior as rebellious youths, capable of living on our own, free of the laws of society. When you read these novels as a young boy, you cannot help but want to be Tom or Huck for a little while. What Culler points out is that our ability to associate with these characters greatly influences our ideas of self-identification. We are just as much influenced by these characters as we are influenced by the culture within which we grew up. Literature has an immeasurable effect on us, it helps shape who we are, helps us feel independent from others, but in reality only makes us all think, and act more like every other person who has read that same novel. It is a very interesting dichotomy that Culler points out. One that brings up a very interesting revelation about why we act the way we do, talk the way we do, think the way we do, etc. I really enjoyed reading this section of our reading because it made me look at how I read, and made me reflect on all of the ways in which literature has influenced me over the years. It is a pretty powerful concept to wrap your mind around when all is said and done. There is a lot of power in words, something I feel that a vast majority of people do not realize or admit.

October 18 - Culture

While reading through our assignment for this week, I could not help but get hung up on the Culture chapter in Theory Toolbox. I think that Nealon and Giroux make a few very fantastic points about how asinine the idea of "culture" truely is. If you think about it, the authors point out that the entire idea of culture was intended to give each grouping of people an identity or a group to which they could feel associated with. However, when you look at how that actually played out, we see that cultures really do separate people just as much, if not more, than they do bring them together.

Today cultures are so integrated and mixed that it is hard to definitively label any particular region with specific cultural norm as it is. For example, I grew up in Dallas, in a predominantly Christian, caucasion, affluent area. However, if someone from out of town were to come to that neighborhood today, they would see that it is just as integrated as any other part of Texas. My point is this: whereas once upon a time we could go to that neighborhood and label it as "classy" or "uppity" or "southern" or whatever you want to call it, today that label would hardly apply. The U.S., especially Texas, is so integrated with people from all over the world, of various "cultural" backgrounds, from various "cultural" beliefs etc, that those cultural identifiers no longer really fit. I always get a kick out of watching the commercials that play during football games on Sunday. Lately, in particular, the NFL has been running a series of commercials advertising the NFL Sunday Ticket, a program package that allows you to watch EVERY game, nationwide, as they air, no matter where you are. One of the commercials is set in a small-town, Texas diner that is obviously a long-standing "Cowboys" bar. The waitress addresses the audience, complaining that because of the Sunday Ticket, her once Cowboy-fans-only diner is now littered with Eagles fans who can watch their Eagles play right from their cell phones anywhere they want to. The joke is that "sacred" places, such as devoted small town sports bars, are no longer able to control what their audience is watching simply based on geographical restrictions.

This reading instantly made me think of this commercial for a bevy of reasons, but one thing in particular stood out about the inaccuracies of the portrayal: These places don't really, for the most part, exist anymore. Because the world is so interconnected and so accessible from all corners of the world, locations that were once stereotyped or labeled as being of a specific "culture" can't really be labeled that way any more. Sure, at some point the cultural stereotype of every restaraunt in Texas being a down-home, family run, hole in the wall, Cowboys-or-die kind of place probably held true to some extent. However, these days that just isn't the case. Heck, there is a Green Bay Packers sports bar not two blocks from my Mom's house in Flower Mound, Texas, what are the odds of that?!? Technology has blended culture far beyond traditional recognition. So, now, more than ever, cultural labels could not be further from the facts of how things actually are.

Finally, when I read the section about "popular culture" I had to sit and ponder for a few seconds about how completely ridiculous pop-culture really is. The annals of history, especially cultural history, are written in Hollywood for the most part. When we think 1920's we instantly think of flapper girls and mobsters, the 1970's, hippys and concerts, the 90's make us think of parachute pants and white washed jeans, its habit. It's what we saw on T.V., it is what has been burned into the memory banks, and those portrayals, for the most part, are how most people are going to remember those periods of time because that is how Hollywood decided to portray those periods. But, if you sit and think about it, who the hell gets to decide what the "it" fashion is of a time, the "it" music, the "it" whatever....? Just because NSync sold a gajillion albums throughout the 90's and dressed like idiots, and were wildly popular with a large part of society, who decides that's what we are going to remember? Cultural labels and what is considered to be "popular" culture at any given time are completely subjective idea. Just because 51% of a community bought into a certain band, fad, or style, why does that instantly get recorded as the cultural identifier of the time period? What happens to the other 49% and their experiences of life during those time periods? Are they just forgotten and ignored because Joe-Schmo Hollywood with is bleach-blond spiked haid, tattered jeans, and ridiculous pattern t-shirt, decided he wanted the Saved By the Bell characters to wear what he thought to be popular as opposed to what you thought to be popular. The whole thing seems kind of like a sham if you ask me. In ten years when I look back on the "popular" styles of 2010, am I going to be brainwashed into thinking that every female in America wore Nike shorts, and every guy wore graphic t-shirts, ? Who knows, but I'll tell you one thing for sure: just because mass media gets to define what the history books consider to be "popular," I won't necessarily be so quick to agree. I am sure the same can be said for the folks in the 20's that weren't gangsters (about 98% of the community if I had to guess), the folks in the 70's that weren't at Woodstock, etc. Cultural norms and identifiers are just like anything else, they are someone or some groups OPINION. That's it. Take it for what it's worth and remember things how they were for you, not how they were for the hot celeb of the month.