The Campus

I am a college student.  The thought seems incredibly odd because this is not how I pictured my college experience. Rather, this was my idealized daydream of a college; I had pictured it being much harder to learn to love it here:

 “The romantic notion of a college in nature, removed from the corrupting forces of the city, became an American ideal.."

Turner says that in his Campus article, and it really seems to stick here.  I see a lot of what a college looks like in the movies; it's an ideal that doesn't really exist, a place detached from "the real world".  There is a surreal aspect, a dreamy atmosphere, leaves float gently to the ground, time seems to slow for gorgeous fall days, the clouds go by, music rings out everywhere. 

This ideal seems idyll (and puns are punny).  By detaching and creating this college sanctuary, only now have I really connected with anything.  I didn't like where I grew up, but I didn't mind it either.  This is the only time that I feel a real loyalty towards a place.  In this miniature city, it seems like I've found somewhere to miss when I leave it.  Not just for the people nor the food, but the atmosphere...it's a romantic notion that I can't describe, an abstract concept that I've attached too.  Just like many American values, it's different for everyone, but that doesn't meant that it doesn't evoke something.

Glee!

This episode made angels cry.  No exaggeration.  There was no character development (besides showing that Rachel Berry is insane and becoming less sympathetic by the minute), the plot barely existed, the numbers were less than inspired...There's paying homage and then there's blatantly ripping off.

Glee is a show about misfits coming together and bonding over music.  Now, there is a bunch of music, but there's no real emotion behind it.  To quote an old acting adage "What's my motivation?"  We don't see anything new with the characters this week.  Rachel plays silly games to see if Finn still loves her.  This would be bad enough, but then Will Shuester, the supposed voice of reason, does the same within in his relationships.  Way to be a role model dude; I'm glad you're teaching the lesson of "I need to change myself completely to get people to love me!"

And don't even get me started on Jacob Ben Israel.  My baby sister was watching...

Menopause: The Menace

Anne Hutchinson is often portrayed as a "menopausal neurotic."

Whilst grossly misogynistic and rather silly, this made me laugh.  Mayhaps there is nothing more frightening than the hormonally imbalanced woman but...rephrase that: There is nothing more frightening than the menopausal/hormonal woman; but to conduct a serious argument on the basis that a woman's hormones made  her become a social deviant who had the potential to tear the Massachusetts Bay Colony apart?  It's stupid, but it makes someone with two X chromosomes feel absurdly powerful.

Anne Hutchinson & Neville Longbottom,

Albus Dumbledore once said "‘It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends."  Now, when I read Harry Potter for the first time, this quote did not impress a great truth upon my young mind.  Being eight years old, there were more important things to be learned.  Did Gryffindor finally win the house cup away from Slytherin or not?  Neville was just a wet blanket who went against our heroes, trying to stop them on their way to defeating the bad guy.  Sure, it was sad that he got Petrificus Totalus cast upon him, but a dark recess within young Beth's mind assumed that he deserved it for not the supporting the protagonists.  They were clearly right because it was three against one and he should have seen that.

Now, with my older (and hopefully wiser) perspective on things, I had a realization.  Neville was perhaps one of the bravest characters within the series.  It does take a great deal to stand up to our friends and companions, not knowing how they'll react.  According to Westerkamp "A deviant exhibits certain behaviors, supported by a specific belief system, that place him or her on the outside, perhaps in opposition to, that mainstream."   This was written in regard to the great dissenter Anne Hutchinson.  However, some of the parallels are simply uncanny.  Both are deviants who try to change the norm.

While reading another article about Anne Hutchinson (called The Risk of Dissent: The Story of Anne Hutchinson by Dorothy Oslin) it mentioned that her family was targeted, her fight becomes all the more real.  Before it was just some crazy lady who heard the voice of the Lord.  Everyone thought that she was wrong and that was her main quality.  But add in the humanizing factor of her family being persecuted and ridiculed along with her...that takes guts.  

The governing body turned against Anne Hutchinson, the mainstream saw her as a threat.  Her friends disassociated themselves from her.  She stood up for what she thought anyway.    She stood up for her beliefs, trying to grant a great understanding of her world; to make it a better place.  Neville Longbottom had the governing body turn against him, he was seen as a threat both great and small, his friends and family were tortured and scared.  He refused to remain silent.  He actively fought for a better life.

The long and the short of my little rant here is this: Anne Hutchinson was more courageous than I gave her credit for.  On the first reading, she comes off as an unhinged woman with no real personality trait other than being contrary.  However, on the reread, she, just like Neville Longbottom, has a great deal more depth and courage than our "main" characters.  Both go against the mainstream for their own beliefs.  Both are ridiculed and persecuted, but because they remain steadfast, we remember them as heroes.

Puritans and Whatnot

Reading about the Puritans, I have to admit that I admire their spunk.  It takes a lot of guts to move to a completely disgusting region that's infested with practically every disgusting thing this side of the Atlantic.  That takes a lot of determination, hard work, and stubbornness.  Definitely American Values.  One cannot deny their impact upon American culture throughout the years.
However, I've noticed that many of my classmates talk about how altruistic the Puritans were in coming to the good ol' Chesapeake region.  This, in my mind, creates a view that is entirely too simplistic. It's ignorant (although beautifully optimistic) to think that the Puritans had no exterior motives.  They wished to gain wealth, or have their needs met fully, just like everyone else.  However, they really saw this as a blessing from God which does make it a tad more palatable in my mind.
William Bradford said at one point: "I cannot but here take occasion not only to mentions but greatly to admire the marvelous providence of God!"  When things start looking up, God is invoked.  When people die, get injured, God is still invoked.  This makes everything the Puritans do just seem better.  Sure, they have human failings, and they could be a "tad" intolerant.  But ultimately, they were working towards a greater good, and we all have to admire that, don't we?

"The caring was a necessary myth, an eagle like   

A speck in heaven dives."-The History of America, Alicia Ostriker

The poem, "The History of America" affected me much more deeply than the other poems that we read in class.   I felt like it warned against an America that's still trying to expand and find new horizons.
Each part seemed to allude to a specific point in America's History.  With lines like: "Its language alters,no account varmint.." I found myself thinking of a colonial explorer, of Lewis and Clark or Davy Crockett.  It seemed to speak of uncharted places, a frontier that has not been found yet.  This resonated with me because of the idea of Americans looking for the next new thing, the uncharted territory.  Someone drew a comparison to the (wonderful) book Into the Wild, and I could not agree more.  It's what Alex McCandless/Supertramp was looking for, a bold new place, untainted by man, wild and free and beautiful.
However, the poem goes on to talk about that lack of new land.  Railroads get put up, "[America] Keeps moving. Behind it, a steel track. Cold, Permanent."  We start to kill off the wildlife, Native Americans die, everywhere becomes more developed.  In short, as we lose places to expand to, we lose our identity.
With the line I quoted above (which is just amazing.  The syntax makes me so jealous) we get the idea that we pretend to care about things, when really we're just seeking new places.  By having caring be a necessary myth (which reminded me of the City Upon a Hill speech from John Winthrop) we're really talking about how our whole nation seems lost without somewhere new to be.  We "absorb and project children" making them in our image, but we don't really know what that is anymore.

Freedom of speech...

Yesterday, while at lunch with some Am. Con students, Katie brought up an interesting point.
"You have the freedom of speech, but that gives someone the freedom to not listen."
Which is true, but one does not speak unless they want to be heard.  Is it inherently better to be loud and obnoxious for your cause and thus alienate potential supporters?  Is it better to be quiet and slowly gather those around you by not being an extremist?  Are we just looking for the lesser of these two evils?
Why would one use their power of free speech if they knew that they weren't going to be heard?  While Katie seemed to possess a good point, I silently disagreed.  (Does this prove or disprove my point?  Frankly, I don't know).  We have the freedom of speech, but I think that means that people have to be listening for it to have any effect.  Whether they agree or not is an entirely different matter.
So, whilst freedom of speech is very important to me, as an American, a college student, a girl who likes to write down her feelings instead of verbalizing them; I think I would rather have freedom from being ignored.
One doesn't have to like your opinions or even consider your opinions to be valid, but to move forward within a democracy, I feel that you must listen.  Protesters don't protest for the sake of making a picket line and catchy chants, protesters protest for a chance to be heard.  So yes, give me freedom of speech, but also give me an open ear to freely speak with.

Positive vs. Negative Liberty

"Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes."-Positive and Negative Liberty

Much like Terry Tempest Williams' speech in "Commencement", this quote forces one to question the idea of what freedom/liberty really means to them.  Do we question what our government does, actively seeking individual freedoms and rights, or do we simply stay complacent with their security?  Does a patriot obey, or does a patriot do what he or she believes is truly right?
Do we remain comfortable whilst talking about democracy, trying not to step on any toes, or do we drag it kicking and screaming until we've reached a common consensus?  Is one method really better than the other?
Whatever the case, one almost has to think that there is no one "right" idea of liberty.  Each individual has to decide for themselves what they're willing to fight for.  Thus, the common theme is that democracy and freedom often makes us uncomfortable, but we should feel uncomfortable.  In the words of Terry Tempest Williams: "Question. Stand. Speak. Act. Make us uncomfortable. Make us think. Make us feel. Keep us free."