A Little Bit of Everything

The story of The Great Gatsby takes place during the "Roaring Twenties" or also known as the Jazz Age.  Parties, in response to Prohibition, were errupting all across the country, and the American society was becoming increasingly more secular.  People during this time were focusing more on the little, expensive things in life that made them feel good rather than the personal relationships and bigger life experiences that impacted their daily existance.


A song that can be compared to The Great Gatsby, yet also contrasts it, is the song "A Little Bit of Everything" by Dawes.  This song can compare to The Great Gatsby because the voices in the song talk about how they would like a little bit of everything, whether it be feeling everything or just having an extra chicken wing, they wanted it all.  That resembles the mindset in the "Roaring Twenties" because, as I said, people wanted to have everything they could.  They were also very romantic in their personalities; the characters experienced extreme highs and lows in their emotions throughout the novel, so one could say that they were experiencing all of the different types of feelings.


This song also contrasts The Great Gatsby because the artist is singing about how he would like all of the simple things in life.  This goes against the mindset of the "Roaring Twenties" because the people during this time were into riches and extravagance rather than focusing on the simple things in life that make us happy.  The parties at Gatsby's house are a great example of this type of extravagance that the characters in the book yearned for -- these parties were over the top and fabulous with lots and lots of alcohol.  Plus, most of the characters in the novel, with the exception of Nick, were very wealthy and showed how their wealth was almost more important than personal relationships.


The song "A Little Bit of Everything" compares to The Great Gatsby in an interesting way because it not only exhibits how people wanted everything they could, but it also contrasts the novel because of the simple things that the artist craves rather than the expensive riches that the characters want.

Inaugural Address

My fellow Americans, I want to thank you for this privilege that you have given me by selecting me to be your leader.  During my time in office, together we will accomplish great things as a nation.  We will no longer be divided among class and race, we will work as one to achieve the goals that we have set for ourselves.  We will no longer be burdened by the pressures of society and the negative comments of "no you can't".  If we join together, rich and poor, young and old, we can accomplish anything.

First, we need to establish a more unified country.  As president, I will not tolerate class conflicts and divisions.  It is no secret that the gap between the rich and poor is increasing, and as a government and a nation, we have to decide how to stop this progression.  During my four years in office, I intend on making this issue a top priority.

The university system is also placing a burden on Americans.  In today's society it is crucial for our youth to attend a college or university or they may never reach the level of success expected for them.  My question is, how are we supposed to expect our children to do so if the universities are making it impossible for our children to even pay for their education?  Many young adults are choosing not to obtain a post-high school education because they simply can not pay for it.  This is not right.  We need to help our youth find a way to pay for their schooling without burying them under mounds of financial debt.

There are many social, economic, and political changes that this country needs to go through -- we need a national "face-lift" if you will.  But thanks to your support, we will be able to do so in these next four, and hopefully eight, years.  Again, I would like to thank you, my fellow Americans, for all of your support!

Am I a Transcendentalist?

So, am I a transcendentalist?  Well I agree with many things that the transcendentalist writers had promoted.  I believe that God is in all of us because we were created in his image, and he is always with us.  I believe that all people have good inside of them, just experiences and personal suffering causes man to turn to evil and sin.  I also believe that one must find happiness within himself or herself to truly be content with life.  A passage in Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self Reliance that stood out to me was, "Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron sting. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you..."  I really like that line because I believe that it is critical for people to have self-trust and self-confidence.

Another thing that may make me a transcendentalist is my love for nature.  I really love doing anything outside, and in the dark, gloomy Wisconsin winters, all I crave is sun.  Now, I could not live in the wilderness in a tent, but I do appreciate all that nature has to offer.


On aspect of transcendentalism that I do not agree with, or do not particularly follow, is the idea that conformity is bad.  I understand that if everyone is sinful and succumbs to temptation, then hopping on the bandwagon is not the best idea, but if everyone learns to love each other and celebrate the good things in life, then conformity is not so terrible!  There are different kinds of conformity, good and evil, and distinguishing between the two can sometimes be difficult.


I know I may sound naïve, but I feel that everyone has some good inside of them, and a truly peaceful world is possible.  Transcendentalism, to me, represents optimism and happiness while anti-transcendentalism represents pessimism and doubt in humanity.  I know the anti-transcendentalists are just trying to "keep it real" but I feel that that only seeing the bad in people is a very negative outlook on life, and who wants that?  I'd much rather be happy!


So, am I a transcendentalist?  To that question I answer, yes sir!

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FOR HALLE SIEBERT

When in the course of human events, one becomes too dependent on the over-the-top, flowery storylines of romantic comedies, it becomes necessary for that person to dissolve their emotional ties to this entity.

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all romantic comedies are equally wicked and should be completely removed from film selections everywhere.  These films infringe on people’s inalienable rights of life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness by creating false images of love and passion.  Movies are created to depict real events or tell stories that issue an influential morale; they are not created to instill a false sense of romance among teen girls and middle-age women.  It is the people’s right to burn and destroy films that violate this cinematic code of reality and truth.  To prove that romantic comedies are completely corrupt, let these facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have issued chains of suffering upon young and old men alike; bound by the love of their wives, these men are forced to rest their eyes upon these horrid images of sappy romance.  Too many hours have been wasted upon these mindless films.

They have created false images of love and passion in young girls’ minds making it nearly impossible for a suitor to sweep these women off their feet; they are immune to the mundane practices of real-life romance. 

These evil films have hurt the game of love in today’s society.  Men no longer have a chance to impress the female population with their offerings of admiration.

They have caused heightened expectations of how men should prove their love towards the women that they are currently pursuing.  The women will never be satisfied with a simple box of chocolates or a single flower.

These romantic disasters have caused men to appear unsatisfactory to the female population in this country.  Since women are no longer open to the gifts of love that these males are offering them, our population will eventually cease to exist; therefore, these films continue to threaten our very existence and vivacity.

Ultimately these films will tear our country to shreds in social frustration.  People will continue to be unsatisfied by the lack of companionship readily available in today’s society.  These films are nothing but malicious and cause much pain and disappointment among citizens today.

I, therefore, a young, American woman, by authority of my own experiences solemnly publish and declare my independence from romantic comedies.  I will no longer be bound by their ruthless hands of misconception of love and romance; I will pursue other ways of life.  I have the right to find happiness and if these films are hindering my ability to do so, I have the duty to burn and destroy these entities.  With firm reliance on the protection of divine adoration, I pledge my life to finding real romance and love in its sacred honor.

Halle Siebert

Novissima et acuratissima totius Americae

This is a map that was illustrated by Gerard Schagen of Amsterdam in 1671.  It depicts California as an island and only shows one great lake instead of four.  He largely detailed the interior of both North and South America with various animals, rivers, and mountain ranges.  He also included many ships at sea and an “image” of the native population in the bottom left corner.

One thing that I had noticed right away when I looked at this map was the illustration of the native population.  It is what Europeans of the time would normally perceive as the indigenous people of the Americas.  They are wearing minimal clothing, shooting arrows, and harvesting food.  This was very stereotypical and helped reinforce the notion that the native people were savages and less advanced than European society.  This relates to John Smith’s General History of Virginia.  He had depicted the natives as savages and barbarians, which was the common thought of the time, and this map is no exception to this thought.

I had also noticed the gold bars in the illustration in the bottom left corner.  This shows how the conquistadors and explorers commonly thought the Americas were littered with gold.  Many explorers only went over to America because of the hope to find gold, which would inevitably lead to personal glory.  Most of these men searched years and years for gold but turned up empty handed.  By including the gold bars in this picture, it helped keep the belief of gold in the Americas alive; it kept explorers traveling and going back to America.

There were also snakes illustrated in the picture as well.  I viewed this as a biblical illusion because snakes represent the devil and temptation.  Religion was a very important part of European society during this time, and many people thought that the natives were heathens and were “compelled to characterize native religion as idolatrous or as ‘Divell worship’.”  By including two snakes in this illustration, it kept people believing in this misconception of the Native Americans and their religion.

http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1671s2.jpg

Is the Hearing World Outspeaking Deaf Culture?

The documentary Sound and Fury really made me think about people's cultures and ways of life, and how different cultures collide and sometimes explode.  In this documentary it shows the tensions between the deaf world and the hearing world.  Before watching this I had never really given deaf culture much thought, I never knew how passionate they were about being deaf.  This video did an excellent job of showing both sides of the argument in my opinion, but it also brought up bigger questions about culture and right vs. wrong.

I am so glad that we had the opportunity to view this documentary in class because I learned a lot about the deaf world that I had never knew before.  I learned about how passionate and proud they are about being deaf and how they feel oppressed by the hearing world because the hearing world just doesn't understand them.  I found myself understanding and sympathizing with the two deaf parents and grandparents when they were saying that the cochlear implant was a bad thing not just for the children, but also for the deaf society -- it would be taking one of their members away from them.  I can totally see how this operation would be troubling and insulting to the deaf members of this family.

On the other hand, I also found myself agreeing with what the hearing members of the family were saying too.  I agreed that this operation would be beneficial to the baby and that it would provide him with more opportunities that he would not have had otherwise.  I can understand how the parents would want their child to have the ability to hear; both saw first hand what it was like for their loved ones to grow up and function as deaf Americans, they saw how difficult it was.  They just wanted their son to have the ability to go to a school and talk to interact with the hearing world.  However, I did not agree that it was abuse for the deaf parents to not implant their child; it was their personal preference.  Their children also had it easier because both parents were also hearing impared so they could teach them how to sign at an early age.

One thing that had troubled me throughout the whole documentary was how Peter, the deaf father, was complaining about the hearing world being unaccepting and ashamed of deaf citizens when he was extrememly close-minded himself.  I can understand why he was so against the hearing world, he had a difficult childhood and it is extremely hard to communicate with his deaf co-workers, but he could be a little more open to the hearing world.


Overall I found this video to be very eye-opening.  It showed the two different cultures in an unbiased way and presented good information for both arguments. It also brought up questions of what is right and what is wrong when raising a deaf child which sparked heated debates.