Friendships in "It Can't Happen Here"

     Last week my "Violence in American Art & Culture" class was split up into groups to tackle important passages in the novel "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. I was paired up with Enid and Ali and we discussed the topic of friendships which is found in chapter 20; (page 177 on my e-book). It stated:

     "Under a tyranny, most friends are a liability. One quarter of them turn "reasonable" and become your friends, one quarter are afraid to stop and speak and one quarter are killed and you die with them. But the blessed final quarter keep you alive." And it goes on beginning with the sentence, "when he was with Lorinda, gone was all the pleasant toying and sympathetic talk with which they had relieved boredom".

     My group agreed that this meant friendships and even love, may not have been real and true under a dictatorship. Everyone had to fend for themselves. Anyone was capable of turning their backs on each other at any given time. Doremus and Lorinda messed around for sure; whether it was talking or getting intimate. But, real feelings may not have existed between them. If society wasn't under the rule of Winthrop, would they be involved with each other? I think a lot of friendships and relationships in this type of environment, such as the one with Doremus and Lorinda, definitely served as a way to seek out information and provide a backbone to take action against those they opposed. For example, Lorinda encouraged Doremus to publish the newspaper article that ultimately landed him in jail. Close ties are dangerous and individuals who are associated with each other, may just be acquaintances. People had to be wise who they talked to and what words came out their mouth since fascism took over.

New York Historical Society

     On Wednesday, May 22, 2013, I went with my class to the New York Historical Society. It was my first time there and it was a honestly cool experience. Although, our trip to the MET was interesting, I feel this trip made me feel more engaged in learning about history, specifically about WWII. A major part of the reason as to why my experience in this exhibit was more fun and enticing was the layout and how everything was presented. Right when I walked in, there was a timeline wall and little table with an old radio in which a broadcast from back then was heard, as oppose to walking into a silent and dull atmosphere. The space of this exhibit wasn’t as spacious as the MET. However, I think it was enough space to allow individuals to move around and it was also due to the inward walls and architecture that is not seen in typical square rooms. I believe this time, the space allowed people to interact with everything they saw, instead of whispering to everyone around them. The total atmosphere in one word would be interactive. There was always something for guests to do, whether it was picking up a telephone and hearing a narrator discuss history or a story, pressing buttons or even watching videos. This made me want to keep walking through the entire exhibit with a sincere curiosity and explore more rather than walking around just to take notes.

     So I think the major thing that stuck out to me was the Travelers aid to resemble NYC. It was an exciting sight; there was a Statue of Liberty, bright flickering lights with one that stated, “cocktails”, and there was also the wonder wheel from Coney Island. It felt like home, even though we were already in New York City. This section was something that we consider the heart of this state. I picked up the phone and chose from the song selection which featured, “I’ll be Seeing You” by Frank Sinatra and Tommy Dorsey Orchestra or “Oklahoma” by Alfred Drake and chorus. Another thing that caught my attention was the wall that was black and blue and full of boats and had a city skyline in the background. It was about The Battle of the Atlantic and strategies the allies used to win the war. One strategy was turning out the lights all over the city, even from the Statue of Liberty to prevent German U-boat captains from spotting ship silhouettes at night. Coney Island also went pitch black. Now, imagine that! It’s pretty hard to think about this city known for its lights turning dark; and quite scary too.  One last thing that I found interesting was the section of the exhibition which had a wall with individuals who made a difference and made contributions throughout the war. Some people include, President FDR, Edwin Len, Jacob Lawrence, Masako Mary Yamada and Sam Fuller. It demonstrated how the military and navy was more integrated with people of different ethnicities as oppose to previous wars of the past.

     Before we went to the New York Historical Society, I remember my professor mentioning that the founders of this museum wanted to give off a positive portrayal of WWII, but it really did not sink in until my visit was over. I kept saying, I” like this museum better”. And, I realized it was because there wasn’t anything to dwell over or any graphic images that presented pain or ore that would linger in my head. I think the museum made me momentarily forget about the actual violence that is malevolent associated with any war. The New York Historical Society definitely wanted guests to feel supportive or just acknowledge that the time period in which the war occurred was not a total dark time in history. I feel the exhibition we saw at the MET about the Civil War felt as if they were just presenting facts and served as a reality of what really happened which made people cringe; it displayed things that maybe people don’t want to think about. On the other hand, the NYHS to me was more celebratory, showcasing how a nation overcame a hardship. It can be said that when we are presented information, we must take into account that there are always two sides to the story.

My trip to the MET

     Last Tuesday, I was actually excited to participate in a class field trip with my class to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It’s been quite a while since I have done so and it may have been my first time at the MET, as far as I can remember. As I first entered the Photography and the American Civil War exhibition, I felt thoroughly interested and curious to learn about details of the war I was still not aware of. The rooms were quite spacious, which was pretty convenient because although, there were a lot of people, it wasn’t too tight and allowed me to move around comfortably.  I believe the spatial design of the exhibition served a purpose to encourage communication between people viewing the artifacts. Obviously, there wouldn’t be loud chatter among individuals to discuss the artifacts because it would be disturbing to others trying to concentrate. But, I think the exhibition made people turn to each other and, say “wow”, or “look at this”. I know I did just that a few times. Moreover, I strongly believe the architecture of the exhibition was a way to establish a personal connection between the viewers and artifacts of history because people can imagine the open and empty space in their head filled with the people in the pictures or the war itself. I found that walking through the exhibition was very thought-provoking to me, as I was asking myself questions like, “how did the photographer feel taking these pictures?” or “why are everyone’s face in these photos are serious?”

     There are a lot of things that individuals can discuss about the Civil War exhibition. One thing that was showcased more times than once in the first room I walked in was President Abraham Lincoln. He was on pins and even a chessboard as part of a sense or patriotism and support during the election. There was a portrait of him without a beard, which was relatively weird. But, more importantly, there are other things that stood out to me more that made me wonder or cringe. A connection I made between two artifacts that were rooms apart were among the 1860s “Civil War Portrait Lockets” and 1863 “The Children of the Battlefield”.  Lockets were tinytypes set in brass and gold plates cases which featured portraits of family. They served as a powerful tool to help the subject and family survive or fear that that they may not live through battles. On the other hand, “The Children of the Battlefield”, one soldier was found dead with only a locket that had a portrait of three small children. Papers all over made an attempt to find out whose father were he. As a result, it came to the attention of Philinda Humston who has three children and hasn’t heard of her husband since the battle at Gettysburg in October 1866. It definitely showed me how lockets were powerful in many ways. It stood for something personal and for something that was used publically to discover families that were perhaps torn apart. Something I found interesting during that time period, was an artifact titled, “Union Private with Musket and Pistol, 1861-65”. Almost every portrait seen with soldiers on either side of the Civil War was seen with a type of weapon. It stated, “Evidence suggest given a choice, most soldiers preferred presenting themselves armed with more than one weapon.” The photography studios were readily equipped with these supplies. I believe that this is because as a solider they must have felt a sense of pride and a weapon served as their security. Lastly, the artifacts I feel are self-explanatory and provoked disturbance in a way  are “The Scorged Black” and portraits of soldiers with significant injuries that were used for medical purposes. I was most intrigued by their faces because they seemed serious and stern and I was wondering why not a lot of soldiers’ faces did not express agony and discomfort.

     Overall, I think the exhibition was interesting. It contained a lot of artifacts that showed different aspects of the war. I think photography was an interesting medium to observe the war because like many say, pictures tell a thousand words. They represent stories within themselves. I think we can appreciate photography even more because we can see the great lengths that photographers like Mathew B. Brady, did to capture a captivating image; whether it was carrying a ton of equipment everywhere or even putting themselves in danger. I wish this exhibition could’ve had more of those telescopes where you see through it and the image is 3D and its right in front of you. I found that to be really cool and a great way to see something up close.

 

 

Revised-"Walk of Death"

     Based on a comment I have received so far on specifically my old post titled, "Walk of Death", I am going to edit it based on the constructive criticism offered by user Pauly_jay920. I feel it is very helpful when a reader points out ideas or mistakes  that perhaps the writer did not notice themselves because that's how your own writing abilities improve. Moreover, I feel that commentary from others can drastically make your writing piece way better than the first time you wrote it, but cannot always make it perfect because there are readers that may want you to elaborate on different things or whose writing style is different from your own.

 

      The Trail of Tears has always been a reoccurring topic discussed in history classes I have taken. Just as we’re (students) are taught, they were forced off their land and were considered, “backward and ignorant”, therefore had to learn the Christian way of living. However, many of the individuals interviewed in the film we saw in class stated that we need to learn about the history of the Cherokee population because a lot of facts are left unsaid and I feel that’s what I really gained insight to. I always thought they were forced to do what they were told by the whites such as changing their lifestyle and learning the European culture. But, I learned they actually wanted to adapt to white customs in order to keep their homeland. And, most of all they were successful in doing everything the right way, regarding changing their ways and participating in the missionary schools. Nevertheless, chaos still broke out when two leaders, Elias Boudinot and John Ridges wanted to marry white women. Now, the issues among the Cherokee people focused on “color”. They proved they were capable of doing the same things whites can do, yet this served as a new excuse for them to suffer from oppression.

       It just doesn’t seem to make sense that a group of people were treated less than humans by the same people who welcomed them with open arms at one point. Looking at the big picture, the real reason of it was purely greed. Wealth was the motive, which is exactly what President Jackson wanted.  Assuredly, he had support to carry out the Cherokee genocide and obviously the power to do so. It was survival of the fittest, a concept in Social Darwinism. Regarding the Cherokee population, money was not something to fight for. To them, real value and worth stemmed from the comfort of living on their land and the beautiful mountains that surrounded it. But, European-Americans intent for the removal of Native Americans was profit. Everything had to be done to make sure wealth was in the hands of the whites and only them which is why the Cherokees couldn’t testify against whites, sell land, mine for gold or have freedom of speech. Even the sympathizers and intellectuals had to be eliminated. Among such people were some Americans and members of Congress like David "Davy" Crockett.

     As we discussed, global genocide is evident throughout history as a repeating event. A historic reference can be the Holocaust, in which millions of Jews were killed by the Nazi regime under control of Adolf Hitler. And unfortunately, we’re not safe today either. Greed drives people to do bizarre things, whether it’s on a big or small scale. A lot of times, wants are placed on top of needs. It  makes me think of a small example like the MTA and their greed when it comes to raising up the fares, with the poor economy and middle class struggling enough already. But, of course, there are always excuses as to why their actions are justified.

Textual Works by Paul Laurence Dunbar

"The Lynching of Jube Benson" by Paul Laurence Dunbar, is a text told as a story by one of the main characters, Dr. Melville. It started off as a discussion on bout the desire to witness a live lynching, but Dr. Melville actually participated in one in which he felt guilty about. Jube Benson was an African American who was a server to Dr. Melville and a white young teenager in town, Annie. Benson was trusted and always by Dr. Melville's side, even when he turned ill. The doctor grew to love Benson. However, one day, Annie was found beaten and raped and when asked who did such a thing, her last words were, "that black", before she died in the arms of Dr, Melville. Immediately assuming it was Jube Benson, the town and doctor searched for him and lynched him. However, after it was too late, they soon discovered it was actually a white man who committed this murder, whose face was smeared with dirt to resemble an African American.

Another text was Paul Laurence Dunbar called, "The Sport of the Gods", surrounded a wealthy white family who owned a mansion and cottage in which Berry Hamilton, a former slave became a butler for them. Through years of catering to them, Berry gained acceptance, trust and acquired the Oakley's cottage to live in, while creating a family of his own with Fannie, the housekeeper. All was well between the Oakleys and Hamiltons until Maurice's brother, Frank discovered that his money was gone from his bureau. Maurice explained to Frank, that negroes of their present day were becoming less faithful and less contented and understanding the value of money, thus stealing more than what met their immediate necessities such as food. He suspected that Berry Hamilton had been stealing from them all of the years that he had known him, despite Berry's plea to believe he wouldn't do such a thing. As a result, Berry was found guilt and arrested . In the text, we find out Berry was indeed innocent of something he was falsely accused for.

Being written around the same time, these two texts by Dunbar are very similar because they both involve former slaves that were falsely accused of wrongdoing. The norm of society back then always pointed to African Americans for everything that was looked down upon. The two characters, Jube Benson and Berry Hamilton were described as loyal, grateful and trusted by those who cared for them like Dr. Melville and Maurice Oakley. However, both of these men turned against their servants and believed the typical stereotype of the time period-it was the black man who did it.

In "The Lynching of Jube Benson", Benson tells Dr. Melville, "'W'y, doctah,' he exclaimed in the saddest voice I have ever heard, 'w'y, doctah! I ain't stole nuffin' o' yo'n, an' I was comin' back". Similarly, in "The Sport of Gods", Berry turns to Maurice and tells him, "You believed a thing lak dat aftah all de yeahs I been wid you?" I believe these are the two lines in each texts in which the innocent victims are basically begging for their life and also in disbelief that they are being accused of something sinful by a person they were always there for. The ways in which these two stories are different is the punishment that was condemned for Berry and Benson's (false) wrongdoings. Berry had to serve 10 years of hard labor, and Benson was lynched. These were two scenarios that was feared by their fellow persons of color during Post-Reonstruction. As described in "The Sport of Gods", the influence that stemmed from slavery was still relevant. They had to go against their own kind for the white man's displeasure for their own interests and safety.

"You Can Do Anything With an English Major!"

     Yesterday, I attended the, “You Can Do Anything With an English Major” event, hosted by the Writing and Literature Major of the English department; which our Professor said, basically featured guest speakers who discussed the ways in which being an English major helped them with their career paths and achieve their goals. Unfortunately, I missed the first half of the event, when a majority of the speakers shared their stories. However, I was there for one story by Professor Hector Fernandez. He was discussing how being an English major, helped him on his journey throughout law school. Employers and individuals who looked at his qualifications liked the fact that he had essential writing skills; something that is greatly beneficial. He also made a career out of banking before becoming a business advisor at LaGuardia Community College and running his own paralegal program. Just with his story, it is evident that it served the purpose of this event in the first place; to demonstrate how an English major can provide different career paths, instead of positions people may associate it with such as being an English teacher or an author. I thought it was interesting how this major can come in handy for many employers; and know that it doesn’t set an absolute strict limit on what you want to do.

     Moreover, there were a lot of advice shared among the panel of speakers and questions asked, that I will pass along myself.  The topic of books was mentioned and it seemed like all the speakers had something significant to say in regards to how they personally feel about them. Books were described as a way to transcend into another world to better understand different types of cultures and a great way to network or start a random conversation. Some suggested titles were, “Angry Black White Boy”, by Adam Mansbach and “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. It was advised that if one becomes a writer, to market yourself and manage your money because if you make a huge profit like J.K. Rowling for the Harry Potter series, you have to know what to do with it or else you’ll end up with nothing.

     Overall, this presentation was very informative. Some things that I took away with me and what others may find useful is to stop doubting, reach high and to absorb as much information as possible while I’m still in school. A major point I think they were trying to convey is that, English may not be a popular choice of major but there are opportunities out there. Also, it not about English, it’s really about the skills you develop and how you choose to use them that truly matters; which is a mindset that can be applied to any major you choose to declare.

Walk of Death

      The Trail of Tears has always been a reoccurring topic discussed in history classes I have taken. Just as we’re (students) are taught, they were forced off their land and were considered, “backward and ignorant”, therefore had to learn the Christian way of living. However, many of the individuals interviewed in the film we saw in class, stated that we need to learn about the history of the Cherokee population because a lot of facts are left unsaid and I feel that’s what I really gained insight to. I always thought they were forced to do what they were told by the whites such as changing their lifestyle and learning the European culture. But, I learned they actually wanted to adapt to white customs in order to keep their homeland. And, most of all they were successful in doing so. Doing everything the right way, regarding changing their ways and participating in the missionary schools, chaos still broke out when two leaders, Elias Boudinot and John Ridges wanted to marry white women. Now, the issues among the Cherokee people were about “color”. They proved they are capable of the same things white can do, yet this served as a new excuse for them to suffer from oppression.

       It just doesn’t seem to make sense that a group of people were treated less than humans by the same people who welcomed them with open arms at one point. Looking at the big picture, the real reason of it was purely greed. Wealth was the motive, which is what President Jackson wanted and of course he had the support in the Cherokee genocide and obviously the power to do so. It was survival of the fittest, a concept in Social Darwinism. In the case of the Cherokee population, money was something to fight for, not for them, but for the whites which is why the Cherokees couldn’t testify against whites, sell land, mine for gold or have freedom of speech. Even the sympathizers and intellectuals had to be eliminated.

     Everything has to be done to make sure wealth was in the hands of the whites and only them. As we discussed, global genocide is evident throughout history as a repeating event. And unfortunately, we’re not safe today either. Greed drives people to do bizarre things, whether it’s on a big or small scale. A lot of times, wants are placed on top of needs. It  makes me think of a small example like the MTA and their greed when it comes to raising up the fares, with the poor economy and middle class struggling enough already. But, of course, there are always excuses as to why their actions are justified.