Posts Tagged ‘America’

Hello.

I’m sitting here reading about Native Americans and the European settlers in the early days of what is now the USA. I’ve stumbled across a few really interesting facts, that I figured I might share.

First of all, how do you picture Native Americans, or as they were called 300 years ago, the Indians? Chances are you picture a person in an elaborate leather/feather costume, riding a horse with a bow and arrow, like the hunters of the great plains regions. Kinda like this:

Well the interesting thing about this, is that although there were horses on the american continents millions of years ago, they died out. The Native Americans did not have access to horses until the Spanish settlers brought them over in the early 1800s. Also, they did not have bow and arrows, not until the eastern communities brought the technology over. Strange, huh?

Well, it gets better. We all know how this story goes, Native American culture flourishes, then the western settlers come along with their guns and shoot everyone. Right? Wrong! Actually, what killed most of the Indians were not bullets or cannon shells, but what has been termed “the biological unification of mankind”. People from Europe brought over strange diseases that killed off many of the natives. In the 1760s, the British even ransacked smallpox hospitals for contaminated beddings that they gave the natives as gifts. So it wasn’t all accidental!

I shall end this brief history lesson with a quote from my college curriculum:

“The destroyed cultures represented a kind of ecological harmony that was obliterated by selfish capitalist and Christian Europeans.”

Vegard

Share

This was an essay I wrote in forty minutes about television’s impact on Presidential elections. That source shit is just useless, ignore it. It’s for an AP Class, and I thought it was fitting and whatnot (not to mention I’m lazier than fuck!)

In a modern society where there is more focus on images than issues, one must ask how America got to this point. The answer is simple: television. Throughout mid to late 1900s, television has changed the outlook of the American people—especially in politics. American politicians became celebrities instead of leaders; they focus more on image instead of issues. Television has not, as many think, had a positive impact on Presidential Elections.

Since the 1960’s, television has influenced Presidential elections. Whether from a serious news reporter or a satirical talk show host such as Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, the American people are getting different aspects of their Presidential hopefuls than they would otherwise. In the 1960 Presidential debates—a pioneer voyage in itself—Americans began focusing on the image instead of the details. Too engrossed in the aesthetic differences between Nixon and Kennedy, the latter got more support despite the fact that those who listened to the debate on the radio (instead of watching it on the TV) thought that the two had a draw. (Source C) Kennedy’s victory was not necessarily a content victory; however, it was certainly an image victory. Is this focus on image a horrid development? Maybe not. Dr. Stanton said that “As we grew, we lost [a] feeling of direct contact—television has now restored it.” (Source A) With a rapidly growing country, not every American person can meet the President, the Governor, or even the Mayor. Television has brought civilians closer than they ever would be to the Politicians, but in doing so has also highlighted the triumph of image over content. Had Richard Nixon been a little younger, or perhaps even John McCain in this last election, who would know how the elections would have faired? One commentator concluded that “An effective President must be every year more concerned with projecting images of himself.” (Source C) In modern society, most reasonable people would have to agree with that statement.


To continue, every single Presidential election is influenced by television, and therefore Presidents and politicians listen to the popular talk show hosts instead of the people themselves. A surprising number of people listen to one-sided, politically passionate talk show hosts discussing the disgusting actions of the other side while ignoring their own side. Whether it be a conservative talk show host or a liberal reporter—Americans rarely get both sides, and therefore make biased opinions because of those biased hosts. There is no voice of the American people, no one person represents such a vast and diverse span of opinions and attitudes. Presidents listen to the talk show hosts or reporters that are leaning towards their side. When Cronkite reported that the war was a draw and America needed to get out of Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson watched and concluded that Cronkite was the voice of the American people, and therefore the President should listen. Johnson did listen. Within weeks, Johnson announced that he was “ending the air and naval bombardment in most of Vietnam.” (Source E) Though Americans did not know about how Vietnam was fairing, they and Johnson were still lead to make a decision from a biased opinion. In modern days, these talk shows effect Presidential elections vastly. Americans do not get a clear, unbiased opinion from listening to Glenn Beck all day nor do they get a clear unbiased opinion from watching CNN. These news channels steer the American people from making a fair decision to whatever the passionate talk show host feels. Instead of a well-informed vote, Americans make ill-informed choices for Political Elections.

The electronic revolution of the last fifty years has had a serious effect on political outcomes. However, the television has not had a positive impact on Presidential and political elections. Television keeps Americans just as ill-informed as they would have been otherwise, and even a little more biased. It focuses on image over content and makes the youngest, or most attractive person be more likely to win. In a constantly growing, constantly changing society, the American people do not need to make any uninformed choices in politics, especially in Presidential elections.

That’s it! I hate English! Have a delightful day!

Love,

Elizabeth!

Share

Let’s talk about love!

I was always taught that boy meets girl, they fall in love, get married, then forget the world.

That’s not true! I know that it isn’t true, and yet I still can’t help but think it. Right now, I’m accounted for, but that doesn’t mean that I expect to marry the fellow, or that I expect for us to live happily ever after. It doesn’t work like that!

What are some misconceptions of love, you may ask? Here are a few. People my age and of my generation are under the impression that the right person will meet all of our needs. We, in this case being the ladies of this generation, are looking for a man to sweep us away, take away all our problems, and be the only thing we need in the world. That is not and never will be the case. Expecting for a man to be almost omniscient, all-knowing, all-compassionate, love-machine. It wont happen. That’s too much for one man, too much for one person. The only way for us to be happy with another person—or even by ourselves—is if we rely on more than one person, and especially ourselves. We need to be willing to take responsibility for our own happiness, for our own actions, for our own well-being.
To continue, we are under the impression that we can change other people. We are under the impression that we can transform them from an irresponsible, relationship fearing mess to a family guy. That doesn’t happen. There is one person that you can change, and guess who that is? Yourself. Thomas a Kempis said, “Be not angry that you cannot make another as you wish them to be, since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be.”
Next, we think that love is a feeling. We think that those butterflies in our stomach are because of love. That the initial and absolute bliss that we feel around someone else is because we are in love. Not true! It is temporary and will go away! Love isn’t a feeling, it’s action. It is doing something for someone you care about—whether it be not talking smack or letting that person borrow your history notes. Love isn’t those butterflies, it isn’t that bliss, it is something so much more supreme, so much more satisfying.
Finally, we’re under the opinion that if it is true love, we don’t have to work for it. We’re under the impression that if it is supposed to work out, it will. That isn’t the case. Love is compromise, love is argument, love is everything. It’s more than just the picnics and paddle boats. It is the time together and the time apart; it is the walks in the forest and the distant phone calls; it is the happy times and the sad times. Love is complex, and we are under the impression that it is the most simple thing in the world!

Now, above it sounds like I am supporting the idea that there is the “one and only” someone. That isn’t the case. All people are loveable. I could conceivably, and I’m sure as happily as can be expected, live the rest of my life with any man I know. It’s about where he is, where I am, and the chance of our meeting. I could get married to the fellow I’m seeing right now, or I could get married to that guy I nod at in the hallway. There isn’t a predestined man that I will fall for. There isn’t a person that I am supposed to marry. There’s a chance.
We always look at others and at chance as if nothing else could happen, as if this is the only way for it to work out. That’s never the case! It is luck. There is good in everyone. If I marry a fellow and love him with all of my heart and he dies, guess what? I can marry another! Will that make either of the relationships not matter as much? No. They’d both be meaningful. Love is love is love.
Do I agree with polygamy? Not particularly. But I am fond of the idea to love as many people as possible as much as possible.

Eh, I guess my point is that I DON’T KNOW WHAT LOVE IS (or perhaps I do… I don’t know!) But it’s late and I meant to do my history homework and I didn’t because I’m stupid. So. Have a delightful day.

I love you!

Love,
Elizabeth <3

Share