Love, Death, and Literature

The concept of love and death in literature and television and other medias has evolved and changed throughout the ages, moving throughout societies and cultures to influence readers, listeners, and viewers.  There are few emotions as powerful as love and few events as powerful as death.  Throughout written history, these two concepts have been used by writers of all medias to get their audiences to understand the point of the story, to teach a lesson, or to simply tug at heartstrings and evoke overwhelming emotions.

The sign of a good book, opera, television show, etc is when the audience is drawn in and the characters come alive.  We see it happen again and again, we talk about these characters as being real, live people instead of two dimensional characters created from someone’s mind.  We watch the shows, read the books, and feel the emotions these characters are feeling.  When discussing a particular show or analyzing a book, I think it’s more common to speak as though the characters are real people and their good times and bad times as real events instead of just a show with actors portraying people who don’t really exist.

And yet, for these characters, the emotions and events they experience can be just as real as real-live events can be.  Love and death are two central ideas throughout literature and other media that resonate with readers and viewers.  Nothing is so wonderful as finding the love of your life and nothing is so horrible as having them taken from you.  And death is the ultimate end to a relationship.  This has been used and exploited throughout written history (and I’m sure prehistory as well).  I watched the House season finale a couple weeks ago, and for the life of me, I cannot get it out of my head.  It was so well done, so powerfully written and so heartwrenchingly sad that I cannot forget it.  I think the only time I have cried so much watching (of all things) a television show was when Denny died on Grey’s Anatomy.  But that’s the whole point of these events – to bring about an emotional reaction from the viewers.  And when it is done well, not only do you wonder what will happen next, but you feel deeply for these characters who don’t exist. 

And who can say that the story of Tristan and Iseult does not move them?  If you do not know what I am talking about – read the medieval story or watch the opera.  I suppose you can watch the recent movie made as well, but the written story and the opera are much much better.  By the time you are through with the story, not only are you examining yourself for the lessons the writer was trying (successfully) to convey, but you wish and hope – somewhat irrationally – that somehow things turned out differently and that maybe the writer got it wrong. 

The power of love and the power of death and the emotions both bring to people watching or reading cannot be denied.  Witnessing the joy of found love are great things to watch, and when done well, cause a yearning inside me to experience a love that cannot be shaken by time, outside forces or even death. 

Americana

As hard as it is to actually define what an “American” culture is these days, there are some things that are inextricably linked to the notion of an American way of life. These activities, foods, clothing, etc, can be defined as being a part of “Americana”.  As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, Americana is

“Material(s) relating to American history, folklore, or geography or considered to be typical of American culture”.

In a society as richly diverse as American society, and with globalization moving full force across the globe, sometimes those things that are inherently American can get blurred and fudged or even looked down upon.  You always hear people say “as American as apple pie” or some other phrase.  I’d like to go over a few things that I love that fit the Americana mold.

I went to a baseball game last night (LA Dodgers at the Chicago Cubs – Cubs won).  There are a few things I require when I go to a baseball game - most of them food-oriented.  This is because no matter where you go in the country, food at a baseball park is always the same.  The teams may be different (since I haven’t lived in the same place longer than a year, my loyalties change with the winds), the souvenirs different and sometimes just weird (ie the Angels’ Rally Monkey of 2002 World Series fame – I was raised an Angels fan as much as you can be an Angels fan without paying attention to it).  But the food is always the same and I really enjoy getting a hot dog, cracker jacks and peanuts.  And then there are the songs – the National Anthem at the start of every game – done well it is absolutely phenomenal – and the “Baseball anthem” in “Take Me Out to the Ballgame”.  What other sport takes a break to sing a song about food at a game and rooting for your team?  None that I know of.  But that is what is so great about the traditions surrounding baseball.  And it is most certainly an example of Americana. 

When I think of Americana today, I think of apple pie, quilts (the first patchwork quilts were developed on the American Frontier when every scrap of fabric needed to be used because it was all so precious), baseball, jazz, swing, Coca-cola, McDonalds and all “fast food”, technology like Apple and Microsoft, Ford, Chevrolet, American Football, basketball, the Greek System on college campuses, the First Amendment.  I could go on and on and on.  The globalization of the American culture has caused our culture to seem less American as more and more cultures around the world have embraced (willingly or reluctantly) American ideals.  Sometimes, certain aspects of our culture aren’t fantastic (like how we have become a nation of fatties or that the election process has completely taken over everyone’s thoughts even though there are many many more issues more important).  But name what you think is the perfect culture, and I’ll laugh in your face.  No culture is perfect, but I am being perfectly honest when I say that I love Americana.  It should be embraced by Americans, not constantly put down in an effort to please those around the world who don’t like it.  Sure, the bad things should be continually worked on so that our culture can strive towards total harmony.  But never should Americana be dismissed as insignificant.  It has shaped our lives, shaped the world. 

I love Americana, it should be cherished as every culture should be cherished.  It should be respected and embraced, but also evolve constantly to not only reflect the generations, but move towards a better culture, a respectful culture.

Random Thought 7

Knowing your faults.

Okay, so I know what my faults are – in fact, I think I can accurately say that one of my biggest faults is that I talk a lot.  I like to talk.  A lot.  And I do.  And that’s a pretty hard fault to deal with.  All though, I suppose if all of our faults were easy to get rid of, then we wouldn’t have any problems, now would we?

So everyone tells me I talk a lot, and when I say everyone, I mean everyone.  From my sisters to my grandparents, at one work and then the other.  I just had a conversation with my supervisor because one of the attorneys I sit for thinks I talk a lot and is too busy to deal with it.  Seriously.

The issue that arises out of this particular fault is how to tell the person (in this case, me) they talk to much without hurting their feelings or implying that you don’t like them?  I have no problem telling people I love I talk a lot because they know that if I say that, I am just recognizing my own faults in others and am just saying it to be helpful.  That and if I think someone talks a lot, they have to be talking a lot.  But how do people who don’t have this problem go around telling people they do?  It’s a conundrum that happens with a lot of faults – even (and maybe especially) when the person at fault recognizes the problem.

For me, I just don’t know how to stop talking.  I’m a talkaholic.  There’s all the BS about stopping and thinking about what you are saying because then if you actually think about it, you may realize that it doesn’t necessarily need to be said, but I feel that it needs to be said.  No matter what it is. 

I’m a very open person, and I can readily acknowledge things I need to work on.  But the problem arises that others aren’t willing to step up and say, look, you are doing this, it bothers me and I wish you would stop because I like you as a person and don’t want to not talk to you at all ever again because of this one issue.  I mean, I get it if you think they are a horrible person or if the person is doing something physically/mentally harmful, but the little annoyances should be acknowledged and dealt with so you can move on. 

There are three things that keep people from just being open with the people they are close to:

1.  The fear that it will create an awkward situation

2.  The inability to adequately say it without hurting feelings or giving the impression that the person is not liked

3.  The time to see it straightened out.

People are people, sometimes a situation can’t be helped but people are afraid that it will create a poor working situation or that feelings will be hurt or whatever.  And then, if something is said, they want it fixed right away because they don’t recognize that it takes time to fix a fault.  I can’t stop talking overnight, I can’t just stop something that is second nature to me right away. 

And at the same time, if someone is aware that this is an issue, then maybe it needs to be recognized that it is a problem.  It really bothers me when people say that they have a certain characteristic but they don’t care and they are going to whatever they want and don’t care who they hurt.  I mean, I am most certainly comfortable in who I am and I’m not going to change that for one person, or even two.  It’s taken me a long time to be comfortable in my skin and now that I am, I’m not going to change that.  But what is important is that if you recognize that something is a fault, then you should constantly be working to fix it.  People have to continually evolve and change to adapt to the people and the world around them.  I’ve moved a lot in the last few years, and I think I understand better than some that while you shouldn’t change who you are for one person or even two, you need to be continuously changing because you are always going to encounter different people and you have to be able to deal well with them so that you can survive in this world.  It’s a fine line people have to walk and sometimes I wonder if people stray from the line on purpose so they don’t have to set as high standards for themselves and others.  But it has to be that way.  You cannot remain stagnant in this world, you have to change throughout your life.

But these things take time. . . Rome wasn’t built in a day, you know. 

One More Hurdle Overcome

Yesterday, a decision made by the California Supreme Court rocked the nation – or should have.  The ramifications of this decision will be felt for a long time to come, especially if events continue as I think they will.  What the heck am I talking about?  Well, unless you live under a rock, you should have some idea.  The California State Supreme Court yesterday threw out Proposition 22 after it was in place in California since 2000.  Proposition 22 was huge because it defined marriage as between a man and a woman and stated that California would only recognize marriages between a man and a woman from other states. 

In a state with as broad of a political spectrum as California – this was a very contentious statement.  Orange County is one of the most conservative counties in the country.  No joke.  And then San Francisco and Berkeley are some of the most liberal cities in the country.  A law like this caused a lot of debate.  I’m not surprised that Proposition was both reviewed by the State Supreme Court and thrown out.  What surprised me more was that it took so long to do. 

There are the usual arguments, but I think the broader spectrum of this argument must be realized.  Now that the California State Supreme Court has had its say, the next step is to take this to the US Supreme Court.  Now, the thing is, a lot of people support a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Here’s the problem with that – the Constitution is meant to guarantee rights, it is not there to take them away from a group of people.  An Amendment banning gay marriage is not only an abuse of the law, but a travesty against human rights.  The only court that can now throw out this decision is the US Supreme Court.  Interestingly enough, I believe the US Supreme Court, though conservative in make-up, has deliberately shied away from these hot-button topics.  Everyone thought that when William Rehnquist died and Sandra Day O’Connor retired, the influx of conservative, Catholic justices would lead to the resurrection of debates on issues like abortion, the definition of marriage, the death penalty, etc.  That hasn’t happened.  The US Supreme Court has not addressed those issues and I think they will only do so when it becomes absolutely necessary to.  As to what their decision would be if confronted with the decision made by the California State Supreme Court, I have no idea what they would do.  It’ll be interesting/terrifying to see what happens.   

For those who think there is a “Gay Agenda” (you know who you are) and that the only people who support this are part of some conspiracy – I am not gay, I don’t follow some agenda and I am not part of any conspiracy.  I am enjoyably straight; I love men.  This issue is a big deal for me because it involves the interpretation and the altering of the Constitution.  Everyone wants to force their ideas on other people, but the thing is, we live in a society that must be as equal as possible in the eyes of the Constitution and the law.  I’m not talking about a socialist state (NO SOCIALISM) – I’m talking about peolpe having the opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It’s when I see people living as citizens under the Constitution of the United States who are treated as second-class that I get really angry.

For those who think that gay marriage will destroy/has destroyed the institution of marriage – well, it isn’t gay couples who made the divorce rate 50%.  It isn’t gay couples who get married in the eyes of whatever church and the state during a drunken run to Las Vegas and then break up after 3 months of marriage.  And the thing is, for those who blame the “free love” movement (ie hippie movement) of the 1960′s for ruining the moral fabric of our society, here is another thought for you – maybe if people concentrated less on forcing their beliefs and views on others, and instead focused on living their own lives and trying to get along with other people, then maybe our moral fabric wouldn’t have so many holes in it.  Allowing same-sex marriage does not infringe upon the rights of other married couples.  I would argue that it solidifies the idea of marriage even more because it is not exclusive to a certain group of people.   

As to the issue of religious belief: I don’t care what the churches say.  As a religion, it is their right to deny a couple marriage.  In fact, within the Catholic Church, a priest can deny any couple he feels is not ready to undertake the Sacrament of Marriage.  Unfortunately now, I think that people are less willing to actually listen when a priest says you need to re-examine things, but that’s a whole other topic.  But anyway, the last time I checked, there was no official religion of the United States.  In fact, the First Amendment very nicely prevented that for the exact reason that is drilled into our heads in 5th grade US History class.  The Founding Fathers were very aware of the fact that people came to the US to enjoy religious freedom.  Throughout US history it has been like this.  So, there is this nice clause in our laws called the “Separation of Church and State”.  Just because a church says no doesn’t mean that the state has the right to say no as well.  I will reiterate that I am a practicing Catholic.  I go to Mass every week and I truly enjoy it.  But I see no justification for forcing my beliefs on others. 

There is an argument out there that tries to walk the middle ground and says that a union between gay couples can be called a civil union or whatever, and that a union between straight couples can be called marriage.  They want to say that they don’t care what gay couples do – just don’t call it “marriage”.  Well, that opens up a whole other can of worms, because then you get into an issue called “separate but equal”.  Does that phrase sound familiar to anyone?  If you don’t want to call gay marriage a marriage, then you cannot call ANY civil union a marriage.  The term “marriage” should then be completely taken out of the law and relegated solely to the churches and their religions.  Every union within the eyes of the state should therefore be a civil union.  I’m totally fine with that, and if that gets the people who say “I don’t care what you do, just don’t call it marriage” off everyone’s backs, then fine, let’s do that.  But I hope you realize how ridiculous that is.  We have learned that the concept of “separate but equal” does not work in this society.  We learned that lesson, oh, about 50-60 odd years ago.  I think there would be less of an issue if married couples didn’t enjoy certain rights that non-married couples don’t enjoy.  Marriage most certainly is an institution.  There are certain things, like tax breaks, parental rights, death-bed rights, and inheritance issues, that clearly show discrimination if a couple, two consenting adults, want to have those rights afforded to them but cannot.  It can be equated to the old laws which banned a Black man and a White woman (or vice versa) from marrying.  If you allow your religious beliefs to blind you to these facts, then you are no better than those you claim are forcing their beliefs on you. 

There is another issue involved here that I feel the need to address.  7 State Justices ruled on a Proposition voted for by California voters.  This article from the Wall Street Journal says that the Supreme Court has no right to overturn something voted on by the public and that we should just wait for the democratic process to sort things out, citing Roe v. Wade as an example of what not to do.  Well, sorry, sometimes it can’t work like that.  The Supreme Courts, both Federal and State, exist for the express purpose that was put to use yesterday by the California State Supreme Court.  The practice of judicial review (as I have stated in another post), is there in order to put a check on the government and keep it from allowing the will of the majority to bulldoze the rights of the minority.  This is really important, here.  The Civil Rights movement has shown very clearly how the will of the majority can trample over the rights of the minority.  I see no real difference in this situation.  The majority of voters did vote in Proposition 22, that cannot and will not be denied.  However, as has been proven before and will be proven again, the Supreme Court is there to keep laws that blatantly violate peoples’ rights from staying in effect.  That is why our government is a Democratic Republic instead of a true Democracy – to protect the rights of those in the minority.  The minute the rights of the minority are ignored in favor of the will of the majority is the minute our nation’s infrastructure is destroyed.

I truly hope that this is a new turning point for the freedoms both enjoyed and abused by straight couples.  Now, we can only look to the future and hope that it brings truly equal rights to all US citizens.

(I found this article called “Under God” that states very succinctly much of how I feel.  Please read it for further reference.)

Peace. . .

And the true meaning of heroism. . .

Today I was sitting at work, trying to find something to do when I went online to CNN.com to check out the news.  Usually the stories online are depressing and sad and just bother me.  But today, a “front page story” (I don’t know if online news media has a front page anymore which is the reason for the quotes), caught my eye and moved me to tears for an entirely different reason.  This article (found here) was about a Rwandan woman who weaves baskets for a living.  Very unassuming at first, but then, as you read on, you find that her entire family was killed during the Genocide in 1994.  And that she sits next to one of the men responsible for killing her family and shares meals with him.  And then the story gets interesting. 

You see, this woman is a master weaver and she weaves these baskets with a friend – the wife of the man who killed her family.  Because of the healing process that has occurred in Rwanda, the true meaning of forgiveness has played out in this country so devastated by hatred.  Iphigenia Mukantabana, the weaver, her family’s killer, Jean-Bosco Bizimana, and his wife, Epiphania Mukanyndwi have come together and sewed the seeds of peace through basket weaving. 

Basket weaving is crucial to the survival of Rwandan women.  Because of the genocide, Rwandan women all of a sudden had to find a new way to care for their families, or what was left of them.  The Rwandan “Peace baskets”, originally sold by Macy’s in 2005, but now sold all over the internet, help these women survive and take care of their families, but also sew the seeds of peace.  I remember when these first were sold by Macy’s and the fervor they caused.

Rwanda still has its problems, especially since the issues of the history of their Civil War and the genocide are still being argued (you can learn more in this Wikipedia article).  However, it seems that, through the efforts of peace-building, Rwanda is healing and moving on after over half a century of war. 

So much can be learned from that CNN.com article, if only people are willing to open their eyes and see it.  This man, who destroyed lives, apologized in front of his entire community in an effort to help the healing process.  The women joined together and now share their lives.  Can you imagine any of this happening in the US?  Killers and victims’ families coming together?  I suppose remorse is necessary in these situations, but how willing are we to forgive those who have harmed us?  In a society where revenge is the norm, is it possible to do what the Rwandans are doing? 

This is truly an example of heroism and humanity.  If only more people could use this story as an example, maybe then there would be more peace in the world.

The Constitution – A Living Document?

“Living” documents – putting into use documents written hundreds, even thousands of years ago and justifying their interpretation.

So many people have heard of and used the phrase “living document”.  To define it for those who may not be familiar with the term, a living document (as defined by Wikipedia) is “a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group”.  An example of what some believe should be a living document is the United States Constitution.  I have some interesting thoughts regarding this, but I will say that many see the idea of a “living document” as a way to interpret and change ideas within the living document without actually changing the written words themselves, which can bring about some very sticky situations (as evidenced many times in US History).

The idea that a living doucment should be continuously updated and reinterpreted based on the society and the changes in the cultural norms is a very contentious theory.  The Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as the ultimate law of the US.  It was meant to be a stepping stone, a basis for the interpretation and the founding and rejection of new laws throughout the US.  The Supreme Court, during the infancy of the US, established a pattern whereby the Court could interpret the laws set out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they saw fit.  It’s kind of what started the whole appointing Justices based on political party and personal views thing - of course they are going to interpret the Constitution based on their personal beliefs, no matter what anyone says.  The practice of judicial review, as part of the checks and balances of the Legislative and Executive bodies of the US goverment, was put in place in the US by the famous Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803.  Judicial review not only checks the other bodies of the government, but also controls the laws put into place throughout the country.  Judicial review is one of the main ideas that sets forth the ideal that the Constitution is a ”living document”. 

Our Constitution inherently makes the idea of a “living document” an argument at all because the Constitution itself cannot be altered.  At all.  The text within the Constitution is the same as when it was ratified by the colonies in the late 1700′s.  What actually changes the Constitution are Amendments to the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to Constitution.  Everyone should be familiar with the first two (Freedom of Speech, etc, and the Right to Bear Arms) and the other eight are also laws that protect the ideals the Founding Fathers thought were inherent rights that people should enjoy in the US.  These have not been altered either, but amended by the other 17 Amendments to the Constitution. 

Now here is where it gets interesting.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have not been edited, but reinterpreted.  And depending on the Justices and the make-up of the Supreme Court, it has been reinterpreted in many ways throughout the 200-odd years of US History.  So it has been considered by many to be a living document.  I, personally, believe that it kind of has to be a living document.  We have shown that it cannot be interpreted strictly based on its content because the Constitution was left purposefully vague in certain areas.  The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed and obviously important, but any more detailed than that, and you are going to have arguments on how things should be. 

However, some argue that to call the Constitution a living document makes it completely worthless.  It is thought that if the ideas are continuously reinterpreted based on the society’s ideals, the inherent ideas in the Consititution can become meaningless if the society does not feel that those laws should be in place.  In fact, this has been proven.  It has been shown that, because of the culture and the times, it has been necessary to re-define the central ideals in the Constitution.  For example, Amendments were necessary guaranteeing women and certain groups of people the right to vote because other groups said that wasn’t inherent in the statements set forth in the Constitution even though the wording is vague enough that it should.  Amendments can also be taken away - for example, the idiocy that was Prohibition.  Because the society said it was so, the Constitution was re-interpreted to suit the peoples’ wishes.  And when the same people (or a new generation) realized that the interpretation was a bad one, or that their wishes weren’t what they thought they would be, the Constitution was re-interpreted and amended yet again to reflect those wishes.

So, in other words, to make a document a ”living document”, the ideas set forth are diminished in a way because they are shown to be fallible, even though they are said and written down in order to be infallible (ie inalienable).  However, because people are fallible, I think that a document written by people (any document, work, etc) needs to be re-interpreted in order to keep the document important to the society living under its rules (that’s why democracy is so awesome).  Nevertheless, it needs to be interpreted intelligently.

Where human rights and law are concerned, anything not done intelligently and with great care should not be done at all.     

Random Thought 6

Apartment Hunting.

Yesterday I spent the day hunting for apartments in the town I will be moving to in the Fall.  It was an interesting day, mainly because I saw some really interesting apartments.  I mean interesting in a negative way.  While I think I found the apartment I want to rent, I really didn’t have much to choose from.  Either they weren’t in my price range, they didn’t allow pets, or they were dumps.  And when I say dumps, I mean that they were just awful.  And the ones that were a little outside my price range weren’t worth the hassle.  I would have really enjoyed one of them, except that it was over my price range and didn’t include any of the utilities.  It was a little ridiculous, actually.  Toss in the cost of heating in the winter in the Midwest and you have a substantial increase in your monthly bills.  And then another would have been great if it wasn’t in the basement of the building and had absolutely no natural light entering into the apartment.  There wasn’t a single window in the entire place!  I like it dark when I am sleeping, but that’s what curtains are for.   And then, of course, there was the no-show at one of the apartments I wanted to look at, which was a bummer because I think I may have really liked that place.  Ah well.

But I went to this one apartment, and I truly felt sorry for the woman showing it to me.  She made it clear that they were very unhappy with the tenant and were threatening to have it professionally cleaned.  It looked like it needed to be professionally cleaned, too.  The current inhabitant was an absolute pig.  I know I can be a messy person, and some may find it ironic that I am writing this, but honestly, it was disgusting.  The person had 1 cat and it looked and smelled like there were 5.  I walked into the apartment and was immediately hit with “cat smell”.  I’m obsessive about my apartment smelling nice, and I can’t believe someone would allow their home to smell like that (unless, you know, they were 80 and had, like, 20 cats and couldn’t smell anymore). There was a blue rug that was covered in cat hair.  At least, I think at one point it was blue, it was so covered in cat hair that it had turned gray.  The closet where the litter box was was an absolute mess and it looked like there was a bucket that this person just put the used litter into and it looked like the bucket hadn’t been emptied in a month (I’m pretty sure this contributed to the smell).  I’ve never seen anything like that and I was so grossed out.  If my cats’ litter box area was like that, they wouldn’t use it, so I don’t know how this poor cat was surviving.  The refrigerator was empty and sitting open (we couldn’t figure out why) and it looked like she hadn’t cleaned the kitchen once since she moved in.  It was awful.  AND to make it worse, it was a girl who rented the apartment!  It sounds weird, but I would expect a guy’s apartment to look more like that, not a girl’s (that sounds stereotypical – but think about it – how many “clean” frat houses have you been to?).  I’m actually surprised they showed the apartment, but they have to because they do need to rent it out.  It totally grossed me out, though, and I can only hope I never get anywhere near that point. 

So anyway, I think I found an apartment (not the one I just described) and it’s a neat place, even though it has an odd layout, but it should be good.  I don’t need much, just a one bedroom where I can throw the cats out if they are bothering me. (Yes, I have two cats – they are 10 years old and I adopted them in December.  I thought I was only adopting one but I ended up with 2.  They are good cats when they aren’t bothering me and peeing on my couch.) 

But this really reminded me of how much I do not enjoy moving and trying to find an apartment 200 miles away from where I currently live.  I’ll be fine though, I adjust easily.

American Culture – Inherently Divided

People from countries around the world don’t usually understand the obsession Americans have with “where we come from”.  There is a certain need Americans have to know, not only where they come from, but to identify with it as well.  Non-Americans don’t understand it.  You see, when you are born in Ireland, you are Irish.  When you are born in France, you are French.  But Americans don’t see it that way.  No one is just “American”, everyone feels the need to go more in depth or define what type of American they are.  You can be African-American, Asian-American, Mexican-American, European-American, etc etc etc.  There are constant questions about ancestry, and at pretty much every major company you work for now, newly hired employees have to fill out an EOE form (anonymously, of course) that gets reported to the government that tells them that you are hiring people from all nationalities and not discriminating. 

What is interesting, though, is that no one stops to question Americans’ obsession with ancestry and nationality.  When did it become so important to define exactly what kind of American we are?  I would argue that it possibly started way back with the founding of the country.  When the 13 colonies were joined together, they were British colonies, but had many other groups of people living in them.  So it could have started then in an effort to keep some of the heritage from their native countries alive. 

In the early 1900′s, during the waves of immigration through Ellis Island, millions and millions of foreigners poured into the country in an effort to escape persecution and search for the land where “the streets were paved with gold” and to live what became the American Dream.  What did happen was, naturally, groups of people from the same areas lived together in the same neighborhoods.  That’s why, in places like New York City, you have a Little Italy, Chinatown, Little Germany, etc, etc.  Living with people of the same background helped new emigrants acclimate themselves but also keep part of their culture alive.  Unfortunately, this belief that the phrase ”American” must be defined more, has, inevitably, separated its people along cultural lines.

It is hard to say what American culture really is.  It has been described as a “melting pot” where cultures can come together and blend to create one American culture.  I think it is patently obvious that that hasn’t really happened.  What people are now calling American culture is more of a “tossed salad” where different cultures come together but keep their own ingredients to create one large salad of a culture.  Sometimes, though, I wonder if we have become more of a three-course meal where different groups want to be completely separate from the cultures that have come together in the US. Obviously not all cultures are going to mesh well, and there will always be some sort of conflict between different groups of people. 

My question is, though, is it really all that necessary to define ourselves as different kind of Americans?  When we ask someone where they are from, can’t we mean the state or the city instead of ancestry?  People insist on claiming other areas of the world as their own when they have never even set foot on that country’s soil – forget about being a dual citizen.  I understand wanting to identify with a certain culture – I most certainly identify with one that others may not identify with.  But why the need for classification? 

This post is merely food for thought – but it must be remembered that if we live in the United States, we are all Americans and until we remember this, we will always be divided.

“United we stand, divided we fall.”

Random Thought 5

Moments of clarity.

In today’s society, moments alone to gather your thoughts are precious and few.  A lot of people claim to have their best moments to themselves in the shower or those few minutes in bed after the lights are off and before sleep overcomes you.  For me, it’s on the bus on my way to and from work.  Usually more in the morning when I am on my way to work, though, because by the time my day is done, more often than not I have no desire to think.

You may be wondering how that happens on a crowded bus where I usually end up standing, packed in with other commuters like sardines.  It’s hot and gross on the bus because of the number of people, and everyone is uncomfortable.  It’s a personal-space invasion.  Yet, when I am on the bus, listening to music, I find my best thoughts come to me.  I get these moments of clarity where nothing else matters and there is nothing to distract me from my thoughts.  They range from thoughts about my finances, to my non-existent love life, to who I am as a person or where I am going with my life.  It’s kind of amazing the things I think of on the bus and then quickly forget about as the routine of the day kicks in. 

Lately, my thoughts have been focused on who I am as a person.  I am very aware of what my faults are – I am arrogant, abrasive, extremely tenacious, stubborn, tactless, arguing with me is like arguing with a brick wall, and the list goes on from there (I don’t feel the need to regal you will all my faults, it would just depress me).  I know what they are, but lately other people have felt the need to tell me what my faults are.  And I have to say, that doesn’t make me feel better about myself.  I know who I am, I know what I do, and I’m working on my faults to make them assets.  But the thing is, I have also realized that, if you can’t like me because of who I am and not in spite of who I am, then I don’t care what you think of me and all my faults.  My friends are my friends because they love me for who I am not in spite of it.  My family has no choice of whether or not they can love me, but I think they have come to terms with that.   

On the whole, though, I’m not a bad person, and I really don’t think my faults outweigh the positive aspects of my personality.  And, to make it even better, I like who I am and what I have become over the years.  So if/when someone comes along and gives me a choice to either change who I am or associate with them, I am most certainly going to stay true to myself.  Friends come and go, and family members have no choice in the matter, but who you are should not be compromised. 

So to everyone who has felt it necessary to proclaim my faults lately, I’m not changing any time soon.  I’m working on what I need to work on, but I absolutely refuse to change just because you don’t like who I am.