Woah.

I strongly prefer Light-Skinned people to Dark-Skinned people.

I retook that test out of pure shame.

I slightly prefer Light-Skinned people to Dark-Skinned people.

I have little to no preference between Fat people and Thin people.

That one only took one try.

I feel racist, and it feels awful - that was horrifying. There is prejudice instilled in my brain. It makes me nauseous to even think about.

That is absolutely unbelievable, that this nation can never outrun it's history. White people will always be inherently racist - it's in our MINDS. But I wonder, when a black person takes that test, are they racist? Does he/she show a strong or slight preference for dark-skinned people? I'd bet money on it. So what is wrong with us? This no mix, no blend, stick to our own groups attitude - is it based on "race"? Ethnicity? Nationality? What is it Sal??? I have to know!

People separate into groups with not only like-minded people, but people who are similar in color, size, shape, etc. WHY? Comfort zones?

War, Huh, Good God Ya'll

I have decided to modify my views on the former student who came into our class. My primary reaction to his account on experiences overseas was admittedly extremely defensive. His frank attitude about such a controversial area of issues stunned me. But after discussing my feelings in class, I realize that I gave no credit to his experiences and, it must be said, his bravery. Though he explained that he went into the service without much direction, I must commend the poise he now has and the pride he clearly has developed in what he does. Now, I will say I have not completely changed my concerns about his attitude, but simply have forced myself to appreciate his situation. Certain dealings he spoke of still disturb me greatly, and many of his descriptions chilled me, but I realize now that being personally offended by his actions is completely useless. I have zero understanding of his operations in Iraq (was it Iraq?) and only reacted to his statements based on my own morals. Morals, it seems, must be adjusted for such things. That is why now, the only thing that truly disturbs me, is the minimal help the troops get upon returning to America. I imagine that the army forces troops to endure such vigorous training in order to rid the trainees of any need to think independently of the tasks assigned to them. I do not mean that in a negative way, just that they are trained to do things a certain way, and if it is not done in this way, there is a negative consequence. This simplifies everyday actions to the point where everything is routine. If this attitude can be formed and taken overseas, then you've got a bunch of troops waiting for orders, willing to take them and perform them to their maximum capability in order to not receive said negative consequences. Perhaps I am taking this a little too far, but that what I imagine to be true. In any case, original morals are placed on the back burner and are overcome by personal desire to perform well.
Please comment on this.

Stick your nose up any higher, if it rains, you'll drown.

I try desperately to be as cultured, open-minded, and educated as I can, especially concerning other people/groups. I crave information about others. It's amazing how children are able to overlook cultural boundaries that adults of certain social classes so strictly adhere to. I have struggled to retain this ability to avoid passing judgment on others before such an assessment may be accurate. It's impossible. In the environment I now live in - rich, white, private - there is very little actual contact with diversity, and therefore, little information about other groups. This is extremely frustrating for me because I now that unconsciously I am making generalizations about others based on the pretentious assumptions of those around me.
I have not always lived in such an area. My father has been working up in the ranks of his company since the age of 16, and so we have moved in order to accommodate his promotions. Each time we moved to a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood in a nicer town. My friends from Canada are extremely down to earth. My best friends who have lived there their entire lives are very chill, and satisfied with what they have. I by no means lived in hardship, but in a close knit neighborhood of small houses. In England, we moved up a step in the ladder. I had to wear a uniform to school and there was a slightly more bratty feel to the children in general. I had friends who owned 60 acre ranches with 20 horses and a mansion-like house. But they were not the majority. Most lived in relatively large houses like mine - lots of space, but not much bragging was done. Here it is different. Money means something different. It means an opportunity to live in the suburbs and belong to a country club and chat about weekend plans of playing bridge. I have seen a distinctive change in my mom throughout the years as we have moved from place to place. In all of my family in fact. It takes so much more to satisfy us - that is what I'm trying to fight off. Of course, I was much younger in England and haven't visited my old school mates in a while so I don't recall completely their attitudes.
I remember being shocked Freshman year of high school, in World History class. I had already lived in the US for three years by then, but with little recognition of my new-found bubbled paradise. I have never encountered such ignorance as in that required 9th grade class. On our first quiz, the girl next to me asked where Europe was. What do you do in that situation? Laugh? Cry? I decided to turn a cold shoulder and rely on the rest of the class for intelligent input. Mostly, I was disappointed. Now, what I am stating is a different type of pretentious attitude that I have always had and probably always will. I hate stupid people. I have no tolerance. That girl that didn't know where Europe was displayed a pretentiousness that in my mind is far worse than my own main one - she didn't feel she needed to become aware of the rest of the world. That, to me, is crazy. As I said, I can never get enough information. I love to travel, to go to museums, to learn all I can. This is the first place I've lived where so many people don't even have passports. It is sad. There is so much to discover in this world, and there are people satisfied with staying in their own little bubbles. Especially around here, where the bubble entails card playing and wine sipping.

White Bread, With New and Improved Poverty Flavor

We are labeled by everything. Every choice we make forces others to judge us on some level. How we dress, the food we eat, what job we aspire to obtain - even dreams must correspond to social class or I can only imagine that the disappointment would be unbearable.

What Could Be Better Than A Tied Game Won By A Half Court Shot? And Of Course I'm Talking About Water Polo.

That game was incredible. Admittedly, we reeked in the first half - it was actually slightly disgraceful. However, after a mildly insulting, extremely verbally aggressive pep talk for the gods from our head coach, we let out the beasts within and rocked out. In the last seconds of the second period of overtime one of our players took a half court shot and we won the game 10 - 9. Hell yes.
However, as amazing as that was, I must say that I feel our sport is under-appreciated. Or at least under-exposed. There is so much hype over american football and baseball in this country that most other sports get lost in the background. I find it different depending on the place I'm in. Canada - hockey/curling, England - football (soccer)/rugby/cricket, Spain - futbol (soccer) etc. What does that say about the culture of each country? Americans love contact sports and testimonies to brute strength (perhaps related to this violent culture we keep talking about?). Canadians also enjoy aggression, but see value in the subtle skills of curling. The English value the physical fitness and patience involved in their sports, as well as toughness.
Any thoughts?

Oh Man - I Saw The Naked Cowboy

Bright Lights Big City New York New York.This weekend I was in New York and Rhode Island visiting schools. I found the differences astounding. I stayed in the Lower East Side in an apartment with a friend of the family. She gave me the history of the neighborhood. In the 50s it was mostly Jewish, then many of the Jewish people moved to Brooklyn, and the area became dominated by Puerto Ricans and Dominicans and others. In that period, the neighborhood became rougher. Now, more Europeans and college students have moved in, and it has become safer once again. I found New York unique in the fact that in just a few blocks, you are in a completely different part of the city. For example, when I went to visit Pratt Institute, I passed the Housing Projects where Jay-Z grew up. A couple blocks later we were surrounded by brownstone apartments and the school was around the corner. The city is massive, but extremely well separated by the mentioned neighborhoods. Providence on the other hand, is a very small city. Trollies run constantly around in circuits and the only thing more pleasant than the weather was the lovely architecture of the buildings. I did see someone getting arrested in Providence, but even that seemed almost pleasant - the cop and arrestee clearly knew each other from a previous encounter and the other cop (waiting in the police car) was making conversation with some people in the street.

We're the Kids of America - Bowling for Columbine (Fear)

There is so much to talk about with this movie, I need to focus on just one topic.

One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Michael Moore visits the Canadians to demonstrate the trust they have in their community. These people do not lock their doors when they go out, let alone feel the need to own personal handguns. This is in stark contrast to the one town visited where the screen doors are made of iron and could be penetrated by nothing short of a spear. Or the town where it is a law to own a gun. How ridiculous is that?

Another of my favorite parts is when Moore talks to Marilyn Manson. The singer was thought to have some blame by causing the thoughts of the Columbine shooters through his music. This, of course, was the fault of extreme conservatives and is absolutely unbelievable. But it is due to these people's fear of people who are different and strange and the need for a scapegoat.

One Canadian person they interview introduces an interesting idea about how locks confine you into your house in Canada, while in America, they keep everyone else out. He actually says, "well, you must be afraid of your neighbors". I found the latter statement to be dead on. There is so much fear of others in this country or of other people's potential for dangerous activity. Everyone's a suspect. Everyone's to be feared. I find there is a lack of trust between strangers in this country, people just assume the worst. Of course, that is by no means completely unreasonable.

Hip Hip Cheerio!

I love England. I love London. I love the public transportation systems, the food, the weekend markets (, the people, the television commercials, the historical sites, among other more specific things. I love the way tourists panic when the doors of the subway start to close. I used to live in England so I can generally blend into the crowd and I know the customs (swipe your oyster card upon entering and exiting the tube etc.). Other positives are the drinking age (or lack there of) and the diversity of the city.
There are, however, some negatives to life in London. There are a multitude of homeless people - more than I've usually encountered in a city - and at times they can be quite aggressive, though mostly they are willing to help you find your way in exchange for a tip, the subway gets extremely crowded at times, and you need to walk at full speed while dodging thousands of confused people in order to get anywhere. My brother told me once that he liked to pretend he was a CIA agent and that where he was going was more important than anyone else (this coming from a 21 year old was quite hilarious).

Barack Obama

I must say that I was extremely frustrated by some of the comments made in class today about Barack Obama's race speech. Not only frustrated, I was sincerely disappointed by the willingness of some others to dismiss his views because of his background. I heard one student announce that Barack is white-washed. What does that even mean? He has become too involved in the white culture and can therefore no longer relate to black-america? Are we really that segregated still? And if we are, isn't he the ideal candidate to bring us together? That was the point of his speech. He was not seeking pity upon bringing up slavery, as another student discussed. He was simply seeking the opportunity to address a past that has undoubtedly shaped America today. And it is this America that he seeks to change. And of course he has the right to discuss slavery, even if no ancestor of his was a slave because slavery is part of the nation's history, not just the ancestors of specific people. It is that past that is a large contributor to how black Americans live today, and he is a black-American. As Barack Obama said, in South Carolina they still wave the confederate flag, and you don't think that affects black people everywhere?

Sticks and Stones

We were discussing Sal's kid in class today, and the choices he has made in attempting to shield her from materialism. I agree wholeheartedly with his efforts, though at some points extreme, to have his daughter grow up in a traditionally child-like way, rather than sitting on the couch watching TV constantly.
Anyways, I was thinking about growing up and all the games we used to play outside - truth or dare, ring around the rosie - and all of the sayings we had when the bully came along, my favorite at the time was "sticks and stones can break my bone but words can never hurt me!" That saying is one of the least true statements I have ever heard, honestly. Children of all people know the power of words and should harvest it, though it is often first learned in a negative way when one is first called a poopyface.

Juno.

Upon navigating the blogs of our class, I have seen multiple negative blogs about the movie Juno, so I'd like to respond to them here. I don't believe this movie condones teen pregnancy. I don't believe that the movie encourages anything but compassion in fact. The movie is a social commentary about how we, as a people, deal with social issues. Like Sal was saying in class about addictions, people tend to simply exclude/look down upon those with problems instead of helping them. There is a well-deserved stigma attached to teen pregnancy - that I do believe - because many girls are not prepared or can't provide or just don't want a baby. Though there are some, I'm sure, that turn out to be wonderful mothers. That is not my point. My point is that Juno shows parents acting with true compassion and love towards their child. They hold off on their anger as much as possible while still relaying their shock and disappointment with well chosen phrases, then they help her in every way they can. They do not make her suffer for her mistake over and over. Isn't this the appropriate way to deal with a situation like this?

And I Thought The English Were Stuck Up...

Never in my life have I encountered a place with as many rules and regulations that are constantly and actively followed by a bunch of teenagers (!) as is currently the case at Stevenson High School. It is so unbelievably well put together, the school is a machine. There is an amazingly low level of outrageous activity that one would expect at any high school. Rarely a fight occurs and usually the security guards step in before any true punch is thrown. Come on! What is high school without some good old-fashioned ball busting? When I lived in England the school was split into the young'uns, of which I was a part, and then after 6th grade the school was split into a boys school and a girls school. The girls are vicious - cat fights prevail and often they are accepted as normal and are left to be split up by surrounding spectators/friends which usually happens relatively fast. Would that happen at SHS if the guards disappeared? I think not. The students would be so enthralled that I bet the fight would be allowed to continue a lot longer. There's a lack of exposure here that one has to identify and analyze before appreciating. You cannot imagine what went on at the boy's school in England. Paper airplanes set on fire were thrown at the teacher, slingshots built in the back of the class made to fire markers at lightning speeds among various others. So which community better prepares one for the world outside? I clearly have my own opinion, but anyone else got one?

Hey Hey Hey, Whatcha Got To Say? Hollywood Swingin'!

This was a very obvious post for me to do because my house is filled with People magazines, W, O by Oprah, and Hello/Okay! from England. What is the basis for people's undying obsession with celebrities? Jealousy? Boredom? Curiosity? I think it is a mixture of these things and the basic American values engrained in all who have lived here. These are people who appear to have achieved success, they are busy all the time (activity and work), they have freedom (in the economic sense), they are popular. What could be better right? And yet there is the case study that Sal brought up in class that suggests money doesn't make you happy, but in fact lowers self-esteem due to the consequential consumerism attached to a high paycheck. People know this. It is a message relayed in corny film upon corny film, and even in some good ones, so why do we still idolize those who have pretty clothes and walk the red carpet? I know that in some aspects it is an obvious question - they are beautiful (by our society's standards), they own lots of stuff (which Americans love), they are seen by everyone. I think the extremely disturbing part is that Americans LOVE when these celebrities screw up. Failure of others is the ultimate in entertainment (notice shows like Extra and TCM). Sad, but ultimately true.

****Bleep****

So today's class period got me thinking more about swearing than about Japanese toilets, but I'd say it still has sociological relevance so I'm doing okay. Why the invention of these words? Mind you, I do not pretend that I don't swear like a sailor, but I feel my words have a different meaning depending on the society I am in. Call someone a wanker or a plonker in the US and you're the idiot, it's not quite the same in England - that sort of language is less talk more fist (depending on who your talking to of course). I find it sort of fascinating that people now swear so regularly that instead of holding back completely, they let slip the word crap instead of shit, etc. Also intriguing to me is the evolution of swears that occurs as we grow. We go from calling someone a poopyhead to a mother f-er in a matter of a few years. This is due to much of our surroundings, the television, how our parents speak, how our friends speak, how others react to our first outright swear. I remember the first time I let loose the f-bomb in the presence of my mother, and I have rarely, if ever, done so since. However, my mom was born in England and a "bloody hell" in the right circumstances is perfectly fine.

I thought that an excellent example of how comfortable we are with swearing is the Orbit commercial I have linked below. The insults these people throw at each other seem childish and foolish, but they are still getting the meaning accross with out pulling out the big guns (language-wise) so why can't we be satisfied calling each other lint-lickers?

"C" What I Mean?

In the movie, "A Bronx Tale", the social construction of the neighborhood that is focused on in the film is due to the ethnicity of those living in it. Boundaries are drawn based on race/background, and one's own past must be the toughest thing to overcome. No one in the neighborhood, including "C", wishes to disrespect their own heritage. This makes for both a culturally rich area, and a segregated city in total. The resulting de facto segregation, though allowing for each culture to flourish separately, encourages racism- each group thinks they are the best. "C" tries to break out of these confines in the film, but is hindered at first by the boundaries created by the largest group he belongs to - his neighborhood. The racism of those around him has become a part of him that he must willingly fight against.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film for both the bravery of "C"'s character and the overall realism of the story.

What's With All The Tourists?

This past weekend I travelled to Florida on vacation with my family. My mother has an obsession with family trips, especially with the looming prospect of an empty nest. I must say, as strange as it may seem to many, I am not a huge fan of really hot weather, yet almost every year we travel to some tropical location to bask in the heat with fellow pasty tourists. What I find most interesting about these holidays is the resistance to the new culture of many of the places we visit by the tourists there. In Florida, a place famous for delicious seafood, I was surrounded by people munching on hamburgers and french fries. The English are notorious for this (ever seen Shirley Valentine?) for wherever they travel their eyes are peeled for chips and egg or bangers and mash. What is this resistance? Where is the adventurous spirit of the tourist? These Hawaiian-clothed, sandal-bearing, sunscreen lathered people go to great lengths to bake in the sun, but not experience their environment unless in a watered-down way. With the inclusion of all-inclusive resorts, many tourists never step out of the hotel grounds. I find there is a difference between a tourist and a traveller, much like there is a difference between saliva and spit. A traveller goes to really engage with the culture and learn from their experience, where as a tourist is clearly seperated from their new environment and is not as engaged.

Personal Groups

As is the same with everyone else, I belong to many groups. I am female, caucasian, Canadian, an immigrant to the United States, a family member, a student, an artist, a swimmer, a water polo player, and much more. Though I belong to an extensive list of groups, there are certain roles in particular groups that affect my daily life more than others. At the moment, my role as an AP Art student and my role as a Canadian immigrant are currently shaping my time. 

I am constantly aware of my role as an artist. I spend the majority of my time drawing or doodling. I am asked by friends to draw their portrait or design a tattoo for them. I plan to go to art school in the fall, so it is a role that will have a large part in my future. 

As a foreigner to this country I am aware of not only the stereotypes attributed to Americans, but of their actual demeanors. America is such a diverse country, there is obviously no stereotype that applies to everyone. The general feeling of this country, however, is distinctly different from that of the other countries I've lived in. When I lived in Canada, we never locked our doors, we walked everywhere, we interacted constantly with neighbors, and we said "eh". Here, in the United States, everyone locks the doors every night (or even when they just step out of the house), sidewalks that actually extend to anywhere useful are hard to come by, and I haven't even met two of my closest neighbors in the 6 years. It is a much more protective environment. 

However, like Sal says, each of these observations I've made are due to my particular background, whereas someone from America who moved to Canada may find the atmosphere disturbingly friendly.       

The Awkwardness of Silence that I Seemed to Have Missed Out On

Silence? Why not? Give yourself some time to think.
Admittedly, some silences are awkward, but they are awkward anywhere in the world. The silence after a bad joke when the teller desperately wants you to laugh. Or that horrible atmosphere created by an inappropriate statement in the presence of an unhappy elder. I've found those silences to be uncomfortable in every place I've lived. But I find some silences to be greatly appreciated, almost comforting. They are silences that enhance atmospheres rather than destroy them. Silence between people that truly appreciate each others company can be enjoyable. 

When I first moved to this country I was shocked not only by the constant chatter of seemingly everyone around me, but also by the volume. I've never encountered so many loud, opinionated people, which is not necessarily a negative, though when I go to a restaurant I can undoubtedly hear the conversations of many surrounding tables. 

I have learned to, or been forced to, listen intently to the authority figure speaking at all times. We are trained from a young age to listen to our elders, and it is one lesson that has stuck.  This respect given to a certain appointed person has lead me, however, to be a secondary force in conversations. I find myself listening more than talking initially with most people I meet here, but once I spend more time in their company, I am more apt to share my thoughts. The amount of silence you can tolerate with a person is a measure of how comfortable you are in their presence. When first talking to a person, one is certainly interested in aspects of the others character, but is also nervous about first impressions. No one want to seem boring or lacking in personality, so they fill the air with incredible amounts of nonsense (depending on the chemistry between them).  

Anyways, I'm rambling and sort of going in circles. Any thoughts?

Me on Blogging

Blogging? Sure, I've heard of it. Even tried it every once in a while, commenting on different political sites. But I've never bothered to start my own. I tend to be more comfortable arguing other people's ideas then presenting my own for judgment. However, I see the positives along with the negatives of having my thoughts thrown out to the wolves, since wolves aren't always that mean (I mean, they are fluffy...). So I start my first post with mixed emotions.
The very fact that I am searching for any words to describe either myself or my opinions worries me somewhat, for what is sociology about if not self-discovery? So I hope through this process I am able to gain some form of personal knowledge.
My view on blogging in general is somewhat uncertain as well. People are becoming more and more dependent on the internet for information, but a large portion of it is just people's opinions. How can that be dependable? Sites like wikipedia are becoming more popular, when they are simply composed of articles written by whoever wants to. On the other hand, isn't a lot of the information concerning the humanities based on opinion? I am becoming more aware of the possibilities of recognizing the opinions of others and forming my own based on their ideas, as well as the facts involved.
And so for now I am slightly lost, slightly confused, and slightly worried about the responses coming from whoever feels the need to read this particular blog, but I am also excited for the same reason.
Bring it on fellow bloggers.