Nicknames

Why the recent explosion of nicknames being doled out in our American Studies class? I cannot stop thinking about it for some reason, so I came up with three theories as to why Mr. Bolos and Mr. O’Connor refuse to call anyone by their given name (a habit which I find quite amusing, don’t get me wrong).

     Theory number one: they do this simply as a method of lightening the class atmosphere and to give us students something to laugh about in the midst of the fusion of English and history. I do not believe that this particular thought has much merit, though. We would find ways to smile in AS even without the periodic interjections of humorous names.

      Theory number two: when someone gives another person a nickname, they are simply projecting a bit of their own personality onto the other and making a construction of them. This new construction better suits the one giving the new name. For example, a nickname might represent only one small portion of the person's personality, or just be an embellishment on a particular part of their name that is fun or easy to say.

      I don't believe that there is anything wrong with putting a little bit of yourself into another person that you have to be able to relate to and nicknames help you to do this. Provided that the projection and constructions do not stray so far from the truth as to be inhibitors to perceptions of the real world.

      Finally, theory number three: Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos are using the nicknames as a teaching method, encouraging students to further question our world. Nearly everyone in our lives call us by the same given name. And who gave us this name in the first place? Our parents. So instead of making the atmosphere of American Studies exactly the same as every other aspect of our life that uses our "real names", our teachers decided that they would shake things up a little bit and through students off their guard by not assuming anything, including our own names.

    Now, once we come to question our names, questioning our identities follows soon after, seeing as almost anyone would respond to the question "Who are you?" with simply their name. And that is what American Studies is all about, of course! Question EVERYTHING!

      Am I reading too far into this? What are your thoughts?

Illegal Aliens on Halloween and Free Speech

This evening I read an article about a new Halloween costume that hit stores a few weeks ago and has already caused quite a stir in the media. (To see the full article click here.) The costume consists of an alien mask with an orange jumpsuit that says "Illegal Alien" on it. It also comes with a "Green Card", which actually makes the "alien" legal. The debate: Is this socially acceptable under the freedom of speech right, or politically incorrect and rude beyond words?
     The costume has been pulled from the shelves of Walgreens and Target, but some groups want the federal government to actually force all of the stores to eliminate the costumes. These groups claim that the costumes will increase anti-immigrant sentiments and possibly even dehumanize them. A speaker for the immigration coalition, Jorge-Mario Cabrera, said that this costume "perpetuates this idea we have about undocumented immigrants as alien foreigners, strangers, scary." And he has a valid point. Seeing someone in a mask already takes away some of their most human qualities and makes us regard them as not-quite-real. To have the mask in the shape of a remarkably inhuman face and to make it represent a certain type of people does seem unfair and racist towards this group.
       On the other hand, our Bill of Rights declares that every American has the right to freedom of speech. So shouldn't we be able to create and purchase any type of Halloween costume that we want? Most Hispanics, when interviewed by the Associated Press, even said that it was simply a joke and that it did not offend them.
     In my personal opinion, the government should not be able to make stores remove an offensive Halloween costume from their shelves. No one complains about Playboy Bunny costumes, which are at least equally offensive to women as this costume is to immigrants. If the stores themselves feel that the costumes are harmful to their patrons, they can get rid of the costumes themselves without any governmental aid.If the government can regulate Halloween costumes, what else will they begin to censor? Opinions?

Race, Defined

Every since we discussed the definition of race in class, I have been pondering it myself quite a bit. I have come to the conclusion that every human on earth must have a unique definition of race. If we all believed it to be the same thing, there would not be nearly as much argument about it.

         My own personal definition is: a combination of a person’s heritage and ancestry, which are usually observed in terms of beliefs, religion, and customs, and are often visible in more physical traits such as skin color, complexion, and mannerisms.

        Out of curiosity, I asked my parents for their own personal definitions after writing my own. My dad said he thought of race as, “a categorization of human beings based on genetic differences.....I think of it as a subset of species.” My mother agreed with him.

        The main difference in these two views lies in whether you believe race to be purely physical or to be a combination of physical and non-physical attributes. One perspective is not necessarily better, only different.

         People use race to classify others, but also to label themselves. In the midst of a crushing population of over six billion on earth, we each need at least a few things to make ourselves seem special and significant.

Some people are defined by their race. They connect so strongly with it that they cannot develop much individually. This is not healthy because it does not allow for any growth on the part of the individual. Conversely, others do not relate to their race at all, with is also not optimal. Without knowledge of one’s heritage, you have only yourself as an individual to relate to, rather than caring about any other people.

How do you define race? Does your race define you?

Obvserving Columbus Day

Tomorrow is Columbus Day, which, as we all know, is to celebrate the day when Christopher Columbus "discovered" the New World. Now, where I live we do not really observe Columbus day other than taking a long weekend, but I began to wonder how those of us who might not be so happy about this discovery would treat the holiday.    

     Seeing as Columbus's arrival in America was not a good thing for any of the native people currently living there, I find it a little bit upsetting that once every year we insist on reminding their few remaining ancestors Columbus discovered the land that they were already living on and that over the next four hundred years or so, they were systematically driven out to make way for the white settlers. 
      We tend to think that Columbus Day marks the beginning of a new era of colonization and world powers, but we try to forget that it also marks the end of a multitude of cultures. These cultures were largely undisturbed by outsiders.

      I learned that in many Latin American countries, the holiday is actually more of a celebration of culture and such, rather than that of a deceased European. I was especially fascinated to learn that in Venezuela, it is actually called The Day of Indigenous Resistance. 
     This brought a smile to my face, knowing that not everyone agrees with the Europeans. It's nice to know that at least one country would rather recognize the  civilization that was destroyed and make some effort to preserve it. 
      Why do we celebrate Columbus Day? Wasn't it a triumph for Spain, and not the European countries than most Americans are from?


In celebrating Columbus Day, are we hurting the Indigenous people?

Sentiments, Politics, Olympics?

Last Friday, the announcement came out: Chicago will not be the host city of the 2016 Summer Olympics. The First Lady Michelle Obama even spoke to the Olympic committee with no avail. (To see her speech, click here.)
     The NBC news report covering the announcement of the location seemed to be caught totally unprepared when Chicago lost the bid. They kept showing clips of crowds of shocked people who thought that they might have been about to party for their town. Whether or not we wanted to host the games, most people in Chicago took for granted that the games would be hosted here. Now that they aren't, we ask ourselves why.
     One theory is that anti-American sentiments took over at the convention, causing the one American city to be voted out of the running first. I found it disappointing that we, as a nation, would jump to such a conclusion. We never stopped to ask ourselves, "Oh, maybe Rio de Janeiro simply had a better bid than we did." Or, "Maybe since South America has never hosted the Olympics, they decided to give it a chance."
     Rather, we immediately assumed that the whole world was out to get us and shoot down our bid. I find it frustrating that, in a situation like this, politics get in the way of what should be a fun and internationally peaceful event.
     The people out in the streets ready to party knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that our city deserved to host, so of course we would be chosen. Is it possible that Chicagoans have developed a small sense of entitlement ever since Obama was elected president? Do we think too highly of ourselves?