My American Song

I sing out, trying to harmonize with a greater American voice,
but my tone doesn't meld;
my pitch is off by only fractions of a half step,
yet it rings out deconstructively, creating an unpleasent sound.

I try to correct, yet everytime I do,
it seems as if the greater voice
has shifted again:
one step down,
one step up.

I try every pitch I know to fit this cacophony
It sounds so beautiful without me
but with my voice added
Harmony is broken,
tension is created.

One day I finally sing out a pitch that fits the
Harmony.

But I don't like the sound of my own voice.
It doesn't sound like my own
I hear the greater unity of our voices
But now it is no longer beautiful to my ear.

So I sing out my own pitch,
still hearing the overall voice,
knowing it doesn't quite meld,
but confident in my own.

Somehow it is still a cacophony
there is still tension,
but finally,

It's beautiful.

1. In my maps, I noticed most clearly the drawings on the map, both inland and on the sea. This is something that clearly stuck out to me. I picked two maps of North America, one from 1640, one from 1715. On the map from 1640, there are drawings of ships scouting the coast of North America and angels on the sides of the maps. The land masses have been named, but there aren't many specific colonies or names of outposts. Also, one can notice a lot of drawings of wild life inland. There are pictures of horses, rabbits, and deer. On the map of 1715, the main focus is the clear distinct borders carved into the map, and the names and descriptions of settlements rivers. Also, there is a rather large drawing of a town or settlement, obviously one that existed at the time or was being planned.

2. These maps tell a story of a developing part of the world and imperialism. The first map of America in 1640 shows that although America is still an unknown and wild, rugged land, the Europeans have their eyes on it, expressed by the ships sailing its coasts. One could also decipher an idea of divine right by the appearance of angels in the bottom right corner of the map. I think the drawing of the angels was very deliberate by the cartographer and was used to express his own idea of the right of the Europeans to conquer this land in the name of God.
In the next map, however, the images of angels and ideas of God are gone and replaced by imperialistic details. America is not the promised land bestowed upon the European race any longer. It is, instead, a place to carve up and take for conquest. Gone are the pictures of animals and native Americans, replaced instead by names of settlements and navigable rivers and plains. The most important detail of this map I found, however, is the picture in the bottom left hand corner of a sprawling European settlement. This clearly displays the "Europe-ization" of the New World. It has transitioned from a wild land to one they can call their own, well planned out and used to acquire new resources and riches.

3. This relates quite well to the ideas Babb presented in her book, Whiteness Visible. I feel that the picture in the bottom left corner, as Babb puts it, "characterizes North America as an environment fit not just for settlements by specifically for English settlement." Although the map does not give an indication towards what country drew the map or whose settlement it is in the picture, it does show that this land displayed in the map is fit for settlement by the whatever country had the map drawn. And, once again, though I'm not sure if this map was drawn for English uses, Babb describes very well that, "no indigenous elements are present. The names on the map are mostly English, detailing various 'discoveries.' The English presence here is augmented, shown as one that has both conquered and renamed the New World." These quotes relate specifically the map drawn in 1715.

http://dlgcsm.galib.uga.edu/StyleServer/calcrgn?browser=ns&cat=hmap&wid=1000&hei=800&style=hmap/hmap.xsl&item=hmap1640h6.sid

http://dlgcsm.galib.uga.edu/StyleServer/calcrgn?browser=ns&cat=hmap&wid=1000&hei=800&style=hmap/hmap.xsl&item=hmap1715m66.sid

Presidential Inaugurations

When I was looking through the words used in the inaugural addresses, I decided to look for instances where certain words coincided. Before I did this, though, I noticed an interesting phenomena. I decided to look at uses of the word "world" in speeches. I found that this word was not used heavily at all until around 1917, when America entered the First World War. Up until this time, America had been an isolationist country that focused on its own integrity and uprising, so this makes sense. However, the use of this word also coincided with the word "America". Presidents really didn't use the word "America" until the time we entered the First World War. This I found very interesting. Although we as a country decided that we would begin to help the world in 1917 and come out of our isolationist rut, presidents began to talk more about our country as we began to talk about the world. This, to me, tells of how America began during this period to expand our ideals unto the world. However, during times that presidents spoke of the world, they spoke more heavily of war and peace, using these specific words more often. Even stranger, presidents who mentioned the word "world" more often used the term "war" more than they used the word "peace". Strikingly, this phenomena does not necessarily coincide with the time periods of the first and second world wars. What can this then tell us about America's vision about the world? Although these instances can not be used to definitively make any real conclusions, it is an interesting idea to ponder that when our presidents, representing us as a country, begin to talk about the world more, they talk less about peace than war, and more about the name of our country. And finally let us consider one more coinciding instance. As the use of the words "world", "America", "war", and "peace" began to rise with the start of the First World War, the use of the words "great", "right", and "duty" began to fall. In fact, the use of these words almost seemed to vanish as soon as 1917. Is this truly telling of the American foreign agenda? I can not say conclusively, but it is, nevertheless, and interesting idea to ponder.

Strategies in Apocalypse Now

Many strategies are jam-packed into the first three minutes of this film. Just by this fact, we can tell that the director was trying to portray an important message.
One of the strategies at play was the way that different images were shown on screen at the same time, using a faded, layered look. This was very apparent when the face of a man was layered with an image of a jungle. A few seconds later the image of a rotating helicopter blade is layered along with the other images already shown. At this point it becomes difficult to know which of the images is the foreground or which is supposed to be the image we should fix our eyes to, which we should focus on. This, I believe, is what is important and profound about the strategy. The Vietnam War did make the general populace question which aspect of the war to focus on: the soldiers, the people and land of Vietnam, or the honor of war. Of course, this is just three aspects of a multi-layered subject, but this aspect of the film makes us as viewers question what is important: what really is the focus of this reality?
Another strategy that I believe was profound was the use of sound in this clip. Throughout the clip, we can hear the rotation of the helicopter blade incessantly droning over the music playing in the background. Towards the end, the sound of the blade chopping morphs into the sound of the ceiling fan. This morphing of two sounds somewhat makes the audience question their reality. What was the noise all along? Not only this, but the ceiling fan was positioned in the soldier's (or atleast who we can presume is a soldier) room. The noise of the fan is the first thing that he wakes up to, the first thing he sees as we wakes up is the fan. This represents that the war is always with him. He can always here the chopping blades of helicopters. No matter if you're in Saigon, America, or the battle field, the war will always be with this man.

Sound and Fury

Take a Stance on the Topic and Supports it with Specific Evidence

My view on the topic is that I believe that the parents who implanted their child with the cochlear implant made the right choice. Of course my bias is obvious in this situation. I am not deaf and I have never known anyone who is. Until I watched this movie, I had no idea that there was such a thing as "deaf culture" or that deaf people associated with it. Even though I understand that people of the deaf culture would be offended that someone would want to take a child out of their culture, a cochlear implant gives a child the opportunity to choose their lifestyle. Those are the key points: a.) choosing and b.) opportunity. Any parent would agree that they want to give their child every opportunity that they can have to succeed. In our society being deaf would be at your disadvantage. The father of Heather, Peter, said himself that because he was deaf, he didn't have much of a chance at progressing up the corporate ladder. Maybe deaf culture is beautiful and provides joy in the lives of the deaf, but being deaf puts a person at a disadvantage in society as a whole.

Furthermore, giving a child a cochlear implant at a young age gives the child the opportunity to choose their own lifestyle. They will grow up learning how to speak, but the implant does not make your hearing permanently fixed. If the child chooses that he or she wants to be a part of the deaf culture, they could turn their implant off and never use it. Giving the implant is giving the child choices. Leaving the child without an implant doesn't give it any choices at all and leaves it at a disadvantage in our world and could expose it to much strife.

Assange and The Freelancers

Upon contemplating this issue, I can come to no other conclusion than that what Wikileaks is doing is morally sound. As other classmates have said before me, Julian Asange, the leader of the notorious Wikileaks groups, is simply exposing the immoral issues of today and forcing large groups, corporations and governments alike, to deal with the choices they have made. 

I do not question the morality behind Assange's action, and I am not at all supporting the accusations from government and corporations that Assange is a "terrorist" or anything close to the definition. However, during the TED talk, the interviewer warns of a future in which government takes on a personality similar to the Big Brother idea presented in George Orwell's 1984. However, I believe that it could be argued in the opposite direction that Assange and his group of freelancers are becoming a new form of Big Brother.

In Orwell's now classic novel, 1984, Big Brother is half government-propaganda-machine, half sub-conscious-entity that watched the citizens of a dictatorship government's actions, words, and even thoughts to detect any sort of dissidence among the populace and any form of uprise. The purpose behind the Wikileak Big Brother is quite different, but the concept still similar. Governments and corporations now have to be more careful about what they do, who's watching what they do, and how they document their actions. The ever watchful eye of freedom of speech and information freelancers may be upon you, seeking vengeance.

Although for many this does not sound so bad from a moral standpoint, consider another perspective. During the TED talk, the interviewer brings up the point that the video of the air-raid in Baghdad not only harms the image of the US government, but also the soldiers perpetrating the act. The soldiers may argue that they themselves are victims of the American war-machine and senseless violence that they have been exposed to during their service. However, this is an issue for the public to contest now that the video is completely public, clearly showing soldiers more or less chuckling as they kill 18 civilians. 

So, the actions of individuals now are also to be scrutinized by the world. A Big Brother watching over the morality of evil corporations and secretive government organizations doesn't sound half bad, but someone watching over your choices is a different ball game. Some may argue that it's good that there's finally someone exposing the ill deeds of humans on this earth, and I may be inclined to agree, but this new, now small, but growing judgement-maker on earth presents a new moral standpoint for all those inclined to believe that their actions go unnoticed. 

Good Night and Good Luck

I don't believe I'm exaggerating in saying that my neck feels like it's about to fall apart. While reading over my last post, I massaged my temples to try to stave off the tsunami of a headache that is approaching after staring at a computer screen for 3 hours. I am done with analyzing for the night. I am out of deep thoughts. Anyone who reads all of my posts can obviously tell that the quality of my writing has decreased incrementally over the night with each new post. So, however blasphemous it may be, I am going to postpone my last post on Mary Wollstonecraft until tomorrow. Shoot! I was so looking forward to it. Okay, I would be lying as well if I said I have read to the last page of the essay. The headache tsunami is, unfortunately, not a lie either. I will rest, read the last page of my essay, and post my well-thought-out insights on the essay. Believe me, they will blow your mind.

So to those who are reading, I give you a thankful and cordial adieu for the night.