AP Exam

I looked at the 2007 synthesis essay which provided 6 sources about the positive and negative effects of advertising.
If I were to answer this question with my own essays, I would have analyzed to various functions of advertising in society, from informational public service announcements and political campaigns to material goods and the cultivation of a person's social identity. I would have discussed the positive and the negative acknowledging that ads can often be helpful and are the way for publications and shows to amass funding however they can also be damaging to individuals and are often largely untrue and misleading. I would have used Sources B,D,E as well as some of my own experience and real world examples.
I felt this one would be difficult for me to have a balanced discussion of both pros and cons and it's difficult for me to weave the sources in as evidence.
The sample essays I read had varying success. One had a detailed discussion of the concept of advertising, a balanced discussions and acknowledgement of both sides. It is well organized and aptly and accurately addresses the prompt somewhat originally.
The other two essays lack proper organization and indepth discussion of the topic and lack the details of the other essay.
This topic and set up was similar to other synthesis essays we have looked at. The format and the various passages were similar. This was one of the early synthesis essays and there are fewer sources however the sources were only passages with no charts or illustrations.
Had I done this essay, I feel like I would have done fairly well if I had been able to organize well and provide a balanced discussion.

Gender and Queer Studies

The Poisonwood Bible is strongly influenced by the voice of its young narrator's. The four girls' maturation and specifically Leah, Rachel and Adah's venture into adolescence are important aspects of the story and narration. It is clear that from their father's rigid religious influence, they have grown up in a conservative household, especially in regards to their own gender roles and sexuality. The twins are precocious and intelligent beyond their years however, will not be able to further their education because, according to Nathan, it would be like pouring water into shoes.

In these recent chapters, the girls' gender binary based identities are based on the traditional, get married and create offspring mindset. Orleanna has them create "hope chest" in which the girls create small, feminine crafts to use after they are married. The girls' futures are clear in only one respect, they will get married.

Rachel is enthusiastic about the task, perhaps the most suited to this traditional role of the three adolescent girls. Leah particularly struggles with her parents' hopes that she will get married and, as a tom-boyish, pious, and almost too smart for her own good girl, cannot see a way in which she can fullfil these expectations. In this societal framework, her only other option would be to become a missionary or a member of some religious order. 

The way the Prices and the Kilungans see and react to each other also display differences in their cultural gender roles. We see this primarily through the children as the young girls preform typically female tasks of helping their mothers will cooking or taking care of the children while the boys play games which prepare for them to build and to hunt. The Price women who wear pants are a novel sight for the Kilugans as only their men wear pants. The Prices are equally shocked to see bare-chested women or other forms of bodily exposure.

Book vs Movie

An obvious difference between the novella Heart of Darkness and the movie Apocalypse Now is the change in setting. The movie is based on the premise of the novel though is not an exact movie adaptation and the time period, setting and characters are altered for thematic purposes.

Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is a commentary on European imperialism during the late 1800s and is set in the Belgian Congo while Coppola’s Apocalypse Now is set during the Vietnam War in Vietnam. This is a significant difference between the two, however, despite these large changes, the thematic elements of the two works remain the same. Both examine a sort of western conquest and the brutal nature of war and conquest as well as the obvious futility of the killing. While the natives in the Congo in HOD are killed by overwork, guns and torture, the Vietnamese in Apocalypse are subjected to the warfare of helicopters and bombs. The time periods are different but the effect much the same: the native people are overwhelmed and unable to defend themselves against the senseless killing.

The change in setting for the movie is appropriate and relates to a more recent time period. The similar events and themes draw a parallel between the European imperialism and American foreign policy.

Despite the change in setting, the effect of the unknown jungle is much the same. The Vietnamese setting and the river are similar to the atmosphere in HoD where the soldiers are lost and aimlessly searching for their objective in the mysterious jungle. Also like the Congolese in HoD, the Vietnamese are not well represented as actual characters or people or rather as props. They are easily killed and brushed aside without becoming actual people as the bodies pile up. Both these larger thematic elements serve a larger purpose and remain constant between the two works despite the different time period and setting. Both works achieve similar objectives through slightly different lenses.

HoD Important Quote

"They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force--nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind--as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness." Page 70

This quote is a shift from Marlow's previous paragraph where he praises the intentions of the explorers. He explains that he has seen the brutal truth of colonization first hand and that the ordered destruction of other cultures, while praised for profit and justified by Western ideals, is atrocious. He poignantly says that the conqueror's strength is nothing to marvel at or boast about because it is "an accident" taken from the weakness of others. While this does in a sense reflect a sense of European superiority, Marlow notes that the roles of conquerors and conquered are determined by chance (Guns, Germs, and Steel anyone?)
This passage reflects the tone of the rest of the narrative. Marlow is reflective and able to retell his story with the insight of time. He condemns conquerors as robbers and notes that the mentality that the ends justify the means is wrong.

Difficulties with Heart of Darkness

'Try to be civil, Marlow," growled a voice, and I knew there was at least one listened awake besides myself.
"I beg your pardon. I forgot the heartache which makes up the rest of the price. and indeed what does the price matter, if the trick be well done? You do your tricks very well. and i didn't do badly either, since i managed not to sink that steamboat on my first trip. It's a wonder to me yet. Imagine a blindfold man set to drive a van over a bad road. I sweated and shivered over that business considerably, I can tell you. after all, for a seaman, to scrape the bottom of the thing that's supposed to float all the time under his care is the unpardonable sin." Page 106-107

I don't understand what the other speaker is asking or what he is responding to. Wasn't Marlow having personal thoughts before this? I also don't understand Marlow's response specifically what he means by the trick and his metaphor with the van. What is Marlow trying to communicate and what is the larger implication for this part of his journey?

Psychology of Conquest

The account of the Congo's conquest in King Leopold's Ghost is original in its approach. Facts and dates are handy but a psychological profile of the players involved can be more useful and interesting. It is easy to forget that these sweeping periods of history were often largely orchestrated by a handful people (wealthy, white men) and that these major leaders and influencers were human with very human flaws and motivations. By looking at the background of those involved, it is easier to understand motive and the human element of historical events such as the conquest of the Congo.
I was not shocked to learn that most the key players here are disturbed people. Sure, maybe a little surprised at the extent or caught off guard by taking a peek behind history and the people involved, however, it makes sense. Leopold's early life and his family and other personal relationships largely influenced who he was as a ruler and what drove him to seek out colonies. Men such as Stanley sought an escape from their desperate lives in the unknown of the African wilderness where they themselves would be unknown and could rewrite themselves as daring men of conquest and courage.
Historically, many conquistadors and commanders have been notably unstable and have been motivated by personal lives and psychological hang-ups. From explorers such as the greedy, immoral Hernan Cortes who disobeyed his mother country for personal gain to the leaders in charge of such exploits, many have layered psychological profiles which, in a way, explain their actions.
Today, I would believe this still largely holds true. Let's take a look at politics for example. Someone interested in politics must be willing to subject their careers as well as personal lives to media and public scrutiny. They must be able to handle public opinion well and posses a certain amount of confidence and self-assurances the common person may not posses. This article  outlines some of the typical psychological profiles of those who seek office, so in effect, those who ultimately rule and make decisions are narcissists and extroverts.
This is certainly a different position from a time when rulers were placed on a throne by biological happenstance (a position, as we've seen, rife with its own, separate burdens  however it is still fascinating to look at the more human side of history and those involved in the decision making.

"The Fox Crosses the Stream"

This chapter discusses and explores the man behind the history, Leopold II.

An important aspect of Belgium's colonization of the Congo is the history of the country itself and the man who planned the conquest. Belgium is a small country, once under outside rule itself many a time for several years. It became independent after revolts and placed a German Prince, Leopold I on the throne.
Leopold II lived a distant, reserved life fated with being the next ruled of the country. His parents had a loveless marriage like he himself would be fated to have for political reasons. Even "If Leopold wanted to see his father, he had to apply for an audience." Leopold never learned Flemish, the language of the majority of Belgians and was never exceptionally driven or bright.
His need to make Belgium into a rich, prosperous nation most likely originated from his failure in other aspects of life. In an attempt to prove himself worthy, Leopold focused on economic gain. Interestingly, unlike many other imperialist nations and rulers, according to the book, Leopold made his intentions very clear. This  source claims to disagree and Leopold's motives and appearance are debatable.
As in the title, Leopold is like a fox crossing a stream, as his father observed. He is timid and careful though purposeful. Leopold's colonization of Africa was just that. He began slowly by attempting to find suitable areas to colonize traveling to various parts of the world. He did not jump into the situation too hastily and worked to find an area he wouldn't need to buy but could simply take by force.
He used a veneer of philanthropy to achieve a good public standing so that few would question him. Leopold acted with prompted by his personal life and his desire for wealth and notoriety.
sources:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/336654/Leopold-II
http://www.nndb.com/people/036/000094751/









Questions

1. What is the significance of the title as it relates to Leopold's life and rule? Is it accurate?
2. How did Leopold's personal life affect him as a ruler?
3. What does Belgium's own history and culture perhaps foreshadow about its imperialism?
4. What is significant about Leopold's words "Petit pays, petits gens" (small country, small people) and view of Belgium as a ruler?
5. What is the significance of Leopold's Geographical Conference in 1876?

Disregarding the Stigma

I swear I wrote this before and used my Panic Button to extend the deadline and it got saved as a draft and I'm sorry.

There are few people who I idolize more than Bill McKibben, founder of the environmental organization 350.org. I pretty much threw up from excitement when I heard him speak and met him a few months ago. Aren’t we adorable?
So I was thrilled to find out that he has written a few things making a case for one children families and, as the parent of an only child himself, advocating for only children. One article published in The New York Times “What Only-Child Syndrome?” McKibben explores the history of the only child stigma, the reasons why even now only-children are stereotyped as spoiled and self-possessed.
In the late 19th century there was a study which used a survey to find exceptional and peculiar children. The conclusion was that immigrants and only children were far more likely to be peculiar. The stigma stuck and for a generation only-childness might at well have been a disease. At one point in the early 1900s one journalist insisted “It would be best for the individual and the race if there were no only children.”
This viewpoint held through the first half of the century. Finally in the 1970s, two researchers began to perform studies to look into the difference in only children. Toni Falbo and Denise Polit eventually examined more than a hundred studies done since the 1920's. In the mid-1980's, Falbo and Polit concluded that ''only children scored significantly better than other groups in achievement motivation and personal adjustment,'' and were in all other respects indistinguishable from children with siblings.
Only children tend to have slightly higher I.Q.'s and their vocabulary scores are markedly higher, probably because conversation in the household does not become as childlike.I can certainly attest to the fact that, as an only child, I only ever sat at the adult table and had the privileged of being treated as an equal

In his book, Maybe One: A Personal and Environmental Argument for Single-Child Families, McKibben argues that one child may be enough, may not fall into the stereotypes and could slow the terrifying population rise. It could be an environmental service to only have one child in a world overburdened by quickly rising populations. Having only one child, in a non-dictatorial, government demanded way, could be more socially and environmentally responsible. McKibben makes it seem that having two children is a luxury. However, for the 2.3 children and a picket fence attitude to shift, the stigma surrounding self-centered only children will have to change first.
So the study in the 1920s that said that only children are peculiar might be right. Only children are weird, they grow up in a significantly different environment, however, weird might not be so bad. Regardless, my position as an only child may have given me a different upbringing, but only children like others are influenced negatively and positively by their home environment.

Question #3

3.What drew the average European to places like Central Africa? What made them think they could leave their “bourgeois morality back in Europe?” 
As European countries began to industrialize and become imperial powers, they needed to expand and conquer other areas for resources.  Europeans such as the Dutch were drawn to Central Africa because of the ivory trade and the immense amount of wealth which could be gained from the exploitation of these resources. As Europe modernized and prosperity increased, there was an increase in ivory demand to make luxary goods such as piano keys, billiard balls, knife handles, and ornamental carvings. (Brittanica).
Also, during the 18th and 19th centuries, the Europeans realized that Africa could also provide a cheap labor force. With superior weapons such are guns, they were able to overwhelm and capture many people as slaves to ship over to the Americas which needed a cheap labor force. This mainly occurred on the west coast of Africa however the trading extended into Central Africa as well. 
Central Africa gained attention with King Leopold II. His father had attempted to found colonies in the Americas and the Pacific however he failed and Leopold II turned his attention to Central Africa which was not as prized and less known to Europeans at the time. (Brittanica). 
Europeans believed that they could leave their “bourgeois morality back in Europe" because for the most part, Africa was seen as savage and there for the taking. Like the Native Americans and European conquest and colonization, the native people were seen as inferior and exploitable for other purposes. For economic reasons,"European merchants and trading companies called on their home governments to intervene and impose "free trade," by force if necessary. It was these political, diplomatic, and commercial factors and contentions that led to the military conflicts and organized African resistance to European imperialism." (Africana Age). It was in the haste to expand and gain an economic advantage that the Europeans brutalized and exploited Central Africa.

Senior Project Update

We're almost done! lol jk 

Research Paper Update

1. In my paper, I am exploring "clean" coal's environmental and social effects of the coal industry and the possibility and likelihood of actual clean coal. 
2.  I think that the most useful part of my paper is the exploration of current clean technologies and the explanation of why they are not sufficient for curbing global warming and environmental degradation. 
3.  Currently, I oppose further use of clean coal. It is difficult for us as a nation to quit coal clean turkey because of the deep ties it has to the economy. Billions of dollars have already been invested into coal, however, further use of coal dooms the planet to rise above the 2 degree Celsius mark. Essentially, my position on coal is that it is dirty and that attempts to market it as "clean" are false and misleading.  Technology to make coal completely clean is not currently available and will not be in the foreseeable future and it is important to wean of fossil fuels. 
4. As a non-sciency person, I think I am the general audience on topics about energy and coal use.  It has taken some careful research to understand the chemical composition of coal and the physics and biology of coal burning and its impact on the environment. I will attempt to use background information and simple language to create the most accessible description while still exploring the concepts fully. 
Example:
The chemical composition of coal varies from deposit to deposit. In general, carbon has a higher carbon to hydrogen ratio than other fossil fuels, therefore, during combustion, the high amount of carbon combine with oxygen to create large amounts of CO2 (carbon dioxide) a major factor in climate change. (might add a chemical equation here for clarification) Coal contains a large amount of volatile substances such as fixed coal and noncombustible material such as ash which must be disposed of after burning. The rest of coal is composed of small percentages of other materials such as sulfur and mercury. Sulfur can make up anywhere from 1 to 4 percent of coal. The larger the percentage, the more difficult it is to clean the coal.
5.  Surprised? My reaction throughout my research has been more akin to "Whoa" :( *throws up in corner*. Everything about our use of coal and fossil fuels points to a nearly irreversible environmental damage. My most surprise has been the depths to which coal is ingrained in our economy and of its negative effects.

Also, I found this and thought it was an interesting (and infuriating) propaganda piece against coal. Pardon the language. .

More on Schooling

Senior makes compelling points about the high school environment itself. While the neurological and psychological causes of adolescence are prominent factors in why the high school experience is so lasting, the school system itself also contributes to it. As we have discussed some of the flaws of the school system and its repression of students' individuality, the school environment itself can be harmful.
 One of the most interesting points is the age divisions. School is traditionally broken up into grades by age divisions and in some uncommon cases, students are able to stay back a year if needed. Maturity ranges widely and just because some has reached a certain age doesn't mean they are suited for the academic and social aspects of high school. As Senior says, high schoolers are grouped by the general category of age but seldom are similar or have much in common.
This age division also separates students from adults. The high school biosphere creates a certain type of homogeneity, distinct from the outside world. Most students are isolated from adults in a social setting and grow up in a school system largely unable to communicate with anyone other than their peers. Abolishing of child labor laws enforced school have helped to foster a generation gap.
From a sociological standpoint, it's also an interesting concept that high school is a box like any other. That is, it is a microcosm, a community, which like any other social group, degenerates into certain parts. High school is more noted for the cliques, aggression, and drama because of hormonal and neurological processes at this time in an adolescent's life. High school breaks down into primeval  displays of superiority and power. Generally, popularity is gauged on basic things such as material possessions, physical strengths, attractiveness and the ways of perception dictate the social pattern.
As in any other microcosm, that which is different is seen as a threat. So nerds and weirdos get filtered to the side. As the article points out, this is common in high school however, similar principles apply outside of this bubble, but these people just find separate niches.
Overall, the school system itself and inevitable traits of human nature contribute to the formative high school experience.

Patriot Perspective

Can I just put it out there? Whether you agree with it or not, the full acronym "USA PATRIOT" Act is the single most clever thing ever. Okay, glad that's out.

Racial profiling, airport security, and a fear of terrorist attacks are commonalities of a post 9/11 world. I'm a frequent flyer and remember, from my own experience and comments from my parents, how easy traveling used to be. I remember when we could walk through airport security without worrying about shoes or shampoo bottles, and I even remember a time when you could send someone off by walking all the way to the gate with them. The increased security, xenophobia, suspicion and other inconveniences are now something we all grumble about though mostly accept.
I feel like I had somewhat of a grasp on the pre-9/11 world though after reading the articles, the thing that became even more apparent was the sense of fear it created. Every reactionary measure and every argument on either side has been crafted by fear.There is the obvious kind of fear, that of another terrorist attack. The government scrambled for control, however futile, in hopes of creating preventative measures to counteract terrorism. Racial profiling and government surveillance were fear reactions.
The less obvious or perhaps less thought of fear is the fear of a loss of rights. Minority groups are irritated or scared to walk through airport security and the essay against the Patriot Act would have us believe that free thought and creativity are stifled by possible government surveillance.
Either way, it is clear that the aftermath of 9/11 is fear based for all those involved. While these essays written soon after 9/11 are reactionary and many many believe that these are only temporary cautionary measures, I think, unfortunately, this culture of fear is more lasting.