I decided that the stuff I write about isn't controversial enough, so here goes:
___________________
Megan Fox. America's obsession. She has become an idol, the epitome of modern beauty. A sizable percentage of the viewers of the Transformer's movies probably went simply because she is featured in it. Filmmakers know this as well; special effects were used in Transformers 2 to make her look especially stunning. In that video, Alex Clegg, producer, is quoted as saying "If she [Megan Fox] doesn't look amazing, this film will fail".
Think about that for a second. Although this movie has been met with mixed reviews, no one can deny its groundbreaking sales. Transformers 2 grossed over $200 million in its first five days. All of this is because of the appearance of an actress that most Americans would kill their best friend to have a night with. What does this say about our culture? That media is judged based on outward appearance rather than content? That consumers have lost the ability to critically judge art? No, this situation demonstrates that America has no taste in women.
After I type "Megan Fox" in Google images, in hopes of being able to understand this nationwide obsession, I am sorely disappointed. Megan Fox is barely average, a nobody rocketed to undeserved fame under the premise of "beauty" and "talent", two things she clearly doesn't have. Why does America love this actress model so much? Because America has lost the ability to assess a woman's beauty based off her eyes, the only thing that really matters. Eyes are really what emanate emotion and passion. To disregard eyes is to nullify the entire judging process. Eyes are as varied as fingerprints. Even if two people have similar eye color, there is still a distinct difference between them. This difference is something that will never happen when you judge based off of any other feature. America, get your priorities straight.
_________________________________
In English, we recently finished The Great Gatsby (caution, spoilers). It is about this man, named Jay Gatsby, and his tragic quest to win the heart of his past love, Daisy Buchanan. The two of them were acquainted during their younger years back in Louisville, Kentucky, but the relationship had broken off. Daisy now lived in East Egg in New York and Gatsby bought a house right across the bay. He threw many parties in attempts to get her attention. The two of them grew closer towards the end of the book, but this quickly ended when Daisy carelessly ran over someone as she was driving. The victim's husband, who knew that his wife was in an affair, went into a rampage and decided to kill the driver of the car, convinced that he was her lover. He finds Gatsby and kills him, before killing himself.
After reading some analyzes on this book, I began to see the American Dream aspect of this book. Gatsby spent his life devoted to marrying Daisy, a frivolous girl who didn't have the judgment or the brains to drive safely. This girl was his American Dream, a goal whose accomplishment would leave him eternally satisfied.
It is strange that there exists a person whose ambitions are solely fixated on consummating a relationship. I personally think that marriage simply a trade-off between a questionable illusion of love and freedom. Is it really worth sacrificing your independence for the elusive notion of love? Society has associated marriage with a certain degree of prestige and accomplishment where none exists. Marriage serves the purpose of propagation of the human race and financial security. Any additional perks are short lived and ephemeral, as suggested by the 50% divorce rate.
________________________
Lastly, the Jonas Brothers. I keep seeing this group on my news feed about the membership of the group "I Hate the Jonas Brothers". People need to learn the difference between hating and disliking. Personally, I dislike the the Jonas Brothers because, like Megan Fox, they represent everything wrong about American pop culture. They have entered an exclusive social bracket because of their looks, rather than their artistic talent. I remember asking an avid Jonas Brother fan, "Why do you like the Jonas Brothers?" She answered, "C'mon, have you SEEN them?!?!"
Despite this, it is still irrational to hate the Jonas Brothers whereas it is reasonable to dislike them. In the same sense, it is irrational to love the Jonas Brothers whereas it is reasonable to like them. This is just a trivial case of semantics, but to me it is very significant. I view Jonas Brother haters with as much disdain as I view Jonas Brother lovers.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
What is History
Although this was written for school, I thought it be interesting to see what other people thought about this.
_____________________________
History keeps track of the longest lasting aspects of the human experience. Thousands of years of past events are recorded and presented for future generations to learn. It functions as the bridge between the old and the new. It acts as a way to understand one’s origins. However, history is not solely fact. The historians that record the events of the past might have a bias in the presentation of the facts. Because of this, history is sometimes biased.
History can be defined as the synthesis and presentation of the events of the past. The historian researches and collects a wide array of information about a topic. Then he or she presents the information in a way that informs and enlightens the reader. It is difficult for a historian to remain purely objective in the analysis of history, because, as a human being, he or she already has an opinion about the event. Information will be found and presented in order to convince the readers of that opinion.
The institution of slavery can be explained differently based on the historian’s bias. In one article, Historian A compares slavery to imprisonment in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. The information found supports the point that the slaves’ mentality and personality were crushed similarly to those that were imprisoned in the concentration camps. In another article, Historian B argues that the lifestyle as a slave was not as bad as most people thought. He argued that slaves got more than enough of the daily nutrient intake and were rarely punished. Both articles have biases that distort the truth about the slavery and consequently affect the reader’s knowledge of it. The first article is based on an inaccurate comparison. On plantations, slaves had to be kept healthy in order to work whereas prisoners brought to concentration camps to eventually be killed. The second article has biased information. The author of the article researches the daily nutrition intake himself, showing only the information that would bolster his argument. Also, he concludes that slaves were rarely punished after just one interview with a slave owner known to be lenient with his slaves.
The present also influences the reporting of the past. One article about 9/11, titled “The Case for Rage and Retribution”, was published on September 12, 2001. It called for a “unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury” response towards yesterday’s events. Five years later, another article, titled “America in the World: What We’ve Learned since 9/11” was published questioning the effectiveness of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The article mentioned the low approval rating about the war, the animosity directed towards America from other countries and the loss of ethics in warfare to make the reader critically think about the worth of the invasions. Both of these articles exemplified America’s attitude at the time of publishing. This contrast in belief is due to the different times that the event was viewed. As time goes along, historians have different perspectives on an event because they see more of what has resulted from it. In this sense, the present influences the reporting of the past.
Many factors influence the reporting of history, such as time, the author’s bias and the information used. This makes history a collection of perspectives, with facts used to support them. Because of this, there is a difference between the “past” and “history”. The public can indulge in the illusion of understanding the past, rather than knowing history, when several historians can agree on information. However, the past can never be thoroughly explained because history is inherently biased.
_____________________________
History keeps track of the longest lasting aspects of the human experience. Thousands of years of past events are recorded and presented for future generations to learn. It functions as the bridge between the old and the new. It acts as a way to understand one’s origins. However, history is not solely fact. The historians that record the events of the past might have a bias in the presentation of the facts. Because of this, history is sometimes biased.
History can be defined as the synthesis and presentation of the events of the past. The historian researches and collects a wide array of information about a topic. Then he or she presents the information in a way that informs and enlightens the reader. It is difficult for a historian to remain purely objective in the analysis of history, because, as a human being, he or she already has an opinion about the event. Information will be found and presented in order to convince the readers of that opinion.
The institution of slavery can be explained differently based on the historian’s bias. In one article, Historian A compares slavery to imprisonment in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. The information found supports the point that the slaves’ mentality and personality were crushed similarly to those that were imprisoned in the concentration camps. In another article, Historian B argues that the lifestyle as a slave was not as bad as most people thought. He argued that slaves got more than enough of the daily nutrient intake and were rarely punished. Both articles have biases that distort the truth about the slavery and consequently affect the reader’s knowledge of it. The first article is based on an inaccurate comparison. On plantations, slaves had to be kept healthy in order to work whereas prisoners brought to concentration camps to eventually be killed. The second article has biased information. The author of the article researches the daily nutrition intake himself, showing only the information that would bolster his argument. Also, he concludes that slaves were rarely punished after just one interview with a slave owner known to be lenient with his slaves.
The present also influences the reporting of the past. One article about 9/11, titled “The Case for Rage and Retribution”, was published on September 12, 2001. It called for a “unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury” response towards yesterday’s events. Five years later, another article, titled “America in the World: What We’ve Learned since 9/11” was published questioning the effectiveness of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The article mentioned the low approval rating about the war, the animosity directed towards America from other countries and the loss of ethics in warfare to make the reader critically think about the worth of the invasions. Both of these articles exemplified America’s attitude at the time of publishing. This contrast in belief is due to the different times that the event was viewed. As time goes along, historians have different perspectives on an event because they see more of what has resulted from it. In this sense, the present influences the reporting of the past.
Many factors influence the reporting of history, such as time, the author’s bias and the information used. This makes history a collection of perspectives, with facts used to support them. Because of this, there is a difference between the “past” and “history”. The public can indulge in the illusion of understanding the past, rather than knowing history, when several historians can agree on information. However, the past can never be thoroughly explained because history is inherently biased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)