Who's Next?

Huffington Post

Today in class the subject came up about a bakery in Oregon, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I found it extremely interesting that the owners are against something that has very little effect on them, if any.

This reminded me of our unit on slavery and emancipation. It was obvious that the southern states had always wanted to keep slavery legal, as they felt they needed slaves due to the expanse of land to be taken care of. But for the North it was a different story. The northern states often felt they needed someone to look down to, for psychological reassurance that they were not the lowest class. "Even as reform movements arose in the North that condemned slavery as contrary to Christianity and to basic American values, and national debate over the peculiar institution intensified, southern society closed in defense of slavery" (Foner 407).

This reminded me of the bakery in Oregon. In both instances, certain people are being denied of something merely due to the color of their skin, or in this case, their sexual orientation. Both something that cannot be entirely in one's control, and certainly don't warrant inequality and mistreatment. It seems as though society has begun to victimize a certain group of people due to psychological reasons, to feel better about themselves. In the 1800 and 1900s, blacks were always treated as inferior to all others, and not until the late 1900s did blacks fully gain the same rights that whites obtain. Now, the LGBT community is treated as inferior, as lesser than the others; in most states they don't even have the right to marry each other.

Do you think that society constantly needs a certain group to look down to for superiority? Or do you think this is due to the natural instinct for us to reject what is unfamiliar? Or an entirely different reason altogether?

If it is due to the purpose of deflecting attention from ourselves, and ultimately feel better about our lives, then who's next?

Photography Over Time

Today in class we talked about how black and white photos were much more common in the days of the Civil Rights Movement, as they seemed to depict a more serious and raw illustration of the subject in the photo. It was said that black and white was just a more realistic view of an event, that color was a scarcer option to well-known photographers.

I stumbled upon this article on Digg today, and I was struck by how similar it was to our conversation in class. The first few sentences of the article stated, "Black and white photographs often feel more genuine than color images- more truthful, somehow- especially those depicting historical events. Much of that perceived authenticity derives from the fact that black and white pictures seem to be, in the most positive way, far simpler than their color counterparts" (Lightbox). 

The photos in the article are a fantastic depiction of the events that occurred and they all send a very powerful message. If you don't have time to look at the article, at least check out these pictures:

I think my favorite picture is the last one. The caption states, "A little girl plays with her doll... two guns and a knapsack are next to her on the ground." Wow. This is a striking photo to me, not only due to the clarity and color of the photo, but also due to the message it ensues. This innocent, young girl is only playing with her dolls with no care in the world, yet next to her sits two weapons that contradict the very subject of the portrait. Two weapons that act as a symbol of war, of violence, and of death, lay directly next to this angelic girl that, frankly, isn't fully aware as to what is happening around her. 

Photography is one thing that can persist over time. As the article states, "World War I is behind us, and with it, the first-person verification of what occurred. But the photographs- nay, the memories- remain"(Lightbox). I find it extremely fascinating that we can view photos of life in the olden days. Sure they may be glimpses of what was happening, and photography isn't truth, but it's something. It's a way to make a connection and relate to the events that happened in the past. A way to find out, or at least make a guess, as to why things were the way they were and what caused them to be that way. 

Homework: As Fundamental As It Seems?

This past week was Halloween. The children were outdoors getting their yearly fill of candy, my mother was cooking up dinner for our extended family coming to visit, and where was I? Funny story, I was holed up in my room studying for a quarter final in physics and a test in Spanish. I was also working on a project and had to review for math, as I have a test this week. My grandmother's birthday is on Halloween and she came to visit, but all I could do was say hello and get back to my load of work.

It makes me sad when I wonder how much time I really spend with my family, with the people around me. How much time I have to go outdoors and enjoy my teenage years. When I get home I go straight up to my room and don't come down until dinner is ready. My homework takes up a large amount of my day, the entire portion of the day when I'm not in class. So I'm constantly reminded of the grades that I'm striving to achieve, the goals I've set for myself, even outside of school; this causes a dramatic excess of stress. Not to mention the fact that I have to take my ACT this year, and my father is constantly hounding me about colleges to look at. Just today he handed me a large handout of newspaper articles surrounding the concept of choosing the right college and being a good student. The amount of stress in my life is outrageous at this point. To me, homework-although helpful- is often unmanageable and unnecessary, as we as students spend a majority of the day in school.

I'm sure some of you have heard that there is no homework in Finland. I read this article today and it genuinely surprised me. It will only take a second to look over, but to sum it up it basically says that in Finland there is no homework-which may be a drawback to some- but the high school graduation rate in Finland is at 93%, while in the U.S. it is at 75% (Neomam). This may bring up the question: what is Finland doing right? How does such successful feedback come from this country which doesn't require work at home?

The answer is simple. In Finland, the first standardized test that you are required to take is when you are 16 years old. In New York, an average student will have taken ten standardized tests before they reach high school. And not only that, but an average American student has about 27 minutes of recess, while in Finland you have 75 minutes a day (Neomam). It seems as though the work level in the U.S. is much greater, as well as the amount of stress. For these Finnish students, the constant worry of homework and doing well on standardized testing is no longer a threat, as they have time to relax and give themselves a break from schoolwork. To me, this is an ideal situation, to be able to set apart time to do what you want to do, whether it be spending time with family, engaging in sports, or even just enjoying the great outdoors. It would be a great stress reliever, a great way to get one's mind off of school work and grades. The fact that the amount of homework doesn't directly correlate with the learning rate just goes to show that it may not be an essential device in education.

Now that I've given my opinion, what do you guys think? Should the U.S. follow in the path of Finland and decrease- or even remove altogether- the amount of homework we receive each night? Or to you, is the current system a manageable and successful one?