Huey Long: A Wrangler

“‘It is a far greater thing that I do now than I have ever done before.’  That man was beheaded.” . . . “I’m not surprised.”  --The Fantasticks

Huey Long’s prediction of his own death came true on September 10, 1935, when he was shot in his side by an eye doctor. Long knew he was a loudmouth, and he was proud of it, saying without flinching that when his time was up, he would be killed. And so it happened. Huey Long was a man adored by many and loathed by many, but he was too bold to be regarded by anyone with neutrality. Many people feared him, for he was a powerful man who stuck to his promises. Politicians always make big promises to the people, but few ever plant their feet and follow through—they’re too safe, too cowardly. Long wasn’t safe, and he wasn’t cowardly. His policies were radical, with a desire to “break up the swollen fortunes of America and . . . spread the wealth among all our people.” Long said adamantly, “I'm for the poor man—all poor men, black and white, they all gotta have a chance. They gotta have a home, a job, and a decent education for their children. 'Every man a king' — that's my slogan."*

Huey Long cared about the poor. There was a good deal of George Bailey in him, whatever his other faults. However, George Bailey, though a fictional character (It’s a Wonderful Life), of course, got something done. Huey Long wrangled tirelessly for his policies, but did any great good come from it? Long retorted when critics criticized his methods,

“They say they don't like my methods. Well, I don't like them either. I really don't like to have to do things the way I do. I'd much rather get up before the legislature and say, 'Now this is a good law and it's for the benefit of the people, and I'd like you to vote for it in the interest of the public welfare.' Only I know that laws ain't made that way. You've got to fight fire with fire."*

Long called for people to share the wealth like a mother screaming at her child, “Be nice to your sister!” Making a law which requires people to share their money will not create a good community between rich and poor. The rich will always try to hold on to their money, and the poor will always resent the rich. Huey Long’s motives were certainly admirable, but his methods would never have succeeded, had he lived for a thousand years.

*Quotes from Huey Long found at

http://www.hueylong.com/perspectives/huey-long-quotes.php

What We Love, What We Hate, and What We Buy

When Susanna Berger stepped off the plane and into America, with one green suitcase, fourteen body-piercings, and a scared countenance, I had no idea how to pinpoint her. Susanna stayed with my family for one year as a foreign exchange student from a small German village of 600 people. For the first few weeks after her arrival, because of the language barrier between us, the only clues I had to understand who Susanna was were her possessions. She wore punk clothing, had a nose ring and a tattoo, and listened to Pink, the rock star with explicit lyrics, so at first I judged that she would be a rebellious, tough sort of girl. I quickly realized that this was not true and that Susanna was not rebellious, but very shy. There were many things about her that surprised me. Although she loved the horror movie, Saw 4, she also loved Disney’s The Lion King. Although she always went to wild parties in Germany, she also enjoyed sitting and playing strategy games for hours on end with my mother. I just couldn’t figure this girl out! It turned out to be much more difficult than I had predicted to understand our new family member. Susanna turned out to be much more than her possessions, of which she had few when she came to America. Her belongings were simple, owning one pair of shoes, a couple of books, and a couple of pairs of clothing. I had only the possessions in her one green suitcase to judge her by, which furthermore were possessions from a completely different culture than America and were not familiar to me. Because Susanna owned fewer possessions when she arrived in America, her image was freed from being chained to them, and it was easier for me to realize that there was more to her than what she had bought.

In a period where a consumer culture flourishes like never before, marketers tell us continually, “You are what you buy.” Is this true? Do our possessions define us? To answer this question, we must first ask three other questions that will give us insight into the topic. First off, what do our possessions say about us? Can you tell a person by what he buys? Or, perhaps possessions are just a piece of the puzzle. This leads to the next question; what is it that we desire? In any realm of life, if you want to understand a person or a culture, always ask what they desire, because our desires are a significant part of who we are. And finally, if we are not solely what we buy, what else forms our identity? With these questions, we begin to answer the looming question, are you what you buy?

So much information is revealed by the things we buy. In a moment we project a menagerie of different signals and symbols to the people around us. In many cases, however, it isn’t who we are that we present, but who we want to be viewed as. For example, a normal middle-class woman will often be seen wearing a pair of scuffed oxfords and an old comfy sweater, yet carrying a Coach purse. Just because this woman owns a Coach purse does not automatically make her a fashionable, wealthy, chic woman. Perhaps she would like to be viewed as this kind of woman, and the image she projects will be just that—a woman who wants to be associated with wealth and fashion. Another possibility is that the woman is simply fond of Coach purses; however, I would suggest that there is hardly ever a situation where we are solely fond of an object for its utility. I observed this when Susanna lived with us. She brought with her a diary covered in promiscuous photos and a Playboy wallet. These two items gave an air of rebellious sexuality like her tattoo and piercings. However Susanna’s personality was never remotely rebellious while she lived with us. She wore little makeup and wasn’t overly concerned with her appearance. When she described her life in Germany, she told us that she was very shy and didn’t talk very much. Not only were the diary and wallet symbols of sexuality and rebelliousness, but more specifically, Playboy is based in American Culture, and America is very popular in German fashion, so the wallet was a way to identify with American sexuality and also with money, since carrying money is the purpose of a wallet. The possessions were a way for her to express an image of herself which she wished was true. We use possessions as a language to express who we are, or more appropriately, to express who we want to be.

To further understand our culture and ourselves, it is vital to understand what we desire. Understanding what our possessions say about us exposes a lot of important information, but to discover what we want from our possessions goes to the heart of the subject. In Signs of Life, Laurence Shames maintains that possessions are about control. Humans, especially in this day and age, love to believe that they are in control of their lives. We delude ourselves into thinking this with our climate-controlled cars, our climate-controlled houses, our retirement plans, and our schedules penciled in by the hour. We also desire to create an image for ourselves—a very controlled image—of course. By creating an image for ourselves with our possessions, we attain another important desire: a feeling of security. My mother is a relatively frugal woman; nevertheless she owns her own computer, regardless of the fact that we have another laptop and a desk top in our house. Although she could share the other two computers with our family, she chooses to have her own laptop that only she uses, so that she can use it at a moment’s notice, without anyone else in the family competing with her over it. By eliminating competition, she gains control over the time she can use her computer. We in American hate to share. In contrast however, my brother and I share a cell phone. It’s a rare occurrence to see a teenage girl and boy sharing a cell phone. It’s very practical for us to share a phone because it is cost efficient and it makes it easy for my parents to get a hold of us; however most people would think it odd because a cell phone is a status symbol for teenagers and many teenagers wouldn’t dream of having to share one. For me, my cell phone is primarily an object for utility.

In his essay, "The More Factor," Shames also suggests that people today want to be viewed as safe, yet new. Just like the woman with the Coach purse, people often try to project an image that is not quite true to them. We attempt to be rebels, without doing anything rebellious. Clearly, our possessions attest to our insatiable desires for control, safety, and yet wealth and the new.

If it is true that our society is significantly defined by and engrossed in its possessions, then are we what we buy? Can our identity be fundamentally broken down to our possessions? For example, a young man in his prime owns a red sports car, an i-Phone, and a comfortable apartment. He is a wealthy, fashionable, young man with a taste for excitement and flashiness. Is this all he is? That’s it? This seems like a pathetic identity. What about this man’s beliefs, values, and dreams? These must come into play; they are a crucial part of a person’s being. Our belongings may reveal something about us to others, but they are not the thing that makes up our identity. Primarily, the thing that makes up a person or culture’s identity is its beliefs about God, other humans, and what is important in life.

After one year with Susanna, my view of her had absolutely changed. Taken out of her normal surroundings, Susanna presented an image of herself primarily by her preferences and dislikes and her reactions to new things and new situations. I learned that she was a social person, loving to sit up with my family, talking for hours on end. I learned that she was a sensitive person, crying the first time she attended an American church. I learned that she was a hard working person, helping out with house hold chores every day. The year she lived with us, Susanna changed a lot, and her purchases reflected these changes. When she arrived she was very particular about the clothing she bought, preferring the colors black, purple, and blue. By the end of the year she was open to shopping at new stores and liked wearing brighter colors like green, yellow, and brown. Because she knew that her trip to America was temporary, Susanna purchased a few special, expensive items, including an i-Pod and an elegant prom dress to wear to her graduation. When Susanna first arrived, she most certainly would have bought a black prom dress, but later in the year she chose to buy a bright blue dress which was feminine and matched her eyes. This shows that she learned to embrace a different side of herself, which was positive, girly, and proud of what she looked like. Susanna’s favorite thing to spend money on was Caribou coffee. Unlike America, Germany does not have a Starbucks, Caribou, or Dunn Bros. on every corner, so the idea of specialized dessert coffee, which has become a symbol of intellect and fashion in the USA, was a new and exciting one to Susanna. I learned much about Susanna by what she bought, but more importantly, I learned that she was so much more than what she bought.

Most importantly, after asking the questions, “What do our possessions say about us?”, “What do we desire? and “What else defines us?”, the resounding answer is that we are much more than what we buy. For example, the U.S. A. defined itself long ago, not by what it possessed—the new frontier—but by saying that it was “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Surely, who we are is made up by many different things, including, but not at all limited to, what we love, what we hate, what we feel about God, what we feel about our fellow human-beings, what our parents taught us, what our name is, what kind of ice cream we like, and yes, what we buy.

What a Banjo Can Tell

As I stood on the sidewalk in downtown Rochester during Thursdays On First, a weekly summer event in Rochester that allows a great opportunity for making money street-performing, my guitar case open, the sun beating down on me and my fellow musicians, and my voice cracking from hours of trying to sing over the hubbub of the busy street, only one thought motivated me to keep playing. If I kept my music going for a few more hours, I might finally have enough money to buy a banjo. As I plucked my guitar strings while my best friend, Ciaran, strummed away on his mandolin, and Sophia played her violin, people stood around and listened to us play “The Ballad of Love and Hate,” a folk song by the Avett Brothers. When nine-thirty finally came and there were no more people passing by, I sat down to count out how much I had made in my ten hours of performing that day and found that I had, indeed, made enough money. I spent the next few days pouring over banjos on the internet, trying to pick one that was the quality I wanted. I was very particular because I did not want to be known for having a low quality banjo. So, I am a street performer who likes banjos and folk music. Do you have me figured out? Am I what I buy?

When I look around at peoples’ possessions, I am always left wondering who they really are because peoples’ possessions often mislead us. When we see people and the things that they own, we need to ask ourselves three important things. First, how do people represent themselves through what they buy? Second, what do people want or desire for themselves? And third, are people who they appear to be as shown by their possessions? When we take some time and explore the answers to these three questions, it will be clearer whether people are what they buy or not.

 When looking at the American culture to see how people represent themselves, a good place to start is with some of the most obvious possessions such as cars and clothes. Americans seem to use their cars to show at a glance how their owners want to be characterized. “The jock” is more likely to be driving a red Mercedes than a Smart car. The “tough guy” is less likely to be seen driving a mini-van, but might invest in a Harley. And a “soccer mom” is more likely to drive a mini-van than a Harley, which is an indicator that she’s a mom because it’s a practical choice for her family. Similarly, clothes also show others who they are. For example, people love to be characterized as the “jock” or the “musician” because of the outfits they wear. If guy is wearing an Adrian Peterson jersey, then chances are he is a football fan, and more specifically, a Vikings fan. That does not mean that at his core being, he is just a football fan and nothing more. Not only do people buy tangible things that others can see, but they also buy experiences. In the same way, my banjo does represent the tiny part of me that loves folk music, but it doesn’t show that my favorite genre of music is hardcore, a style that has much darker connotations to it. 

Running up to my room to count my money the Thursday night I had enough cash to buy a banjo, I threw down my acoustic guitar and collected money from all around my messy room. I rummaged through drawers full of Harry Potter books and notebooks, and I searched under various instruments until I finally gathered up all the money I had. The reason I wanted a banjo so badly is because I love how the banjo is a unique instrument with a very distinct sound, and also I believe it is a very undervalued and forgotten instrument in the current generation of youth, so I want to have something special that other kids my age don’t have. Although some people may argue that my purchase of skinny jeans and band t-shirts are just a couple more things that describe who I am, there are also many other genres of music that I also love that I haven’t purchased.

When people buy things, they often desire the approval of other people. Catching the eye of others, they feel a sense of comfort that comes with being supported or admired. The soccer mom in her minivan may have made her vehicle choice based on her need or desire to drive kids around. And the man wearing the sports jersey may have selected it because he desired to support his team or because he wanted to fit in with the rest of his friends who also love sports. People will do anything to belong, from dressing a certain way, to talking and acting a certain way, or even by pretending to know about things that they do not. The last reason we often buy things is to feel important or superior. Driving around in their nice sports cars, people might easily think, “I bet those people there in their rusted used car think I am pretty important” or “I look like I have a grand life compared to those people.” My banjo definitely shows what I desire. I want to be able to play music and I want to be accepted by the people who also love that genre of music.

The last and trickiest question is whether or not peoples’ possessions are a façade of who they really are. This leads me to think that we are not what we buy because what we buy is sometimes just what we want to seem rather than what we are. For example, a person might have a beautiful house, but they might just have a great eye for decorating cheaply by refinishing their tables or by sewing their own curtains or just by having a real knack for bargain shopping and a gift for hunting for great deals. Buying nice clothing may have left another person with no money for anything else so even though a person might give off the sense of being in style, they might actually be a very poor person in every other sense. So, if I bought a banjo to carry around rather than to learn to play it, or If I bought a banjo rather than saving up for an I-pod, I would be putting on a mask to seem a certain way that I’m not or I would just not be showing all the things I want in life.

From the possessions people buy to represent themselves, to the things people desire, and even to the façades people use to be accepted, what we buy plays an important role in who we are. Are we solely what we buy? When it comes to what we buy to show who we are, possessions cannot show who we are as a whole; they only show little bits and pieces of us. Even though someone may be dressed exactly the same as me, in skinny jeans and band t-shirts, and we might both be in different hardcore bands, often that kid uses lots of profanities when he speaks, whereas I don’t because I don’t find it a polite or intelligent way of presenting myself. We might also have opposite views on life, he might be an atheist, and I believe in a relationship with a God who loves. As for desires, sometimes we desire things that are contradictory to our other possessions such as a person wanting to belong to a group because they are cool, but their beliefs are contradictory to the groups’ beliefs. Lastly, if a person buys something to be accepted rather than because the item itself actually matters to them, they are not accurately depicting how a person is. If a person buys a football jersey, not because they like football, but because their friends like football, they are falsely representing themselves to fit in. Even though people buy things to represent themselves, their possessions cannot solely depict who they are. People are much too complex to be represented purely by what they buy. Therefore, we are not what we buy. The banjo can only reveal a little of who I am.

Problema I

Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?

Kierkegaard says that if we are to go saying that these people do not have faith and these others do have faith, we must be clear about what we mean by faith, for it is very easy to fall into old clichés. It’s not difficult to explain the whole of existence, answering every moral and philosophical question cleanly and clearly, faith included, and this man is not the worst kind who is admired for such an achievement. There are worse things a man could do, however, as Boileau says, “A fool can always find a greater fool who admires him.” So then, what does Kierkegaard himself mean by faith? Kierkegaard talks about the ethical, which is the universal. I think this means the absolute moral laws we follow. Teleological is a philosophical doctrine that believes that final purposes exist in life—there are absolutes. When Kierkegaard refers to the universal, he means absolute moral laws, with of a view of what is right and wrong is right and wrong in all circumstances, at all times, and to every person equally. In this case he is talking specifically about the beliefs of Christianity.

Faith is putting aside what we hold as the universal—the absolute moral code—in the interest of something higher. Abraham put aside the universal when he brought Isaac up the mountain, ready to kill his own son. When taken outside of the pretty picture storybook version of Sunday school, this looks an awful lot like murder. Not only was it murder, but it was murder of his own son, which is child sacrifice which we know the lord despises. Or at least we thought we knew. But that is the key to faith. God asked Abraham to sacrifice, or murder, his own son, and Abraham obeyed God, even though every moral code he held to was being violated by his act of obedience.  Kierkegaard says, “For faith is just this paradox, that the single individual is higher than the universal, though in such a way, be it noted, that the movement is repeated, that is, that, having been in the universal, the single individual now sets himself apart as the particular above the universal. If that is not faith, then faith has never existed in the world, just because it has always existed.”  I think what he means is that in faith the particular, which is everything is outside the ethical, and is usually described as sin, becomes higher, than the universal when a person who first followed the ethical code breaks away from this law and does something outside of the ethical code in obedience to the Lord. Faith will always look ridiculous, idiotic, or absolutely sinful, and yet it is higher than the absolute moral code of the Bible.

A Merry-Go-Round of Hypocrisy

In schools today, it is commonly accepted that the theory of evolution is true, and teachers everywhere tell their students that this theory is the explanation for our existence. In the defense of the separation of church and state, teachers are forbidden to teach other theories, such as creationism.

Ironically, a debate of a similar nature went on eighty-five years ago in Dayton, Tennessee at a time when, conversely, it was illegal to teach the theory of evolution. A young biology teacher named John T. Scopes, looking for a chance to defend his point, openly admitted to teaching the theory of evolution to his students, and was quickly arrested. He, together with his defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, and The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hoped that this would be their chance to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee Law. Their chance proved unsuccessful, and Scopes was convicted. And so the first amendment was disregarded, for the Tennessee law was a law directly abridging freedom of speech. John T. Scopes should have had a right to make his students aware of the theory of evolution as another view—not forcing his students to believe it, degrading them if they did not believe it, but simply presenting it.

Many people today, and for that matter, many people in this class, will argue that Scopes was a martyr for evolution, a man unconstitutionally treated and wholly misused. These same people will argue that creationism should not be allowed to be taught in schools today. What is the difference then? They are not, then, defending freedom of speech, but only their own beliefs. A common argument is that teaching creationism breaks the wall of separation between church and state. This argument is commonly parroted by uninformed students, who, if they would research the topic for themselves, would quickly discover that the separation of church and state means something very different. The separation of church and state doesn’t mean that religious beliefs can’t be presented in a school, which they are today, since evolution is just as much a religious belief as Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism. When Jefferson, who was not a Christian himself, wrote the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom in 1786, regarding it as his second greatest achievement, he stated this:

An excerpt from the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom:
I. Well aware:

•That all attempts to influence it by temporal [civil] punishments or burdens or by civil incapacitations [lack of fitness for office], tend only to…[produce] habits of hypocrisy and meanness and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate [spread] it by coercions [force] on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;

•That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical [religious], who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion [rule] over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible [ones], and, such, endeavoring to impose them on others, have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

•That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than [on] our opinions in physics or geometry;

•That truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, [for] errors [cease] to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Clearly, when Jefferson wrote of The Separation of Church and State, he didn’t mean that it was wrong to teach about religious beliefs in public, but wrong to force people to believe these teachings or adhere to a particular religion chosen by the government. Today we ride a merry-go-round of hypocrisy—we defend Scopes and we rage on creationism, then we belittle Scopes and praise creationism. Round and round we go, holding tight to our own stubborn beliefs, and forgetting completely about Freedom of Speech and the true meaning of Separation of Church and State.

Liberty and Justice for All

Although both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. De Bois had widely differing views on blacks’ best strategy for gaining equality in society, they were both great American leaders and made significant progress to their causes. This is essential to remember lest we undermine the change to which they devoted their lives.

When analyzing the philosophies of both Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. De Bois, it is important to consider that these men came from vastly different circumstances. Booker T. Washington was born into slavery in 1956 to a slave mother and a white father, who was a nearby planter. W.E.B. De Bois, on the other hand, was born in 1968, a free man to an African American mother and French Huguenot and African American father. Experiencing the difficult and oppressive life of a slave, Booker T. Washington did not gain the status of a free man until he was nine years old; therefore he understood the meaning of slavery in a very different way than De Bois ever could. In addition, Washington lived through the Civil War, while De Bois was born three years after it ended. These differences alone must change these men’s views of their culture and their place in society. Obviously, neither men lived easy lives in an easy time, but they experienced different hardships and different cultures.

Booker T. Washington’s beliefs that blacks must educate themselves, take up the trades, and seek the respect of the white man to earn equal rights is not far off from the beliefs of Fredrick Douglass, the renowned abolitionist. He, like Washington, urged that blacks should join society by trying to add something of value to their community. W. E. B. De Bois also believed that blacks should educate themselves and be active in society, however he did not share Washington’s “don’t rock the boat” theory. He pledged that the only way that blacks could ever gain equal rights with whites was to demand and fight for them. Although the text presents these two men’s views as opposite, it seems that they both may have truth in them. I suggest that though the men’s views are different, they are not complete opposites. Some of these differences were created by the enormous changes that occurred in the culture during the time of their birth. Because he was born a slave, Washington assumedly experienced great fear and bondage as a child. Whether or not he was treated fairly by his owners, the status of a slave still constitutes that the person does not belong to him or herself. When he was a slave, it is probable that he operated under the rules of playing fair with white people; if you rock the boat, you get hurt. This may be the origin of his later political views.

However, without the work of men like W. E. B. De Bois—men of action and leadership—the road to equal rights for blacks would have been an exceedingly sluggish one. It wasn’t until 1910, when De Bois was already 40 years old, that he founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He had spent his entire life under racial prejudice and persecution, so it is unsurprising that he felt it was time for action. Action begets change. It is significant to remember that our country was founded by men, like De Bois, of action, who took enormous risks for the sake of America, who had faith that change was possible, and who weren’t afraid to step on toes to win their objective.

Therefore, I would argue that De Bois led the more effective reform for racial equality. We owe a great deal to men like Washington for his work towards racial equality, but without men such as W. E. B. De Bois, America would never have become the country that it is today—truly a country with liberty and justice for all.

Splendid to the End?

"Where I’m from, we believe all sorts of things that aren’t true. We call it history." —Wicked

This quote absolutely describes the Spanish-American war. When we study the Spanish-American war, we swim in murky waters and truth is a very rare, very valuable hidden treasure. At this time in history, there were many different groups who wanted to go to war for vastly different reasons. The imperialists wanted America to become a world power and believed that going to war with Spain would lead to further expansion for the country. Various groups of industrialists, traders, and investors hoped that gaining an alliance with Cuba would open doors for international trading and easy access to foreign goods such as sugar. On the other hand, there were many people who believed that the Spanish were acting downright inhumanely and unjustly and who felt that we should go to war because it was the moral thing to do. Obviously, these reasons were in direct conflict with each other. To add to this menagerie of desires, goals, and contradictions, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, two of the country’s most wealthy, powerful, and manipulative men, controlled, almost exclusively, the newspapers of the day. Like the Muckrakers of the magazines, they succeeded in boosting circulation by printing shocking and sensational stories that played with America’s hearts to win their agreement. Between them, they had more power of the people than all of congress put together.

When you take this basket of contradictions, it’s difficult to decide if we were justified in going to war with Spain. Surely, at the start of the ordeal, there was a large amount of people who truly wanted to help the Cubans. America understood their plight as one similar to their own only a little more than a hundred years earlier. And it wasn’t only those in power who saw this as an important moral cause. When America called for soldiers at the beginning of the war, over one million men volunteered to fight—men of the masses. When one million men volunteer their lives for their country, there is certainly more at stake than a bit of sugar. They have to be energized and excited into action by a cause, even if the cause they think they’re fighting for is half-way made up by a rich newspaper man. But how do we know? There was nobility in our decision to go to war with Spain. Like grains of sand, this nobility was mixed with selfishness, ignorance, and pride, but there was still nobility in it. After the war was over, McKinley announced his intent to make Cuba, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, a part of the U.S. This was a significant departure from the original plan. America proceeded to occupy these territories for the next few years, controlling their governments, and even using tactics terribly similar to those of Spain when putting down rebellions. America crossed the line from liberators to oppressive rulers. Something that had started off as, at least in part, a noble and just cause, had turned into a very different sort of mission—one which was directly in conflict with America’s identity as a democratic nation of the people. We were justified in going to war with Spain, but what happened after Spain is a whole new ocean of murky waters.

A Replica of Peace

We waited. We watched. We pledged peace until the last possible moment. When America entered the Great War in 1917, we were the only world power that still had energy to give. The other nations involved in the war, including France, Germany, Japan, and Russia, were exhausted by 1917—their resources disappearing fast and their peoples’ hopes fading into oblivion. Because of this, the U.S.A. had a decided advantage when it jumped into the tussle. America joined the war for various reasons, contrary to Wilson’s declaration that we were going to war in opposition to oppressive governments—joining, along with France and England, Russia, a country ruled by a cruel and iron-fisted dictatorship, which is certainly a funny paradox. During the first few years of the war, we had ties to England that strongly compromised our proclamation of neutrality. First of all, America was selling goods the British. Because England had blockaded Germany’s ports, America was unable to trade with Germany. However, America did not put up a great fight to this fact, as they were enjoying the economic benefits of selling to England. This rubbed Germany the wrong way. America also had developed a strong enmity towards the Germans since the German submarine, or “U-boat” blew up the Lusitania, a British passenger liner which, unbeknownst to its passengers, was carrying a large store of munitions. However, the American passengers on board had been warned by Germany not to travel on British vessels during wartime. Regardless, America was furious at Germany and wanted to avenge the over-hundred American casualties. As England was America’s mother-country, there were already established roots to their culture, with a shared language, inherited religious traditions, and similar customs of all kinds. For all of these reasons, England had slowly crept from its seat of neutrality towards the defense of the British and the Triple Alliance.

When America declared an Alliance with England, France, and Russia, it must have come as a glorious aid—a miracle to know that help was on its way. President Wilson must have felt that America was a sort of savior to the Triple Alliance, and he must have expected that if they were victorious, as they surely would be, England, France, and Russia would be greatly indebted to America and would want to repay it as soon as possible.

When the war ended, America, who had experienced the least damage to its economy and people, had established itself as a significant world power. Wilson brought his 14 points to the table, probably expecting that England and France would be ready to accommodate his demands for a League of Nations immediately. He was dead wrong. The Prime Minister, David Lloyd George of Great Britain and Premier Georges Clemenceau of France were reluctant to give in to Wilson’s 14 points, including his desire to assemble a League of Nations. Clemenceau’s view was, “God gave us the Ten Commandments, and we broke them. Wilson gives us Fourteen Points, We shall see.” Although Britain and France did have a sense of debt to America, they had an even greater sense of wanting glory and justice for what they had gone through during the war. Wilson called for “Peace without Victory”, but after a long and bloody war, Britain and France weren’t ready to settle down, forgive Germany, and forget the past. They wanted justice, and so they felt heavy resignation toward Wilson for demanding his 14 points and asking them all to kiss and makeup.

If the other countries in the Triple Alliance had been more compliant to Wilson’s 14 points, the events of the next 15 years might have been significantly altered. However, what Wilson partly failed to realize is that laws can never accomplish peace. People accomplish peace. The League of Nations, which was a great establishment to the world, is only a regulated imitation of a community devoted to peace. Most importantly, without every man deciding personally to act justly, respect his neighbor man and his neighbor country, and strive for the good of others, there will never be peace.

To Read, To Write

“Oh, Magic Hour when a child first knows it can read printed words!—A Tree Grows In Brooklyn

I’ve been reading voraciously from the age of six years old—anything and everything. Before that, my parents read to me each and every day, for hours at a time. I remember vividly the first “chapter books” my dad read to me at six. He started with Junie B. Jones is not a Crook and continued on to the other seventeen stories. Strangely enough, my father moved right from these kindergarten readers of June B. Jones to Harry Potter. My reading habits have never changed, and I skip seamlessly between Jane Eyre, Winnie the Pooh, and Augustine all of the time. Because I have been homeschooled my entire life, reading as a family has been an integral part of who I am. Every evening we sit down together and my mother reads a book aloud to us—sometimes for twenty minutes, sometimes three hours. I have never viewed reading as something you primarily do because you are “required to” for “school”, but was taught to read because it’s what you want to do—to learn and imagine and enjoy yourself. I’ve read so much that it’s hard to know where to begin, but in general, I really love good stories and read mostly fiction. Some of my favorite stories include, To Kill a Mockingbird, Peter Pan, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Winnie the Pooh, The Thirteenth Tale, and Till We Have Faces. I suppose some of the similarities that you would see in my choice of reading would be older literature, children’s stories or stories about children, and literature told in the first person, but it is certainly not limited to this. I, like so many others, am also a loyal and sometimes eccentric fan of the Harry Potter books, and have been since first hearing them at age six. Although I primarily read fiction, I also enjoy reading history, philosophy, and poetry. I’ve surely been affected by the books I’ve read, probably more than I know.

Writing and I have a love-hate relationship. Part of this is because, at least in contrast to reading, it’s quite new to me. I’ve only been writing actively for the last four years. For me, writing is difficult because there is so much I want to say, and getting started can be an overwhelming task—the blank page is a frightening sight to me. Once I get started I tend to overwrite, forget organization, and go into long tangents. I also have unrealistic expectations for myself to always produce a great paper on my first draft. Because of these struggles, writing has often been very frustrating to me. However, over the last couple of years, I have begun to learn the meaning of process, of rewriting, and of patience. The last two years I’ve been taking an intensive writing course, which has been extremely instructive in my writing, as well as a great trial sometimes. In this writing program, I’ve learned to write many different kinds of papers, including a summary, a research paper, a literature analysis essay, and a persuasive essay. Most importantly, this program has taught me to know the difference between content and form, emphasizing a rock-solid knowledge of form, so that it can be effectively used as a vehicle for content, thereby creating good communication. I believe that this is the purpose of form; it’s a tool to present the things you want to say in your writing. Apart from these academic papers, I’ve also done some journaling, fiction, and playwriting. Last fall I wrote a one-act play that was performed at a student-written one-act play festival, which was a very helpful experience. Although writing is sometimes challenging for me, I believe it’s very important for me to learn how to express myself in this way, and I’ve learned a lot about myself through my writing.

Walt Disney: Defense and Discovery of the New

When we see “Walt Disney Presents” appear magically on the hyper-blue movie screen, as we so often do, it’s easy to forget that Walt Disney is the name of a man. Walt Disney once said, “Let us never forget that it all started with a mouse.” However, it did not start with a mouse, but long before a mouse with a man, a man who was once a boy, for while Disney Studios was not signed and running, Walt’s mind was always wildly running. Throughout Walt’s life, how did he become the artist that he did? What made Disney Studios great while Walt was alive? Even after Walt died, Disney Studios went on. Continuing fifty years, Disney changed significantly from the time Walt died. Has Disney fared well since his death? Will animation ever be as brilliant as when he was alive? Surely there will be others ready to step up and make genius film, by both exploring technology for animation and telling stories in a way that they move and excited audiences everywhere.

Walt Disney’s Life


The day Walt Disney was born, animated feature films didn’t exist. By the day Walt Disney died, animated film would never be the same. As a child, Walt was a budding artist, who knew what he wanted to be—and was determined to be it. Embarking on a precarious investment, Walt and his brother began Walt Disney Studios, and created the world-famous Mickey Mouse. Arguably his most genius achievement, Show White revolutionized animated films for years to come. Before Disney, animation was primitive. Attempts at animation date back to 1892 in France when a young experiment used five-hundred pictures in a machine much like the modern projector. By the time Disney was entering the animation business, it had evolved by leaps and bounds, but Walt was yet to make his mark on it. He was a born artist-- an intuitive story teller and an inventive animator.

When Walter Elias Disney arrived in the world on December 5 of 1901, who could say that he would one day be one of the most influential artists of the twentieth century? After living in Chicago until Walt was four, his father, Elias Disney, decided to move his family—his wife Flora, his three sons, and his young daughter—to a farm in Marceline, Missouri. As a young boy, Walt was responsible for taking care of many of the animals on the farm. Walt adored animals. Taking some teasing for his affections, Walt named all of the animals and treated them as friends, even coaxing the biggest hen, Martha, to come when he called and lay an egg right in his hand. Although the family was poor, Walt always found creative and cheap, if sometimes unsatisfactory ways of express his art. Excitedly discovering a barrel of fresh tar by the house, Walt invited his little sister, Ruth, to do some painting with him—their own version of graffiti. Soon one of the house’s outside walls was covered in zigzags and doodles. It surprised Walt immensely to fine that the tar would not come off. After this ordeal, Walt was more careful with his drawing medium, and he stuck to toilet paper and bits of wrapping paper. Together with his love of animals and drawing, Walt determined the thing he wanted to be—a cartoonist. And what a cartoonist he would be! His drawings were always admired—gaining him free haircuts from the barber and sweets money from friends and neighbors. One year, for Ruth’s birthday, he made her a little book of drawings that looked like a moving picture when you turned the pages quickly. Years later, at eighteen, while driving a Red Cross ambulance in Europe in World War II, he still kept drawing, covering his truck with cartoon drawings. One of the only places Walt’s imaginative artistry was not appreciated was at school. When the teacher instructed them to draw a pot of flowers, Walt liberally added faces and bodies to each bud, causing his teacher much dismay. However, Walt stuck close to his drawing—his way. Perhaps not even Walt knew the things he would achieve, but he didn’t have to know—he was drawn to art like a bird to the sky, and he was about to take flight.

Animation caught Walt’s attention and he never caught it back. He watched the cartoons of the day, readily believing he could do better. Reading books on animation, studying different animators, and saving money for his own film equipment, Walt worked tirelessly to start his career. After many failed attempts to make it in Kansas animation studios, he moved west to Hollywood with unfailing hope, even after his failure. Looking back, Walt later said, “I’d failed, but I’d learned a lot out of that. I think it’s important to have a good, hard, failure when you’re young.” Through a series of fortunate events, Walt started his own animation studio with his older brother Roy, who was always his closest friend and companion. Next came the mouse. Only five years later, Walt created Mickey Mouse. Originally, Walt wished to name him Mortimer, but his wife, Lily, objected, suggesting that it sounded too serious. So they named him Mickey. While Mickey’s first two cartoons didn’t cause much stir, this third cartoon, Steam Boat Willie, was an instant hit. This was strongly due to the newly discovered phenomenon of synchronized sound . Silent films were no longer the only option. Scoffing at the new technique, many movie makers believed that this was only an overrated fad, but Walt knew otherwise—he jumped at the new opportunity, recognizing the options it offered for his animation studio. First testing synchronized sound out on the Mickey Mouse cartoon Steam Boat Willie, Walt worked hard to create a fresh exciting new cartoon, even using his own voice for Mickey Mouse. In this achievement, Walt proved his genius by two things, firstly, that he was a great storyteller. He later explained, "I honestly feel that the heart of our organization is the story department. We must have good stories—we must have them well worked out—we must have people in there who can not only think up ideas, but who can carry them through…to completion."

And second, he was always fighting to develop technology—trying new things, taking risks, he raised the bar for animation by challenging his artists to do better. This was the basis for Disney Studios—and it gave Walt a new idea a crazy risky idea for a full length, full sound, Technicolor, Cartoon—Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. By 1934, the Disney staff had grown, in six years, from 6 to 187, and Walt Disney was about to make animation history.

Growing tired of only making short cartoons, Walt devised and presented to his team the radical idea of creating a full length animated feature. He knew what story he wanted to make. When Walt was fourteen, he had seen the silent movie of Snow White, starring Marguerite Clark. It was Walt’s first vivid memory of the movies, and he never forgot it. Inviting his animators into the sound studio one night, Walt told the story. Under a bare light bulb with his animators in a semicircle around him, he acted out each part in its turn, Snow White, The evil Queen, and each of the seven comical dwarves. At the end of the storytelling, the animators had tears in their eyes. Walt had instilled in them his excitement for the project and they began without delay. One of the biggest challenges Walt wanted to overcome was to figure out a method of making the cartoons more life-like and fluid.—they had no depth. Gradually, Walt began to develop a new camera called the “multi-plane camera.” A second problem surfaced when Walt realized that an animated feature running an hour-and-a-half would require 300 drawings total—an enormous amount! Walt informed the head of the Disney art school, and soon the studio was bursting with new talent. So much artistic and financial effort went into the film, and everyone wondered what the response would be at its release. Financially, the movie was an enormous endeavor. When Walt had announced his idea to Roy, who was the head of business, Roy was extremely apprehensive that they would have enough money to finish the film. Walt initial budget for the movie was $500,000, an amount that set Roy’s knees to buckling. It turned out that this estimate was absurdly low, and it turned out that the film would cost 3 times the original estimate. Before its release, people called it “Disney’s Folly” and predicted that it would send the studio into bankruptcy. However, Walt and his artists kept their faith in the picture. When it premiered on December 21, 1937, all the Hollywood big-wigs showed up to see the film. At the “Happily Ever After”, the audience stood and cheered. Years later, Walt reminisced,

All the Hollywood brass turned out for my cartoon! That was the thing. And it went way back to when I first came out here and I went to my first premiere. I’d never seen one in my life. I saw all these Hollywood celebrities comin’ in and I just had a funny feeling. I just hoped that someday they’d be going in to a premiere of a cartoon. Because people would depreciate the cartoon. You know, they’d kind of look down.

All their hard work and faith paid off. Audiences everywhere were enthralled. Animated film would never be the same.

Certainly Disney was an extraordinary man. In some ways, though, he started off seemingly ordinary, as a poor hard working creative boy, who drew on toilet paper. Childhood was an important time in Walt’s life as an artist. Another significant point in Walt’s artistic life was the distinct start of his career with Disney studios, bringing the world’s attention to Walt Disney like lightning. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves caused audiences and critics to expect great things from Walt time after time. And for many years, Disney delivered. Most importantly, Walt was willing to risk failure. When he first started off as an animator, he experienced failure repeatedly, but he didn’t let it stop him.He was not a cautious man, and his prerogative to step out into the unexplored was where his genius lay. What would happen to Disney Studios after Walt, the maker himself, died? When Walt Disney died one little boy remembers thinking in horror, “There will be no more Pinocchio!” Surely, he was not alone in this fear. The time between Snow White’s success and Walt’s death was filled with much success, change, and of course, Walt’s brilliant, if crazy, ideas. Expanding their medium, Disney Studios also began making live action films which were much cheaper than animated films. In this way, Disney kept their piggy bank full, at least full enough to supply funding for each next endeavor. One of these endeavors was the design, building, and opening of a completely Disney themed amusement park, Disney Land, which turned out to be a completely unprecedented and unexpected success. As always, Walt knew they could improve on Disney Land, and he began plans for Disney World. Sadly, Walt never saw the park open, before he passed away. It was his last great project. What happened after that? The time after Walt’s death is marked by three distinct periods. The first, lasting a strangling twenty years, was Disney’s decline, when they seem at a loss without they’re determined leader. Thankfully, they found their footing again and made a run of movies marking the Disney Renaissance. Thirdly, though not strictly a period of time, was the birth of Pixar Studios in 1995, the heart of animation moviemaking today.

Disney Studios after Walt Disney’s Death

Continually changing, moving, and growing, Disney studios, powered by Walt’s passion and his team’s enthusiasm and skill, had never slowed down, but had kept making better and better films with each year of artistic discoveries. But then, as in any of the Disney movies, the villain arrived in the form of lung cancer. Struggling with his health for years, Walt finally had to deal with his troubles. The doctors determined to remove the lung immediately when they found a walnut-sized tumor in one of Walt’s lungs. After two weeks recovering from the surgery, Walt was released from the hospital, but with a greatly pessimistic prognosis predicting Walt would live only two years more, perhaps less. Although Walt returned to the Studio the next day, by the end of the month he was back in the hospital. He died on December 16, 1966. But Disney Studios had to continue. In a statement to the public Roy Disney promised: "As President and Chairman of the Board of Walt Disney Productions,I want to assure the public, our stockholders, and each of our more than four thousand employees that we will continue to operate Walt Disney’s company in the way that he has established and guided it."

However, although Roy desired to hold to his brother’s standards and creative genius for animation, without Walt’s drive for the new and greater, Disney declined into a lower vein of movie making. Unfortunately, some of this was due to the new staff at Disney Studios, including Walt’s son in-law, Ron Miller, the new executive producer. Ron Miller was a cautious man, not a suitable trait for a man in the movies, and he began to turn out the same movies year after year. Many of the films were made for the masses, with safe stories and cookie-cutter characters. Trying to fine their footing with their genius leader gone, Disney lost some of Walt’s vigor and philosophy, but they would rise again, if after twenty years.

It wasn’t until 1989 that Disney surfaced, with the exciting, fun, and exotic feature, The Little Mermaid. Interestingly, it was the first Disney fairy tale feature created since Walt’s death. In one way, Disney had returned to home plate with this retelling, and yet they found a way to make this new feature totally unique from the others. Disney knew its audience again. They had changed, but Disney Studios was back on track. Following The Little Mermaid, were a few mediocre films, but it had breathed life back into Disney Studios. It was the beginning of the Disney Renaissance. Following The Little Mermaid were the now-classic Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, The Lion King, Mulan, and Tarzan. Truly one of the best Disney films ever created, Beauty and the Beast was even nominated for Best Picture of the Year at the Academy Awards, the first ever to receive such and honor. Beauty and the Beast also won Academy Awards for “Best Score” and “Original Song”. For years following, Disney became known for their capturing music, which brought these films to life. Monopolizing the Academy Awards for both “Best Score” and “Best Original Song”, Disney won for not only Beauty and the Beast, but also The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, and Pocahontas. After the days of the Disney Renaissance were over, Disney hit another ten year dry spot, returning the predictable formula following films of before. In 2010, Tangled, the tale of Rapunzel was released, recapturing audiences with some the most lovable comical character from Disney in a very long time, and it is certainly in the ranks of the great Disney films. Could this be the return of Disney? Since Walt’s death Disney Studios has had its ups and downs, producing films Walt would have been proud of—Beauty and the Beast, Tangled—and some that would have made him blush—The Black Cauldron, Oliver and Company.

Although Disney did make a comeback with some great films, the studio today who is truly upholding Walt’s philosophy of movie making, is Pixar Studios. Leaving animation job at Disney in 1984, John Lasseter joined George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, in his special effects computer group, which would later become Pixar. Over the next ten years, Pixar made commercials and short films much like the way Walt Disney had started. Their first feature film, Toy Story, released in 1995, was altogether groundbreaking—the first fully computer animated feature film. Pixar Studios pushed the envelope of art in technology and storytelling, which were the two things Walt Disney himself strived towards. Unforgettably, the characters of Toy Story were ones that children of the generation would come to call an important part of their childhood. It was pure genius, creating a film about characters that each child and adult knew well, Mrs. Potato Head, a Piggy Bank, a plastic Dinosaur, a space ranger, a cowboy doll, and one-hundred plastic, green, army men. With each successive film, Pixar has driven to get better and better—and they’ve done it. Pixar is also known for their clever short films. Before each of their feature films, a new animated short is played. In 2006, when Pixar had already released six fantastic films, the Walt Disney Company bought the studio. Telling the story of a grumpy old man flying his house to Paradise Falls by balloons, Up took its place as Pixar’s tenth animated feature, and was nominated for Best Picture of the year at the Academy Awards, only the second after Beauty and the Beast ever to be chosen. Significantly making its mark on movie making over the last sixteen years, Pixar would certainly have made Walt proud by their incentive to push their films to their best. They are the best story tellers in the movie making business, the most determined technologists in animation, and if Walt Disney were alive today he would be working right alongside them.

Although its founder, Walt Disney died, Disney Studios “kept moving forward” as they say in Disney’s Meet the Robinsons. After twenty years of uninspired movies after Walt’s Death, they found their footing again. The Disney Renaissance truly contained a few unforgettable movies, which spurred animation on in their technology and their stories. Undoubtedly , however, Pixar studios, the animation rookie, has not only held their own with Disney’s best movies, but have surpassed Disney Studios, in only ten years, by changing the way animation is produced and telling stories, as well as any Studio in history. Making their mark, as two distinctly important times, Disney Studios experienced failure and fortune after Walt’s death. Although the failure seemed to teach them and help them recreate a fresh feeling to their movies again, Disney Studios sadly slid back into a predictable method again, leaning on the cautious and sellable. Most significantly, since Walt Disney’s death, is the work of Pixar, who, like Walt Disney, have forced art farther, pushing, driving, and refining their work until it is gleaming gold. The thread of genius that Walt Disney Studios started may have dulled, but in art there’s always someone, like Pixar, to step up and creating things like never before—trying new techniques, taking new risks, and telling important truthful stories.

Surely, Walt Disney established a new medium during his life time, determining to make movies that young and old could both enjoy. The work he did during his life was novel and brilliant, partly because he was the first to take animation to the level that he did. Since then, Disney has always been the animation to which all other animation is measured. During his lifetime, Disney was primarily the mastermind behind the work, but after Disney died the Studio and the animators still went on. When Walt Disney died, it seemed that the first epoch of animation had ended. Thinking that they had the animation equation down, Disney studios attempted to copy what Walt had always done, but they failed because Walt had always been trying new things, experimenting, and testing the waters. He had never tried to do the same thing twice, unless to improve upon it. However, great movies did come from Disney Studios after Walt’s death--many mediocre movies, but a couple of gems. Presently, animation is at its zenith with Disney’s Pixar Studios, who hasn’t had a flop yet. One crucial thing that Walt Disney understood about animation was that it was an important medium that could do things that other art forms couldn’t—it wasn’t a lower form of moviemaking—or simple and cheap for children, as some might think. An animated film requires an enormous amount of people and a significant amount of money, as Walt discovered on his first feature, Snow White. Proof to this was the very first premiere of an animated movie, when an audience of adults cried at Snow White’s death and stood cheering at her victory. And recently, in the Pixar films Up and Toy Story 3, audiences everywhere laughed and cried time after time. Adults who watched Up cried when Mr. Fredrickson arrives in Paradise Falls in his house of flying balloons, and when Woody and Buzz wave goodbye to Andy at the end of Toy Story 3—there was a similar jolt in every stomach. Because it’s certainly not just a kid’s story—not just an animated cartoon. These scenes in these two movies could never have been done so effectively in any other style of moviemaking. Walt understood this, and from the beginning animated movies were a risky business, but he saw something invaluable in them. More than once he risked bankruptcy in the defense and discovery of the new, and mostly importantly, Walt believed that the Story Department was the Heart of his studio, and by combining great stories and technically exceptional animation, Disney is one of the most brilliant movie studios of all time.

Bibliography

Ford, Barbara. Walt Disney. New York: Walker and Company, 1989.

Simon, Charnan. Walt Disney: Creator of Magical Worlds. New York: Children’s Press, 1999.Thomas, Bob. Walt Disney: An American Original. New York: The Walt Disney Company, 1994.

“Synchronized Sound.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Jan.2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sync_sound

A Master Storyteller

“The sun did not shine.
It was too wet to play.
So we in the house
All that cold, cold, wet day.
I sat there with Sally.
We sat there, we two.
And I said, ‘How I wish We had something to do!’
Too wet to go out
And too cold to play ball.
So we sat in the house.
We did nothing at all.
So all we could do was to
Sit! Sit! Sit! Sit!
And we did not like it.
Not one little bit.
And then
Something went BUMP!
How that bump made us jump!
We looked!
Then we saw him step in on the mat!
We looked!
And we saw him!
The Cat in the Hat!”

Since 1957, these words that Dr. Seuss wrote have been read by millions of people around the world. Putting these words to paper and publishing them, Dr. Seuss had no idea that it would be one of the best loved and cherished children’s stories the world has ever seen. Dr. Seuss, whose first page of his book The Cat in the Hat was just read, is one of the most renowned children’s authors of all time. There are so many questions about him. Challenged to find out about Dr. Seuss, biographers all over America try desperately to find where he got inspiration or what he believed about life. In his books, does Dr. Seuss insert his own experiences or are they just nonsense stories? Some say he does and others say he doesn’t—sometimes people see things that aren’t there. So why did he write the stories he did?

Who is Dr. Seuss? The legendary children’s writer seems to some as though he popped out of the ground—and maybe he did—for all they know. He probably encouraged this idea. Raised creatively by his parents, Seuss, whose first name was Theodore, was telling stories as soon as he could talk. When he left for college he planned to be an English teacher, but soon found much more enjoyment in telling tales and making people laugh with his comics. Suddenly meeting and marrying the women of his dreams after only a short relationship, Dr. Seuss found what would be his one counselor whom he trusted completely. Though not very much information is known about this famous story teller, he had a very interesting life.

On March second, 1904, Theodore Seuss Geisel was born to Theodore and Henrietta Seuss in Springfield, Massachusetts. He was always called Ted. While growing up, he was always encouraged by his mother to draw continuously. She even allowed him to draw on the walls of his room and the walls of the attic. Critically watching his son draw, Ted’s father believed that his drawings were too cartoony and that they didn’t truly represent what real animals and people look like. Reading constantly, Ted’s favorite book was called The Hole Book, in which there is a story—all in rhythm—about a boy who shoots a gun and it ricochets off everything in his house until it is stopped by a very hard cake. He also may have been inspired by his books from his childhood called More Beasts for Worse Children[i] where he seems to steal some creatures from.

When Ted graduated from high school, he immediately headed to Dartmouth College to work on a liberal arts degree. Quickly submitting comics to the humor magazine “Jack-O-Lantern,” which he soon became editor of, he quickly found success. He much preferred it to studying. In his senior year, he was caught partying the night before Easter with some friends and was fired from his chief editor position in the magazine, the only part of Dartmouth he actually enjoyed. However he still submitted comics as he finished off the year under a new alias, Dr. Seuss. Graduating from Dartmouth, Ted decided to attend Oxford to expand his studies, but when he arrived he couldn’t stand the English snobbery or the bland food in England. One day while Ted was sitting in class doodling during a lecture, a girl named Helen Palmer looked over his shoulder and said, “If I could do that, I wouldn’t be sitting in this class.” A few months later they were married and he had taken her advice and moved back to America to try and make a career of writing and drawing instead of continuing with college.

Moving back to America, Ted immediately set out to start a career. He began by advertising. Promptly finding an advertising job with the bug killing company FLIT, he successfully rose to the challenge. As soon as he started, Flit became famous for the slogan “Quick Henry the Flit” that Ted gave it, accompanied by his wild drawings of people battling and killing humanized insects with Flit. In 1937 Ted published his first children’s book And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, which was an immediate success. The more children’s stories he wrote, the more popular he became. Jokingly challenging Ted to a bet, William Spaulding, the director of Houghton Mifflin’s educational division of Children’s books, said that he didn’t believe Seuss could write a book for new readers that contained exactly 225 words out of a possible 348 beginner’s word list and create a book that children would like. Ted rose to the challenge. On March 18, 1957, Dr. Seuss, who not only met all the requirements of the bet, published The Cat in the Hat, and its popularity spread by word of mouth immediately. Kids all over America were begging their parents to buy Ted’s book, which was the most fun book they had ever read.

Telling stories from a young age, Dr. Seuss always needed one thing—an audience—a listener to share and critique his ideas and drawings with. When he was a young boy, this role was usually filled by his mother; she listened, criticized, laughed at, and most importantly, encouraged the stories he told. This is where his genius lies. Suddenly finding himself void of listeners when he went off to college, Ted—who did not give up easily—found a new audience in the readers of the comic paper Jack-O-Lantern which he became the editor of until he left for [ii]Oxford where his new listener was his soon to be wife, Helen Palmer. She would become his only trusted adviser for the next forty years. In his years of writing he was always asked, “You write children’s books, but why don’t you have any kids of your own?” and his answer was “You make ‘em, I’ll entertain ‘em.” Dr. Seuss did not just love telling stories, he loved telling stories to people.

Curiously searching for where Dr. Seuss inspiration came from, people were always asking him where he pulled his ideas from. Whenever he was asked, his stock answer for over a decade was usually:

“I get my ideas my ideas in Switzerland near the Forka pass[iii]. There is a little town called Gletch, and two thousand feet up above Gletch there is a smaller hamlet called Uber Gletch. I go there on the fourth of August every summer to get my cuckoo clock repaired. While the cuckoo is in the hospital, I wander around and talk to the people in the streets. They are very strange people, and I get my ideas from them.”

Elaborating his story of Horton in the tree, his final version of the tale was that late one night two pieces of paper blew through the window and landed on the table on top of each other—an elephant on a tree. As long as it was a good story—and it always was--he didn’t care if it was historically correct. He also often added in political and moral ideas and his own experiences into his stories which have sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, morals.

When Seuss was at a party once, another writer told him that it was a pity that Seuss never wrote anything political. Unexpectedly receiving a package from Seuss a month later, the same writer curiously opened it to find a copy of Marvin K. Moody Wiill You Please Go Now, which had the name Marvin crossed out and replaced with Richard N. Nixon. During World War II, he also did many comics for the war. In his book Yertle the Turtle, Seuss based Yertle, the ruthless power hungry king of the turtles, off of Hitler. His most obviously political book, however, is The Butter Battle Book. Living on either side of a wall, the zooks on one side only eat their bread butter side up, while the zooks on the other side eat their bread butter side down. In the end of the book, both sides are poised to bomb the other side into oblivion over a small political matter of breakfast food.

When Dr. Seuss wrote, he always pulled things from his past or present life. In his first book, he used Mulberry[iv] Street, which was a street he lived a few blocks away from and walked on quite often as a child. Groggily looking in the mirror one winter morning, Seuss said that he had gradually become a very “grinchy”[v] person, and so he wrote—with great deliberation--what is now one of the most famous Christmas stories in the world, How the Grinch Stole Christmas. His most famous character shows him best. Dr. Seuss always said he had a soft spot for cats, and then came The Cat in the Hat. Some say that Seuss wasn’t creating a character; he was just tweaking and exaggerating himself with his tall lanky figure, charming smile, and ability to make people laugh.

 Although Dr. Seuss loved to slip and sneak morals into his stories, some people have gone too far in analyzing his work. In The Cat in the Hat, the bathtub rings, which are spread around the house, were wrongly accused of being a protest to against the spread of the red menace. When asked about these analyses, Dr. Seuss said, “I think they’re a waste of time…. For example, they’ll take a book of mine that has one color in it and talk about my great sensitivity in handling that color and why I chose that color, when the fact is that Bennett Cerf called me up one morning and said, ‘We’re having a bit of a financial problem, so cut down your colors.’” Reading How the Grinch stole Christmas, many people came to totally misunderstand Seuss and think that he did not believe in turning his famous and lovable characters into consumer goods. This is not true. Completely open to the idea of making money, as Charles D. Cohen says in his book The Seuss, the Whole Seuss, and Nothing but the Seuss, “Dr. Seuss had no problems milking his characters for everything they were worth.” Some people just don’t understand the way he puts in his morals.

Quietly slipping in morals throughout his books, Dr. Seuss has created many of the well-known sayings today, such as “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” In the Sneetches, he spoke about equality, in The Lorax he talked about the environment, and in Horton and the Egg he undertones about keeping promises. Writing his stories first and letting the morals come naturally, Dr. Seuss, who hated when a story was written around a moral, knew from his own experience as a kid that kids can easily spot a moral a mile off, and that it immediately strips the story of all its fun. When he wrote, his beliefs and experiences just seeped through his brain and landed on the paper amidst the tale he was spinning, whether it was political or just a regular memories. He had very strong beliefs on certain subjects.

Subtly slipping in his ideas, Dr. Seuss had a very sly way of stating what he thought about things. Attending the colleges and having the opportunities he did definitely affected his book writing later on in life. Throughout his marriage, his wife, who was always there to hear what he had to say on everything, was always ready to give her opinion. Whenever he told stories he always had an audience, whether it was millions of people across America, his mother, his wife, or a stranger passing on the street. He loved telling people stories. His most important feature was how he brought his life, his ideas, his views, and his words together to create excitingly wonderful stories that people love and will love for ever. Dr. Seuss was a master story teller.

---

[i] More Beasts for worse children was a book of stories written by Hilaire Belloc, to scare naughty children into listening to their parents

[ii] Oxford: a famous college in England

[iii] Forka pass: is a high mountain pass in the Swiss Alps connecting Gletsch

[iv] Mulberry Street: a thoroughfare in Manhattan New York.

[v] Grinchy: based off the character of the Grinch, who did not like Christmas

Bibliography:

Cohen, D. Cohen. The Seuss The Whole Seuss And Nothing But The Seuss. New York: Random House, 2004

Pease, Donald E. Theodore Seuss Geisel. Oxford: University Press,2010.

Weidt, Maryann N. Oh, The Places He Went.  Minneapolis, Carolrhoda books, Inc.. 

Connecting with Social Networks

Arriving home from work or school, millions of people around the world head straight to their computers to check their MySpace. In the modern world, social networks such as MySpace and Facebook are becoming the most seen icons everywhere, from computers to billboards. Quickly stopping by their computer to check messages, post statuses , or even to browse the internet, this generation uses social networks constantly. Social networks are on the rise. As they grow steadily however, some people, who look down on them, say that they are a waste of time and should be shut down and forgotten because sometimes it is used as a stand-in for real life. Its main uses seem to be connecting with people, expressing one’s self, and communicating with others. Are these pros or cons?

How do social networks help connect people with others? On these social networks, some people are often more outgoing then they are face to face, which can be a good and bad thing. Finding old friends and acquaintances, people often use MySpace and Facebook to reconnect with people they once knew or still know. Since people are so busy things like Facebook are good ways to jot down a quick note like, I miss you, if you don’t have the time to talk on the phone or hang out. Unfortunately some people constantly pester and stalk those who would rather not talk to them. One thing to be wary of is, when on Facebook or MySpace, never accept friend requests from people you don’t know, because there are so many real social network stalkers out there. As Barbara J. Feldman puts it, “MySpace has a wide variety of users; this increases the chance of meeting distasteful people.” Always be on your guard. Choose who you would like to connect with on these sites.

Used often as an outlet to express one’s self, social networks abound with art, emotions, poetry, music, and literature. This digital expression of a person can often be highly annoying when people, who want the whole world to know how they feel, have emotional breakdowns. One thing that relates to self-expression is impression management, which is where people try to impress other people by their friendship choices, only displaying things that they think others will see as cool, or even posting crude or inappropriate things to seem tough (Boyd). Although these things are true, as Connie Neal says in in her book MySpace for Moms and Dads something that applies to both teens and adults:

"MySpace gives teens a place to showcase their talents and share their “artistry” with the world. Musicians can share their music in amazing ways! Even if Mom and Dad don’t appreciate their particular taste in music, there’s sure to be a group at MySpace music that understands and appreciates their genre of music. A budding musician gets quite a thrill to find out that people are hearing their music" (Neal, p. 99).

On Facebook and MySpace, people can usually find and relate to common interests with other people easily, while they can also read peoples’ writings and ideas that they would never have known existed if it hadn’t been for their page.

Commonly used to communicate, Facebook sends millions of information relaying messages every day. Complaining that needed information does not always get replied to fast enough, some people are against this form of communication because of either its reliability or because written messages can be misread and misunderstood. As Facebook and MySpace grow though, more and more people, who use it for jobs, clubs, youth groups, and social gatherings, are using it as their primary form of communication. It is simple and reliable and free. On these messages you can quickly double check information, whereas you might forget the details of a phone conversation. Also if you want to write a simple note to someone for fun, or encouragement, it is easy to write on their social network in a matter of seconds.

Despite its uses in connecting, expressing, and communicating, people are still protesting against social networks. It’s not the network that’s bad; it’s how you use it. When it comes to the issue of people stalking or chatting with you when you don’t want, you can choose to delete or ban them from your friendship, and therefore block them from seeing your page. Excepting the emotional breakdowns and tantrums on Facebook, you can discover an abundance of poetry and art in what people have to say. Also, the easy communication system on social networks is a fantastic reason to use them. In the modern world, things like Facebook, which is relevant and convenient to our day and age, can be put on cell phones so you can receive and send information any time. Just as there are negative aspects to any form of communication—even the telephone—the positive aspects of social networks help us connect and get to know each other better in our busy culture.

Bibliography

Boyd, Dana M. and Nicole B. Ellison, “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.” 2007. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.29 Apr. 2011. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Feldman, Barbara J. “Pros and Cons of MySpace and Facebook.” Surfing The Net With Kids. 29 Apr. 2011. http://www.surfnetkids.com/go/safety/167/pros-and-cons-of-myspace-and-facebook/

Neal, Connie, MySpace for Moms and Dads, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.

Standing the Test

There’s word on the street of a novel gizmo that is making bookworms everywhere draw their noses from the pages—the electronic book better known as the e-book or e-reader. Casually, some say that this is simply a passing trend, a five-minute-fad, while others believe that it could indelibly change the world of reading. What is this new curiosity? The e-reader is a portable electronic device used for reading digital books, which comes by a few different names, most popularly the Kindle and the Nook. Although some devoted bookies feel as though they are rejecting their dear old paper-bound friends when they choose to buy an e-reader, there are certain advantages to the new items. Noting the distinctive characteristics of both a book and the e-reader, such as ease, environment, and cost, only time will tell which of the two will win out in the end.

The e-reader surely is a convenient device. Instead of needing an entire bookshelf to store your books, the e-reader provides unlimited storage for stories. Hundreds of books contained in a tiny screen. Only eight and a half ounces and six inches long, the e-reader is extremely conducive for portability, easy to be thrown in a purse or backpack. In today’s fast-paced lifestyle, the ease of being able to buy and receive a digital book with only a few clicks of a button and in only twenty seconds is certainly desirable. Using the special tools and settings such as the dictionary, passage finder, and highlighting functions, the e-reader is remarkably simple to navigate. Although the e-reader is wonderful for storage, portability, and ease, there is the drawback of not being able to lend your favorite books to your friends and family, which is possible with a paper book. Also, only one person at a time can use an e-reader, even though it can hold hundreds of books at a time. Undoubtedly, the e-reader is fascinating device with very neat advantages.

How green is your reading? Economically, the contrast between paper books and e-readers is decided; however, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. With the e-reader, the environmental advantages are obvious—the saving of many trees that would otherwise be made into paper, but the disadvantages of the techy book are more complicated. In the technical world, there’s something called a carbon footprint. A carbon footprint is perplexing, but basically, “Every time you use energy that comes from fossil fuels, you create CO2 and make your carbon footprint bigger. Think of CO2 as energy waste. It’s what’s left over after you use fossil fuels. You create carbon dioxide every day”(Deiterich). The carbon footprint can be thought of as the measurement of how “green” an item is. Because paper books can be lent and borrowed through libraries and friends, the carbon footprint can be reduced considerably. Surely, the best choice is expressed in the amount of books a reader consumes. The Sierra Club Green concluded – as did a recent New York Times piece on the same subject:

Unless you’re a fast and furious reader, the energy required to manufacture and then dispose of an e-reader is probably greater than what’s needed to make a traditional book. If you’re reading forty or more books per year on your e-reader, that would be the right choice. But if you use it only occasionally, probably better to stick to a “regular” book.

The proof is in the reading.

Definitely the deciding factor for most readers is the cost of this techy little book. Is the cost worth the flashy doodads and neat quirks? For the average e-reader itself, the cost is $160—which is a considerable chunk of change. With this money, it would be possible to buy thirteen books. After buying the e-reader itself, you must purchase the books that you wish to read, which are no cheaper than the price of the same paper book. While you can lend and borrow books for free from friends or public libraries—which have an enormous selection of books—an e-reader can only be used by the person who owns it. Paying the same amount for your digital book, you lose a great advantage of lending and borrowing. To have all of your books stored in one very small thin fragile casing is not only costly, but risky. It would be easy to accidentally drop or spill a cup of grape juice on it. When a book is ruined, it is usually simple to go and buy another copy for a mere $15, but if an e-reader is wrecked, not many people would be willing to skip out and buy another for $160. As the Sierra Club Green views the matter, “Here’s the best answer: go to the public library next time you are downtown. Borrow three or four books, finish them all, then return ‘em next time you’re near the library. This is truly the most sustainable way to read: the good old fashioned public library”(Sierra Green Club). The cost of an e-reader is extremely high and is simply not worth the advantages.

Although a handy contraption, the e-reader is over-rated, for it is extremely costly and economically mediocre. For thousands of years, books have served people around the globe satisfactorily, and people have never claimed books to be inconvenient before. Obviously, books are very convenient: the average book is easy to carry, and most people only carry one or two books with them at a time—not a difficult maneuver. It is apparent that our society imagines problems with the old when the new arrives—problems that never existed before. Settings like the dictionary, passage finder, and highlighter are quick and useful, but these are not things that are difficult to do without an e-reader. Bill Gates himself confesses:

Reading off the screen is still vastly inferior to reading off of paper. Even I, who have these expensive screens and fancy myself as a pioneer of this Web Lifestyle, when it comes to something over about four or five pages, I print it out and I like to have it to carry around with me and annotate. And it’s quite a hurdle for technology to achieve or match the level of usability(Darnton 69).

In addition to the practical, environmental, or economic considerations, what about the beauty of the book? Many owners of e-readers admit that they miss their books, miss turning the pages, and miss the familiar smell. All “Marian the Librarians” know that exhilarating fresh smell of a new book—and the feel of a stiff binding, and the sound of words screaming to be read. It is a fascinating idea to think that the words you’re reading in some old second-hand book have been read by an number of people—the same ink markings have been enjoyed, studied, or despised by others before you. Books are a strange connection between people. They have power. The writer, Sydney Smith, said that “No furniture is so charming as books”(Useful Information Website). Somehow, a little white piece of metal isn’t the same.

Consider the book. It has extraordinary staying power. Ever since the invention of the codex sometime close to the birth of Christ, it has proven to be a marvelous machine—great for packaging and information, convenient to thumb through, comfortable to curl up with, superb for storage, and remarkably resistant to damage. It does not need to be upgraded or downloaded, accessed or booted, plugged into circuits or extracted from webs. Its design makes it a delight to the eye. Its shape makes it a pleasure to hold in the hand. And its handiness has made it the basic tool of learning for thousands of years (Darnton 68).

Before it was said that only time will tell if either the e-reader or the book is the best choice, but, in fact, the book has already stood that test—it’s stood the test for five thousand years, and the e-reader will not last that.

Works Cited:

Darnton, Robert. The Case for Books: Past, Present, and Future. New York: PublicAffairs, 2009

Deiterich, Ann. “Carbon Footprint Definition for Kids.” Live Strong. 31 Mar. 2011.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/159514-carbon-footprint-definition-for-kids/

“E-readers vs. Old Fashioned Books—Which is Greener?” Sierra Club Green. 9 Dec. 2010.
http://www.sierraclubgreenhome.com/videos/e-readers-vs-old-fashioned-books%e2%80%94which-is-greener/

“Famous Library and Librarian Quotations.” Useful Information. 22 Apr. 2011.
http://www.useful-information.info/quotations/library_quotes.html