Time

Seven days.  168 hours.  10,080 minutes.  604,800 seconds.  Those are different ways of counting a week.  Although it may seem like a lot of time, is that really enough?

This week in American Studies we discussed our society and how it is time-driven.  Our everyday lives are based strictly on schedules and deadlines.  Time means everything to our country, and is needed for maximum efficiency.  When we waste time, we get behind.  And in order to compete with other countries, the American work place must make the most of every second.

However, time does not seem to be such an issue for other countries.  I have traveled to a few Central American and Caribbean countries and have noticed this.  Whenever we would get in the car to go somewhere, we would ask the driver how long the drive would be, and more often then not, it always took longer than he said.  It was not that the driver was purposely lying to me.  I honestly think he just didn’t know exactly and didn’t think it would make a difference.  In their society, time did not seem to be as significant.

Has our American society become too time-obsessive?  Or is this factor necessary to keep us in line and able to compete with other countries? 

British Petroleum? Or "Anything-but-American" Petroleum?

Last week in AIS we talked about diction.  We discussed how a person’s word choice could really change the listener’s perception.  We looked at a textbook article and analyzed some of the points made.  Although all of the statements may have been historically true, the word choice most likely would have changed the way the reader viewed the event.

Five months ago, in the wake of oil spill, Obama referred to BP as British Petroleum.  Whether he meant it intentionally or if it just slipped out, his word choice seemed to blame England.  Not only did he call the company a name that it no longer goes by, but also he clearly stated it was a British company, led many to believe that he wanted to show that it was not an American company that caused such a huge disaster.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK, confronted Obama about this “name-calling”.  James Kirkiup, the author of this article, wrote the following:  “The president has promised American voters that he will make BP pay for its ‘recklessness’ over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, whose impact he has compared to that of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US… The White House has also evoked BP's British origins, calling the company ‘British Petroleum’, a name it no longer uses.”  Kirkup portrays the common idea many people thought after hearing the president make a point of saying British Petroleum: that is, that Obama was making a big deal of stating that it was by, in no means, an American company. 

I am not saying Obama’s intentions were to stress that it was a British company, no not at all.  The point is that Obama’s word choice (or perhaps word slip) allowed people to draw these conclusions.  Diction can truly change a person’s perspective on an event, especially if he or she was not there to experience the event, but is merely reading about it.  Just as the author of the textbook article we read in class did, diction can paint a completely different picture while keeping the history accurate.

Are We Seeing the Whole Story? Or Just the “American Version"?

In class last week we discussed how textbook authors and editors choose what is put into their textbooks.  We then were proposed with the question, “Why would these writers leave out mistakes made by the government?”  Is it because they don’t want to portray the government in a negative light?  Or is it that they want to stay as neutral as possible in order to avoid controversy in hopes to sell more books?

For the most part, I believe that both of these ideas are true.  Textbook writers and the media in general do not like to point out flaws that the government has made. They want to stay loyal to the government, and portray patriotism, instead of ripping apart America and blaming it.  Therefore, from what I came across when skimming US history textbooks, much of the history is written in a neutral manner, if not optimistic. 

Authors of these textbooks would want to write neutrally so that they have a wider audience.  They do not want to limit who buys the books by taking a strong stance.  Because in order to sell more books and make the most money, they must refrain from a lot of controversy.

Still today, writers and media avoid topics with high controversy, and tend create a more neutral perspective.   Also, the media seems to focus more on topics of or pertaining America, instead of international issues.  Take, for example, the recent floods in Pakistan.  When I was researching online for an example of when the “media doesn’t blame the US”, the first topic that came up with this natural disaster in Pakistan.  The US has not only barely helped out the Pakistanis, but also there has been little coverage on such a big and devastating topic.  Are many news writers purposely ignoring this topic because they do not want to seem like bad global citizens and represent America in a negative light?

I Don't go to Colgate...

“Where is Colgate again?  Upper New York?” a dad with his high school daughter asks.  Being caught off guard by the unexpected question, I glanced down at my shirt and then responded, “Yeah, I think its in Hamilton, New York.  But I don’t actually go there.”  He then laughed, because in his mind, he thought it was absurd that I was wearing a shirt of a school I didn’t attend.

The man had innocently mistaken me for a Colgate student.  Since I was vacationing in an area not too far from Colgate, his assumption was not a stupid one.  It could have been true.  But it obviously wasn’t. 

In class last week we discussed why our biographies of the “Death of Mr. Bolos” might be inaccurate.  One reason for inaccuracy is interpretation.  When we look at artifacts left behind, such as those from Mr. Bolos’, we cannot draw conclusions solely from what we see.  It would be wrong to make inferences about who he was and what those objects represented only from what he left behind.  For example, in Mr. Bolos’ case, he left behind a rubber mouth.  From that object we cannot just determine that he was a speech therapist.

Artifacts do not tell the whole story.  Therefore research, collaboration, and corroboration are key steps that must be taken before any conclusions can be drawn.  I mean, how do we as individuals have a right to make assumptions based only on materialistic items?   After all, I do not attend Colgate and Mr. Bolos is not a speech therapist…

Hi There...

Welcome to my blog!