The Sopranos….It was about Family

The ending made my wife angry, she wanted more blood and guts.  For myself, I guess I like the idea that life would go on for America’s favorite criminal.

David Chase is the Karl Rove of television.  You can take that anyway you want!

I will say that Phil got what he deserved.

I was on my seat’s edge all night, and for that, I have to say it was a pretty good finale; even if it did leave as many questions unsolved as it solved.

Great run, probably the best cable show ever made.

What do you think?

The Formation of Cultural Icons: A Critical Analysis Pt. II

Second in a series.  This is from a paper I presented.  This segment deals with an analysis of a study of the formation of a cultural identity in the text book covers found in the US in the 18th and 19th century.

The second article analyzed wished to examine the use of visual metaphor in the front covers in popular textbooks published in the United States in the late 18^th and early to mid 19^th century.  In this study (Provenzo, 1984) the argument posed is that by use of traditional and symbolic metaphors a distinct patriotic iconography emerged in the United States.  In declaring independence from England, it was important for the United States had also declared a rejection of England’s social traditions and the need was to find a replacement for the new republic.

Typically found on the textbooks from this era are symbols from the ancient world, typically found in the ancient Roman Republic.  Ultimately, these symbols would become identifiable with the new republic being formed. The author’s asserts, a patriotic iconography or symbolism emerged, drawing upon the collective history of the nation. 

In early editions of textbooks used in the United States images of the Founding Fathers are seen.  However, by the end of the 18^th century the figure of Minerva or Athena is seen acting as a guide for young children.  It was a common practice in England to put the ruling monarch on the cover of children’s texts, yet after only a short period publishers had rejected this practice in America.

The use of these characters from antiquity is not unusual, and emerged consistently.  As time progressed, the image of Minerva went through slight changes.  Light is seen as coming from her head, she holds a staff, and other symbols from antiquity appear.  Interestingly, Minerva is the Roman equivalent of Athena, the safeguard of Athens, so long as her image remained within the walls of the city.  The symbolic parallel is clear, and was over a period of time was brought to the focus of the new nation’s children daily. 

In later editions of texts the Roman Goddess of Liberty is represented.  She also goes through minor transformations through the year, each having symbolic value.  By the year 1841 she is seen wearing a Phrygian cap – which in ancient Rome would be given to slaves who had been emancipated.  In another widely used series of texts, Minerva and Liberty appear together, with Minerva ascending into the heavens, while Liberty remains on the earth – which the author insinuates as the coming to maturity of the ideals of the new nation.  By the middle of the century the figure of Liberty is seen atop the national capitol and by 1886 The Statue of Liberty arguably becomes the most recognizable icon for the values and principals of the American Republic. 

The suggestion of the study is that educational materials reflect an emergence and are part of the evolution of a culture.  It is clear that development of a cultural identification with ancient Rome was paramount in the formation of a national identity for the United States, and the educational system was at the front and center of this formation of a collective sense of historical identity.

The Formation of Cultural Icons: A Critical Analysis Pt. I

This is a paper I am presenting and thought it might generate some interest here.

Icons are a part of any culture. However, they often serve a role which detracts from a role which would be more fitting. In the sense of this report, an icon is an object which takes upon mythical meaning beyond the symbolism which it attempts to represent. Three areas of society which could easily be identified as icons are elaborated upon in this analysis of three historical studies.

How common beliefs become part of a cultural curriculum – or in a sense an icon – was the topic of a study (Wineburg, Mosborg, Porat, Duncan; 2004) performed concerning generational perceptions of the Vietnam War. The study posed to answer the question how historical knowledge is transmitted across generations. Over a thirty month period the authors interviewed fifteen families, drawn from three different communities. The author’s purpose was to ascertain how two generations defined moments of history, and whether the history represented by the generations formed a “collective memory” with regard to a historical event.

Over a course of 30 months, 30 members of 15 families were interviewed about how their conceptualization of the past may form a collective concept about a historical era. The sample families represented Evangelical Christians, lapsed Roman Catholics, Buddhists, and Jews. Four of the families consisted of members who had been born outside of the United States; twelve families were Caucasian and one each as African American, Native American and Asian American. One parent and one child from each family were interviewed about their knowledge and conceptual framework concerning American involvement in Vietnam. Each member participating in the study was also asked to provide their interpretation of well known photographs taken from the Vietnam Era, which could easily be identified as icons of the era.

Prior to the interviewing the student’s perceptions of the Vietnam War and the instruction offered concerning the topic were analyzed by the researchers. Despite the detailed instruction concerning the issues at stake in the Vietnam War by the schools of the students, as a group, had a similar perception of the Vietnam War – “a war without a reason”.

During the interview process both parent and child were asked to write down their reactions to the pictures shown by answering open ended questions, such as, “What do you see in this picture?” and “What associations does this picture bring up?” Both participants would then be asked to respond to the photo and their corresponding interpretation, with the child. This was done in order to protect against parental input having an impact upon the child’s answer.

Later on the responses elicited by each respondent was coded with a graphic textual spreadsheet in order to develop emergent themes from the interview process. Various combinations of grouping students with other students, students and parents from one subset being compared to other students and parents from other subsets, and then groupings based on conceptual agreement were formed.

The first photo used was a picture of a veteran of the Vietnam War looking upon the names etched on the wall while his hand gingerly touches the wall. Of all the photos presented, this one image was the most identifiable picture. All of the teens and all but one of the parents (who had been born in the former Soviet Union) were able to recognize the memorial. Every student also knew what the man was attempting to do – search for a name on the wall and then etch it into a piece of paper he held in his right hand. For the parents, the picture brought back memories of loved ones or friends who had served in the Vietnam War, and the veteran took on a symbolic identification of long remembered people from their past. However, the students’ answers were more general, with the man depicted in the photo not taking any symbolic meaning at all. The experience for the adults in the study also reflected their own personal opinions concerning America’s involvement in Vietnam. Words and phrases such as “resolution”, “respect that was deserved” appeared in the responses in the adults. Interestingly, the man portrayed in the picture is seen by all as a victim of the war, and not as a perpetrator of war, who is worthy of respect and pity, not hatred.

The second photo is also an icon of the Vietnam War era, a photo of a young man placing flowers in the barrels of guns of soldiers in the 1967 March on the Pentagon. The adults surveyed instantly identified the clash between the flower and the guns as a symbolic clash of war opposed to peace. Terms used to qualify the event express the antithetical symbolism the picture displays, “Blocking soldiers with flowers”; Peace, not power”; and “a divided country”. For the students there was a significant disconnect with the interpretation of the picture. Only eight of the fifteen could identify the basic concept of peace versus might. The symbolic elements of the picture were even less easily discerned by the youngsters. One student thought the soldiers were North Vietnamese, another felt the incident was meant to mourn the dead. Interestingly, for the adults, the first photo brought about feelings of the nation coming to reconciliation about the war, the second photo brought the sharp divide felt by their generation back to the forefront. One parent spoke warmly of the camaraderie felt by members of the anti-war movement towards each other; another contemptuously replied, “He’s a slime-bucket”. Part of the student’s problems with this photo was their failure to identify the clean cut youth as a “hippie”. His appearance does not align with their perception of the prototypical hippie of the 1960’s.

The third photo, a “hard-hat” rally drew strong responses and identification by the adults in the group, and almost universal misunderstanding by the younger generation. The rally, which was a pro-war response by blue collar workers in New York City in support of the war in 1970, elicited two polarized replies. One reply stated that “although there was confusion about the issues in the war, these guys, typical working men, were going to support the government”. This picture also drew a rather strong comment by an opponent of the war, “These men are a bunch of assholes, guided by their penises”. On the other hand, the majority of students were unable to interpret the photo. One person identified the type of people represented, “blue collar workers”, but had no idea what the purpose of the rally served. One thought that a sign, which referred to “Building America”, was an anti-war sentiment, as it contrasted the destruction which was going on in Vietnam.

Many of the students were surprised to learn that people actually protested in favor of the Vietnam War. More than one of the students cited the movie Forrest Gump, which had framed their perception that all of America was against the war, when in reality as late as 1972 a Gallup Poll showed that 70% of the nation felt a renewed confidence in the prosecution of the war.

The findings of this study concluded that the younger people perception of the war had not been formed by instruction or by a true understanding of the concepts involved, but had been formed images found in media such as movies about the Vietnam War, and that despite various ethnic and cultural variance, a consistent perception about the war had been formed by these young people, and their perception about the war was remarkably similar than their parents who had experienced the war from a more personal vantage point. The young people’s perception allowed no room for pro-war demonstrations and “the silent majority” that supported the Vietnam War. In the eyes of this generation, removed by the war from time, the Vietnam War was one fought without supporters. In a real sense cultural occlusion has come about with regard to this historical event, and in effect, the icons of the Vietnam War have been selectively used or occluded to create a historical construct.

It’s Been Awhile

I know it has been awhile, but work and classes - doctoral programs suck - have kept me rather busy.

Skeleton in the Closet

I’ve been away from blogging for a bit.  There are a few reasons for this.  I tend to run in streaks and I think that the reality of bloggins is coming to me.

I’m not likely going to change and frame public opinion out there.  All I can probably hope to do is to figure things out for myself and maybe open up a debate about issues.  Lately, I’ve not been in the mood for a debate.  I’ve been a bit preoccupied with my own sort of vision quest.

As regular readers of this blog know, my wife is an adoptee.  I understand a bit of her pain, but will never fully get it as I am a “normal kid” and she’s one of the others.  However, her quest for finding her family has lead me to also shake around in the hidden and closed closets of my own life.  There were a few alleged skeltons lurking around in my own family background, and  I guess I ventured into that world.

The past week or so I’ve been living in the past, my families past.  I wanted to find out about my families’ past and managed to do just that, finding out a good deal more than I probably thought I’d know.  I also rattled the skeltons, and probably have upset a few lives. I don’t know if that was good, but I had to do something, and I’m going to blame my wife on this one, even though what I did ends up hurting her a bit.

Okay, time to open up the closet and let you all know my families’ dirty little secret.  Secrets suck, and we usually put them in closets because we don’t like looking at them everyday.  We just figure that they’ll die and go away.  Here’s my family’s dirty little secret; my father never really knew his father.

The story that he was told by his mother and her family was that his father was a dirty rotten so and so that upped and left one day leaving him and my grandmother high and dry.  The reality is that one day my grandmother - and I still love her - but I will confess this makes it a bit hard - took my dad for a walk from their home in one part of Queens to her mother’s house in another part of Queens.  So what you may think, a walk in the spring.  Hardly.  She never went back to the other part of Queens and wouldn’t allow my grandfather to see his son again.  That’s when the lies came in to hide the dirty little secret.  In the end it hurt everyone involved, but mostly my dad, and I am sure my grandfather.

My dad was wounded by this.  I can’t even begin to think what he went through, but the concept must have been, “What’s wrong with me that you would leave me and not come back”.  Funny how we let lies made by others to rule our lives.  He also had to deal with the anger of being abandoned, not once, but then later on when my grandmother remarried, my dad was packed up again, back to his grandmother’s house where he spent the rest of his youth while my grandmother and her new husband lived together, soon joined by their own child.  Like I said, Grandma, I love you, but that was pretty F’d up x 2.

However, I found my father’s family.  My grandfather died in 1992 at the age of 82.  All of his brothers died, and all of their wives.  But I’ve found my father’s generation.

Many emotions.  I’ve opened up a closet, and it had skeletons in it.  This won’t be over, but it’s 2:30 AM, so I have to get some sleep.  We have a family reunion, and while my digging has opened up skeletons, it’s also opened up wounds.

Edwards: “War on Terror a Bumper Sticker”

From ABC News:

Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a “global war on terror,” calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

“We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st-century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes,” Edwards said. “By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam.”

Man, I guess I’m sorry I missed the memo that the WOT was over. Now, while I don’t always feel that there has been wise and consisent handling about this issue, I think Sen. Edwards is either very naive or simply pandering to the left part of the Democratic Party. Since, he was a successful litagator, and no, that doesn’t eliminate the former, I’ll have to opt for the latter.

Sen. Edwards may have the left in his pocket, but that leaves about 80% of the population, HOPEFULLY, scratching their heads in amazement at his rhetoric.

GOP Frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, was quick to comment on Edwards’ comments.

“One of the democratic Presidential candidates today gave a speech in New York and the speech that he gave suggested that the global war on terror was no more than a slogan of George Bush’s,” Mr. Giuliani told a gathering of employees of an insurance company in Keene. “I understand the zeal and the overzealousness that some of these people have to attack George Bush. It comes out a of a political process,” he said. “I think it is wrong. I think it doesn’t put George Bush’s presidency in proper perspective.”

Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Later on Giuliani did mention Mr. Edwards by name. The reason that Mr. Edwards will not even validate the US’ efforts in this area are driven by the mindframe of the demagogues. Purely and simply that is what the base of the Democratic Party has become. Then again, what can one expect from pigs but grunts. The mindlessness of the Dems is having them live up to their mascot, jackasses.

Poll: Majority of Muslim Immigrants Assimilating Well

A poll by the Pew Research Foundation has found that

Most Muslim Americans are moderate, mainstream and middle class, the study shows. They are largely assimilated, happy with their lives and have adopted such core American values as a belief that hard work will lead to success. Their income and educational levels also are comparable with those of most Americans, the study found.

However, the same poll found that nearly one in four Muslims under 30 years old,believe that suicide bombing in the defence of Islam are justified in “some” circumstances.

Pew Research President Andrew Kohut claims that his news is rather positive, and that

“This is a group living as most Americans live … a group that is assimilating or aspiring to assimilate.”

Of course he leaves out that rather worrying 25% who have no problem with suicide bombings in “some” circumstances.

While I am happy that 75% to 80% of those Muslims who have emigrated to the US are not in favor of such activity, I wonder what would the reaction be if the same question were given to Jews, and if it were found that 25% of younger Jews support suicide bombings if they felt that Judaism had been besmirched. I’m sure that would go over very well.  If all the African Americans in the US were surveyed, and the same results had been displayed, do you think that would possibly have received a different view other than happiness?  How well would the same information be received if 25% of Evangelicals felt that suicide bombings were appropriate if Christianity had been disrespected, which is an everyday occurence if you watch mainstream television or listen to some politicians speak. Would that be cause for rejoicing or cause for Congress to act in a draconian measure to those people who had been in the US for quite a long while. What if 25% of those who are illegally here felt that suicide bombings were acceptable in some circumstances? Do you think that there would be much of a discussion about the need to reach them, or would the talk be centered on deportation, much as it is today, even though illegals perform statistically lower amount of violent felonies, including homicide than the public at large.

Typical pandering to the Religion of Peace. Don’t get me wrong, I am happy that 75% of the people surveyed are happy with America, and want to assimilate. However, 25% endorsing terrorist techniques is a reason for concern, not happiness.  Then again, I’m sane.

Guest Worker Program Slashed in Half

The number of guest workers allowed entry into the US in the proposed immigration reform bill has been slashed in half from 400,000 to 200,000.  The Senate voted 74-24 to provide such a reduction, and was brought forward mostly by Democratic Senators aligned with unions.  The fear was that the number of immigrants being allowed to enter would cause destabilization among wages earned by “blue collar” labor.

This may have an effect of giving more support to the bill from some Democratic legislators, although there is still opposition to the bill from the left on the formulaic process which gives less weight to family members entering the country than those who have skills which are deemed important to the economy.  The rationale behind the crafters of the bill behind having a large number of invited guest workers would be that the large number of invited workers would limit the pressure of those seeking to work in the US illegally.

Clearly this bill has sparked great controversy with regard to its content - from both the left and the right - and the manner in which it was brought to the Senate.  With the bill going through a typical, and in this case high profile amendment process many are beginning to express doubt that immigration reform will be accomplished in the President’s term.

While the need for immigration form to many seems to be apparent, the large concessions made by both parties to reach this compromise, may not allow for this bill to have a chance to survive, and be signed into law.

Another Busy Weekend, and Another Chance to Cross My Fingers

Well, two daughters down the graduation from college route, and three to go!  Although the over/unders ar on the 15 year old managing to graduate from college before her 18 year old siblings!

We spent a good weekend watching my daughter graduate from college.  The whole family sans my son who is a Gears of War addict, but who was good enough to somewhat watch the cats between games, were there.  At the restaurant afterwards it was myself, my wife, my ex, and my three girls.  When we have these combined family meetings - at least the last three - they are really interesting.  We really have a good time, laughing, joking and usually my ex wife and I are telling all sorts of funny stories to our children - four from that marriage - about a lot of the excapades that we shared as a family.  If you had a picture of it and were to step back say eight or nine years ago, heck maybe even five, I don’t think that any would have predicted that.  The biggest hat tip to all goes to my wife, who has grace and and is not affronted by myself and my children’s mother from truly having fun talking about our time together.  Time may not heal all wounds, but I think it gives perspective.

That is the reason for the lack of posts, and there is another reason.  Another shot at a job, and this one, well it may be too good to be true, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.  It is a position as a K-12 Director of Social Studies in a school that is very needy.  For those who are regular readers here, you know how my heart goes out to schools in need, and this one could be a poster child for that description.  Where I live, you can have very affluent towns and then towns which are under a blanket of poverty - the school where I work is one of the more affluent in the state, and the one where I am interviewing is markedly different.  However, in the past when I coached and we had games/matches against this district, I always got along well with their players.  I also am very good friends with about four teachers and am acquainted with a few high level administrators.  Please keep your fingers crossed, as this would be a unique opportunity, and the best part it is only ten to fifteen minutes from my house - about five miles!

We’ll keep everyone informed!

The Immigration Bill - What Would Reagan Say?

In the hubub for the GOP to take on the mantle of Ronald Reagan, one has to wonder what would The Great Communicator say about the bill being proposed about illegal aliens. I think he would have supported it.

This is from Otis Graham’s Reagan’s Big Mistake.

While I disagree with the title, I do agree with the facts.

Reagan did have a place in his mind and a rhetoric on the matter of immigration. His was the sentimentalist, Statue of Liberty conception so widely shared among assimilated Americans of his day who could not remember when immigration had been a problem. In one of the few references to immigration in his published state papers covering his eight years in the White House, Reagan displayed in 1984 the then-dominant language of diversity celebration when he told an audience of naturalizing immigrants that immigrants “enlivened the national life with new ideas and new blood,” and “enrich us” with “a delightful diversity.”

I guess The Gipper wouldn’t have minded some of the positive aspects of multiculturalism.

In May 1981, Alan Simpson (R., Wyo.), chairman the Senate subcommittee on immigration, sought to confer with the president prior to Reagan’s scheduled meeting with Mexican President Lopez Portillo in order to urge the administration to keep American options open on immigration. But the meeting lasted only 15 minutes. Reagan listened to Simpson’s views and limited himself to a broad promise of co-operation. Congress therefore assumed the lead in immigration reform, though Simpson, in, the words of a White House staff memo to Reagan, had “indicated his willingness to ‘carry the administration’s water’ on this issue.” They carried different water, as it turned out.

Simpson sensed from his early contacts with White House aides that cooperation with Reagan was shaky. To start with, the president’s newly appointed Immigration Task Force was leaning toward an expansion of legal immigration. One important bias appeared to shape the Task Force’s deliberations from the start. In the words of one White House staffer, “The President is himself a firm believer in a high degree of freedom in immnigration”.

This means that he wanted to “liberalize” immigration policy. If observers had expected a conservative government to shift the policy options toward firmer law enforcement while condemning liberal laxity, they were surprised.

Reagan’s own short message announcing these proposals could have been written by Ted Kennedy. He began with the ritual incantation that “Our nation is a nation of immigrants” which would always welcome more to our shores. But the “Cuban influx to Florida” required more effective policies that will “preserve our tradition of accepting foreigners to our shores, but to accept them in a controlled and orderly fashion … consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom.”

Hmm… Ted Kennedy and Reagan. Ted Kennedy and Bush. Coincidence, I think not. Reagan and Bush were in many ways true progressives in that they understood that America stands for uplifting the human condition. Despite some of his views, which I disagree with profoundly, I would submit that in many instances, this view is more consistently found in Sen. Kennedy, and his staff, than in many of those current Republicans who think they model Reagan.

Ronald Reagan called himself a conservative, but on immigration, he was not. On this issue, conservative Ronald Reagan, in a moment of critical import, lined up with the liberals, and his historical reputation should reflect this.

As Reagan did, so does President Bush, and for the most part, on this issue, I agree. But maybe that bastion of liberalism the Cato Institute sums it up best.

“Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work. In a radio address in 1977, he noted that apples were rotting on trees in New England because no Americans were willing to pick them. “It makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won’t do?” Reagan asked. “One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.”

Compare Reagan’s hopeful, expansive, and inclusive view of America with the dour, crabbed, and exclusive view that characterizes certain conservatives who would claim his mantle. Their view of the world could not be more alien to the spirit of Ronald Reagan.

Amen and Amen.