APUSH Under Attack

     When the College Board released the new framework for the AP US History curriculum that was implemented this year, they faced intense backlash from conservative political groups around the country.  These groups, ranging from local school boards all the way to the Republican National Committee, demanded that the new framework be reviewed and rewritten, as in their eyes it "presents a biased and inaccurate view" of American history, and "encourages and condones civil disorder". These complaints are not just hypocritical and ill-informed about the course, they threaten the core values of public education in a democratic society by attempting to impose government censorship.
   
     One of the main arguments made by those demanding review of the APUSH framework is that it contains an inherent liberal bias, which does not provide students with a balanced education.  While it is true that a majority of social studies teachers are liberals, the College Board framework for the class focuses on developing historical thinking skills rather than factual information, leaving specific curriculums up to local school districts.  Thus, despite the fact that, in the words of Stephen Colbert: "reality has a well-known liberal bias," the College Board is not able to mandate any political agenda by the very nature of their course.  If Republican groups truly wanted to eliminate this perceived liberal bias in the classroom, then they should focus on encouraging more young conservatives to become history teachers rather than constantly bashing the public school system.  Furthermore, claims from these groups that APUSH should be revised because it is biased are inherently hypocritical, as any right-wing organization will naturally give the course a conservative bias, making it no more balanced than it was previously.
     

     The most egregious attack on the new APUSH framework occurred when a conservative-majority school board in Colorado called for the course to be reviewed for, among other things, "placing an excessive emphasis on race, gender, class, ethnicity, grievance and American-bashing," and "condoning civil disobedience."  Students and teachers actively protested this resolution, and rightfully so, as it was an attack on liberty and freedom of thought, ideals that the Republican party claims to stand for.  Besides the fact that those "excessively emphasized" points encompass nearly all of American history, this school board obviously does not understand the basic purpose of studying history, which is to learn from the past to create a better future.  The dark or shameful aspects of history, such as racism, sexism, and corruption, must be emphasized in order for students to recognize problems in modern society.  If the past is misrepresented as a patriotic utopia, as these groups would like, then students will have no reference for bettering their futures.  Similarly, if all the great examples of civil disobedience being used to accomplish good in American history, such as the Boston Tea Party, the women's suffrage movement, or the civil rights movement, are ignored because politicians are afraid to upset the status quo, then students will not know how to upset the status quo if it needs to be upset, making it dangerously easy for an oppressive system to become entrenched without opposition.

     Censorship of the APUSH curriculum would be a direct attack on the powerful and always-intertwined American values of education and liberty.  The College Board and local school systems must not let politicians rewrite the class to suit their own agenda, and the right-wing groups demanding censorship should look to American history and realize that our nation's Founding Fathers, whom they so revere, would surely be horrified at their hypocritical stance on this issue.

War

Restrepo Analysis

    When asked if his film Restrepo was a political statement, director Tim Hetherington claimed that it was not, but in a way it was because everything that we do is political.  By this, he means that all of our actions, no matter how small, affect how other people view us, in a way making every action a political statement.  I agree that this is true, for better or for worse.  Attributes such as what we wear, what we eat, and how we speak can greatly affect the opinions of others, even if they get the wrong impression from their limited view.  Thus, even though Restrepo does not clearly offer the viewer the director's viewpoint, it is still a political statement based on how it portrays the actions of the soldiers taking part in the film.

   The central message of Restrepo is that war has a profound and sometimes irreversible effect on those taking part in it.  It does not focus on the causes of American involvement in Afghanistan or the merits of these causes at all, like most documentaries about the controversial conflict would.  Instead, Hetherington shows the everyday lives of American soldiers living in horrendous conditions in one of the most dangerous places in the world.  One of the most striking aspects of the film is the youth of many of the soldiers involved, and how they are being exposed at a very young age to horrors most people never imagine.  Many scenes showing the soldiers wrestling, singing, dancing, and talking to their families show that they are really still kids, even though they are in a very grown-up situation.  One scene even showed two soldiers playing a video game about war, and frighteningly, they seemed to carry over this childlike enthusiasm into actual fighting against real human beings.  These men were changed forever by their experience in Afghanistan, and I think that this is what Hetherington is trying to convey to the viewer, not a more general political statement on whether the war is justified or not.  The interviews with the soldiers after they return home are very telling, as the camera films close-ups of their face.  Many of their faces still look young, but watching their eyes and mannerisms truly indicate what they have gone through, as they look uncomfortable, anxious, and sad at many points.  Even when they appear to be happy, their moods seem to change quickly as they remember the things that they witnessed in Afghanistan. Restrepo painted a very different picture of war than is seen in Hollywood movies or on the news, that tend to glorify and justify the actions of the military.  Hetherington decided against making a generalized political statement about war, and instead showed the effect that war has on the individual soldiers involved, making a very different and much more personal kind of political statement.

Toy Soldiers

    Today I found a large bin of old toys I used to play with when I was a little kid.  It was piled high with various action figures, toy cars and trucks, and scattered or broken pieces from other toys.  There were probably over a thousand individual pieces in there.  It was quite impressive.  Most of this bin was filled with hundreds of toy soldiers; those minuscule green plastic men fiercely wielding their tiny weapons against an unseen plastic enemy.  
     Some of them were clearly American Civil War soldiers, half of them blue and half of them gray, with muskets and sabers.  Others were meant to be World War II era, probably my dad's childhood toys passed down to me.  Still more looked like they were American soldiers in Vietnam, with more modern uniforms and weapons than the older toys.  They came with horses, cannons, tanks, jeeps, and tents and buildings for bases.  They were fully prepared to do battle.
     I remembered back to when I was younger and I would play with these toy soldiers all the time.  I loved history even back then and I would sometimes try to recreate civil war battles complete with generals and cavalry charges.  Other times my imagination got the better of my love for historical accuracy and plastic dinosaurs and knights would fight alongside World War II soldiers.
    I guess it was a great outlet for a young imagination, but this pastime seems quite silly to me now. It made war seem like great fun, a giant playing field with formations and charges and guns and tanks and other exciting features.  I imagined myself as a general and a tactician, setting up my armies against the enemy.  I didn't care what or who I was fighting for, it was just seemed fun to fight.  As the battles progressed I swept aside the opposing soldiers as they died like I was the hand of God, ending countless plastic lives with my juvenile fingers.  I gave no thought whatsoever as to whether these little soldiers wanted to die, whether they had families, whether they volunteered or were drafted.
      On one level it didn't matter.  They were made of plastic.  They couldn't feel or think or live or die.  I don't think I could do it now though.  Now I see war on the news every day and read about it in books and magazines.  Back then all I knew about war was green plastic men shooting at each other with green plastic guns and whatever I could learn from children's history books.  My younger self sat in my basement and staged wars with glee, while around the world real soldiers who were not made of green plastic killed real people with real guns that were not made of green plastic.  These soldiers were so inanimate and innocent back then. Now I look at them and I see men who are prepared to kill and afraid to be killed, and I don't think a child should determine their fate so happily.

Ink

This is the ink reservoir of a pen.  When I get bored in classes, I take apart my pen and put it back together again, always amazed at the simple yet complex interactions of tiny pieces of plastic to form such a useful tool.  As I did this last week, I looked closely at the tube of dark blue-black ink inside the pen; specifically the stark boundary between the ink and the used-up and empty reservoir of gel.

A pen is an extraordinarily powerful tool.  A pen creates governments and overthrows them.  A pen writes every majestic symphony and every brilliant novel.  A pen makes us laugh and makes us cry. But without ink, a pen is a worthless piece of plastic.  Ink is the blood coursing through the veins of every word every human has ever written.  Ink gives life to dead and empty pages and pens.

But as this image proves, the ink will not remain in the pen forever.  The ink remains immortal on the page, living on for all to read forever, but not so in the pen. The pen is slowly used up, its core gradually transforming from a full and healthy dark blue to a hollow and ghostly white.  The pen bleeds out, having carefully used every last drop of its life to fulfill whatever its purpose may have been, and becomes a plastic skeleton, destined for a landfill where it will sit silent, unused, and dead for millennia, not feeling the joy or the pain caused by the words it has written.

This pen still has ink.

Introduction

   This is a blog.  I have never wanted to participate in any sort of social media, and I still do not, so starting a blog is not something that I would normally have had any interest in doing.  Generally, I believe that social media tends to waste time, encourage narcissism, and make people less aware of the world around them.  I know this view is unpopular, but it's just what I think. Because of this, I will try to only write things on here that I think are worth sharing with other people, so as not to waste anyone's time.
   Here is a brief introduction about myself:  I like reading books, watching TV, and listening to music, specifically rock from the 1960s and 70s.  My favorite books are Catch-22 by Joseph Heller and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.  My favorite musical artists are The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and Pink Floyd.  I strongly dislike almost all popular music of this millennium; it lacks the creativity and musicianship of all the old stuff.  I love the outdoors,  hiking, and camping, as well as swimming and other sports.
  So I guess you can read this blog if you would like.