The Evolution of Technology-Social Media and Social Change

 In today’s age, we are surrounded by technology. Whether we know it or not, technology in the modern world has evolved from simple tools to the center of our culture. It can be seen in everything from everyday appliances such as a toaster to revolutionary medical advancements like robots who can perform surgeries. Despite all of this, one form of technology has dominated and controlled popular culture for the last decade, social media. Social media are defined as “computer-mediated tools that allow people to create, share or exchange information, ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks” (Wikipedia), or in other words, are a place where people can express themselves in a world separate from their real one. This includes sites such as twitter, Instagram, google+, pintrest, vine, tumblr, and facebook, where users constantly log onto check their profiles, post new ideas or photos, explore new trends, and connect with people from all over the world. For us teenagers especially, social media has become big part of our everyday lives and adolescent culture. However, in recent years, social media has evolved from simply a form of enjoyment to a medium of social change. Things like the Twitter Revolution with hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter, #BringBackOurGirls, and #JeSuisCharlie show that people are using social media as a way to express their opinions and protest things that are happening in the world. And with the ability to communicate these opinions to social media users from all over the world, social media activists are able to spread their ideas to millions of people in a matter of seconds, as seen in this Twitter heat map of the hashtags #BlackLivesMatter, #ICantBreathe, and #HandsUpDontShoot (http://srogers.cartodb.com/viz/3ecef0b4-7cae-11e4-8bbb-0e9d821ea90d/embed_map ). All of this shows that in today’s modern age, technology has become such a cultural center that it has become the new form of social protest, it unites people from all different places and allows them not only to escape the world they live in, but also to change it.

Fire with Fire?

Throughout my historical studies career, one question has remained to be a consistent source of controversy, the question of whether it’s okay to fight fire with fire, or in other words, is it okay fight violence with violence? The form of militant rebellion can be seen in almost any conflict throughout history, where people use force to fight against their oppressors. In fact, it is human nature to tend to use violence as a mean to get what you want, whether it’s freedom from oppression or the savings from a bank. In most cases, I believe that fighting violence with violence is not the answer, and that there are many peaceful alternatives to achieving your goal. However in some cases, the use of fighting force with force can be justified. For example, during the 1960s a new civil rights movement popped up in America, a movement that contradicted the non-violent mission of MLK and instead advocated for black minorities across the country to band together and fight back against white oppressors. They called themselves the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and they used force to help oppressed black communities defend themselves from police and government brutality. Additionally, the Black Panther Party also helped build up their communities through charity acts like food drives, health clinics, and childcare. The Black Panther Party was one of the first revolutionary movements in America that used militancy to defend the rights of the oppressed, because using force and violence was what the situation called for in order to defend the black citizens. Therefore, I believe that the use of force of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was justified because the violence was required in order to defend the lives and liberties of the members of the black minority. 

The Origin of the Cold War

In American studies class this week we have been analyzing the many arguments for the origin of the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Some have said that it originated from the opposition between capitalism and socialism, or the threat of the two powers in possession of nuclear weapons, but I believe that the Cold War originated from the want of both the US and USSR to be the new international superpower. Throughout the 20th century, a handful of countries who possessed advanced technology and ambitious political leaders contended for a position of power over other nations by waging world wars and creating alliances. The conclusion of the second world war left these previous contenders of worldwide dominance, mainly the nations of Germany, Japan, England, and France, in both economic and national turmoil, seriously delaying the continuation of their rise to power. This left only two contenders left in the race for worldwide influence- the US and USSR. They had been shady allies during world war 2, but now that the war was over any trust or reliability they had between them vanished and the two nations became enemies in the pursuit for power. They then based this rivalry off of the opposing ideals of capitalism or socialism, or the threat they posed for each other being the only two nations currently in possession of the atomic bomb, but really I think that this was all a facade for the fact that they both wanted power and saw the other as an obstacle in their way to obtaining it.

The Impact of the Espionage and Sedition Acts

During the past few weeks of American Studies class we have been putting quite a lot of emphasis on the espionage and sedition acts and the affect they had on the expression of free speech and the overall freedom of citizens in America during the early 1900s. The original purpose of the espionage and sedition acts were to safeguard national security and opinion in the tension of the first world war, but instead these laws made the government able to restrict free speech and freedom of expression. Firstly, the espionage act of 1917 made it illegal for any U.S. citizen to interfere negatively with the American government or military, making it very difficult to oppose unwanted actions of the military during the war. Furthermore, the addition of the sedition act in 1918 made it illegal for any U.S. citizen to publicly oppose or rebel against the American government/military. In other words, the government now prohibited the free expression of beliefs that it did not deem safe or beneficial to national security. This expelled the first amendment of the Constitution regarding the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and created a controversy on the righteousness of the American government because the U.S. was now able to prosecute anyone that they disagreed with. In the period of the espionage and sedition acts, the government prosecuted many socialists, anarchists, communists and other people of radical beliefs, preventing the possibility of America evolving or changing into something other than the America that the government wanted.
My interpretation of the espionage and the sedition acts and their application shed the American government in a very negative light, but personally, I think that it is justified because with the enactment of these acts I think the government plainly abused their power and restricted people from benefiting from one of the supposed core American beliefs: freedom.

Gatsby and the Gilded Age

So this week in American Studies we have been discussing the Gilded Age, which was an era in America history where great wealth was gained through industry and economic expansion, but also through corruption and the self-promotion of wealthy rich white men. It was an era of glory and glamor and riches but left huge holes in the economy, eventually causing the system to fall through and for America to fall into the Great Depression.  In American Literature we also have been discussing the Gilded Age through the Great Gatsby. The Great Gatsby is a classic American novel discussing the life of those self-promoting white men and the society they lived in through the narrator, a middle-aged man named Nick Carraway. Nick describes the world of the glamorous as delicate and not as glamorous as it may seem from the outside. This is an accurate representation of the Gilded Age because the economy of the 1920s seemed strong and full of opportunity and happiness, but under that surface is was actually weak and not very happy. I think the connection between the Gilded Age and Gatsby is a very important connection to make because Nick's story of Gatsby and the fragile world of high society gives a first hand, although fictional, account of the Gilded Age and all its glory.

"American" Ethics

One of the key topics we discussed in class this week in the question "Should public schools instruct students in American values?". First of all, I think it is necessary to define the word "american" and what it means to have "american value". I think that "american values" should be any set of ethics that is present in any person living in America today, but society has, as society often does, manufactured a universal stereotype of what being american should mean. In my point of view the american stereotype often includes being financially stable, white, christian, and consumer oriented. Some may disagree with me but this is what I usually see throughout the media. This stereotype obviously nowhere near encompasses the culture of every american and it is unfortunate that this is considered the standard. Therefore, my answer to the question "Should public schools instruct students in American values?" is most definitely no because I believe there are no true American value, and only values manufactured by others and believed to be the values of all. If you were to teach the ethics of all of America you would not have enough time in a lifetime. I also disagree with teaching someone someones else's ethics because I believe that ethics, morals, and values are meant to be learned and discovered by the individual uninfluenced by those around them. I believe that it is someone's jurisdiction to determine their belief of right, wrong, and the purpose of life.

Harry Stout and George Santayana

So today in class we read the introduction to "Upon the Altar of the Nation" by Harry Stout. These couple pages discussed the premise of a book which questioned and discussed the way in which history, tragic history in particular, is viewed by historians and students. He stated that historians and students subconsciously judge the morality of the piece of history they are dissecting and that this judgement, while subconscious and in most circumstances justified, did nothing to further the analysis of the piece of history. I definitely agree with this statement because people tend to judge events too much rather than analyze the value and impact that the piece of history has on modern life or life in the time the event took place. You can make moral judgments, but don't let the moral judgments get in the way of a detailed and unbiased analysis.

The journal discussion we did today was centered around the quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana, 1905. We were asked to reflect on this saying and what it meant to us. Most people responded saying that they agree with this statement and that studying history and learning its implications from daily life helps better our society and prevent us from making mistakes. I agree with these statements, mostly. I do think that humanity has learned from a number of mistakes that they made throughout history, but I do not think that simply learning about an issue that happened and ensued negative consequences prevents humanity from making this mistake again. For example, discrimination, hatred, and war have been a constant threat throughout the world as long as anyone can remember and learning about incidents like the civil rights movement hasn't prevented discrimination from existing today. This is because some mistakes are simply human nature, and even education and reflection cannot prevent people from being people.