Analyzing Early American Cartography

1. According to the Library of Congress, John Ferrar’s map was published in London in 1667. His map displays illustrations of plants, animals, bodies of water and objects of resource. Indian land and bodies of water are displayed, but the writing size is small in that there are many locations. In the upper portion of the map is a portrait of the explorer Sir Francis Drake.

The publishing of the map sets the creator in a discourse of 17th century England. This was a time where exploration was a popular activity, as many English were excited to discover new land. The illustrations throughout the map narrate that the settlement of land was not as prioritized as the availability of resources--North America was abundant with fertile, and rather undisturbed land that was largely appealing to European explorers. Many names of Indian land and bodies of water are given, but the writing of location titles are small. The names written show that the land was still considered indigenous at the time and largely “uncivilized”. However, on the map there are sparse English settlements along the Atlantic Coast. The writing of these names, such as “Cape Henry” and “Cape Codd” are larger in size, suggesting a greater importance than the existent Native settlements around them. The explorer’s section of the map is shown with Sir Francis Drake’s portrait and a summary of his observations, “..Whose [New Albion’s, a region of Virginia] happy shores may be discovered to the exceeding benefit of Great Britain and joye of all true English.” This simple sentence speaks for the entire map, showing that the finding of this resourceful land would be an “exceeding benefit” for all who explored it. An excerpt from Valerie Babb’s Crafting Whiteness in Early America accordingly analyzes early American discovery, “Maps made it easy for European states...to lay claim to land and resources, and to ignore existing social and political structures” (Monmonier, 90).

The Contemporary American Dream

Since our parent’s generation, the hope of attaining the American Dream is still the same, but the dream is not so realistic in today’s society. Reaching a comfortably suitable lifestyle is ideal for all but that doesn't imply that it’s entirely possible. Divisions is social class have affected reaching the American Dream by shifting the equality of opportunity and stunting social mobility.

                The American Dream varies directly with opportunity. The United States has a reputation for opening doors to fruited plains of possibility for all who dwell there. Meritocracy, however, has stunted many American’s abilities to move up on the social ladder. “Throughout the rich world…elites have proved remarkably adept at passing on privilege down the generations” (Source B). It has become more and more apparent, that children who were raised in stable and wealthy families have a greater advantage at seeking many opportunities. These kids can attain their dreams because they can afford the necessary schooling to do so. Meritocracy has shown itself to making the American Dream possible—to some, but not all Americans—because the young people have their parents’ wealth and reputation to proceed into making a suitable living. The equality of opportunity has not only become weighted by whoever has the greatest income, but also by whoever gets the best grades in high school.  There is a correlation between the wealthy and children with excellent GPA's. “The rich-poor gap in test scores is about 40 percent larger now than it was 30 years ago” (Source A). With this information, doesn't it make sense that the equality of opportunity is more opportune for those with more resources and money, and isn't a viable option for every young American?

                Social mobility, like the equality of opportunity, has become somewhat of a dream itself. America appears to be a progressive country with the ability to allow its citizens to reach a greater social place because the middle class makes up the majority. “There is more chance of upward mobility in the broad middle class” (Source E).  However, there is a struggle. Americans residing in the lower-middle class and working class struggle to move up the social ladder because of a lack of money to support a young American’s education. Larger families have a greater chance of getting their children into college. “The Great Gatsby Curve” is Alan Kruger's visual demonstration of contemporary social mobility (Source G). Fathers whose incomes rise by one percent can slow social mobility for the entire country.  Jonah Goldberg said, “Americans who started in the top and the bottom of the economic ladder…remain stuck there as themselves as adults” (Source E). Think that over. Is the American Dream attainable for everyone?

Social Clash

The Christian Science Monitor quiz revealed my social class results. I ranked into the Middle class, and I can't say I agree that I should have been placed there.

I felt skeptical about the questions as I took the quiz. There were inquiries asking about my dental health and grammar knowledge, and while I understood that it would be sort of difficult for a quiz to fairly determine one's social class, it seemed that the questions were very general. I felt that I could predict what class each question was referring to, and that whatever selection I made would point me in a specific direction.

 In analyzing the facets of social class in The Great Gatsby, the other texts I've analyzed have both related to and differed from the characters in the book. In the Money Always Talks article, it suggests two large ideas: the wealthy are capable of separating themselves from the public and the wealthy evoke "oxymoronic" responses from the public. Jay Gatsby, the famed man of money in Gastby lives in West Egg in the state of New York. His home is separated from New York by a body of water, and one is capable of seeing the city from his pier. The distance shows that Gatsby lives separately from mainstream society because his wealth has bought him a fair amount of privacy.

His privacy renders grand parties. Referring to the Money Always Talks article, the author says that "they [the rich] stir up envy, and they invite respect". This idea is relevant to the Great Gatsby as well, because Jay has such a large house that just about every night at his house is a celebration. The flat characters of the book speak in hushed, respectable tones about the lovely atmosphere of his parties, but they also gossip about his past. No one really knows where Jay is from, so numerous stories arise from all of the guests.

In reading the Shadowy Lines That Still Divide article, the large idea that presented itself to me was that meritocracy lies at the heart of America. In Gatsby, there is not much exposure of any social class but the upper class, and it is easy to see that meritocracy runs true in the story. Nick Carraway, the narrator and observant eyes of Gatsby is from a line of prestige. He explains that his forefather fought in the Civil and Great wars, and that he graduated from college to continue working for his father's hardware business. Families that come from a line of wealth and prestigious values are capable of seeking endless opportunities. The article explains that parents with money can "cultivate their children in the habits that meritocracy rewards". Throughout the book, characters like Gatsby and Tom Buchanan take pride in what they've "accomplished", thought most of their success is a result of their lineage. 

What Made "Sound and Fury"

Sound and Fury is a documentary that displays and explores Deaf Culture, and how it lives in life as a large-scale reality. The creator effectively used several personal perspectives and discourses to portray how crucially a coclear implant, a device used to neurologically aid the hearing for the deaf, effects the people in the Deaf Culture.

The Father of the little girl named Heather was opposed to his daughter having the colear implant, because he hails from a discourse where his entire family is deaf, and to make an exception for one family member would go against his belief that "signing [sign language] is visual, with emotion". The father was very consistent with that, and reinforcing the idea that giving his daughter an opportunity to hear would only take Heather out of the Deaf Culture and rid her of who she really is, because she would in time forget her individuality in being deaf.

With that in mind, the little girl, Heather, shows her desire to hear. In the beginning, she tells her parents that she wants to be able to speak and hear because there are so many important things that go with the ability to hear, like "hearing smoke detectors" and other vital factors. Throughout the documentary, Heather is swayed by her parents' dislike of the idea of her being able to hear when they take her to experience how being deaf is natural and okay to live with.

The grandparents on the father's side of the family disagreed ith the parent's decision to not have their daughter implanted, because they experienced the sadnesses and hardships of having to raise deaf children. They saw the implant as an opportunity for Heather to be able to live life more fully, rather than the implant being an escape from her true self. The grandmother played a large role in reinforcing her belief that "the world is changing" and Deaf Culture was becoming less important in the world. Therefore, she saw her granddaughter's desire to hear as a signal that she should be able to. The grandparents believed that Heather's parents were not thinking about Heather's benefit, but rather focusing on their own beliefs and forcing them upon her.

The brother to the father had a deaf child, but the brother himself could hear. He and his wife wanted their infant son to be implanted, because the mother claimed that when she learned her son was deaf "a part of her died". Therefore, they proceeded in getting the surgery, and believed that what Heather's parents were doing was "abuse" because they were withholding her from the beautiful opportunity to live as a hearing person.

The differing discourses gave a lot of content to the documentary on Deaf Culture, and how a simple surgical procedure could profoundly affect the people within it.

What if You Don't Make It? A Fear of Insignificance

Directionless. It is a feeling that approaches me so easily when I have nothing but time to think about every facet and factor of my life so far. When I talk to someone close, they tell me that it is only a common concern to not have a crystal visual of the road ahead. I feel that this means something completely different to them than it does to me. Why is that? It is because I do not want to live in this world with a grand void like the spaces between rocks in a canyon, and not feel like I've done something different enough, and significant enough, to feel like I am alive. That directionless feeling always returns to me, because I do not want to wake up one day, stuck like a mistaken footprint in the cement in a place where I am doing nothing purposeful because I couldn't find the right sign.

That loss of direction feeds into my main fear of not attaining some sensation of significance in life. Now, I am not implying that I feel insignificant as if I experienced neglect and have emotional doubts about my self-worth. It is entirely contrary. I personally feel that I have that internal something to do great things someday. But I fear that I will miss a subtle opportunity, like the closing of a door that's locked from the outside, and I will not be able to attain that significance. 

Leaked?

After gaining more insight on the topic surrounding WikiLeaks, I realized the power that classified documents harness. Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden could be considered vigilantes by revealing harsh truths about governments with the refuge of foreign security and state of the art technology.
In Kenya, Julian Assange's efforts to expose secrets on the presidential candidate resulted in chaos throughout the country, but also gave Kenyan people truthful insight on who they could've elected. This shows the severity that secrets possess, especially ones of political nature that concern humanity.
Chelsea Manning aided Assange in passing footage along to WikiLeaks of several airstrikes inflicted upon Iraqi soldiers by the U.S. military, and many classified army reports. Manning was charged on 22 counts and discharged from the military.
According to wikipedia.com, Edward Snowden leaked information about telephone and internet surveillance that was passed between The U.S. and Europe to WikiLeaks, and he, like Assange and Manning, was charged with espionage.
While it causes controversy concerning national confidentiality, Assange, Manning, and Snowden are not the hidden information that hangs above the world on a string, but simply the medium through which these truths pass. In my opinion, they are brave individuals who had the courage to personally jeopardize their careers for the sake of exposing such sensitive, and secretive, information. What they did should not be considered a violation of the freedom of speech, and that should be remembered because it serves as the basis of our liberated country. Their revelations are profoundly influential and informative, and I believe people of the world deserve to know the truth about the governments who are ruling them.