CNN's Very Own Huck Finn?

I came across this video today about CNN reporter Neal Moore. He decided to trek down the Mississippi River, from Lake Itasca to New Orleans, where Huck Finn was headed himself. Moore's path was similar to Huck Finn's; he canoed by himself, camped on islands, and was one with nature. He went to a powwow, lived on a farm, and visited Samuel Clemen's hometown, Hannibal, Missouri.

He said that he didn't at first he didn't think of himself as a modern day Huck Finn, but as the media gained more coverage over his trip, he started to agree.

He kept saying he was looking for positive American stories and living others' lifestyles. I believe that his story was incredible, but it got me wondering about whether or not that was what Twain wanted us to see Huck was doing. Was Twain representing positive American stories? To me, his satiric commentary showed me just the opposite.

Huck definitely went out of his comfort zone, and was greatly inspired, but also displayed highly racist attitudes from a young age. This got me wondering about Huck Finn being a coined "classic" - was this video displaying a large bias? Are we trying to preserve the integrity of Huck Finn so people will accept it more? It got me thinking about the letter we got.

There's no way I can get an answer, but I'm wondering how positive Huck Finn's story really was to Americans. What do YOU think?

Thoughts on Reparations for Slavery

Today in class I found myself very confused as we discussed reparations for slavery. But, by the end of it, I came to a more concrete stance.

I do not agree with reparations - monetary reparations, that is. In an article I just came across that says that the National Association of Educators gave the Durham Public School System a grant of 1.25 dollars a few days ago in order to "engage in the never ending quest to save black males from falling into the dark abyss of educational obscurity."

What I was unaware of prior to reading this article was that African Americans have been fighting for reparations for slavery for years and years. It's completely understandable, but what the author, Paul Scott of The Herald-Sun argues that the money never makes it to the black students and becomes lost in the midst of a complex educational hierarchy.

The author poses one question - "How did we get here in the first place?" I found this very interesting because in class today, I came to the conclusion that for descendants of African American to be receive money would be emulating the institution of slavery again, in a way: African Americans would be worth a certain amount of money, and Whites could buy away their guilt in giving it to them. The wealthier would contain the power in this matter, as they did over a hundred years ago.

Some reparations that do not involve money mentioned in the article include the integration of African American literature into curriculums, something I think should be required without using slavery as a reason for it. Open conversations about race are also encouraged, something I found beneficial during our discussions of Huck Finn.

Scott also encourages all African American children to be required to take a course in Afrocentricity - a course that would teach students about Africa. I'm not sure if this is going too far - is a class that only certain children can take going backwards in time?

What do you think? Would monetary reparations get the job done or would reparations that the author suggests help African American people more? Should we give African Americans money if that's what they want?

Small Businesses Galore

In class on Thursday, we discussed Obama's State of the Union in great detail. We wondered why Obama brought up small businesses so much. A few possibilities came up:

1) Small business owners represent a constituency that Obama wants to appeal to.

2) Americans love the idea of small businesses, but shop at Wal-Mart

3) "Small business" is a Republican touchstone phrase. Perhaps Obama wanted to appear more centrist.

It could be all, it could be any, or it could be none. A few days ago, I was watching a random video on youtube, and an advertisement came up. It was promoting the Tea Party Movement, which "calls awareness to any issue, which challenges the security, sovereignty or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation." Immediately, I thought that The Tea Party Movement was a direct hit at Obama's brand; the Coca-Cola vs. Honest Tea idea. Apparently it represented much more. The "Tea Party" is taken directly from the Boston Tea Party - a great rebellion in American History (see second video). The Tea Party movement claims to represent neither a democratic nor republican view (The Tea Party Express gave $380,000 to Scott Brown's Massachusetts campaign, and its logo on the website is, "JUST VOTE THEM OUT!") The protests demonstrate direct attacks at President Obama, as in the video below angry protesters scream "NO MORE CZARS! NO MORE CZARS!" and compare him to Hitler.

That was just the beginning - it has been almost a year, and the movement has been growing, with more and more protests and an upcoming national convention to be held in Nashville this weekend. The most recent protest took place on January 27th, the day of the State of the Union Address. Obama mentioned "small businesses" 14 times in his speech - could it be that these were the people he was trying to appeal to? The Tea Party Movement has been known to rise to the occasion, with protests on Tax Day and the 4th of July - what were they trying to accomplish last Thursday?

How do you think the Tea Party reacted to his address? A nice commercial to leave you with (Digging the Requiem for A Dream Soundtrack use)