Sunday, April 25, 2010

A Trip Down Nostalgia Lane

NB: The subject matter of this post was in no way approved by my co-blogger. I would like to make it absolutely clear that she DOES NOT like the Doors, and no assumptions are to be made about her feelings relative to the content of this post :)

Frazz
(click on the strip for a larger image)

My love of the Doors in general and Jim Morrison in particular have become well known to my friends, particularly those who have watched the Doors perform on Ed Sullivan with me. Thus, one of said friends e-mailed me the above comic strip. Naturally, the strip is only funny if you agree that the idea of a 25-year-old hamster is as ridiculous as the idea of Jim Morrison living to be 66. Anyway, receiving this comic strip has inspired me to actually finish and post a blog entry I began over winter vacation.

Because I am a true music nerd, I was ecstatic to receive a record player for Christmas. For those of you who don’t know, records, also known as vinyl, LPs, 45s, etc. are those shiny black disks that you’ve probably seen in your parents’ attic or, depending on your age, have in your own attic.

Not really having much in the way of my own vinyl collection (a.k.a. I only owned one album), I naturally needed to borrow music from my parents for testing out on my latest toy. This meant not only exploring the records my parents had out, but dragging out boxes (and I mean drag; those suckers are heavy!) from storage and the garage.

The first things I played were selections from their classical collection, because that’s mostly what they’ve kept out over the years. And really, short of hearing it live, there’s nothing like listening to good classical music on LP. And it wasn’t just about the music. I got to hear my mother talk about how an ex-boyfriend of hers who played trombone introduced her to Janáček’s Symphonieta because of its excellent use of brass. I also got to see how much she loves listening to Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet Overture, which led to a discussion about Tchaikovsky’s amazing ability to tell stories with music. Of course, all of this led to the excavation of the other boxes.

In one of these boxes was my father’s collection of classic pop and rock. I wouldn’t have expected to see him with more records by Elton John and Chicago than The Beatles. And "Black Dog" and "Stairway to Heaven" are even more glorious on vinyl. But the group I have become sincerely attached to since then is the Doors. (And it’s not because of Morrison’s leather pants. Honest.)

I’d never thought myself to be particularly familiar with the music of The Doors, but there isn’t much classic rock that I don’t enjoy at least a little. Well, while my family chilled at home on Christmas, we watched a DVD of classic performances from the Ed Sullivan Show, which included The Doors performing “Light My Fire.” It was one of those songs I’d always heard, but never knew (or thought about) who sang it. And it kind of got stuck in my head. So, when I found that my dad had an album with that on it, I listened to it. And it is much longer than the version they performed for Ed, and has some fantastic instrumental solos.

Well, it’s more difficult to listen to single tracks on LPs, and I always like discovering new good music, so after listening to the first side (which conveniently opened with the 7 minute long “Light My Fire”) quite a few times, I finally flipped over the record, not expecting to hear anything I knew. But as soon as the first song, “Touch Me,” started, I knew what it was. It was one of those songs I’d always heard on classic rock radio that my dad listened to when I was younger. I always knew it as the Stronger Than Dirt song because whenever it came on the radio, my dad would crank the volume up so that we could hear what Morrison was singing at the end.

As I listened to it, I wished that I’d actually listened to more classic rock regularly when I was younger. I couldn’t help but think about listening to the Backstreet Boys during some of my formative years of adolescent growth and hormones. One could say that the Backstreet Boys were better. None of them were known for being alcoholics or hardcore drug-users (so far as I know, anyway). But none of them were Jim Morrison, either (or John Lennon, or Mick Jagger, or Gary Puckett, for that matter). I can’t help but think if I was a hormonal teenager in the late ‘60s lying on the floor of my bedroom listening to Jim Morrison sing "Touch Me" or "Wishful Sinful," I probably would have melted straight through the floor. Let’s face it, they don’t make music like they used to. And can any group today make hordes of pre-teen girls scream and faint quite like The Beatles (and, apparently, the Rolling Stones) could? No way.

This is not to say that modern music has nothing going for it. That would be a lie. I have my fair share of good music that has come out in the time I have been alive. But I think that my generation, the Starbucks, iPod, instant gratification generation, has come to expect different things from our music. I’m not sure quite what they expect, but I think that the revolutionary sounds of groups like The Beatles and The Doors are no longer new. But because of things they did, there’s very little new that modern groups are doing. Weezer has the Red Album, the Blue Album, and the Green Album. The Beatles had the White Album. Except it actually had a title. The Beatles. But I understand why no one calls it that; we can’t speak in italics, after all. We’d end up sounding like a bad Abbot and Costello sketch (-I listened to The Beatles this afternoon. –Awesome! Which album? -The Beatles. –You said that, but which album? Who’s on first?).

My generation isn’t going to be shocked and possibly scandalized by listening to Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (though "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" still sounds trippy), and no one is going to think twice about hip swiveling on TV (in the Ed Sullivan performance we watched, Elvis was filmed from the waist up, but the screams from the audience gave some indication of what we weren’t seeing). They may have been completely trashed all the time or have been having lots of sex with women they weren’t married to, but, come on, after Tom Cruise couch-jumped and Lindsay Lohan went into rehab for the ump-teenth time, who really cares? I’m sure some of the greats of early rock had onstage antics to match Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl (Jim Morrison and the Miami Incident, anyone? He was arrested! Multiple times!), but then as now, those things seldom stop people from following artists that they like.

And I had all of these deep and obviously profound thoughts because of getting a record player for Christmas. Betcha can’t get all of that from a new Blu-ray player. So now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go listen to Jim Morrison and melt.

620 Books

I'm an academic. I read for fun. Don't judge me.

So says my Facebook profile. At various points in my life, people have belittled me (with varying degrees of seriousness) for the fact that I read a lot. I don't really care anymore. I like to read, it is a stress reliever for me, and I would love to be able to call myself "well read" (although being well read is a full time job in and of itself).

So I was just looking at my refrigerator, and the green index card that's at the top of it caught my eye. It reads 620 books. The backstory is that nearly four years ago, I was having a hellish fall semester as a college sophomore. At fall break, I went home, and I was telling the story of all my assignments to a friend from church. This friend has a son who is a Ph.D student in history at Emory University, and at the time, his son was preparing for his Ph.D comps. My friend told me that his son had a list of 620 books that he had to know for his exams. So I went back to school, wrote "620 books" on a green index card, and posted it on my desk (where it remained for the next 2.5 years) as a reminder of how my workload could be worse.

So as I gazed upon this green index card this evening, I thought, "I haven't even read 620 books in my entire life." I know I've only read about 380 since I've been keeping a reading log (roughly 2000), not including required school reading.

Pope Benedict owns 20,000 books. I'm sure he's read most, if not all, of them.

I guess I have some work to do.

Friday, April 23, 2010

A Week in the Life of Ten Page

So I was talking with my Ed Block friends yesterday, and one of them, upon hearing about what I had been doing and reading my Facebook statuses, suggested that I start a blog. I told her I already had one, and she remembered seeing this on Facebook and then suggested that I put a list of what I do in a day on said blog. And I thought, "why the heck not."

This week, my to-do list had 34 items on it, even though I don't have a job at the moment. My rallying cry all week has been, "Who has time for a job?!?" So here's the recap:

Monday
-Mass at Sacred Heart with Alyssa and Jen
-stop by History Prof's office to pick up stuff for this week's Phi Alpha Theta induction, which I was in charge of planning along with one of the other alumni officers.
-stop in Education Prof's office to set a time for a meeting that had already been rescheduled twice.
-type up recollections from Open House presentation for aforementioned Education Prof
-give update to other Education dept Chair on how I went about getting my teaching certification
-wash windows
-Finish reading The Chocolate War (absolutely read this book!)
-hike over to campus to meet with Lydia and History Prof to plan induction
-run into Jen, Mandy, English Prof, other History Prof
-call supervising teacher to get latest on KCPS consolidation
-meeting with Education Prof to discuss conference presentation
-dinner
-send several job-related emails and completed one application
-call Brenna
-Bible Study at Mandy's

Tuesday
-Mass at Sacred Heart
-chat with Krista while we both wait for Education dept Chair, then we both meet with her
-visit former bosses in Writing Center
-call Caroline County HR
-20 mile bike ride
-read articles on field trips for conference presentation
-reading briefly and gladly interrupted by dinner and quick errand with Education dept Chair

Wednesday
-Communion Service at Our Mother of Sorrows
-prepare important gift
-H & R Block end of season survey
-online application for my teaching certificate
-finish draft of conference presentation
-empty dishwasher, do dishes
-drop papers for credential file off at career center
-shop for drinks and paper products for Phi Alpha Theta induction
-drop off drinks and plates etc off with History Prof
-chat with Education Prof
-play phone tag with Steve
-CCF end of year picnic
-Sacred Heart spaghetti dinner

Thursday
-Mass at Sacred Heart
-walk over to Acme and buy Kent News. Read Kent News
-15 mile bike ride
-pack for home
-group meeting to work on conference presentations
-Phi Alpha Theta induction
-go home to Western Shore

Friday
-Teachers of Promise Institute in Baltimore
-dinner with lovely WaC friends who now live in Western Shore neighborhood (kinda)

What does next week look like?
-field trip to DC
-finish The Romance of the Rose
-work on conference presentation
-follow up on some job applications
-lunch with Lydia and History Prof
-ODK induction?
-Conference on Saturday, 5/1
-townball on Thurs?
-Bible Study on Mon & Tues (need to plan Tuesday, since I'm probably going to lead the discussion)
-acutally get my teaching certificate and finish assignment from Education dept Chair?

Yeah...who has time for a job?

Sunday, March 14, 2010

The USA as Humpty Dumpty: Musings of a History Teacher

In the first leg of my post-college life, I've been teaching 8th grade US history. At this time of year, 8th graders learn about sectionalism, Andrew Jackson, and the problems of the 1820s and 1830s that festered and eventually exploded into a civil war (yet that war was not necessarily inevitable, as my students seem to think. 20-20 hindsight and teleology, however, are subjects for another day). This is a period of time that I have not studied since the 11th grade, but I'm starting to develop a new appreciation for our nations past as I probe these issues in order to teach them to my students.

The issue I'm pondering today: Why did we have a civil war?

I've been in conversations where people will shout simple answers until they are blue in the face. The debate goes as follows:
.

SLAVERY!!!!!! Or STATES' RIGHTS!!!!!
.(if you live in the north) (Maryland and points south)
.
When I was in 11th grade, my teacher led my class in a discussion on this very topic. We listed probably thirty reasons for the Civil War and then went back and labeled the reasons that involved slavery in some way. And that was nearly all of them. So I left high school with this vignette in my back pocket ready to explain when people said to me, "You study history? Tell me, what caused the Civil War?" (never mind the fact that I studied European history.) My boss (at my part-time, non-school related job) adamantly claims that interstate commerce caused the War Between the States. Interesting theory. One to which I will return later. So let's add that to our list:
.
SLAVERY!!!!! STATES' RIGHTS!!!!! INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!!!
.
In light of my recent lessons on the Missouri Compromise and the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833, I think the issue is much more complicated than any of these positions would lead us to believe. And I think understanding these complexities will give us a new and perhaps more holistic understanding of how our country was put together, torn apart, and then put back together again.
.
The United States wasn't always the one nation, indivisible, that it seems to be today. From colonial times into the early 1800s, people saw themselves as citizens of a state, not a country, and politicians were more often interested in the best interests of their region than they were in the best interests of the Union (perhaps this is still true today...but that would be another essay). Sectional (read: North/South) divisions complicated the writing of the Constitution and resulted in the notable compromises on slavery and representation and the composition of the legislative branch that became part of the new system of government.
.
These differences played out during the administrations of the first few presidents and only deepened as the West expanded and the North and South developed different economies and different societies. These tensions manifested themselves and could have brought the nation to war as early as 1820. In this year, the Missouri Compromise provided a temporary resolution of sectional tensions by maintaining the balance between slave and free states and defining how slavery would expand as the country expanded into the Louisiana Territory. It was less about the question of slavery than it was about two contrasting ways of life (political, economic, social, philosophical) and how those ways of life could be housed in one country under one federal government.
.
Fast forward to 1828 and 1832. Congress passed tariffs designed to protect American manufacturers and promote the purchasing of American goods. Reasonable, yes? Well, the South depended on European manufactured goods bought with the proceeds from cash crops (namely cotton), and they balked at the thought of paying more for European goods. Enter John C Calhoun and the philosophy of nullification. Calhoun's South Carolina refused to pay these tariffs and threatened in 1832 to secede from the Union. The subsequent conflict, which saw the passage of another compromise and of an act authorizing the president to use force to enforce federal laws within states, was not really about tariffs or slavery (slaves after all produced the cotton sold in return for manufactured goods and drove the Southern economy). The conflict was really about the authority of the federal government and how that power and the authority of the states fit together. It was about defining federalism. Calhoun made it about the source of federal power--he argued that it came from the states, while folks like Daniel Webster of New England argued that federal power came from the people. Thanks to another compromise from the hand of Henry Clay (architect of the Missouri Compromise), another argument was resolved. But sectional tension persisted for the next thirty years and exploded at various points during that time before the pot boiled over in 1860 and 1861 in what we know as the start of the Civil War.
.
So why was the Civil War fought? To preserve the Union? Maybe. South Carolina and ten other states left, and Lincoln sent troops to bring them back. To secure states' rights? States' rights to own slaves, nullify federal laws, develop their own political and economic systems without the interference of Washington? Maybe. To free the slaves? Depends who you ask. Abolitionist sentiment had been simmering in the North for decades, Uncle Tom's Cabin caused a ruckus, and slavery was intimately involved in the problems in Missouri and Kansas in the years before the war broke out. But Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1862 after a major Union victory at Antietam, and then the declaration only applied to the states that had seceded, leaving slaves in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri still enslaved. According to an op-ed piece in the New York Times last weekend, Ulysses Grant, the great Union General, did not seek the abolition of slavery. Even though he thought the South's "peculiar institution" would be a casualty of the war, he was motivated more by the threat secession posed to "democratic republican government, of which Lincoln said...there was no "better or equal hope in the world.""
.
So where does that leave us? Maybe it's a tragic oversimplification to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery or states' rights or interstate commerce. Perhaps these are manifestations of some larger questions. What if the War Between the States was fought in order to find out:
.
1. How is our country put together? Where is the power? Where does it come from, and how do we share it?
.
2. What if a state that joined the Union voluntarily by democratically ratifying the Constitution disagrees with the direction of public policy and/or no longer wants to be part of the Union?
.
3. Who does our government protect? If power comes from the people, who are "the people"?
.
4. How do we resolve our problems? Is there room in the Union for a very diverse set of interests and cultures?
.
Perhaps by asking these questions of the past, we might understand better the tensions that
brought us to a civil war and the answers the war and Reconstruction provided. Maybe also these are questions we need to ask ourselves and our own political leaders as we face new tensions and new divisions in our modern, indivisible, one nation.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Judge in Memphis Grants Asylum to German Home Schoolers

This is an interesting case--for the article, click here:

.

I read about the Romeike family in this week’s issue of Time Magazine, and today’s New York Times carried an article about how an immigration judge in Tennessee granted political asylum to this German family because they fear persecution in their home country. Why? They wish to home-school their children, which is illegal in Germany. Now, I’m surprised at this law simply because I know nothing about such policies in other countries, and I find this an interesting case because the family hails from the same German state where my penpal lives. As an American, I have known many people who were home-schooled for one reason or another, so the fact that this practice is not common or allowed in other countries definitely gives me a changed perspective on things. In conclusion, I have learned something about other societies that I did not know, making me a more informed citizen.

.

Yet, the critical point here is that I am an American. The judge in the case is an American. In America, we have the right to educate our children however we want.

.

But there’s another critical corollary to this discussion:

.

NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS AMERICAN OR SHARES AMERICAN VALUES.

.

The writer for the Times explains the judge’s ruling as follows: "In a harshly worded decision, the judge, Lawrence O. Burman, denounced the German policy, calling it “utterly repellent to everything we believe as Americans,” and expressed shock at the heavy fines and other penalties the government has levied on home-schooling parents, including taking custody of their children."

.

That would be fine. German laws (or the laws of any other country) can resonate poorly with us here in the US of A. It happens. But, the people in Berlin who made these laws are NOT Americans; they are Germans, and their legislators DO NOT answer to the American status quo when they make their laws. If they want to outlaw homeschooling, it’s their right. It’s our right to disagree. That’s why we make our own laws here. If the Romeike family wants to leave Germany and home-school their children someplace else (like the USA), that’s also their right. The judge’s ruling, however, is blatant cultural imperialism, and no judge in this country has the right to attempt to impose our values on other societies. We have enough trouble in this country dealing with debates over whether judges should or ever do inflict their perspectives on our own society (read: judicial activism) that we have no business criticizing the legitimate social policies of other nations. Hasn’t this gotten us in enough trouble already?

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

I ain't afraid of no ghosts?

I definitely have to post a longer reflection on my own post-graduate life in Chestertown, but for now, here's an anecdote from the life of Ten Page:

Sunday morning, I came back into my apartment from the laundry room, and I happened to notice that my VCR said 7:45. Not a big deal you might say. Except for the fact that I got up at 8 on Sunday morning, and it was almost 9am at this point. Somehow my VCR clock managed to set itself back an hour. We didn't have a power outage or surge, all of the other clocks in the house read the correct time, and I haven't even had the VCR on in a week, much less changed the time my self.

Spooky...

Sunday, August 16, 2009

One Lovely Night of History

Last night, at a small, stunningly beautiful, outdoor theater in Spring Green, WI, I was powerfully reminded why I love both history and theatre (and Shakespeare as a vessel of both these things) during a performance of King Henry V. I know that so much of the history we learn is made up of kings and countries, but I saw one of those history-making kings weep over the body of a young boy, slain by fleeing French in contempt of the rules of war. Even kings are mere men, and it is of the deeds of all men that history is made.

Now, the history nerd in me was astir at the early discussion of the intricacies of Salic law, which I understood all too well, and the common discussion of Henry's royal lineage, with as twisted branches as most royal family trees, intermingled by intermarriage. Before the battle of Agincourt began and the English despaired of returning alive across the channel, I knew how the powerful English long bow would confound French expectations of an easy victory. While Henry wooed Katherine with the words of a soldier and a king, I knew the tragedy that would leave his son fatherless at a tender age, and how the bitter Dauphin would regain his throne with the help of a French peasant girl named Jean d'Arc. But these are the mere cold facts of history, the basic substance of the past, but wrought from them on that empty stage was a story epic in scope and human in nature.

So many people, and I know this because I used to be one, see history as a boring miasma of dates, names, and places. But it is a vibrant tapestry of emotions and people just as human as we are, just as fallible as we wish we weren't and just as capable of the same greatness to which we aspire. When Henry exhorted his weary men once more unto the breach and to cry God for Harry, England, and St. George, I wanted to leap out of my seat and follow him into battle. And that is the power of truly excellent theatre. History may just be words on a page to us now, but it was real to the people who lived it. The blood that was so often talked of, whether in threats against France, or in laments against that already spilled, was drawn from real men and women, who felt as much pain at it as we might.

I have always had a fondness for the Hundred Years War (of which the action of the play is a small part), and I have a deep love for the theater that mounted the production, so I was naturally predisposed to like it. I did not expect to find myself pulled so deeply into the history I have seldom looked at since my graduation this past May. When Henry passed sentence on three traitors early in the play, my history major mind was pleased at the distinction of these men as guilty of high treason, having learned the distinction between high and petit treason from my thesis research. This same research again leaped to mind when a common soldier was condemned to a hanging for stealing a minor sum from a French church. I knew about these laws, and I tried to understand the human cost of them. But nothing brings it home like the pain in Henry's face when a man he has known his whole life sells his king to the French and he must condemn him to death, or the anguish when he hears that the common thief being hanged was a companion of his recently abandoned youth.

I have often wished that I could have some permanent record of plays of have seen, and this wish was most fervent after the play was over. But in this, theatre is like history: once it has happened, it lives on only in the memories of those who experienced it. Just as any record of an event is in some way biased and incomplete, my memories of the play can never truly recreate within me the experience of being there, nor can my description of it to anyone else ever accurately convey exactly what happened. But I will never forget the powerful emotions I was allowed to share a taste of with those actors, and it is such passion that we should never remove from history. We should pursue it with as much passion as was given by those who lived it.

This beautiful production of Shakespeare's play brought the human back into the history, the most important and yet, I think, the most often overlooked aspect of our past. We may analyze events and actions, searching for meaning in the vagaries of human record, but now, more than ever, I am determined to remember that the study of history, first and foremost, connects us to other people who lived as we lived, and that to see that we are the same as them is the greatest achievement we can hope to attain.

Brenna