5-24-07 Amsterdam

If you think of embarrassment as a spectrum, I'd say that I've never been more than mildly embarrassed before yesterday. I've been embarrassed several times on this trip, but none of them were comparable to how I felt when our speaker made a comment about our decisions in Iraq. Here I am American. I am not a democrat or a liberal. I am not even a college student before I am American. At home, I can exercise my freedom of speech; I can use my right to vote. Here, I am responsible for those decisions. I could feel the heat of my entire face turning read as I thought about the news stories I heard of who did and who did not support us and our decisions in Iraq. I was embarrassed of my country. I was embarrassed for not knowing what our decisions made us seem like for them. I was embarrassed for wanting to make excuses.

The campus visit to Vrije University was very nice. I've known about the binary system for a while, but it is still amazing to see it in action. I'm turning 24 next month and I still haven't decided what I plan to do for the rest of my life. Right now, I am still planning out experiences to have that will help me narrow down my options. I can't fathom making that decision at twelve. At twelve I wanted to be an animator. My aptitude tests said I should be a mime or a puppeteer. Higher Ed Administration is pretty far off from all of those. I remember being horribly upset when my career test came back. I was a very talkative kid, and I couldn't understand how I would be best at a job where I wasn't allowed to speak. The irony of the whole situation is that my current desire is to work for Sesame Street.

I wonder if there are societal status differences between the students who go to the research universities and the students who go to the professional universities. I have a friend in Switzerland. They use the same system and her track was to go to the university, but her family couldn't afford all of it. While I was visiting her, she was taking a year off to waitress and save money to pay for it. She would tell me stories of how guests would look down on her because they thought that she wasn't going to the university. I know that there is a clear separation between honors students - regular(?) students- and the at risk student in our education system. I also know that there are classism issues in America. I wonder fi the binary system supports or reinforces those problems.

After the visit Mike and I went to the Van Gogh Museum. I loved it. I spent a year studying the impressionist artists so I knew the Van Gogh story. I could see the influences of the other artists in his work, and I appreciated watching how his work changed. I don't know if Mike enjoied it as much; I'm glad we went.

Last night we went back out to the Dam. There we got to see the Amsterdam police in action, some very interesting hookah bars, and a restaurant that only served fries. In the square there was a huge crucifixion statue. I'm not sure how I missed it earlier, but fortunately I didn't miss it all together. It was neat to see Jesus through their eyes. He was still in the submissive/beaten pose, but his face was so different from what we normally see. Our Jesus face is petite, fragile, and feminine. So often in the crucifixion, he looks broken. In this statue the face was strong, full, and masculine. He looked like a Roman hero. It reminded me of art made of the Greek and Roman gods. I wonder what the difference I'm seeing is. I don't know if it is a European difference, a Protestant difference, or just one artist's preference.

5-23-07 Amsterdam

Yesterday was a good day despite my lack of sleep crankiness. As a group we went to the Anne Frank House. It was somber, but in a good way. In fact, it reminded me that I was cranky because I was traveling the world and wonderfully privileged. I guess the most cultural observations that I did there were of the tourists. It was hard to watch people being less than somber, but I suppose you can't force anyone to be respectful, especially Americans. I was disappointed in myself for how much I had forgotten about her book. I remember it affecting me in school, but now I'm starting to wonder if I was old enough to appreciate all of it. I'll have to read it again.

They had a little movie running after going though the house. It was about human rights and freedoms, and it was clearly biased and liberal. According to the pamphlet it was an EU production, but it struck me as very similar to American, liberal propaganda directed at college students. I don't know that I expected Europe to be more subtle. In fact, I don't even know if they strive for impartial and unbiased like America claims to. I value unbiased reporting, but I think that opinionated reports have their place too. Whether the Anne Frank House is a place for those opinions is something I hadn't thought about. I know what bothers me in America is the claim to be neutral when it is not. I know that some countries have a blatant and open bias for the government (usually because the networks are government controlled), and I don't think that is always good. If all of the media works on behalf of the government, and the people get upset with the government, the media won't be able to tell them anything - even if it is good or unrelated.

I knew in my head that people rode their bicycles everywhere in Europe. I even envied the stories I heard about well-sized and well-respected bicycle lanes. My head never worked out what it looks like to see people riding their bicycles everywhere. When I previously thought of bicyclists, I imagined kids, and people in sportswear. Here it is everybody and every type of attire. The men and women in their business suites is what I couldn't imagine before. It makes sense, but it still caught me by surprise to see. The women in skirts still makes me curious. Do they do something (like wear shorts underneath) that makes it ok, or is it completely a social difference? If I rode a bike with a skirt I would be extremely self conscious. Short skirts I would worry about riding up and long skirts I would worry about them flapping against the tire and possibly getting stuck in the spokes.

Bicycle Parking Deck

5-22-07 Amsterdam

A friend recently returned from Spain which reminded me that I have not shared my Europe journal yet. So for the next couple weeks, I'll be sharing my journal. This journal was an assignment for the cultural diversity class, but the content and topics were not chosen for us.

I've been accused of having Disney radar before, and it just might be true. The very first thing that I saw in Amsterdam was a kid in a Cars t-shirt waiting for someone to get off the plane. It made me smile. I like it when kids like the movies that I like. Then I had to stop and think about how American Cars is. It is very American.It is about how our country changed when the small towns on the interstate were bypassed. Does that mean I should feel the same way about kids here liking Cars as I do about McDonalds? I realize that Disney is corporate and I understand the concept of McWorld, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to share my favorite movies. Those fairy tales are European stories, and no matter how much I love Ariel, that is not how the story goes. Is Disney depriving them of their own culture? In America Disney was the story & everything else was a version. As much as I enjoy Disney, I hope that it is not like that here.

2007 Archies

It is time for the Archies. The Archies are my list of top things in the world last year.

Sesame Workshop
Knit Picks
Snow
Grammer Girl
Dan in Real Life
Al Gore
NPR
Podcasts
Global Giving Give Card
WOW
Stardust
Neurosciene
SURF
iGive
CUNY
Interweave Knits
My Favorite Hat
idealist.org
Psycology and Counseling
Inside Higher Ed

Bad Headlines Cause Brain Damage

I've already talked about how upset I was to discover how sensational news has become. I mentioned news bias, but I didn't really get into it. It is generally not something that I have an issue with. In my opinion, it is a side effect of things that I think are good, so I just try to be aware of it. More often than not, I actually find it entertaining. One of my favorite assignments as an undergrad was on news bias. We were given the headlines from a dozen different papers across the country on the same event. We had to write out the political party of the paper and the connotations created by their headline. I am sharing all of this to explain why I am surprised by how upset I am about a headline I recently read. Some other factors that might be fueling my disgust are that one of the journalist's sources is the Joan Ganz Cooney Center which is the new research center of Sesame Workshop, and the article completely betrays the study and the purpose of the Cooney Center.

The topic at hand is the the release of the D is for Digital report at the Sandbox Summit in Las Vegas. The Reuters headline was: Joan Ganz Cooney Center Finds Cause For Both Concern and Optimism in Billion Dollar Digital Media Industry Targeting Kids, but the article that has really been bothering me was titled: Under 7's Should be Banned From Playing Computer Games or Risk Damaging Their Brains'. The difference is obvious, and I've seen worse headlines, but this one has just gotten under my skin. The Cooney Center was named after the remarkable woman who created Sesame Street at a time when people were claiming that under 7's should be banned from watching television or risk damaging their brains.

The Daily Mail says, "They looked at more than 300 products including computer games, toys, virtual worlds for children and supposedly educational software to be run on home computers. Of these, only two educational video games employed proven learning techniques." about the D is for Digital findings. Reuters said, "Of the 300+ products studied,...the survey yielded only two education video games based on explicit educational curriculum design available in the market." This may be an educational nuance to some, but in my opinion there is a huge difference between "educational curriculum" and "proven learning techniques." Here is an example based on my understanding. Repetition is a proven learning technique, however having repetition does not mean you have an educational curriculum. Based on The Workshop Model, having a curriculum would be best, but that does not mean that a lack of curriculum leads to brain damage.

The mission of the Cooney Center is, "to catalyze and support research, innovation and investment in digital media technologies to advance children's learning." I do not speak on behalf of The Workshop or the Cooney Center, but it seems to me, based on the history of Sesame Street and the development of this new center, that they strive to help these 300+ educational products incorporate an appropriate and research supported educational curriculum. I am upset that their research has been warped into something that could scare parents away from good resources.

So Easy a Child Can Do It

The Washington Post reported on a recent study that shows that children are becoming philanthropists before they even get jobs. This article shares some incredible stories about a little girl who had a children's hospital fund raiser for her birthday party and the collective giving of the kids at Club Penguin. I am proud of our country's youth, but at the same time I am skeptical of this study. What are the criteria for labeling a child a philanthropist? How much do they have to donate? Why is it philanthropy when they are raising money for the World Wildlife Fund, but not when they are selling candles and wrapping paper to raise money for their own schools? How much adult involvement is allowed? This is great news, and it is something to be optimistic about for the future, but I would hate for it to belittle the value of supporting your local 4-H as well.

The article claims that this growth in global caring among kids is because of the internet and social networking. Kids today can actually talk to kids in Darfur and that gives them a sense of connection. That connection translates into responsibility as well as ability to help. I think this is partially true, but children had these opportunities yesterday too. What I immediately thought of when I read this was a news story I saw over the holiday. It was a more skeptical version of this MSNBC story that was questioning the authenticity of retail giving. The reporter told the story of a major store that published in it's holiday catalog that they would be giving x% of sales to a charity. Unfortunately the nonprofit that was included in their catalog had no idea that they were going to be receiving a donation. Good or bad, honest or not, I would give retailers at least some of the credit for the surge in children's awareness. Programs like the Livestrong bands and Product RED have integrated charity into our lives in ways that it has never been before. Not only is it accessible and overwhelming, it is cool. I wonder if this is going to create a generation of fad givers, and how that will change the way nonprofits ask for help. This year RED has made fighting AIDS in Africa cool and they will hopefully raise awareness and money. Unfortunately, the problems that surround AIDS in Africa will not be solved in a year, and if WWF and Bengal tigers are the fad charity next year, will RED find itself shorthanded?

Just a Joke?

I thought we were going to make it though the year without any scandalous Halloween party stories. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Last year the big story was terrorist costumes, but this year students chose to be victims. Two students at Penn State have pictures up of themselves dressed as Virgina Tech shooting victims for Halloween. Facebook groups for and against the right to be offensive are growing.

Both of these articles are about Pennsylvania institutions, but that should not be an indicator that these kinds of things are limited to any state or even region. Like the first commenter in the VT victims article, I am not really surprised by this. There have been terrorists at every Halloween party I've attended since 9/11. Before that, there were unabombers. There are always a few that are sacrilegious and I won't even get into the scantily clad. The other thing that has always been consistent is that nobody (myself included) has ever said anything to them at the party about being inappropriate. What has changed, is that the remnants of Halloween don't get thrown out like smashed pumpkins. They are not private like the left over candy stash. When those photos become public and permanent, they represent you in a whole new way than the dimly lit moments at a bonfire when everyone is hidden behind makeup and masks. I'm not saying that I approve, but Halloween use to be a free pass for mischief, and that is not the case now that there is evidence of everything that has been done.

What really bothers me about these articles is who is doing the apologizing. Why are universities asked to make public statements and apologies for student costumes? We are responsible for students in a lot of way, but how accountable are we for their poor taste? Staff are worrying about their online presence because they can't draw a definite line between when they do and they don't represent their institution, but how does that translate to students? When do students (both good and bad) start and stop representing their university?

If they are given the responsibility of representing the university, why are they not the ones apologizing? The terrorist costume from last year made a formal apology, but this year's students have reacted by creating a facebook group. (For those of you who are not members of facebook, my biased summary of his group is all of these people were offensive so I should get to be offensive to) Why not just say you are sorry? The school can't force him to, and I don't think they should, but is he against doing it himself? Is it really demanding the right to offend, or is it refusal to admit a mistake?

When I think back to all of the jokes I have told, and all of the things I have laughed at, I realize that humor really is an indicator of maturity. I know that I would regret not apologizing if I publicly offended anyone with a tasteless joke.