West Side Story: En Español

As many of you might know, recently there has been a Broadway revival of "West Side Story." Interestingly enough, in this version, much of the dialog and the songs are conducted in Spanish. Although this appears to be a gimmick at first, it prompted me to think about the motives behind this decision.

Certainly, it serves as a reminder that here in America, despite what many would like to believe, we are multicultural and multilingual. Although many people still support the "One Nation" and "One Language" ideology (including the "Thomas Paine" imitation we watched a while back), just hearing the songs performed in Spanish reminds us that we cannot ignore the numerous facets of American culture. Hearing the songs spoken in Spanish gratifies those who have taken the time to understand it, and reminds others that they cannot focus on one version of America at the expense of others.

Do you believe that it was a good decision to change parts of the play's lines into Spanish? Does it actually serve any real purpose, or is it just an artistic gimmick designed to freshen up the play?

-Eric Wei

Is Fantasy Your Reality?

Some would say that our world is pretty fascinating. Look how much science and education has progressed in just the last fifty years, let alone this century. Technology is a wonder. Medicine is miraculous. But why do I feel that, sometimes, we need something more? Is materialism no longer appealing? I'd rather sit by the fireplace and and reminisce with my parents and little brother rather than turn on the Wii and start driving virtual monster trucks across virtual race tracks. I'd rather smile at a stranger from across the street than explore intricate applications on the iPhone. Or what about that feeling when you just finish a series of books and want to erase your memory so you can go back and read it again and have twice as much satisfaction as you did the first time? I always find myself wanting to be a character in the book, wishing that I could somehow interact with vibrant personalities begging to jump off the page. I wouldn't say this happens because the characters are ideally portrayed or because they happen to know the exact course of their lives. Rather, maybe we're just not satisfied with what we have. We're often scolded for not "appreciating" what we're given. It seems that I've had this discussion with so many people lately; maybe we're all running on a similar frequency. So what is this telling us?

Are we really shoved so much into the corner that we've come to admire fictional characters? What is it that we truly need, and why is it so hard to find? It's a shame that fantasy and reality can't mix. So if you could be any character from any fictional work, who would it be?

My main point here is that despite what we're offered (even on a grand scale, at times), we perpetually seek something "more." What is this more, and how can I find it?

(Sam Maliha)

Students and Teachers

So I was watching the movie Accepted. It's about this one kid who wasn't able to get accepted into a college. Instead of telling this to his parents, he and some of his friends make up a college on their own. They fix up an old building, make a website for the 'college,' etc. In the end, they manage to pass off as an actual college and accept all of these different students. Of course, they eventually get caught and the kid who founded the college had to go to court. However, he did not just give up. He tried to argue that what he and his friends built had all the requirements necessary to be considered a college. One of these requirements was having a faculty, and when the judge asked the kid to present the members of the faculty, all of the students at the college stood up. The judge was definitely not convinced and insisted that students could not be their own teachers.

This got me thinking about our school. Now, I definitely recognize the importance of teachers in our classes, but what about in our clubs? It is a rule that clubs at our school need to have at least one adviser, but is it really necessary? Isn't it possible for students to be able to function on their own? I acknowledge that it is helpful to have an adviser when the students don't know how to complete a certain project, but isn't that all part of the learning process? One of the major goals of high school is to help prepare us for situations in our future lives. In this case, wouldn't it be better to not have advisers so that students have the experience of figuring out how to solve problems on their own? They would also benefit from the extra leadership experience and the experience of relying on their co-workers.

This reminded me of what we discussed about work ethics of our generation. Is it possible to fix this problem if schools start emphasizing programs and activities where students learn first hand how to face difficulties on their own? Should we start making students become their own teachers?

Mary Quien

Colonial Williamsburg

I was doing some SAT prep, and I came across this passage about two different views of Colonial Williamsburg. For those of you who aren't familiar with Colonial Williamsburg, it is essentially a historical district that contains buildings are from about 1700. There are also many actors there that pretend to be normal people from that time period, who provided information about the time period to tourists.

One of the views in the passage looked very favorably on this concept. He said that it is an important part of our culture and provides a new and creative way of teaching others about that time period. Also, because the actors are not forced to read from scripts, they are able to convey history in a way that there audience will understand and remember.

The other person viewed Colonial Williamsburg as a sort of scam. He argued that because these actors are not forced to read from a script, they are not reliable in terms of the information that they provide. He also pointed out that in the process of making this site, many buildings that were actually from that time period were destroyed. He also brought up the point that Colonial Williamsburg provides a limited view because it seemed to freeze around that single point in time.

Which view do you agree with?

Mary Quien

America and France: Butting Heads

Today in French class, we began to discuss how pressured we've all been feeling lately. Mrs. Shourds, always looking to keep us calm, joined our conversation by drawing a dissimilarity between our culture and the general French/Europen culture. She told us that as Americans, we live to work, but that the French work to live. I think that this statement defies any of the hypocricy we identified during our discussions of the "American Dreams and Nightmares Unit." If we work so hard, then we should expect to be rewarded, right? Capitalist thinking really supports the American dream, doesn't it?

Because we "live to work," is that what fuels our economy? Think about what would happen if we advocated the "living to work" sort of idea. Would people do the bare minimum and move on? I think part of the reason we are so motivated now is because we know that it in some way, it guarantees a bright future. We're always looking to the future. What happened to the present?

A few days ago in AP Euro, a few of us were discussing how much our lives would be simpler if MHS didn't offer any AP courses. Does this mean that we feel obligated to take them? Is there no longer a joy for learning? Is our eye on the prize? Phillis Wheatley, although discriminated against, wrote because she loved poetry. Yes, she sought acceptance, but nothing more than equality, a now "inalienable" right. I'd say that people like her have unsullied intentions when it comes to doing what they love. I'm not so sure that applies to our generation, though.

(Sam Maliha)

Seatbelts, Skydivers, and the Bailouts

Well, I'm sure all of us know that seatbelts make us safer. The invention of them by Volvo, about 50 years ago, surely has saved lives, right? Certainly millions of Americans have been protected from whiplash and other injuries due to them.

And yet, interestingly enough, we have to remember this: some accidents may have been caused exactly because the drivers were wearing seatbelts.

One of the ideas floating around in academic circles is of risk tolerance, the idea that humans possess an innate tolerance for risk, and that as we feel safer, we tend also to take more risks. A sense of (perhaps false) security can be surprisingly dangerous. Some studies have shown that drivers wearing seatbelts tend to drive faster than those who do not, and that the seatbelt has led to increased deaths of bicyclists and pedestrians that had been hit by reckless drivers. Since seatbelts decrease the amount of risk present, as humans, we tend to drive more carelessly to make up for it. Hasn't the idea run ever through your head? "Well, yes, I'm driving way above the speed limit, but hey! I'm wearing my seatbelt! That makes it okay."

Similarly, despite advances made in ripcords and parachutes, skydiving accidents have not decreased. Aware that their parachutes were less likely to snag and were better at slowing them down, cocky skydivers started pulling their cords a little too late.

It's understandable. Aren't you more likely to act carefully and cautiously when you know something is dangerous? On the other hand, if you know that something is supposed to be safer, you act more recklessly. This idea applies to flood victims and Wall Streeters as well. Aware that stronger levees have been built and that the government will provide disaster relief, more and more people have built their homes on the vulnerable flood plains. Hence, after one hurricane hits, people start building in the same place again. Bankers, feeling overconfident due to their hedges and insurance, and the fact that the federal government wouldn't let them fail, may have taken unwarranted risks. Who knows?

-Eric Wei

Phillis Wheatley's Columbia

Is it simply human nature to appreciate what may seem intangible? To yearn for the unreachable? To want what we simply can't have? Phillis Wheatley fought long and hard for acceptance in America, or "Columbia", as she called it. Even two years after her death, in 1786, when Poems on Various Subjects was published in America, it was not welcomed warmly. In London, however, the book was circulated quickly.

As our packet tells us, "As an exhibition of African intelligence, exploitable by members of he enlightenment movement, by evangelical Christians, and by other abolitionists, she was perhaps recognized even more in England and Europe than in America."

The truth of the matter is that Phillis Wheatley met many abolitionists in England (Barron George Lyttleton, the Earl of Dartmouth) who accepted and embraced her talent, despite the color of her skin. In America, however, publishers rejected her work right and left. Yet still, Wheatley was intent about penning the glories of "Columbia" in her ingenious couplets organized in the iambic pentameter and heroic fashions. Did she want what she couldn't have?

Auspicious Heaven shall fill with fav'ring Gales,
Where e'er Columbia spreads her swelling Sails:
To every Realm shall Peace her Charms display,
And Heavenly Freedom spread her golden Ray.

She even makes mention of freedom in relation to America in this excerpt from her pamphlet entitled "Liberty and Peace."

(Samantha Maliha)