Family Roots

| No Comments
Today we had Professor Phil Tesch in to speak about genealogy. We started out going around the room with each of us telling our family last names on both sides of the family and what origin the names came from. We discussed the purposes for doing genealogical work which among many were ignorance of family origin, hoping to find past wealth or royalty in your blood line, and just to know as much about your family history as possible. He referred to this as an Obsessive-compulsive history hunt. We looked at some of the top sites for looking up family information and finished out the class with a video on genealogy. Overall, the class was very informative.

Talking about tracing family roots in an effort to find royalty or wealth made me think of the immigrants who had to prove a family presence was established in America to gain entrance to the country. Genealogy is a tool that can be used for a vast spectrum of activity. It seems ridiculous that while some look to find an "in" to the high society life through possible inheritance or being the heir to a throne, other's fight to join family members in the "land of opportunity". For those who fight to get into the country, that is only the first part of the battle. From the other works we have read this semester, In the Middle of Everywhere and What is the What, we learn that the struggle only continues once immigrants gain entrance to the US. They face other struggles such as racism, financial troubles and language barriers to over come. This seem to trivialize the idea of instant wealth through linage when looking at the struggle some go through only to struggle more.

This session made me want to trace my roots properly. Fortunately, my family genealogy has been done on both sides of my family. I have simply lacked the drive to dive into the information. I know that I have family in Norway to the tune of first cousins, but I have never taken the time to talk to then. After going to the convocation on In Cod we Trust and learning about genealogy today, I find myself lacking excuses to not act on the desire that has been in the back of my mind for some time. I have a small family and it would not be hard to get to know them a little better, at least where we come from and what we have in common.

Poehler Lecture

| No Comments
Last night marked the Eight installment of the Poehler Lecture series. Dr. Carl Schoenbeck was the speaker for the evening and highlighted "One educators perspective on educating the children well". He has an extensive background in education ranging from teaching to administration making him nothing short of qualified for the honor of Poehler lecturer. The theme of the series is the idea of integrating faith and learning. Dr. Schoenbeck shared his knowledge and experience from his perspective through the idea of a three-part recipe: connections, application, and question. As he expounded on these three ideas, he used the metaphor of rope. Faith is at the core of the rope we call learning. Many different disciplines can be taught and integrated into one another, keeping at the center the most important aspect of life, faith. 

It is not difficult for the honors students to make connections to a lecture that is based upon the central idea of the program they are in. I will give an examples that does pertain specifically to myself. On Monday of this week, we had a speaker come in and share information on immigration policy. She is a lawyer who does pro bono work on immigrant policy cases. Among the many ways I was able to connect my previous experiences to this Monday night session, statistics was the most relied on knowledge of the evening. She presented many stories of the terrible actions and consequences of the government agency ICE. They terrorize immigrant families as they conduct raids and tear families a part. I am not a heartless person and I believe that compassion flows from faith in Christ, but I also use the mind and knowledge that God has blessed me with to analyze situations. Stats taught me to be skeptical of what I hear, and the data presented on Monday seemed very one-sided. I was reminded of this during the lecture last night as Dr. Schoenbeck discussed his perspective.

I was not surprised by the information that was presented last night as we live what Dr. Schoenbeck was sharing. I do appreciate what the program offers after hearing the value of the program from someone that is not on the inside. People always believe something easier as a child when it doesn't come from a parent, and the case is the same with the honors program. You don't believe that you are really benefiting until you hear from someone else what a benefit it is and what the alternative could be. We live a life of integrated learning, and it took a night of stepping back and looking at the whole picture to refocus the tunnel vision I get from the constant grind of school.

Anil Singh-Molares Convocation

| No Comments
Today was the convocation with the speaker that we had in the later part of class on Monday night. Anil considers himself to be a professional immigrant. He has had extensive experience with immigration having been born in Holland and lived in many other countries around the world. Unlike class, he went into much more depth concerning his personal history and the journey that has brought him to this point. This encounter was much more structured than out previous meeting, but I thought that what he had to say was very interesting. Anil has had a very interesting life and he was eager to share his wisdom with us. 

At the end of the session he opened up the floor for questions which is the format that Anil is most comfortable with. I believe it was President Holst that asked about the forced acculturation that immigrants are faced with when they come over to America. Anil's response was that immigration is a "two-way street". I thought this was an interesting way to put it and he has a point. The book of the year was based around the idea that immigrants cannot survive without the effort of American's lending a helping hand. Mary Pipher has devoted much of her time researching, but more importantly, helping the immigrant population by her direct contribution to individuals and the awareness she is raising with her book. Anil said that we need to be open to what they as immigrants have to offer and Pipher gave many examples of the impact that the immigrants have had on her life. We as Americans can get wrapped up in our lives and forget that there are other perspectives in the world and they have a lot they can bring the to table. The joy and freedom we have to go fishing on a sunny day or take a picnic in the park is not available to everyone in the world. Pipher had the opportunity to share many "firsts" with the immigrants she worked with and it helped her find new appreciation in the simple things.

Anil's last bit of wisdom of what he as learned from all of his experiences helped me see through the thick of the semester at the present. I am learning skills now that will be vital to my success in the work force. He worked for Bill Gates and knew him well. Anil said that he was one of the hardest working and driven individuals he had ever met. I received an email from my grandfather today about a speech that Bill Gates gave to school kids about things you won't learn in school. One of the things I thought was funny yet true was, If you don't like your teacher, wait till you have a boss. Life is not as complicated right now as it will be later, and we as a culture have an amazing opportunity that people are willing to give up a lot for the chance at it. Anil said to do as many things you can as well as you can. That was good advice, especially when times are tough and school is not as appealing as it could be.

My Generation Hmong

| No Comments

Continuing in the pattern of having speakers on Monday nights, we had a panel of Hmong students from CSP come and speak to us this week. We were able to hear each of their stories which were all quite different, and we had the chance to interact with them throughout the entire evening. We were very well prepared for this small group to come in and speak with us. We have had a lot of exposure to Hmong culture. As the weeks go by, we are learning what questions to ask and what things we would like to know. The sessions are filled with learning and keep us engaged the entire time.

I had been looking forward to the Hmong students coming in because they are our generation. They are sharing the same experience in time, but the subjective experience is very different. All three students were born outside of the US. One of the students came to US eight days before Sept. 11. I immediately thought of how I felt during that time, and I could not imagine how scared I would be if I have been in a new country, that seemed to offer a new start, and was going through similar problems that I had just left behind.
I also wanted to ask them about the movie Gran Torino. Since Christmas break, I have been dying to ask some Hmong students what they thought of the movie and how much was real or Hollywood. One of the students had seen it and she had much to say about the movie. What she said that struck me the most was that the rituals in the movie were not portrayed correctly. The calling of the spirits was done incorrectly and the cutting of the chicken was inaccurate as well. The Hmong do not chop the head of the chicken off, they simply bleed it out. The head has dome importance to the Hmong but I do not recall if she told us what that was.

I was surprised at how traditional the Hmong culture really is. The speakers we have had so far have focused on escaping Laos or giving history or the Vietnam War, which are very interesting topics. But being that these students are of our generation, we got a glimpse into aspects of their culture from a perspective that we as a class could understand. I was not aware of the traditional stance that the Hmong have toward roles of men and women. It was refreshing to hear students of my generation embracing ideals that are a core part of their culture, and expressing the desire to preserve that culture. 

Art Exhibition

| No Comments
The convocation today was held in a different manner than most. It was in the form of an art exhibit. The art on display was produced by artist from on campus and around the state. Although the artists are local now, many of them are not from here originally. They came from many different countries in fact. This matched out theme this year of "Hearing their voices". This time we hear their voices through the arts. 

There was one specific piece that was made by our own CSP professor Alonzo. His piece was a metaphor of the change immigrants go through when they move to another country. It was a tree with roots that was spliced and connected to wood shaped into the top part of the branches. I wish I would have taken a picture, because I am sure that description made no sense:) The metaphor, which I saw right away, was the change from old country to new. The transition from the original tree to the 'synthetic' wood branches was very harsh. This was the reality of Alonzo's change when he moved here at 14 years old. Pipher's book, Kalia's book, and Long and Choua's stories, they all are represented in this specific piece. They are all still connected to their pasts, but they have become a combination of the culture they were born into and the one they live in now. 

The tree made the reality of the shift that immigrants go though much more real. I can never really understand what it must be like to have your life uprooted and transplanted in a country that the language is completely, 100% foreign. The impact much be significant, but that does not mean that good cannot come from it. Alonzo took his experience and made a very moving and meaningful piece of art, and I am sure it is not the only piece inspired by his life. There are many different ways to here the voice of the immigrant, and today we had a great experience to hear them in a way that many people do not have the opportunity to do so. 

Hmong Panel

| No Comments
The idea of being a secret agent or working for one of the government agencies like the CIA or FBI has always fascinated me. I may just watch too many movies, but whatever the reason, I hope to someday make it into the ranks. Unfortunately, I have not met too many people who have been apart of such illustrious careers, to hear their stories. This past Monday, we as a class were fortunate to have two people who have worked under the CIA on special assignment during the "Secret War". The setting was informal; their stories followed by Q&A. Mr. Long Yang and Ms. Choua Thoa  had very exciting experiences to share and opened our minds even further into the life of the Hmong people.

In the past weeks we have had a number of experiences to aid in the learning process. I believe that seeing the movie Gran Torino, was a great way to introduce us to Hmong culture. It was representative (through the main character) of my understanding and knowledge of the hardship and cultural struggle the Hmong in America face daily. It piqued my interest and opened my mind for the speakers to come. Paul Hillmer's time with us was especially helpful. Knowing the context of the war and the reasoning behind the Hmong being recruited, made the stories of Long and Choua much easier to comprehend. 

I really appreciated the contrast of the two speakers. Not only was Long's experience more militaristic and Choua's hospital based, but their personalities added so much to their story telling. They helped me to see that I really don't have to much to worry about. Choua escaped from military personnel that were sent to get her and most likely kill her, by only two hours. These two speakers appreciate the education that is offered here, the education that I often take for granted. Even if I have not been threatened with the prospect of losing my life, I really need to learn to appreciate the many blessings I have been given and the country  I was born in. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Gran Torino

| No Comments

                It is not very often that students have the chance to do something that is a weekend activity as homework. Well, in Honors, that's how it works sometimes. We were asked to watch the movie, Gran Torino, as part of our unit on immigration. I had seen the movie over Christmas break and opted not to go with the class, but I still remember the movie very well. The basic plot of the story is about and ex-military veteran, played by Clint Eastwood, and his neighborhood that is "taken over" by Hmong immigrants. It is a story about loving, losing and how even the most powerful of prejudices can be turned around to life sacrificing friendships.
                If you dig back into my blog history toward the very start of my Honors career, you will find my first posts about my internship project with American Indians in Unity. Going into the project I had some very strong prejudices that I had set out to address. For the sake of being polite I did not state my feelings to the fullest extent. If I had to pick one film or person that embodied my thought prior to my internship, Gran Torino hit the nail on the head. I am not proud of my thoughts, but they were a reality. If I had seen this moving before my internship I would have received it in a much different fashion. What I did through working with my mentor, my on-site research and outside source research, Clint did through the school of hard knocks. The end result was the same, but I would choose my way again if I had to.

Watching the first part of the movie made me realize all over again why I chose the internship and project that I did. The way I defined marginalized in my project not only included those in need, but those like me who marginalize themselves by holding a negative attitude toward peoples of another race. Some may feel justified, like I did, because of encounters that did not leave a pleasant feeling behind. Labeling an entire race from the actions of a few is a gross injustice to those who are not represented in those actions. There is so much to be learned and realized from others that have not had the same upbringing and background as me. Like Clint's character, I have been reminded of the value that a diversified friendship base can be.

In the Middle of Everywhere

| No Comments
   Over Christmas break the class read a book titled, In the Middle of Everywhere. Our first Monday night back together we gathered at the "round table" and discussed the various chapters of Mary Pipher's book. This time of discussion opened up into much more than just the content of the book itself. Most of us in the class had many stories to share and relate. I was surprised and pleased at how willingly we opened up ourselves. The many hours spent together have really given way to great bonding as a class. The discussion, as always, was very lively.
   
This is my second year in Honors and I have already completed my internship. That being said, I still have the opportunity to grow as I relate back to my project. I looked at racism (in my project) and how racism marginalizes both those with prejudices and those they are against. We as a culture have so much to learn from other cultures which becomes obvious in  Pipher's book. I saw and experienced this during my internship as well. She also helps to dispel some misconceptions about immigrants as I worked to do the same about Native Americans. The parallels between In the Middle of Everywhere and my project really made reading the book and the discussion about it exciting.

Pipher's book opened up an entirely different perspective that I had not looked at during my project. I was focused on the Native American population in and around the Metro area. Those who are immigrants have entirely different issues they must deal with on top of the racism they face. I found respect and understanding about the Native American culture through first-hand experience, and through Pipher's book, I have a new understanding of the struggles and hardship immigrants faced and continue to face, although new and different, in the US.

Dowe on Miracles

| No Comments


                Dowe devotes a section of his book to the idea of miracles. Miracles are an aspect of religion that really pushes science, due to the fact that when kept separate, the existence of miracles still challenges principles of science. Dowe assesses an argument from an empirical approach that aims to debunk miracles as a basis for believing in God. He also looks to an apologist who seems to find the overlap of where science can be used in favor of religion.

                David Hume is the philosopher Dowe looks to for the argument against rational belief in God. Hume offers the concept of proportioning belief to evidence. Laws of nature are seen as evidence to which result in a full proof. This can only happen when all the evidence is in agreement. When all evidence is not in agreement Hume refers to it as probability. Dowe does not concur with the argument for evidence and is inclined to agree with John Mackie. Mackie through deduction asserts that with the way Hume has defined proof and probability, laws can be asserted which do not turn out to be laws. Dowe suggests further that strong evidence for laws of nature which depend on uniform experience hinge on the extent and representative nature of the experiences (85). Hume also looks at the place of testimony as evidence. Hume's first argument is aptly summarized, "no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle" (96).

Hume's second argument (which he never really addressed) deals with the thinking in which the overlap of religion and science occurs. Dowe follows the argument out where Hume did not and plays it to the end. Dowe maintains that when faced with the occurrence of a miracle, Hume would infer to the idea of natural explanation which awaits discovery, over and above inferring to God (97). George Schlesinger provides defense using a scientific method called inference to the best explanation. The inference idea subscribes that which the evidence confirms above the other and to the least complex of two hypotheses. Dowe aligns with Schlesinger's proposition of inference to the best explanation. This seems to be a strong argument for religion.

Dowe's argument for Schlesinger's defensive appears to be well founded. The most compelling aspect of the argument is what Dowe states at the end of the chapter. Dowe insists adamantly that scientists use inference to the best explanation. Reading further in Dowe's book, it is easy to understand what he meant. The chapter on evolution shows that Darwin was really using the same inference to the best explanation with his observations. One of the best ways to find harmony between ideas is to take the method used to produce contrary support and show how it works in favor as well. This ability demonstrates the capacity in which overlap is able to take place. One method of looking at one issue with two answers does not seem logical. The ability to prove one side right over another is no longer available as a consequence. Dowe's point here is not to prove one side correct or incorrect. Dowe argues the harmonious interaction that is possible between religion and science. The interaction is seemingly forced on the issue of miracles. Suggesting that miracles happen creates a crossover into the scientific realm. Meeting the conflict with a thinking that relates to science creates a very sturdy position on which to stand.

The argument Dowe proposes also has implicit weakness. Hume intended to prove there exists no rational belief for the existence of God. While Dowe rises to the argument with the help of Schlesinger, Dowe does not meet Hume head on. The idea of inferring to the best explanation is used by both parties in the argument, but to seemingly different ends. Hume strives to show that there is no rationale for the belief in God through the apportioning of belief to evidence and inferring to the best explanation. The central idea to Hume's thinking is proof. Dowe is not on the path to find proof that God does exist, which places him in an entirely different world. Dowe's point of intersection decays once this is taken into account. The premise of Dowe's argument is harmony of interaction but the interaction is not on the same plane. Dowe looks to best explanation concerning miracles while Hume looks proof of miracles. Dowe does not place emphasis on Hume's being correct which is what Hume stresses most. This was Dowe's main idea, but for the sake of arguing on miracles the argument falls short. Hume has the advantage of setting the stage for the encounter.

Dowe's chapter on miracles is a very thought provoking and confusing chapter. The strength of the argument Dowe proposes seems to have a weakness that dwells within. The issue is not necessarily with the argument that he presents, but at the point that he finds the intersection of the areas of which he is referring, science and religion. Dowe's line of thought may be correct, but the point from which he starts does not coincide which where he ends up. Can the harmony still exist if the point of intersection shifts? 

Jefferson and the Enlightenment

| No Comments

The time of the Enlightenment was a time of great thinkers and reason. Great thinkers of this time were making grand suggestions and pushing to move past the traditions that hindered progress. Great thinkers made bold statements, and among those thinkers was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson authored a powerful document that changed the history of thirteen little colonies into what is now known as the United States of America. The intent of that document, The Declaration of Independence, is clear in the opening line of this document and is a tribute to the thinking of the Enlightenment. Jefferson states," When in the course of Human events, it becomes necessary... to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another."  How the previous sentence and the document itself are a product of the Enlightenment movement will be examined though out this essay.
                In the 6th edition of A Short History of Western Civilization, the essence of the Enlightenment is captured in one sentence, "Enlightenment thinkers argued for reform and change" (469). Jefferson used a key word to open the Declaration of Independence that left no room for doubt: dissolve. Dissolve is a very direct word. There was to be no connection left behind concerning the ties with the British. The main drive in the Enlightenment, as stated earlier, was a desire for progress and a break with the tradition of the time. Jefferson spared no ink while listing the grievances the colonies held against the King of England. The actions of the King were a hindrance, being that the laws were unreasonable and his procedures were not in the best interest of the people. To cite only a few of the many grievances: the King refused to agree to laws that would have established a judicial system and denied what would later be declared a right, which is that of a trial by jury. Reason alone tells one that such actions are of no benefit but to a select few. The use of such reason was another crucial component of the Enlightenment.

                Breaking with tradition was a way to allow progress, but also a means to usher in the use of reason.  Tradition accepts the status quo and does not provide answers when new questions arise that are outside the traditional mold of thought. Harrison, Sullivan, and Sherman advise that reason employs the senses and assesses truth by what can be interpreted from those senses. When it is observed that the current system of government is no longer protecting its citizens but is a destructive force, reason denies tradition. When tradition is denied and reason begins to rely of the senses to establish truth, nature becomes the guiding light. Harrison, Sullivan, and Sherman state as such," Nature is ordered, functions reasonably, and constitutes a standard for judgment." Jefferson turns to nature as he lays the foundation for the Declaration of Independence.

                Deism became popular in the time of the Enlightenment, as the drive to break with tradition flowed into the church. According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America, Deism believed "God revealed himself in nature and through reason." Jefferson talks about laws of nature and self-evident truths, and both ideas fall in line with a Deistic way of thinking. He states that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights prevail when one uses reason to interpret nature. Life begins in nature and is a process of nature. Without nature life does not exist. God created all life and it roams free. Why should that same liberty not be bestowed on humankind? This may not have been the thinking used when the Declaration of Independence was written. It is an attempt to understand how the thinking may have been used. Reason is the Deist's companion and mentor.  Jefferson appears to have used Deism as guide when founding the principles upon which the United States would be built.

                Three major concepts, reason, nature, and change and progress, were used when the Declaration of Independence was authored, and were embodied in the Enlightenment. These concepts are not to be exclusive of other influences or ideas that may have been considered. In his writing, Thomas Jefferson illustrates clear examples of all three concepts. Progress and change can be seen in many places. The idea of declaring independence, in itself, seeks a change from tradition and a want to move forward. Dissatisfaction with the status quo developed the need for progress away from a system that had failed the colonies. Reason was utilized in assessing the situation of oppression that had fallen upon the people and developed the need for change. The list of grievances against the King demonstrates the reason used in making the decision to become an independent nation. Nature was the foundation of the document Jefferson penned. Deism relied on nature to reveal the self-evident truths, the rights God bestowed upon his creation, which he desires for his creation to enjoy. The government Jefferson describes, and the Declaration of Independence as a whole is a product of the Enlightenment and the way of thinking that came out in that time.