Christine Mennicke

Today there was a convocation in which Anil Singh-Molores spoke about his experience in his life and career. He talked about his cultural roots, and then he went on to talk more about his academic pursuits. For instance, he thought he would study organic chemistry, but decided to study philosophy and literature instead. Then, he studied comparative religion in graduate school. Lastly, he talked about his career, which has involved a translator and manager position with Microsoft.

A lot of what he talked about connected with what we discussed last semester with the different ways of knowing. First of all, he encouraged being renaissance individuals, which can mean involving all of the different ways of knowing in one's life. This is something that I always try to do because I have a wide variety of interests. I was especially appreciative to hear him speak about the value of education and how every piece of education can build something important for people--whether that is common knowledge, communication skills, creativity, or perspective. At Concordia, a lot of people I know in the sciences are pretty set in their futures from the beginning--most of them are shooting for medical school of some sort. However, I think it's hard to explore what one truly likes with such a rigid goal. Furthermore, with such a set goal, it is hard to see the value in other areas of one's education. This is something I have resisted as much as possible, but I have found difficulty when classes in one area take up all my time.

Anil Singh-Molores's insights and experiences have given me a lot to think about. As I mentioned before, I am encouraged about being a renaissance individual. Still, I am trying to reconcile that with my future. Actually, right now, I just had to make a decision about taking  internships this summer. It was really tough for me to choose between these two internships because I didn't know where they would lead me. This has forced me to think a lot about my future in the past couple days. However, I think Anil's words were encouraging for me because they affirmed that it's ok not to have a set goal right now--in fact, it may be beneficial--and they made me confident that I will gain a valuable experience despite uncertainty, if I put the effort into it. 

Last night, Hmong artist Seexeng Lee came in to talk to the class. He discussed art in general and then focused in on Hmong art and what that is. Basically, he said that Hmong art is more like a craft than "classical art," and he said that Hmong art is always functional. Then, he discussed how Hmong art has been changing with Hmong immigrants crossing boundaries between two cultures. For instance, the art has a degree of hybridity and is less traditional. Lastly, he talked about his own experience and what art has meant to him--making the invisible visble, in his words.

I was glad to hear from an artist whose work we have seen before, both in the Hmong center and in the art exhibition. I always love gaining a better understanding of where the art originates because the art becomes much more meaningful. Now, I can go back to that exhibition and look at Seexeng's artwork with a new perspective. Also of note, I love passing by the huge mural in the music building every day. I think it's a beautiful art work that is much more than just art--it demonstrates individuality and community at once.

I was really glad to hear what Seexeng had to say about Hmong/cultural art. In particular, I connected with what he said about people seeing Hmong or cultural art and passing it off as not very deep. Sometimes, when I see art with a message about culture, I think that it only has one simple message. However, Seexeng demonstrated that there is so much more to cultural artworks. For example, he showed the black and white photo with the traditional Hmong woman in color, and I would have looked at it and just seen that the tradition stands out and is important, Then, he explained how important the message was in showing that some Hmong feel like they are the only ones trying to hold onto their culture. That was really cool! I am encouraged now to look deeper at art from all different cultures. A deeper view will require learning more about the cultures in general, I believe.

Yesterday, we had a panel of three Hmong Concordia students come in to speak to us about their experience as immigrants. They described how they came to the United States, their heritage, and how they view their role in both American and Hmong cultures.

 

Something that was really reinforced in their discussion was the importance of family and community in the Hmong culture, which we have heard from many sources about the Hmong. Even though all of the students were from families of varying degrees of traditional culture, all three of them espoused the importance of the family. It was evident not only in what they described about their families, but also what they said about their goals in life: to help out the family and other Hmong people.

 

I thought it was really interesting how different the three students were from one another. Xang seemed much more Americanized, Xia was more in between the two cultures, and Pa Houa seemed the most traditional of all. Not only were their positions different, but their views of their positions were different as well. Even though Xang was the most Americanized, he seemed to be the most eager to become more Americanized (with independence, financial stability, etc.). I saw Xia as in between the two cultures, but she wanted to stick to her Hmong roots because she was brought up that way. Pa Houa was the same way. It was unexpected that the girls wanted to remain close to a culture where they perhaps have less power than men do. However, I can understand if the girls saw that they were brought up well (in not being allowed to go out and having to help the family), then they would want their children to be brought up well also. Of course, as we saw in the discussion, perhaps Hmong women have much more power than we might expect! I ended up seeing the Hmong culture less as one that makes women less powerful, but more as one that gives men and women very different roles with respective powers. Still, it's a little hard for me to break from my Western views of men and women, and because of that, I do think that women have more power in American culture. This, of course, brings back discussion from The Middle of Everywhere about how American culture does not respect women and other cultures do. This is very interesting to think about...we may give women more power in Western culture but not respect, whereas other cultures seem to respect or honor women but not give them as much power.

Today there was convocation, which was an exhibit of immigrant artwork. The artists were from several different backgrounds, from South America to Saudi Arabia to Asia (in the Hmong community). Also, they had a variety of different art media, including photography, sculpture, painting and printing. However, all of the art pieces served to represent the immigrant experience or juxtapose the old and new cultures.  

I really enjoyed seeing more of Seexeng Lee's art after seeing the piece in the Hmong Center. Also, the painting of the family crossing the Mekong River really brought to life the story of crossing the river from The Latehomecomer. I think that actually seeing the image, especially depicted so tragically with a family losing a member, as opposed to reading about it makes a difference. Clearly, both literature and visual art make important contributions to describing refugee/immigrant experiences.

Something interesting was how the Saudi Arabian artist Hend al-Mansour said that most people cannot fully understand what she is saying in her art because they do not have the experience of both cultures. It is interesting to think that even though an immigrant may describe his or her experiences, and we can hear them, we still miss aspects of their experiences with which we have no relation. Hopefully, though, we can do our best to listen and the immigrants will do their best to explain.

Last Monday in class, we had two speakers, Choua Thao and Long Yang, from the generation of Hmong refugees who emigrated as adults. They spoke to us about their experiences in the 1970's and how they came to leave, and then they told us some things about their experiences in the United States. In particular, they spoke about their careers both there and here.

Long Yang described a lot of things that Dr. Hillmer talked about when he was here, since Mr. Yang worked for the CIA. Also, he made an interesting comment that the U.S. officials told him that he should go to the United States to be safer, and that he would get a job cleaning somewhere. That reminded me of The Middle of Everywhere, when Mary Pipher described people who were powerful or well-educated in their former countries but had to do menial work in this new place. I was glad to hear that Mr. Yang was able to earn a degree and eventually do the work he was skilled enough to do.

Choua Thao definitely gave me some new perspectives about the refugee population. She was someone who would fight for both herself and others in need. I hadn't really thought about refugees being able to advocate for themselves, since being in a new environment could take away confidence, but she showed otherwise. However, in that confidence, I thought that she embodied a lot of American values already. For instance, I thought that her urging us to have a dream and pursue what we wanted (and hopefully earn money doing so) reflected a lot of American individualism and innovation. Perhaps because she had an innate confidence, she was able to adjust better to this new environment. This made her a leader and an advocate for those of similar status in the refugee population.

Last Monday in class, we met in the Hmong center and listened to a presentation by Dr. Lee Pao Xiong. He talked about the Hmong center and how it was established, and then he talked about how he came to the United States from Long Cheng. Then, he gave us a tour of the center and explained what some of the artifacts were.

I thought it was very interesting to have a speaker who had been through some of the things we learned the previous week, such as living in Long Cheng and storming the planes to escape. Also, I think Dr. Xiong is a perfect example showing how we can help recent immigrants succeed. He emphasized how the church sponsor helped his family become established and then how the immigrants would help their own families in the future. Then, I was amazed at his stories of ambition--how he sent his resume out to all of those congress people, and how he listened to the political radio all the time. I think that he was able to have that ambition and take hold of opportunities partly because someone helped his family establish themselves. After reading Mary Pipher's book, I wasn't sure how I could have the opportunity to meet or help any new immigrants, but Dr. Xiong's story reassured me that I could help someone through church, for instance.

Something interesting that was reemphasized was the idea that the Hmong did not want to leave Laos and did not want to come to America. It's interesting because in America, we often think that everyone wants to come here for the opportunities and freedoms we have, and it seems strange to think that some people--like some refugees we have read about--wanted to stay in their own country.  I think that shows a definite difference in values, since these refugees value things about their home countries that are completely different from things in America. This difference in values can make assimilating difficult, but it can also bring interesting new perspectives to America.

Today we went to see Gran Torino. I didn't know much about the movie before seeing it. I had only seen one preview, and from that, I had thought it was some kind of action movie. However, I found that the movie was not centered around the action--the gang violence brought the conflict and escalation of the story--but rather, the story focused much more on the relationship of Walt with Thao and Sue's family.

I was able to connect this movie to a lot of what we've been learning in class about the Hmong and from The Middle of Everywhere and The Latehomecomer. I felt that I knew a lot about the Hmong culture--the things that Walt discovered after spending time with the family. For example, I knew who the shaman was, and I knew that the Hmong were hill people who had fought in the Vietnam War and then immigrated to the United States. What was most interesting, though, were the connections I found to the books. I loved the depiction of the community in the Hmong family and how it contrasted so much with Walt's own family. Also, I remember several immigrants in The Middle of Everywhere talking about respecting elders and how American children often do not. I saw that in the difference between how Thao and Walt's grandchildren treated adults.

Something new I gained from the movie was a greater understanding of the difficulties that Hmong encounter in the United States. The other sources we've looked at have mostly talked about language, culture, or financial difficulties. However, we haven't heard much about the troubles that come from other Hmong--trying to resist the pressure to join a gang for protection and community. I am interested in learning more about that conflict.

Something else interesting that the movie showed was the compatibility between traditional Hmong and older American culture. As Walt said, he had more in common with the Hmong family than with his own spoiled family. Walt connected to the work ethic and respect for elders that Thao had. Also, I think Walt was drawn to the community of the Hmong family and rejected the disconnected life of his own family (like when he called his son, and his son had no time to talk). I thought this was a really interesting idea in the movie. Overall, I thought the movie explored many interesting ideas, and I enjoyed it a lot.  

Last night in class, we had an open discussion about the book of the year, The Middle of Everywhere by Mary Pipher. We had been given a few discussion questions, so we all had plenty of things that we had already thought about to say. In particular, we talked about how different our own experiences were from the immigrants' experiences, and we also talked about how their views of American culture were accurate or inaccurate. A lot of our discussion was personal stories, and we found a lot of similarities between our stories and cultural experiences.

Connection of the experience to other course materials/experiences;
I connected a lot of last night's discussion and reading the book in general to experiences I have every day. For instance, sometimes when I go to the grocery store, I see entire Hmong families together buying food. I wonder now if the children are helping the adults with the confusion of an enormous grocery store like that. Also, I read the Latehomecomer over break (I'm not in the literary part, but I wanted to read the books anyway), and I really saw a lot of similarities between Kalia's family's experiences and those detailed in the book. For example, finding somewhere to live can be difficult. People may either discriminate against immigrant families, or in Kalia's place, the only homes available may be dilapidated or (!) haunted.

I really enjoyed the discussion of the book because I learned a lot about not only the immigrant communities, but also about the members of this class. Overall, I think we all saw how fortunate we are, and this has just made me want to learn more about the immigrant communities. Furthermore, I am much more sympathetic to their struggles now, since I know what things they have been through in the past and what things they need to go through now in a new country. I am excited to do the research paper, although I still do not have a topic. Hopefully I can think of one soon!

In an attempt to resolve the conflict between creation and evolution, Dowe focuses on putting both sides of the argument into a historical context. He develops the idea that the current creation science movement is really a recent phenomenon and that the original objections to Darwin were not based on a literal reading of Genesis. Instead, the original objections to Darwin dealt with things like human dignity and superiority.

Thus, Dowe is able to provide several examples of Christians at the time of Darwin who accepted his theory, which develops the strongest basis for his argument of harmony between creation and evolution. To begin, Dowe argues that Darwin himself did not actually hold a conflict view. Darwin believed that evolution could not rule out the possibility of God, and his own agnosticism came from seeing suffering in the world, not from anything biological (126). Another of Dowe's primary arguments comes from Asa Gray, a Christian friend and defender of Darwin. Gray proposes that evolution falls under the category of secondary cause, being a physical mechanism God uses. Furthermore, he infers that the best explanation of the derivation of species is that species came from God through natural selection, as opposed to without God or with God creating fixity of species (129). Thus, Dowe uses Gray's standpoint of theistic evolution as a major support for a harmonious view of creation and evolution. Dowe has a few more examples of harmonious views other than Gray's.  For instance, he notes some Christians who believe the biological aspect of natural selection, but say that the creation of the soul requires intervention (136). Lastly, Dowe explains that some objections to Darwin do not actually illustrate conflict between creation and evolution. Several Christians at the time of Darwin were not concerned with biblical literalism, but they instead saw flaws in Darwin's reasoning and therefore disagreed with him on a scientific, not religious basis. Even today's creation scientists, while conflicting with evolution, do not completely conflict with science, since they consider creation science as legitimate science (141).

Dowe's argument has several strengths. First of all, it follows the history of the conflict, beginning before Darwin and going up to today. Doing this allows Dowe to establish both sides of the argument with very little dramatics and caricaturing, which ultimately makes the conflict between the two much less pronounced. Going through the history also places both arguments in their appropriate contexts. The chapter showed how the explanation or roots of humanity's purpose progressed from teleological to mechanical to design to evolution. In this progression of explanations, the idea of evolution merely progressed from a series of ideas, so how it arose makes sense in its historical context. This further dissipates the dramatics that often abound about evolution today. Ultimately, this gives Dowe the ability to present various harmonious views of creation and evolution with a greater chance that his readers will take those views seriously. Also, he points out that the views he presents are from strong, otherwise conservative Christians. Readers are therefore much less likely to think of these unexpected views as a compromise of religion, but rather they will see them as carefully thought out. The fact that he shows Darwin himself as holding a harmonious view is also crucial. If Darwin is the representative for evolution, and he does not think it conflicts with religion, then his idea of evolution is not as threatening and science cannot deny religion. Overall, Dowe uses examples of various views to place most Christians and scientists on the side of a harmonious view, making the creation science movement the odd one out. Creation science only finds conflict because of its strictly literal interpretation of the Bible, Dowe argues. That is an additional strength to his argument for harmony: he has already given numerous examples of Christians throughout history who believed the Bible might not be literal in everything it says. Thus, the idea of the problems of strict biblical literalism ties into the rest of the book and gives Dowe's argument in this chapter an even stronger basis.

                However, Dowe's argument is weak in some respects. Most importantly, he does not deal with current ideas about creation and evolution other than those of the creation science movement. Otherwise, the only ideas he presents are those from the time of Darwin, whereas many Christians today may not subscribe to those ideas but also may not be inclined to believe in theistic evolution. Thus, though Dowe's arguments are clear and harmonious, they may not be satisfying to many Christians today. Another weakness in Dowe's argument is his focus on the views of Christians who are scientists. Most of the examples he gave of historical people who held the harmonious view were not only Christians or scientists, but both. Using these people as a basis for harmony between the two is weak, since those people are naturally inclined to hold a harmonious view. Instead, the people who need convincing of the harmonious view are those who are either Christians or scientists. At most, Dowe's argument might show those people that they could accept the other side of the argument, but it does not give them a strong motivation to do so.

                Overall, Dowe's argument for the harmonious interaction of creation and evolution is strong. He does not appear to make wide stretches to make the harmonious view make sense, but rather gives several clear examples of people who held reasonable, harmonious views. This argument may not be convincing for people who are strictly creationist or evolutionist, but it is important in that it takes today's dramatics away from the issue and shows that a harmonious view is not completely out of the question for either Christians or scientists.

Without Enlightenment ideas, the Declaration of Independence and American Revolution may not have even happened. The Enlightenment encouraged reform and urged people to use their reason to solve problems and reach new conclusions (Harrison et al 470). That is precisely what American independence was founded on, and those ideas provided the impetus and courage to formally break from the powerful mother country. In truth, breaking away from Great Britain was a highly risky and bold move, and Thomas Jefferson realized that declaring independence needed to be done carefully but assertively. Thus, he crafted an argument using Enlightenment ideas as support for the decision to break away. The Enlightenment concepts of reason, change and progress, nature, and Deism in the Declaration of Independence demonstrate the credibility and thoughtfulness of the argument for independence, making the intent of the document sincere despite its audacity.  

            As a whole, the Declaration of Independence is firmly structured around a reason-based argument, which provides clarity and shows that serious thought went into its creation. Its structure has three parts: the beginning, which describes how government should be, the middle, a list of grievances against King George III, and the end, which concludes that independence is justified. Interestingly, its structure resembles a scientific experiment. The beginning is like a hypothesis, making a conjecture that the colonies have the right to independence. Then, the middle is like data, since it is all evidence that could help prove the hypothesis. Lastly, the end draws the conclusion that the evidence supports the hypothesis. Furthermore, the end eliminates sources of error in the decision to be independent in that it describes the countless measures to which the colonies had gone for support to no avail (Jefferson). This structure makes independence a provable, reasoned conclusion, reached through nothing other than empiricism. Because it is set up as proved, scientific fact, the case for independence is credible and hard to refute, despite the fact that it opposes history and tradition.

In fact, opposing tradition with reasoned argument was one of the hallmarks of Enlightenment thought (Harrison et al 469). This was because challenging traditional ideas could help bring about change and progress. Jefferson reflects the spirit of change in the Declaration of Independence, explaining that the change of independence is the only way to protect the peoples' happiness. Essentially, Jefferson holds that the purpose of government should be to ensure the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and when a government does not uphold those rights, then it must be changed (Jefferson). Still, he says that change should not come from "light and transient Causes," but only when grievances have become too great to bear (Jefferson). By doing this, Jefferson negates any accusation that declaring independence was a hasty or irrational decision and instead gives it the credibility of prudence. He also describes change as not just a desire, but as a necessity. The first line of the Declaration calls independence for the colonies "necessary" and later calls it the "Right of the People" (Jefferson). Describing independence in these terms, where it is the only possibility for progress, further halts arguments against it. Overall, Jefferson defines government's purpose and says that if that purpose is not upheld, then people have the right to change the government to secure their personal freedoms.

That recurring idea of freedoms in the Declaration demonstrates the Enlightenment concept of perfection in natural human existence. Jefferson uses the natural ideal combined with Deism to give the argument for independence one more source of credibility, that of divine right. For Deists, God "revealed himself in nature and through reason" (Reid). In particular, human nature was considered good; societal structures made people bad. Thus, even though God was far away in the Deists' view, God was still beneficent and would show his goodness when things existed in their natural states. This view turns the attempt to create a more natural state of government into a God-ordained privilege. As expected, this view seen in the Declaration, where Jefferson says that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" to break political bands that do not serve and promote the natural existence of humanity (Jefferson). However, even though Jefferson invokes divine right to support the case for independence, he makes the intention of the new government very clear: to serve people, not God. Though people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," the point of government is not to recognize the Creator's goodness but rather to uphold and protect those rights for the people (Jefferson). Furthermore, though Jefferson and his compatriots rely on the "Protection of the divine Providence," they pledge not to the divine, but "pledge to each other" in a very human-centered way (Jefferson). Essentially, Jefferson uses God to give the argument for independence credibility by authority, but his Deist, naturalistic way of thinking allows him to turn the focus away from God and direct it instead toward human nature and goodness.

Because declaring independence was such a bold thing to do, Jefferson provided plenty of reasons why he and the rest of the Founding Fathers were doing so. Those reasons reflected their Enlightenment views, since they focused on concepts such as reason, change and progress, nature, and Deism. Of course, no matter how carefully crafted or tight the arguments of the Declaration were, it still brought about a war. When people today look back on Jefferson's words, though, they can still see evidence of the hope that reason and knowledge would be the true purveyors of change, not military action. The ideas of independence took just as much courage to declare as to fight for. Truly, the Founding Fathers lived out the dare to know.

Works Cited

Harrison, J., Sullivan, R., and Sherman, D. A Short History of Western Civilization, 6^th ed. New

            York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.

Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence. Retrieved 10/28/08 from

http://webct.csp.edu/SCRIPT/HON11001f08/scripts/serve_home

Reid, Daniel G, ed. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

 1990.