You know you’re an American Studies major when…

It’s official. I am truly an American Studies major.

For the very first time, I have used a Simpsons reference in an academic paper. In the past, I may have used pop culture references from Home Alone, South Park, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Jurrasic Park… but the Simpsons is a whole new level. That’s as American as you can get, as much Americana as one can possibly stomach.

My paper, you see, is about poor, white, southern folks. Rednecks, hillbillies, hicks, white trash, you name it. My aim is to evaluate these groups as “ethnic groups” and to see if that works. Are rednecks an ethnic group? Do they view themselves that way? Does the academy view them that way? Does society?

In a section on hillbillies, specifically, I used The Simpsons’ “Cletus” to prove a point about the incest stereotype.  In this scene, Cletus and his partner Brandine are making out in the back of a pickup truck at a Nascar-sque rally.

“Dang, Cletus. Why did you park by my parents?”

“Now honey, they’s my parents too.”

Topped off by a toothless yokel playing a bajo riff in the next truck.

Do I still get to consider myself a serious scholar? You be the judge.

American Studies rules, and Sociology…

I really hate sociology.  I find it incredibly presumptuous.  It is an attempt to evaluate class and culture, yet it somehow believes those topics can be scientifically evaluated through objective, scientific, “studies” and experiments.  But these studies are the most subjective things ever to have the audacity to enter data into a table.  Like the ones that are based on the observations of the sociologist, for example. 

Besides, it is an incredibly isolated approach.  American Studies, on the other hand, is an interdisciplinary approach.  How can you fully evaluate class and culture without looking at a mixture of history, literature, film and tv, pop culture, and cultural theory?  Frankly, without making those ties and connections, and truly providing context for your inquiry, how can your work seem relevant, or god forbid, interesting?

Yes, you guessed it.  My research, being interdisciplinary, has crossed over into some sociological texts.  I suppose that is the only real downside of the interdiscipline.  You often have to read sociology.

Campaigns, Candidates, and Healthcare

I really liked Mark Halperin’s op-ed in the New York Times today, “How ‘What It Takes’ Took Me Off Course.”

 

Halperin talks about how the press frames presidential campaigns by asking the question, “who will win” as opposed to “who should win.”  This type of coverage takes it for granted that whichever candidate proves to be the best candidate will then be the best president, as if campaigning skills were indicative of a good president.  

 

I am getting more and more interested in following the campaign coverage, I think in part, because it helps me feel more involved and connected to what’s going on at home.  Also, I can’t help but feel more excited about this election since no matter what happens, the “feeling” of the last 7 years is sure to change somehow.  I’m ready for a new president, aren’t you?  And this time I want to vote in the Democratic primary, although I better not forget to get an absentee ballot.  

 

There was another article in the NYT today, called Massachusetts Faces a Test on Health Care, and I found that one interesting too, mostly because it gave a little overview of Hilary’s, Edwards’, and Obama’s positions on state mandated health coverage.  I have to say that while I am not a huge Obama fan, I liked his position best on this particular issue.  I think it’s stupid to think that a mandate will bring universal coverage.  I just don’t see how people can be forced to get an insurance policy when there really aren’t great options out there, and a lot of people, really and truly, can’t afford them.  It’s just presumptuous, and I feel like Obama recognizes the audacity of it, and although the article didn’t give me the clearest picture of how he would solve the problem, it seems as though he is on the right track.

 

Okay, enough politics.  As important as this is, I am still using it to procrastinate when I should be writing my essay on redneck culture and ethnicity.  (I love American Studies!) 

Regrets

One of my favorite bloggers, Dooce, has inspired something great with her most recent post.  While the post itself (in my opinion) doesn’t live up to her usual standard of witty word-play and insight, she does discuss an important topic: regret.  At the end, she leaves space for her thousands and thousands of readers to comment about their biggest regrets.

The result is a Postsecret-esque  forum, with some very interesting answers to this age-old question.  Someone my age could maybe learn from this?  I think?

Anyway the comment thread is a good read.  And I posted on it too- can you find me?  I only posted two regrets… but here are some more:

1.  Not taking American Studies classes during my first two years at college because I thought they were “fluff” classes.

2.  Not doing after-school activities in middle school instead of coming home before my parents and eating anything not nailed down.

3.  Whatever it was I did that made my high school best friend afraid to tell me her secret.

4.  Wasting my time with pointless/bad internships because they were easier than trying to find good ones.

5.   Not demanding braces when I was young and it was normal to have braces.

6.  Staying in a relationship with someone I did not love because I was too scared to live my own life.

7.  I wish I had worn more sunscreen.

These are semi-depressing, as most regrets are.  Luckily, in my short life, none of them are serious enough to have greatly damaged my life in any real way.  Those that caused some damage are slowly being remedied.  All in all, I haven’t done too badly.

And to leave you on a happy note:

8.  I used to regret not saying “yes” to the boy who asked me out in 10th grade.  But now, six years later, we are dating.  There is such a thing as second chances.

Why do people always insist on starting conversations with people who are reading?

I had seated myself comfortably in the cafe with my book, Franklin Foer’s How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, and before I had gotten through two pages, the middle-aged man at the next table started up a conversation.

“What are you reading?”  I tell him.  ”Oh, is it good?”  Sure.  I’m not really into soccer, but I have to read it for class.  So far there really isn’t too  much about globalization.

“Do you like hockey? I write a hockey website. Now hockey is a globalizer. Soccer? There’s a lot wrong with soccer. Really, alot of people think the rules need to be changed. Soccer is on it’s way out.”

*Resisting urge to shout something about repulsive American idiocy and complete ignorance of the global community…*  I nod and begin reading intently.  I think he got the point.

But then, 20 minutes later…

“You know what the problem with America is? They are so ignorant about the world. They don’t let foreign players play hockey because of 9/11 and everything.”

I pretended to go back to my book again.   Soccer is on it’s way out?  Soccer is on its WAY OUT?  And then he’s going to talk about America’s ignorance of the world???

Sigh.  Americans.