Bobby McFerrin Hacks Your Brain With Music

All throughout life, I've lived in the paradigm of being a music person. That being said, I've had an innate understanding that everyone who did not live in the same realm, all the others, were decidedly non-music people. After one of my close family friends told me that he thought all music except for country pop was irritating noise, I damn near lost it. For me, it was a classic case of "us vs. them", and the "them" were just unenlightened, lazy, boring, soulless people. I simply could not imagine someone not loving music, not wanting to listen to it, study it, play it, and appreciate it for the rest of their lives.

I'll admit that my opinion hasn't changed very much in recent times. This isn't a post about how my world was turned upside down when I discovered the dark side of music, the evil lurking below the surface of the Dorian mode. In fact, what I began to realize is that there are no such thing as non-music people. I know it might sound ridiculous, but the more I read and research, the more I discover that music as a form of enjoyment and expression of identity is something unique to humans, something for which we all have the capacity.

Sure, some people may claim (sometimes rightfully so) that they don't like most types of music: I even understand complaints against rap music as being obscene, against classical music as being boring and stuck-up, and against rock music as being abrasive and shallow. The thing is, not enjoying certain genres of music is no longer enough for me to condemn someone to the dreaded cult of the non-musical. In fact, this video shows that everyone has the ability to understand music and to be surprised by this ability in themselves. And the fact that every audience that hears Bobby McFerrin, every person, whether they have instruction in music or not, can figure out a basic pentatonic scale is a uniting force among the world.

So while this video didn't make me view non-musical people in a better light, it helped me realize that this group is much smaller than I previously thought. It's not about "us vs. them", it's just all "us". Everyone has something about them that is musical, whether they realize it or not, and this is the last time I view anyone in a negative light for claiming ignorance. There's no need for music to become a divisive force among people, especially not in my mind. It really has the power to bring the world together in a song.

In the immortal words of the Coca-Cola commercial, and in the cheesiest ending that will ever grace my blog, "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..."

It may just be easier than you think.

The Gay Gene and What It All Means

It's a growing trend in my household: every mention of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual classmate is met with a falter as my parents inquire as to whether news of the homosexuality of my friends surprises me. I consistently reply with, "of course not", but I often forget the novelty of liberty to be gay; when my parents were teenagers, hardly anyone was out of the closet. Homosexuality was repressed and seen as foreign, uncomfortable, or even slightly repulsive. The times certainly have changed, and only some have changed with them. I admire adults like my parents and even my grandmother, who are clearly unable to view homosexuality as "any old thing", but try their damnedest to be as accepting as possible. In any case, homosexuality certainly is a hot topic right now.

Generally, the issue among people with traditional (and often religious) values is that homosexuality is morally wrong because it's not transcribed in *insert religious text here*. This causes people to try to simplify the issue by determining a justification for the immorality so that "them crazy liberal folk" will finally see the error of their ways in accepting such behavior. Thus the argument foments into whether homosexuality is a decision or something you're born with. Choice or gene, essentially.

Now it's pretty apparent that viewing homosexuality as a choice is a dangerous mode of thinking; it's for this reason that there are reprogramming clinics and "pray the gay away" camps for LGB teens, as well as rampant hate crimes against homosexuals. One need only look at the comments section on any popular YouTube video to find alarming use of anti-gay language in a nonsensical context to see evidence of the anti-gay sentiment among those who believe homosexuality is a choice.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe homosexuality is genetic, that it is an inevitability and should be accepted because it's not something that's about to just disappear. Among this crowd, there is heavy support for gays, with pro-gay cries echoing just as loud as those that are anti-gay. Basically, the whole issue is a noisy, reverberating mess.

What many may not realize, however, is that viewing homosexuality as being linked to genetics is also a dangerous mode of thinking. Recently, I've read several articles about scientist Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health, who in 1993, announced that he'd isolated the "gay gene" on the q28 allele of the X chromosome in males. While his results were never able to be repeated, and he was later accused of fabricating them, this supposed discovery brought forth a new wave of talk about homosexuality. What arose from this was the shocking quote from prominent gay community members saying that viewing homosexuality as genetic is also detrimental because it makes people both pity those who "suffer" from it (in the same way we pity someone born with a physical disability) and makes the people with traditional values desire gene therapy to modify future children to prevent this "unnatural mutation".

Everything considered, my solution, and the mode of thinking that I most often employ in regarding this issue, is to stop trying to justify homosexuality. By trying to figure out why, we lose the ability to see individual people; in this way, justification, whether pro- or anti-gay, is dehumanizing. It doesn't matter why people are attracted to one sex or another, only that homosexuality is a reality in our world and that it's not going away, no matter how much we try to break it down.

Thoughts? Opinions? Post them below!

Pass the Tofurky

Being a pescetarian (like a vegetarian, but with fish included in my diet), Thanksgiving isn't exactly my ideal holiday. While I love mashed potatoes, green bean casserole, and bringing the whole family together to appreciate the good fortune in our lives, I despise fielding unending questions from my grandma about why I choose not to eat turkey on this holiday. Even on days that aren't centered on the slaughter and consumption of other creatures, people constantly inquire about my motives for limiting my diet. It's evident to me that people treat me differently once they discover my eating habits; once they know, their voices fill with both awe at my self-control and doubt about my sanity.

Food is no longer just a means for survival; it is so intrinsically and uniquely cultural and so temporal that people see it as an extension of themselves. Sharing a meal, like many people do on Thanksgiving, has implications beyond those created in the production and consumption of the food that arrives on the table. That being said, people become very sensitive about food, seeing any refusal to partake in the prepared meal as a personal insult, and guarding family recipes with their lives. This puts vegetarians, vegans, or anyone who chooses to limit their diet (those with medical dietary restrictions are looked upon differently, a point to be examined another time) in a difficult spot, living in a world of indiscriminate eaters.

Well, why do I choose to limit what I eat? I have a wide range of reasons, including but not limited to animal welfare, energy inefficiency, religious belief, negative effects on ecology and health, and dislike for the taste of meat. But I do not encourage others to pursue veganism, vegetarianism, or even pescetarianism. In fact, I would argue against it if it would cause any discomfort, familial fracture, feeling of loss of culture, or desire for meat. The point is that I feel none of those things, despite my limited diet, and that's why it works for me.

My message to the people who raise an eyebrow at my diet is similar to that of author Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals (a fantastic read!): people should not try to confine themselves within the labels of "vegetarian", "vegan", or even "carnivore" (yes, "carnivore" is a label too). What every single person should try to achieve, regardless of their opinions on eating animal products, is to become a conscious consumer.

All too often, people view eating as all-or-nothing; either you're a meat-eater or you're a vegetarian. In reality, making situation-specific choices is the best decision and is considerably more rational than blindly limiting (or un-limiting) your diet. Maybe you choose to eat beef but cut out chicken and turkey because of the amount of cruelty in their production. Maybe you choose to eat chicken only once a week, maybe you choose to eat only kosher meat. The most important thing is to be conscious of the cost of your food (in ecology, culture, and cruelty) and to make sustainable choices from that point.

In what way do you choose to eat and why? Let me know!

The Whistle-Blower

There is a nouveau-archetype evolving in our ever changing world, especially pertinent now because the Republican nomination for President is heating up: the whistle-blower. Republican nominee Herman Cain has been accused of sexual harassment by about four women in the last few weeks, occurring somewhere in the last ten or fifteen years. There is extensive evidence against him. Sharon Bialek (the only woman to come forward) lost her job in the 1990s and asked Cain, then the president of the National Restaurant Association, for help. She even remembers the clothing she was wearing at the time of the inappropriate conduct.

This is not the first time in history that someone has come forward against a politician in order to prevent them from winning a seat. In 1991, Anita Hill came forward against Clarence Thomas, running for a position on the Supreme court. He still won the seat, and as a consequence, Ms. Hill was judged, called delusional and a scorned woman out for revenge. She was viewed as someone meddling in politics, attempting to slander a candidate for personal gain.

This appears to be what is happening and will continue to happen to Ms. Bialek: already, her entire past has been chronicled, as well as her past job history and testaments to her character. It seems that everyone, especially the media and Herman Cain's campaign team, is trying to find a way to prove she's lying, whether in reality or through manipulating public opinion, it makes no difference.

Throughout literature, canon, history, and popular media, the one who spills the beans is seen as weak, spineless, and cowardly. Even as children, we mark the "one who tells" as a tattletale. Thus, in addition to the sexual harassment the women go through, there is an additional toll placed by those who should be listening. According to Laura Beth Nielsen, a researcher at the American Bar Association and an associate professor of law and sociology at Northwestern University,

"I can't tell you how many accusers have gone bankrupt, gotten divorced, or start having drinking or drug-use problems... Even if they win, they feel like they've lost. Some say, 'I'm glad I made the point that they couldn't do that'. But by and large, they feel pretty chewed up and spit out by the justice system" (Chicago Tribune, front page of the edition from Sunday, November 13, 2011)

So why do we hate the whistle-blower so much and why do we treat them in the way we do? I think the answer is multi-fold. It's partly because victims use public media in order to tell their story, which reminds us too much of the people who enter reality competitions like American Idol or Survivor just for fifteen minutes of fame. This occurrence is so common nowadays that we have lost respect for ordinary people (not politicians) propelling controversial viewpoints through the news. Perhaps we also view sexual harassment as something to be accepted or ignored, yet a major counterpoint exists in the reaction to the Penn State scandal, recently revealed; however, the difference is the nature of this scandal, involving young boys versus a grown woman with a past. Also, sexual harassment may not be viewed as a real crime because it's not necessarily rape and no one dies or gets maimed.

Irrespective of the reasoning, from now on, the public should operate under the knowledge that by exposing their harassment, the whistle-blower is putting him or herself into more danger than if they just remained quiet. Scrutinizing them for evidence of lies, bad character, or desire for fame is not necessary to the extent we make it seem. This is not meant to deter questioning the situation, but rather to keep that questioning productive, constructive, and considerate.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know!

The World's Kampf with "Mein Kampf"

According to a post by Sarah Wildman on the Latitude blog of the New York Times, in 2015, the state of Bavaria loses its copyright on the infamous novel Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. To recap on history, let's explore the implication of this book on Germany in the decade before the outbreak of WWII. In an article entitled "How 'Mein Kampf' Changed the World", Heather Whipps breaks it down:

"[In Hitler's book,] chief among his ideas was the absolute, innate superiority of the Germanic race, which Hitler called Aryan. "Mein Kampf" singled out Jews as a source of many of Germany's ills and a threat to Aryan dominance. The Aryans had a duty to restore Germany's former glory and enlarge its territory.

"Mein Kampf" gained enormous readership in the early 1930s and became the de facto Nazi bible. Every new married couple received a free copy on their wedding day, and every soldier had one included as a part of his gear. At the outset of World War II, the book had been translated into 11 languages and sold 5 million copies."

That number has since grown to 70 million copies. What does this mean? Well, after this point, any efforts to prevent the publishing or sale of this book will be futile because it will belong to the public domain. Also, Germany's previous efforts to prevent all promotion of Nazi paraphernalia will be undermined in a huge way, with the novel "that started it all" falling outside their jurisdiction. Still, there might be actions that can be taken to further the ban on this book starting in 2015, but they would make many people around the world (even in the US) cringe, appearing to be ardent infringements on the rights of free press.

Is this a problem? It depends on how you see it. Historian Jean-Marc Dreyfus put it best when he said:

"There are those who say, oh, it's passé... But my students tell me they find it engaging. It still 'speaks' in the psychoanalytic sense of the word... It still sells."

I hope this issue can be resolved as some have proposed, by respecting the copyright's expiration, but by publishing only annotated versions of the book which outline the terrible power of the words reflected on the pages. The world (especially Germany) will have to be ready to again receive a dirty part of global history.

Regardless, this whole hullabaloo brings up an a slew of questions: what will the world be like in 2015, just a few short years away, but seventy years after the end of WWII?

I've always gone through school and life believing that this was a war that could never be forgotten, yet everyday, more and more survivors, people with direct memories of that time, are dying. If Mein Kampf goes into the public domain, will it even matter, or is the issue truly passé, like some people believe? How will the way people relate to each other and their history change when the people teaching and learning about the Holocaust weren't alive for it? When my children's children learn about WWII, they will be the child of a child of a child of a child of a Holocaust survivor. Will they even feel a connection to this part of their past like I do and like my mother does? Will WWII even be a part of the world's memory anymore?

Thoughts? Comments? I'd love to hear them!

Hobophobia

This graph, off of a post on the Sociological Images blog on the Society Pages, is the main message of the Occupy Wall Street protesters and the inspiration for today's post. When they say, "we are the 99%", they're referring to the minuscule 1% of the population that controls about 40% of the nation's wealth. But regardless of whether you agree with the Occupy movement, there is no denying the facts of wealth inequality. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer.

This raises the greater issue of how people relate to those in lower socio-economic situations; generally, those with less money are pitied, or else seen as dependent on the wealth of the upper classes and treated with the same paternalistic attitude as the one embodied by imperial America in the early 1900s. But what especially interests me is how virtually the entire country, not just the richest 5%, treats those with nearly no money and nowhere to live: the homeless.

Because I'm writing a piece on the issue for my Speech team in my high school, I've been doing a lot of research into the plight and treatment of the homeless today. What I have found is shocking: people think the homeless are lazy, stupid, mentally ill, or addicted to drugs, otherwise they would have dusted themselves off and gotten a job already. Otherwise, they are considered as simple children in need of a parental hand to guide them to the enlightened realm of home-ownership. Even worse, especially since the early 2000s, the amount of violence against the homeless has shot up, with hundreds being brutally murdered without reason since 2006.

Yet the face of homelessness has changed drastically since 2008; with the economic downfall, more and more ordinary people find themselves without economic means to pay for their homes, moving into temporary or charity housing in order to get by. These are families with children in schools and hardworking individuals with jobs, currently homeless, but fitting none of the stereotypes of a dirty old man with a beard and a coat.

To discover the reason behind the relationship between the homeless and everyone else, we must look to the human tendency to project the situations we experience onto our own lives; as we encounter someone living under newspapers, we are subconsciously aware of how little separates them from us. All they'd need is a house and they could be our neighbor, or maybe even a member of our family. This painful awareness is what makes us so uncomfortable when we see someone sitting on a street corner with a sign asking for food, and this discomfort is implemented differently in everyone: as fear, as disgust, as sadness, as sympathy, or even as violence.

The Help vs. District 9

I’m a big movie fan; I’ll pretty much watch any genre and enjoy something about the movie. I recently plumbed the depths of HBO and came across a movie I always wanted to see in theaters but never got the chance: District 9, a film symbolically about aliens, set in Johannesburg with ties to apartheid South Africa. It was fantastic. Then about a week afterwards, I went to see The Help, a new movie about maids in Jim Crow Jackson, MS that got great reviews from my parents and friends, and it was also excellent.

For some reason, when I think about either film, the other always pops into my head, so I've decided to compare and contrast these two movies together to see why that might be. The Help vs. District 9, a showdown of less-than-epic proportions. I have race and racism on the brain because we’re reading The Poisonwood Bible in English class and both of these movies have an interpersonal-racism theme, so it seems appropriate.

Similarities:

1. Both used most white characters as “bad guys”, and even some of the white characters that were supposed to be “good guys” had character flaws that made them less appealing to the audience. In District, Wikus Van De Merwe (the main character) was dangerously racist, despite his views being tested as he slowly turned into the race he oppressed. In Help, Celia Foote was a sweetheart and had the best of intentions, but her speech was annoyingly squeaky and she acted without thinking, getting drunk at a party and making a fool of herself.

2. Both narrowed in and focused on a few members of the protagonist race, using Minny and Aibileen in Help and two nameless “Prawns” (a crude name for the alien race, pictured below) in District. This built a connection between those few characters and the audience so that the viewers wished them the best by the end of the film.

3. Both films utilized the strong feelings that go with history to their advantage: Americans often still feel shame at the behavior of their parents and grandparents in the beginning of the civil rights movement, and I've talked to a South African friend who says his country still regrets apartheid. Choosing to set the movies with direct and indirect connections to these times added symbolism and an answer to “who cares?”

Differences:

1. The most shocking and important difference between these movies is the level of symbolism: while Help used actual black actresses to play African American maids, District turned the blacks in South Africa into a race of aliens that, thirty years after their arrival, were

thrown into a ghetto and oppressed. Not only were they clearly not human, but they were repulsive looking. In short, when watching The Help, the audience saw the characters as they were in real life. But in District 9, we saw the blacks as disgusting, inhuman creatures, exactly how they might have looked through the eyes of a racist South African at the time. The symbolism other-ized the Prawns to enhance the movie.

2. Another important difference was the violence level of the movies. While The Help was poignant in its own way, it focused on a war of words as the main character Skeeter wrote her exposé on the plight of the Jackson maid. In District 9, the filmmakers chose a more drastic approach as the Multi-National United company used Wikus’ alien arm to murder innocent Prawns with their own weapons, as an example. I haven’t yet decided which approach was better, if one was at all. I’m not convinced there is a definitive answer to that question.

If you’ve seen these movies, do you agree? Disagree? Let me know!

The Post-Apple World

Hello blogosphere! We all know that Steve Jobs just died. It’s everywhere and it’s a big deal. The end of an era. Instead of writing directly about him, my post is inspired by his legacy: the iPhone, the iPod, the iPad, and all the other competing technology he brought about indirectly.

It’s often talked about, that my generation is losing the ability to communicate interpersonally, that we spend all of our time staring at the little screen of our phones and not enough time really seeing the world around us. Our brains move at technology speed so we don’t have time for real human relationships; we turn to Tumblr, we turn to twitter, we live vicariously online before even trying to live in real life. We come out of the womb wearing earbuds and flicking our parents the middle finger. And to complicate the issue, we start revolutions through facebook and we change the world without even having to talk face to face.

Up until about a week ago, I thought this was just a huge over-generalization. Sure, there’s some truth there, some people are like that, but look at me! I only use my phone to text and make calls. I only have one iThing. I hardly ever buy products online. I hang out with friends in person. I’m on the speech team so I know how to communicate without saying the word “like”. Ding ding ding, here I am, the exception to the rule! But I was wrong.

I went with my mom to a store called Akira, where employees work on commission, to look for a homecoming dress. As soon as we walked in, we were greeted by a young salesperson named Julia. She started asking me questions about the dance and I was a little taken aback by her boldness, but I answered her inquiries, hoping she’d leave me to shop. But Julia did not—she’d give me about 10 minutes to look around and pull a few things, then run over to ask if she could add them to my dressing room. In my head, I thought, why can’t I just hold onto them and pick my own dressing room when I’m ready? Out loud, I said, “Uhhhh sure” (eloquent, no?). It didn’t stop there. Julia meandered by every time I came out, complimenting the dress I had on, making accessory suggestions. Just being a general bother.

In my mom’s generation, friendly salespeople were welcomed, even expected. Piling on compliments, making sure shoppers were comfortable, it was all part of what made a good salesperson. For me, I usually get in, find what I want, and get out, without ever having to speak to anyone. I’ve lost the notion of the shopper-salesperson relationship. And this is only the beginning of the relationships I’ve lost. I’m afraid that all the accusations mentioned a few paragraphs above are true, but they’re not attributable to owning the technology anymore. You don’t have to have an iPad to think in iPad speeds, you don’t have to have a facebook to feel more comfortable expressing yourself with the anonymity of the internet. It seems that no one growing up in this time is immune, not even me.

But this brings up the curious question of whether this change in the way we communicate, thus relate to others, is cause to regret the times of our parents. Is it okay that we communicate differently? Should we even bother criticizing the modern mindset and technology dependence? From close up, it seems like important values are being lost, but if we step back, are we just going through a normal historical change? Can the post-Apple world be equated with the post-automobile world or the post-Cold War world?

I’d appreciate any thoughts or comments from people of all ages. This is not an issue that can be addressed by one generation.

Hello, my name is...

Well howdy there, all. I, Anna, cordially welcome you to the first post on this here blog. Today marks the creation of an online extension of my nearly-18 year old self. In my life thus far, I break things down too much, searching for the logic and reasoned evidence at the bottom of every issue. This means that I often lose sight of the bigger themes inherent in many current topics. Therefore, this blog is an attempted antidote for my over-empiricism; as I explore (hopefully) relevant topics, I’ll try to use an analytic approach that draws heavily from knowledge and experience with interpersonal relationships and human interactions. Basically, I’ll draw on what I know about why people do the things they do to other people, on multiple levels. And what I find might not make sense to me logically, which may just mean I’m going about it the right way. Nothing throws a science girl out of her element like making her analyze human behavior, which is about as unpredictable as it gets. I'm taking myself out of the micro world and going macro.

Apart from being logical thinker, I'm often influenced by music, which is one of few grasps I have on the world of emotion and feeling-driven thought, neither of which are easy for me to explain. Music is the one part of my life I don't worry about not understanding, and since its spirit can be related to human actions and relationships in a visceral sense, you might find music references here and there throughout my blogging journey.

Something to get excited about is the variety of topics I can cover under the umbrella of human interaction and relationships: I can span anything from major historical wars to pop culture; I can talk about the DSK scandal in France and the genocide in Darfur, Harry Potter, reality TV, and just about anything else that tickles my fancy. I hope that I can bring a viewpoint of informed youth, and also to prove that teenagers these days do have original thoughts and novel ideas. I am not in any way an expert on the psychology of human relations, therefore, the perspective I bring will be one of pure observation; I don’t really know if there’s an official term for something I’m describing, so forgive me my psychology transgressions. I'll probably become best friends with the APA's Glossary of Psychological Terms.

Overall, I’m really excited for this blog because it’s a very freeing feeling, being unrestricted in thought, and hopefully this feeling will carry over through the rest of the year (and maybe even longer).

Thanks for reading!