Dear World,

Why are you so cruel?  I haven't even truly gone out yet to experience all that you have to offer, whether you present hurdles or shortcuts to me, and I know that you're dastardly already.  Why did man create such a corrupt society, one that embraces the most outlandish and terrible practices while rejecting the more benefiting ones (not benefiting for the pockets of big-time corporates, but for the world in its entirety)?  I daresay I am appalled.  Sometimes I wish I were an angler fish, or some obscure species of animal that lives far away from the disgusting species of deformed primates, or that I was born somewhere else in the universe away from this beautiful planet that humans have managed to ruin.  Sometimes I wish I could enter the realm of my dreams and not have to deal with the harshness of reality, but I know I can't.  I can't escape this bubble of hatred, greed, and vice, unless I miraculously build a rocket to shoot myself into the Sun, or perhaps a time machine that could send me to a better future where the world isn't much of the craptastic mess it is now.

So I will be waiting for your downfall, O human-induced world.  When humanity finds itself at the precipice, I will sit back and laugh as they try to mend something beyond fixing.  There won't be a need to say 'I told you so'.

Death, I don't fear you.

Life is another story.

Mapping Everyday: Gender, Blackness, and Discourse in Urban Context: My Take On It

This article was very interesting, and quite true.  Our society is tightly wrapped in a blanket of racism, sexism, and discrimination, one that we "attempt" to unwrap but ultimately stay bound to.  The media is so concerned with exploiting minorities, and practically point fingers on who's making society the craptastic mess it currently is.  Sexism towards women has altogether made men terrible obstructions, whereas it has made women believe that being submissive and ultimately undermined is acceptable.  The quotes made by the students, specifically the remarks about porn, sexual violence/abuse towards women, and the comment about D.C., had a particular impact on how I read the entirety of this article.  They made me think: why is society this way?  Why do we separate ourselves from one another?  Is there a way to amend society?

Mapping Everyday: Gender, Blackness, and Discourse in Urban Context

"Finding the Critical Geographers useful once again, we turn to Lefebvre and Soja, this time on the discussion of the spaces of representation (in Soja's trialectic described as Thirdspace) which are seen as distinct from spatial practice (Soja's Firstspace) andrepresentations of space (Soja's Secondspace), but also as encompassing them. This Thirdspace is “directly lived, with all its intractability intact, a space that stretches across the images and symbols that accompany it, the space of ‘inhabitants’ and ‘users”’ and spaces of representation “are linked to the ‘clandestine or underground side of social life”’ (Soja 1996, 67). The concurrent nature of spatial dynamics then offers an opportunity to recognize the discursive in the construction of the social while still insisting upon the focus on the material, the lived experiences of space."


The whole concept of this so-called 'space' discussed in this article completely passed over my head.  I don't understand what is meant by this 'space', 'thirdspace', etc.  I am literally writhing in confusion.

Indigenous Resistance - Evading Oppression

I'd first like to start by saying this was a very interesting article.  Everyone knows that the Native Americans have been oppressed by both the American and Canadian governments, but most don't know to what extent.  This article outlines the trials and tribulations that the Coast Salish peoples on both the American and Canadian sides of the border went through in schooling.  Through the use of residential and boarding schools, the USA and Canada attempted to completely assimilate the Coast Salish peoples into white culture, diffusing out the culture of their ancestors; luckily, it was a complete and utter failure thanks to various strategies implemented by these indiginous people (e.g. not allowing the kids to attend the schools, allowing the children to attend Indian-only schools, accusations of racism, etc).  The Indian students of these assimilatory institutions were often reguarded in a negative way by their white classmates; however, they managed to perservere.  Though it took a little while before some equality was reached (it took longer in Canada than in the USA), the Coast Salish people managed to retain their culture, even though there was some mixing between the white and Coast Salish cultures.

It's hard to believe that this was going on no less than three decades ago...actually, I lied.  It isn't hard to believe.  Why?  You can come up with an answer to that question for yourself.

Butterfly Lessons - What Can Be Drawn From the Well

What can be drawn from the well that is Butterfly Lessons?  This article sheds light on a number of subjects ranging from climate change to the invasive species that is the comma butterfly.  Man has shaped Earth for centuries, either directly (i.e. Alexander the Great connecting the eastern part of the Aegean Sea with Tyre, which was once its own island) or indirectly; those changes have had either no effect or great effect on the Earth as a whole.  One of man's greatest "contributions" to the Earth was climate change.  As the earth warms up, life forms all across the globe are attempting to adapt.  Species native to an area are moving to other more favorable areas that can support them, as opposed to their indigenous homes.  Elizabeth Kolber, author of Butterfly Lessons, argues in the article that climate change is changing the way animals interact with their environment, in terms of ways of reproduction, the changing of diets, etc.  The iron-clad rule of this world is "only the fittest survive" and has thus far not been disproven.  Kolber notes that mosquitoes in parts of the United States and Canada are actually prevalent year-round, while they once before died during the winter.  "As the climate had warmed, those mosquitoes which had remained active until later in the fall had enjoyed a selective advantage, presumably because they had been able to store a few more days' worth of resources for the winter, and they had passed this advantage on to their offspring, and so on."  There's no doubt that everything will change, with perhaps no hope of reverting back what the Earth once was.

My project deals mainly with the scarcity of water; that topic, however, delves into others that deal with not only humans, but the environment.  Butterfly Lessons finds its link with my project there.

Destroy the Wetlands?

Wetlands are ecologically, economically, and socially important.  They provide a plethora of resources such as economically important fish and plants, and also provide recreational services.  Wetlands provide a natural water-cleaning system that aids in stopping pollutants from contaminating clean freshwater supplies, and also help control floods; they also suckle other ecosystems that depend on flooding.  However, despite the benefits they provide both economically and environmentally, they also pose as barriers.  Wetlands provide a wealthy source of rich, fertile soil that can be utilized for agriculture; with a rapidly increasing global population, a surplus of food is necessary in order to accommodate changing conditions on the planet.  Thus, there may be some logic in mowing down certain sections of a wetland for agricultural, social, and economic purposes.

Are you "In Denial?" YES!

Middle school was a very interesting period of my life.  At the time, I was living in La Verne, California, a sizable town a mere 40 minutes away from the bustling city of L.A.  Foothill Christian School, the private school I attended in Glendora, California, was a school that was very fearful and observant of God and Christ.  Every student was required to take Bible class throughout their entire middle school career, and attend chapel every single Friday near the end of the day.  Though there were some scholars that followed other religions--even atheism--the entire school was predominately Christian or Catholic.  I was raised in a Christian home myself, thus I fit right in.  Or not.

I've never seen a place bedraggled by so much contradiction in my life.  They advertised the Bible and Christianity like it was some commercial for beer or something.  The teachers drilled it into our heads that God was the only god in existence, Jesus was His son, and all who didn't believe in the Anointed One earned themselves a ticket to the fiery depths of Hell.  I can't recall at any time being encouraged to think for myself.  I can't really recall a time where the ideals of other religions were accepted or even considered/acknowledged, either.

My suspicions of the school being "corrupt" were confirmed when misfortunate things started happening to my teachers.  My Spanish teacher, Mrs. Nicely, got into a car accident and suffered from temporary memory loss.  My Math teacher, Ms. Smallwood, had issues with her blood and was out of the classroom often due to sickness.  My Science teacher, Mr. Dickey, went downright insane one day because he was bi polar and hadn't taken his medicine.  Along with this, a good number of the students fell captive to pop culture and the media, thus moving away from the teachings of Christianity shoved down their throats.  

Being in denial, for me, means not accepting something that's obviously true.  As for being "close-minded," it means that someone is not considering something that may in fact be acceptable.

Luther Standing Bear + Chief Seattle Synthesis

The Native Americans were a proud, humble people, as described in Luther Standing Bear's statement: The Living Spirit of the Indian.  I believe he's conveying that the bonds the Native American peoples had with their noble ancestors were weakening at the time, and that assimilation started taking root.  The old ways were moved aside in order to accommodate the white man's take on life.  As the Oglalan chief said, if he were to suckle a child, he would raise him as a Native American as opposed to the new, imposed lifestyle that was forced on the indigenous peoples.

Chief Seattle's speech was more of a satirical version of Luther Standing Bear's statement; he had a more submissive approach for the indigenous people of Washington.  He said that his people should come to terms with the whites encroaching their lands, as opposed to increasing the amount of blood spilt.  He pretty much also said their God had abandoned them, and the God of the whites hated the red peoples.   That being said, he did not lose the values of the Native Americans, as he suggested they live 'separately' from the whites, preserving their way of life on the little reserve the whites allotted them.

However, it's important to note that the validity surrounding Chief Seattle's noteworthy speech is controversial.  It was published by a man named Dr. Henry Smith nearly thirty years after the speech was delivered.  Smith claims to have heard Seattle's speech, and took detailed notes that he would later use to make the publication.  Of course, that beckons questions to tackle the obscurity: would he have understood Seattle, seeing as it's a possibility that the great chief gave the speech in his native tongue?  How do we know that his words weren't altered?  Were there multiple authors of this speech aside from Chief Seattle?  Why are there two versions of the speech?  And how could Smith be entirely accurate, given he published the speech thirty years after its deliverance going off of a few jotted-down notes?

It's all very sketchy.  Any theory is possible: Smith could have altered the diction, embedded Victorian mindsets that opposed Native American rebellion, or those could actually be the genuine words of the wizened chief--the chances of that are slim.  Unfortunately, while it's absolutely possible that whites may have added or altered the speech in its entirety, the Native Americans of that time period were "eager to claim, use, and translate" whatever might've improved their image (University of Washington).

The Obscurity of Chief Seattle's Speech

As the Native Americans were pushed further westward by the United States in the mid-1800s, violence and bloodshed resulted.  In many cases, Native American federacies were unwilling to give up the land their ancestors nursed for thousands of years, and nor were the Americans willing to allow them to keep it; however, in special cases, there was room for negotiation--unfair negotiation for the indigenous populations, might I add.  One of these 'negotiations' can be exemplified in Chief Seattle's famous speech about the values of the 'red people,' and what they should do in terms of dealing with the adversity they faced.

Seattle's speech, however, can't necessarily be considered an accurate historical source.  In 1887, Dr. Henry Smith published the speech in the Seattle Sunday Star, thirty years after the said speech was orated.  Smith claimed that he was actually a witness to the great Red Chief's speech and that he took detalied notes; however, that in itself is a weak argument.  What if the speech was given in another language that he couldn't understand?  Was it translated several times if it was delivered in a foreign language?  And seriously, do you honestly expect that Smith's memory would be on the spot after thirty years of the deliverance of the speech?  I don't.  There isn't even any historical record of the speech happening, much less any evidence as to whether Chief Seattle actually said all of the things Smith said he did.

Thus, the speech is considered literature rather than a factual basis.  Yes, it provides a wealth of information on the ideals Chief Seattle's people held.  No, I don't think it was entirely true to the wizened man's actual words of wisdom.  I think his words were altered--perhaps beautified?--in order to fit some of the late Victorian mindsets of the period.  Because, if you think about it, who writes the history?  The winners or the losers?

What do you think?

Check out the information here: http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Classroom%20Materials/Reading%20the%20Region/Texts%20by%20and%20about%20Natives/Commentary/5.html

Would Fish Be Considered Wildlife? Our Environmental History Tells Us No

A lot of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans are extremely valuable commercially.  Because of that, thousands of fisheries flock out to the coasts in search of abundant fish species which they can harvest.  Of course that leads to overfishing, which in turn leads to the depletion of said fish species.  But due to them being non-popular in the public's eye, fish weren't considered 'wildlife' until 1958, two years after the publication of Peter Matthiessen's Wildlife.  This was mostly due to physical appeal, as most mammals and birds appear more majestic to us than catfish or salmon.

I can't help but think that fish aren't really wildlife because of the way we treat them.  We don't like a lot of fish for their appearance, scientific significance, or intelligence; we really only consider their economic, commercial, and recreational worth.

The dictionary definition of 'wildlife' is: "undomesticated animals living in the wild, including those hunted for food, sport, or profit."  


By definition, and from an ethical standpoint, I'd say absolutely no: fish aren't really wildlife at all.  Fish farms are popular nowadays,  so wouldn't they be considered domesticated animals?  However, they are hunted for food, sport, and profit, so it's hard to say.


Are fish considered a part of wildlife?  Maybe not.


What do you think?


Check out the article here: Are Fish Wildlife?

Ocean Acidification and Marine Biodiversity

Ocean Acidification is quite the dastardly process.  It can change the entire workings of a maritime ecosystem, such as affecting the productivity of organisms and abundance of said organisms.  As carbon dioxide amasses in the atmosphere, ocean acidification is at an all-time high, and as a result, marine biodiversity is at risk.  There are organisms that actually benefit from this increase in water acidity, and there are those that do not; the "losers" will be overwhelmed by the "winners," and will be threatened to extinction.

It's important to realize that ocean acidification also affects the economic services given to society by these marine ecosystems.  If those ecosystems are destroyed or altered greatly, it could greatly affect the millions of people worldwide who depend on the ocean for most of their income.  In my opinion, slowing down ocean acidification rests in the impact of our carbon footprint.  Will we continue to ruin this planet, and thus ourselves, or will we learn to exercise constraint?

Hitchhiker Snails and their Importance to the History of Life

One wouldn't think that snails are all that important.  They're slimy, slow, and are really only noticed by people because of the rather distinct shells they carry on their backs.  Until a few days ago, I didn't know snails could fly.  At least, I didn't know they had their own way to achieve flight.  Apparently there are snails called Hitchhiker Snails that attach themselves to migratory birds.  With those birds, they cross over large amounts of land, even oceans (the Atlantic and Pacific).  There's evidence that they've done this twice in the past two million years, and as a result, they've aided the spread of good genes to native populations of snails.

I just thought that this was a very interesting little subject.  Snails, flying across oceans?  That's certainly something worth talking about.

Check out this website if you want to learn more!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/stri-hsf091411.php