To conclude this short episode, here are some “hot takes” on political apathy. Respondents in this heavily flawed and biased survey were the first three friends that I was next to. When asked, “what are your thoughts on political apathy?”, here are the answers:

“Empathy as an emotion requires that we care about the things occurring around us. Given the amount of human suffering experienced in plain view every day of our lives, empathy must be applied selectively. I care about things like elections and foreign policy, but to care about every single issue at every single moment will sap you of any ability to meaningfully affect these issues. Selective apathy allows us to focus on the things we can change and not burn out from the horrible shit that happens daily.” -David

This first take is from my friend David, and I’d like to thank him for choosing to not be anonymous for this blog post to prove that I actually asked people. He is heavily engaged in politics and enjoys observing gerrymandered maps and studying past elections in the United States. I think this is an interesting perspective, especially when stating that “selective apathy” may be a preferred route than an extremist point of view. I like the juxtaposition between “empathy and apathy” included here. David’s quote conveys the idea of realism in our modern society instead of an idealistic or cynical take on this touchy subject. I agree that an all-or-nothing mindset may not be appropriate for a political perspective, but I unfortunately am a massive zealot. 

The second friend I asked preferred to remain anonymous, so they will be channeled in spirit. They said, “I don’t know what it is.” -Anonymous Ocelot. Here, “it” refers to the term political apathy. I would like to clarify that I didn’t give any context when my friends were briefed with “thoughts on political apathy” because I wanted an honest and unbiased response. This Anonymous Ocelot has an interesting perspective. They, like myself, seem removed from the political world, and I respect that. I empathize (ironically) with this and I like how they are freely open to admit that they have no clue what’s going on. I don’t either. The Anonymous Ocelot embodies all of us that do feel apathetic about politics and I’d like to acknowledge that this is acceptable.

The final friend I asked gave me an unexpected answer, and I am very intrigued by their quote. “Political apathy is the product of privilege.” -Anonymous Gopher. This statement is powerful and concise, and I can tell that they feel strongly without being overbearing. I wouldn’t have guessed that they would have said this, so I was entertained by the nice variety of perspectives I was given. They evoke the idea that people shouldn’t be apathetic towards political ideas and should participate. This fresh take is something I may slightly disagree with, but I respect their opinion and I was curious to hear this.

I feel like the only political engagement I have done was registered to vote, and even that took me a while to do. I would like to offer some nice solutions to possibly find a cure to apathy and inspire myself, and others.

One solution that already has an impact is opening methods of voting. According to Npr.org, “If early voting trends are any indication, a record number of Americans could vote in the 2020 presidential election. As of this writing, more than 100 million early votes have been cast by mail or in person – more than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast in 2016.” In theory, I think this idea would work, but in practice, I am a bit sus. This is an interesting solution, especially in pandemic times, but I do feel like it is heavily flawed. I don’t know how much data there is for past elections, so that would be something that would be interesting to look into.

Another solution involves making a bigger deal out of voting. As stated on History.com, “Today, there are renewed calls to make election day more festive—or at least a national holiday on which more people can exercise their civic duty and vote. “Declaring Election Day a federal holiday and rekindling the celebratory spirit that marked the day in previous centuries would be an important step toward promoting democratic participation,” writes historian Holly Jackson for the Washington Post” (Blakemore). This quote pertains to voting in the past, as mentioned in my first civic issue blog. I don’t know why people stopped celebrating this event, but maybe that has influenced possible patterns of apathy.

Additionally, “The idea has been proven successful: In 2007, political scientists were able to use election-day celebrations to drive voter turnout. Election Day may never again be soaked in rum and filled with brawling, drunken parades, but Jackson and others argue that revisiting some elements of colonial election day traditions could boost voter turnout” (Blakemore). Rooting back to the aforementioned quote, why have the parties vanished? I feel like this would be a fun analysis to consider. Although I heavily critiqued colonial politics and historical methods, I can say that this strategy worked.

Further research would be required to follow up on this issue, but I have not been cured of my political apathy, which is somewhat hindering me from pursuing more information. The Anonymous Gopher has just notified me that another solution could be to increase awareness and education about the importance of democracy, how to get involved in politics, and other methods of civic engagement. In contrast, David has voiced his agreement with the Anonymous Gopher and has suggested that people pace themselves and to not doom themselves with problems that they can’t fix or are too big for them to handle.

Sometimes, it is acceptable to simply not care, but it should be noted that starting friendly debates is entertaining.

Reference: 

https://www.history.com/news/colonial-america-election-day-parties 

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/645223716/on-the-sidelines-of-democracy-exploring-why-so-many-americans-dont-vote 

While I have instilled the idea that I feel apathetic towards politics, I thought it would be important to include some current information and get out from last week’s blast from the past. This post will focus on a more statistical review of apathy instead of statements from myself critiquing archaic ways.

Taking a look at some more recent statistics from the Pew Research Center, “The 55.7% VAP turnout in 2016 puts the U.S. behind most of its peers in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, most of whose members are highly developed democratic states. Looking at the most recent nationwide election in each OECD nation, the U.S. places 30th out of 35 nations for which data is available” (DeSilver). For a country with over 338 million people, 55.7% isn’t very representative, especially when considering that this statistic is decreasing as the population is growing. 30 out of 35 is shocking for the United States, who usually is a front runner for everything: from an original capitalist nation to a leader in obesity rates.

Npr.org reports that, “In the highly competitive 2016 presidential election, voter turnout ranged from 42 percent to 74 percent depending on the state, averaging 59 percent nationwide. Battleground states experienced higher turnout, on average.” But why focus on the 2016 election? Well, I couldn’t vote, but I thought it would cause mass uproar. It clearly did diminish political apathy, but not in a useful way whatsoever. Media was crazed and once again blown out of proportion, but the memes made during this time are still pretty funny though.

Now, it’s important to highlight what the cause of this issue is. It’s not like I can control it, but I have a newfound curiosity as to why all this is happening.

Here’s one reason: Americans don’t feel represented. When politicians pull crazy stunts and have so many scandals, why would people want to replace them with someone who could be potentially worse? I feel like this has happened and no one has done anything to rectify this never-ending cycle. This certainly deters me, since politics shouldn’t be considered picking between “the lesser of two evils.” Npr.org quotes Megan Davis of Rhode Island, who said, “I feel like my voice doesn’t matter…People who suck still are in office, so it doesn’t make a difference.” I would agree with Davis here, though I find her language and choice of words amusing. 

My second piece of evidence lies with voting barriers placed. The reason why people aren’t voting is because they can’t. “In 2016, 4 percent of registered voters did not vote because of “registration problems,” according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. Many would-be voters face a range of barriers: voter ID laws, registration difficulty or criminal records. An estimated 10 percent of adults in Florida, for example, can’t vote because of a felony conviction” (Npr.org). Now, this isn’t the blog to discuss legal standards relating to criminal records, but it’s important to acknowledge that this factor is why numbers are decreasing. This physical barrier is often forgotten and bars Americans from voting, which may or may not tip political scales in an election. 

A third reason that explains apathy can be ignorance. This mainly applies to younger generations who simply lack political interests or haven’t been exposed yet. Older generations are the main voters, and when their votes may seem to outnumber others, it can be concerning. According to npr.org, 74% of nonvoters are aged 18-29, with those aged 30-39 following close behind. Now, for my two readers, 74% is pretty high, and I’d like for you to consider people you think may fall in this range because they don’t know enough information about modern politics (I am one of them). To add on to this, “‘Whenever young people are surveyed, there is a significant lack of knowledge about how exactly the government works, and, therefore, how their vote actually matters,’ said Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, the director of CIRCLE, an initiative at Tufts University that studies youth civic and political participation. She recently conducted a survey of working-class youth, and found that nearly 20 percent of young people said they don’t think they know enough to be able to vote” (Npr.org). Kawashima’s research, as reported in the same article, “has found that a majority of young people don’t think voting is an effective way to change society. They also have major misconceptions about voting. Some think getting a citation for driving under the influence meant they could no longer vote” (Npr.org).

But now, let’s discuss some facts from another big kahuna of presidential elections: the 2020 Election.

“The 2020 presidential election had the highest voter turnout of the 21st century, with 66.8% of citizens 18 years and older voting in the election” (United States Census Bureau). This is an uptick in voting from the previous 55.7%, and an 11.1% jump seems pretty substantial when the United States has millions of voters. But what caused this revival? Could it have something to do with the occurring pandemic? Apparently not! The United States Census Bureau claims that, “Despite COVID-19 concerns, 155 million people turned out for the 2020 presidential election.  However, 4% (552,500) of registered nonvoters reported not voting due to their concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Outrightly, the United States Census Bureau states that, “The most common reason for not voting among registered nonvoters was they were not interested in the election (17.6%). Other reasons included not liking the candidates or campaign issues, being too busy and forgetting to vote.” But this still brings us back to our question and the root of this discussion; why are people not interested in elections? Now that there’s been a general timeline of voting and political expression, in the next blog, I’ll try to include some interesting takes from our classmates as to why they choose to express political opinions or lack thereof. 

Sometimes, it is acceptable to simply not care, but it’s still fun to look at all the sides.

References: 

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/645223716/on-the-sidelines-of-democracy-exploring-why-so-many-americans-dont-vote 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/03/in-past-elections-u-s-trailed-most-developed-countries-in-voter-turnout/

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html

The year is 2022, and to say that American politics are quite messy would encapsulate the government pretty well. In the media, this matter has somewhat seemed to blow out of proportion and clear sides are being taken to ensure that advocacy is a priority. Between insults flying across different mediums to poorly-timed blatant immaturity, being political has taken the average American citizen’s life by storm. It should be honored that Americans have the right to express their political views and exercise natural rights; however, there is nothing more ironic than passionately arguing in favor of the inherent political apathy faced by the United States. I, personally, don’t follow politics closely, and I want to share that no one should be forced to express opinions regarding something they don’t care about.

I want to preface that this is more of an op-ed and mostly my opinion, with a good mixture of some research. Enjoy this nice rant. Here is a quick overview of the evolution of politics and why I don’t care to be an active political voice.

But before the real history of this matter can be unloaded, it’s imperative to consider the definition of political apathy, or simply apathy at its finest. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines apathy as, “the feeling of not having much emotion or interest : an apathetic state.” So, political apathy can be simplified as lacking an interest in politics. I embody this. I’ve also noticed that voter apathy tips the scales of losing democracy or promoting anarchy, which will probably be discussed from a modern perspective in the next blog.

But where did political apathy come from and why did it resonate within the United States? Why is it important to analyze past political flops? I’ll try to get through this with my sequence of Civic Issue Blogs.

Before the Pilgrims arrived, voting played a critical role in the Native Americans’ society. “For example, the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, a powerful alliance of Native American tribes who inhabited territory west of the Colonies, had established a system of representative government sometime around 1500 that lasted until the Revolutionary War” (Constitutional Rights Foundation). Voting seemed to be a unifying factor and provided a proto-government before formal democracy was established. “Clan Mothers,” the female elders, were able to elect Chiefs, known as the predominant male speakers and “all representatives elected to serve in the Council, however, were men” (Constitutional Rights Foundation), a seemingly evident trend through history… 

Moving to colonial America, political opinions were everywhere; all socioeconomic classes knew that this was their opportunity to make a change. While still a victim of imperialism, the colonies were permitted to choose their local leaders that would report back to England. This began to follow more closely to our modern government versus quid pro quo exchanges in Iroquois society.

According to History.com, colonial celebrations ran wild, and “candidates and their supporters rented out taverns and held huge, boozy parties” (Blakemore).  It was reported that even George Washington himself “plied potential voters with 47 gallons of beer, 35 gallons of wine, 2 gallons of cider, 3 1/2 pints of brandy and a whopping 70 gallons of rum punch” (Blakemore). To continue the festivities, special “election cakes” were served and parades were customary. Elections were unifying, even to those that identified with different political parties. Back in the 17th century, elections seemed like a party, which is crazy to think about. Why don’t we really do that now?

But this still isn’t the birth of politics in the colonies; the first assembly of the House of Burgesses in 1619 was the first elected legislative assembly in America that actually seemed to care. Times seemed pretty tricky with the strict reign of King George III, but do modern politics now seem more boring than the vicious split between the patriots and the loyalists?

Back then, voting seemed fun, which brings me back to my point as to why apathy has grown.

My first reason would be that elections are violent, and people don’t want to deal with that. For example, “In 1742, for example, a scuffle in Philadelphia escalated into an outright riot. Quaker politicians had long dominated the city’s political scene, but a growing group of Anglican politicians threatened their dominance in city government. Amidst rumors that the Quakers had recruited unnaturalized Germans to vote for them, a group of rowdy, pro-Anglican sailors descended on the courthouse. Violence ensued, and the fiasco became known as the city’s “Bloody Election” (Blakemore). Politics can be dangerous, so I’m not sure why someone would want to throw themselves into the gasoline fire. Elections seem pretty volatile nowadays too.

My second reason involves voting. There are still stigmas and biases that alter voting standards, so I don’t understand why people want to participate in a flawed system. According to History.com, Colonists didn’t have as much leeway to choose their elected officials as U.S. citizens do today. But those who could vote—wealthy, landholding Protestant men, for the most part” (Blakemore). In addition, the men, and only the white rich men, were the ones that could run for office, leading to its own prejudice. That would certainly deter me. In the 20th century, and perhaps the 21st century, certain groups still face the wrath of others and may seem somewhat at a disadvantage

My third reason sort of feeds off of the previous, but it follows gerrymandering. I know this is a bigger problem now than it probably was in the past, but I don’t want my vote and opinion to be muddled down by a terribly drawn district map. According to History.com, “Rather, men would travel from near and far to participate in voice votes affirming candidates for town and city governments, colonial legislatures and, in some colonies, governors” (Blakemore). While this isn’t traditional gerrymandering, by flocking to local poles, voters from specific areas may have had their voices drowned out. This seems to be more of an issue with drawing maps in today’s society, but I think I’ll save information on this for a later blog.

I’m sure I’ll think of some more reasons as to why I’m deterred from politics, but I realized that I don’t really understand that much political jargon. For upcoming posts, I’ll try to account for the opposing argument as to why we should care about apathy to see how American politics have changed over time.

Sometimes, it is acceptable to simply not care about politics, but perhaps more so the history behind it all. Maybe this will spark a newfound passion within myself.

References: 

https://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/voting-and-elections-in-early-america

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apathy

https://www.history.com/news/colonial-america-election-day-parties 

In the podcast, “Achieving Democracy’s Ideals,” featuring Danielle Allen, the idea that America’s current democracy has failed to promote equality can be analyzed through the trust lens. The introductory speakers, from the McCourtney Institute of Democracy, claim that there is a current “crisis” faced in modern democracy; by speaking as figures from an established organization from The Pennsylvania State University, there is an appeal to ethos that builds credibility and suggests the severity and magnitude of this issue. The problem in question is then compared to the Manhattan Project, in which this allusion portrays the delicacy and difficulty of evaluating the racial inequality bolstered by the United States’ democracy. By comparing democracy to nuclear war in the 20th century, it is clear that this topic is extremely volatile and is heavily debated.

To enhance the appeal to ethos and provide stronger evidence for this inherent bias, Danielle Allen is included in this discussion. Allen is an expert regarding American democracy and is a reliable source, since she is “the James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University and Director of Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics” and the “leader and spokesperson for Our Common Purpose from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and Educating for American Democracy” (The McCourtney Institute for Democracy).

In this podcast, Allen focuses on the inequality faced within the education system, suffrage patterns, and freedom of speech. From socioeconomic bias, to women’s suffrage, to hearing the voices of varying ethnic and religious groups, Allen advocates for an increased awareness to abolish the certain niches that fuel the bureaucracy. By overviewing the previous discrimination against certain groups and critiquing the flaws of the United States government’s underrepresentation, Allen appeals to logos. Next, the idea of a “polarized” democracy is proposed, in which Allen continues rationalizing that the United States has a fractured political system. By establishing American politics on a “spectrum,” Allen incorporates analogies and concrete examples to call for logical thinking regarding this matter.

The second half of the podcast later focuses on the Constitutional Convention from the 18th century. Allen discusses the harsh contrast between modern and colonial politics, which shows a sudden digression over time. While it had taken the Founding Fathers approximately a decade to establish a written set of laws and assign possible roles and rules, modern democratic processes rush while considering serious matters. This portion of the dialogue makes listeners reconsider the ways democracy has changed over time and the latent flaws of the system. Ultimately, this culminates into an appeal to pathos, since listeners are inspired by the patriots during the American Revolution and are motivated to initiate reforms. 

Overall, Allen incorporates the trust lens to further her claim that the United States’ democracy is in desperate need of revision to create a more representative and tolerant nation. It is clear that The McCourtney Institute of Democracy’s call-to-action conveys the seriousness of this problem and that it should be resolved as soon as possible.

I attended the Redistricting event held by classmates last month and here are visuals showing my attendance and submission of the map for credit:

yo.\ Here is a nice little critique of my Ted Talk.  I am slightly disappointed with the way it came out, but I am hoping it maintains as an informative and entertaining video. However, I wish I had more time to further expand on some of my topics, but I think I spoke to a decent degree. The lighting was also a bit weird and I wish this was in-person.  Overall, the hype for this video trumps any of the nit-picky comments I could make and I’m looking forward to writing an even better paper.  I’m excited to hear some feedback and your thoughts!

I am honestly at a loss for possible documentary topics. I’m thinking of “is water wet?”, “is genetic engineering ethical?”, “should college athletes be paid?”, “should we raise/lower voting age?”, “are we living in a dystopian society?”, “what came first, the chicken or the egg?”, “should there be public healthcare?”, “should the military use drones?”, “is a college degree necessary to get a job/be successful?”, “should college be free for everyone?”. Send help.

Hey here are the rough drafts of my slides:

Examples of fantasy literature

Creator of the ogre and real life examples

Orc :/

Shrek (not scary)

Friendly ogre

Works cited page

How can one illustrate the perception of ogres throughout history?

I plan to explain the evolution of mythical creatures/monster archetypes throughout literature and film, and then focus mainly on ogres.  I will then explain the ogre’s origin/definition and famous works picturing the ogre over the years and its influence (will be split into old literature and films from 20th Century and current works from the 21st Century).  I hope to juxtapose the symbolism behind the ogre and how they’ve been more humanized over the years. In contrast, I also have some statistics about the popularity of mythical creatures (ogres) and I want to document this through book and movie ticket sales. Additionally, I also have mixed reviews cited about the Shrek movies to show conflicting beliefs in modern society.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ogre

^will be used for the history of ogres

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/130848?redirectedFrom=ogre#eid

^definition of an ogre

https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=72fdcb0b-5add-4468-9297-d695864b048a%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=134482281&db=a9h

^this link doesn’t work at the moment but it also discusses more about mythical creatures/archetypes and examples (database)

https://go.gale.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hitCount=12371&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CCX3424502106&docType=Topic+overview&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=GVRL&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CCX3424502106&searchId=R1&userGroupName=psucic&inPS=true

^this link doesn’t work at the moment but it also discusses more about mythical creatures/archetypes and examples (database)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shrek

^shrek movie review to show it’s highly rated reviews

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/may/17/shrek-20-unfunny-overrated-low-blockbuster

^this actually critiques shrek

https://www.dreamworks.com/movies/shrek

^shrek movies listed (since Dreamworks made more than one film, that’s got to mean something)

Beowulf epic poem

^I think Grendel is an evil ogre, which shows that older literature pictures ogres as monsters

 https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt4cgpqc

^The Japanese Oni were seen as ogres/cannibals, but then they shifted into the idea of protectors (I also saw this in Teen Wolf lol)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/376778?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

^I think this one is more about mythical creatures and archetypes

https://www.nypl.org/blog/2020/05/18/hallmarks-fantasy-brief-history-fantasy

^History of fantasy literature genre

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244018780946

^Statistics on fantasy genre popularity

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamrowe1/2018/06/19/science-fiction-and-fantasy-book-sales-have-doubled-since-2010/?sh=2d51636c2edf

^Popularity of fantasy genre sales (facts)

Wish me luck to see if I can pull this all together!

Inside the mind of a master procrastinator

This Ted Talk is by far one of the best. I find it slightly ironic that I chose this video because I am not a major procrastinator; however, this Ted Talk is superior on several other levels.

One of my favorite parts of this Ted Talk is Tim Urban’s eloquence and charisma. I think he was so well spoken while maintaining a level of informality through analogies and colloquial phrases. His facial expressions, cadence, and change in pitch and tone was captivating, and I aspire to be able to command a room like that one day. His conversational delivery was easy to follow and made sense to the lay person.

Tim Urban is incredibly relatable in this sense as well. His anecdote about his 90 page thesis reminds me of my own thesis that I’ll have to write before I graduate, which I appreciated.  With a mixture of light-hearted humor with the metaphorical “gratification monkey” and the haunting “panic monster,” Urban engages the audience by appealing to pathos and including comedy. I also find it funny that he procrastinated his Ted Talk speech as well, this sort of comes full-circle.

Anyways, here is the brainstorming for blogs:

This paper will be written on the shift of the perception of ogres throughout history. Yes, you’ve guessed it, it’s a Shrek paper.  I will need to find sources but I have the general outline:

*Intro*

Body 1: A history of fantastical creatures and their perception

Body 2: The origin of the ogre

Body 3: More on the Medieval Ages

Body 4: Ogre symbolism/Monster archetype and famous heroes that have fought against these creatures

Body 5: Current ogre culture (LOTR, Shrek!) as seen though film, literature, videogames, etc.

Body 6: The new perception of ogres and how it has changed from hatred to love <3

*Conclusion*

Here is a reflection on the Unit 1 Civic Artifact Speech:

I believe that I spoke clearly and with conviction, while still showing emotion and attempting to be conversational.  While I wish I spent more time revising my notes and not reading off the paper, I think that I did a solid job of creating a concise analysis, but we’ll see.  For the next time, I want to spend more time workshopping my speech and making it even more conversational.  I wish we had more time to talk in order to incorporate more in-depth analysis, and I also wish I was able to include more puns.  I appreciate the feedback from you guys, so thank you for your kind words and constructive criticism!

I’d also like to say that my group mates did a fantastic job on their speeches as well.  All three of you spoke clearly and incorporated a strong analysis, so good job!  I thought it was pretty cool that we all chose historical rhetoric pieces to use.