Haiti: I Promise It's Pretty

Haiti is often thought of as a sad country of extreme poverty and buildings so destroyed they've become inhabitable. While these issues are real and important, that's not all that Haiti has to offer. Paola Mathé, a native Haitian, uses her Instagram account, @findingpaola, to reshape the way Americans view the beautiful country. (A great, positive way to use social media!) In her words, "I have the opportunity and the voice to show what Haiti is also about. It's not just about extreme poverty, which we're also trying to fight and help -- but at the same time, it's a beautiful place." 

Americans truly view Haiti as a horrible place, a country they never want to go to. In an article from Gadling, Port Au Prince (Haiti's capital) was ranked #3 on a list of the "Top 10 Places You Do Not Want to Visit in 2012." #3! The author states that "It is the kind of place where relief workers are swallowed whole by the earth." This doesn't make me want to go down there and help, which is exactly what we as Americans should have been doing in the months and years following the 2010 earthquake. Maybe if more Americans had gone to Haiti to help, it wouldn't have been on this list. 

Haiti has seen so many recent devastations to its land, government, economy, etc., and has made such a strong recovery in recent years, yet outsiders still view the country with such a negative outlook. Perhaps we should look at things a little differently: The 2010 earthquake in Port Au Prince killed 300,000, left 3 million without homes, food, or water, and destroyed 30% of the affected area's capital. 13 billion dollars in damage! Since the disaster, 97% of the rubble has been remover. Additionally, Haiti has seen a recent growth in GDP, a reduction in cholera cases, and the addition of many more health centers across the country. So why do we still view the country as a bad place to vacation? 

I've been to Haiti twice- in the mountains of Kenscoff and Lamardelle, and to the capital, and I promise it's a nice place. The way we view the country needs to change.

A personal photo: Kenscoff, Haiti

The American Dream: Money

The American Dream: nice car, big house, brand-name clothes and shoes, exotic vacations. Why not simply being able to live comfortably, happily, being satisfied with what you have?  

Money and happiness have a clear, evident relationship. Economist Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan has concluded from his studies that "Wealthier people are happier than poor people. Wealthier countries are happier than poor countries." In my opinion, this issue is much more complicated than researchers make it seem. 

What Americans don't realize is that there is an end to the connection between money and happiness. Research from psychologists and economists have found that "the psychological benefits of wealth seem to stop accruing once people reach an income of about $75,000 a year." Once one is able to

meet the standards of living, at about $75,000 a year, the relationship between money and happiness levels out. This is true today, even with the rise in the cost of living. As you can see on the graph, the curve levels out at $75,000. More money only means more happiness until one is able to live comfortably, and then more money doesn't make a significant impact on that person's level of happiness. 

Money vs. Happiness

The fact that we equate money with happiness reflects our views as a society. America is a "live to work" society as opposed to a "work to live" society. This simply means that Americans in general revolve their lives around their job, and not everything else there is to enjoy in life. If the relationship between money and happiness does have a clear end, why can't one be happy living an average, stable life with just enough money? In reality, money only buys happiness to a certain extent. So why do Americans obsess over it?

Review: "Native Son" at Court Theatre

In his adaptation of the popular 20th century book Native Son, Nambi E. Kelley showed the true colors of American history (black? white?) as well as keeping the story contemporary, a statement as to how little has truly changed. For me, the most interesting choice the director made was to cast two actors as Bigger Thomas: one to show what he actually says and does, and the other to show what Bigger Thomas is truly thinking. This choice gave the audience the sense that Bigger (and all other people of color at the time?) is defined not by his own choices or actions, but what is expected and allowed of him.

Throughout the production "Bigger's conscience" follows "Real-Life Bigger," echoing how Bigger reacts to situations on the inside. The latter Bigger is more polite and reserved- acting how the white characters want him to- while "Bigger's conscience" yells and becomes angry at white people easily.

"The Two Biggers"

This brilliant choice by the director truly shows the timeless racial divide in America and the relationships between black and white. Plus, the two actors playing Bigger Thomas had such an apparent and strong on-stage connection that this was believable and truly gave the production a deeper meaning.

A Melting Pot of Racial Issues

Last week, popular TV actress Raven Symone stated in an Oprah interview that "I'm not African-American." These four words struck a nerve with the black community in the United States, and immediately after the interview aired controversy began to surface on the internet. But should it have? Raven Symone never said she wasn't black; she isn't denying her race to herself or to anyone else. The actress is simply concerned with the labels we are putting on Americans, which is exactly what she wants to be called. Raven Symone recognizes the importance of the labels we put on people because of their physical appearances. People assume that because she has dark skin, Raven Symone is "African-American." Without knowing it, she has brought up an interesting and complicated topic- how we as Americans view racial identity.

A recent study showed that over 6% of people check a different race (than their own) on surveys.  

But why? Why would one want to be seen as something they are not? Perhaps this is an issue of self-indentity. Many Americans feel that there are certain benefits that come from being part of a certain racial or ethnic group, and may want to associate themselves with the societal privileges that come with being white in the United States.  It seems to me that whites sit at at the very top of our society's hierarchy, benefiting from social, economic, and political privileges, that other races do not. This past month, the University of Chicago police were accused of racial profiling.  Doesn't America realize that there is something morally reprehensible about singling people out because of the color of their skin? 

This is a much larger and more complicated issue than the internet has made it out to be. Why can't we all simply view ourselves (and each other) as American? What can be done to fix this issue of self-identity, and why has this issue of racial identification become such a controversial and profound problem? If America wants to live up to its self-proclaimed "melting-pot" status, we need to stop putting the focus on race.

Raven Symone and Oprah Winfrey on The Oprah Show

Many Opinions, One Truth

In my last blog post, I discussed my opinion on Jennifer Cramblett suing Midwest Sperm Bank over a sperm mix-up that resulting in her becoming pregnant with a black man's child. In this post, my evidence was an article that I believe supports my opinions on the matter and portrayed Cramblett and her partner positively. However, while I was researching the topic, I found another article that I feel portrayed Cramblett and her partner as the "bad guys."

Which article is telling the truth? I suppose every article you look at will view the story differently and shed a different light on the facts. This is what we have to be careful about when reading about anything factual- history textbooks, articles on current events- facts are often left out, and the truth is often depicted in different ways depending on what you are reading. Some truths could be completely forgotten in one piece of literature yet focused on it another. It's like "The Stories We Tell," a documentary by Sarah Polley; the stories we tell are based on fact but full of opinion.

Mother Sues Over "Wrong" Sperm

Last week, Jennifer Cramblett sued Midwest Sperm Bank because of a mix-up that led Jennifer to become pregnant with the sperm of a black man, not the sperm donor that she and her partner had chosen as the biological father of their child. This law suit has caused immense controversy primarily because people assume that Cramblett and her partner are angered over the race of their daughter. In reality, however, the two mothers are suing the sperm bank- rightfully, in my opinion- simply because they were given the wrong sperm. This is understandable and justifiable for many reasons.

Cramblett and her partner are suing the sperm bank with the intentions of proving someone accountable for the mistake. Their attorney stated that "since the sperm bank is responsible for the mix-up, the bank should be held financially accountable." This is completely rational. The two

Jennifer Cramblett and daughter Payton

parents have the right to be upset, not because of the fact that their child is of a different race, but because they did not know. What if they had been given the sperm of someone with a genetic disorder? What if there were complications that Cramblett and her partner were unaware of? 

This lawsuit inevitably becomes an issue of race, but should it?