The Pink Flamingo

It's pink, it's bright, and it's very hard to miss.  The plastic pink flamingo, which came into the market in the 1950's, became an instant hit and a popular lawn accessory.  In Jennifer Price's essay, "The Plastic Pink Flamingo:  A Natural History," Price satirizes the wild popularity of these souvenirs as a symbol of American wealth and greed.  She uses these flamingos to show that Americans were greedy with their newly obtained affluence in the post-war era of the 1950's.  

With World War II coming to an end, American entered a new period of affluence, in which the entire society was driven by rampant consumerism.  People would buy things that they would not even need, "just because."  Price correctly symbolizes the plastic pink flamingo to this behavior.  The pink flamingo is, "synonymous with wealth and pizzazz" (7-8).  People began buying things such as, "washing machines, cars, and kitchen counters," all of which were, "proliferated in passion pink, sunset pink, and Bermuda pink" (41-43). Price uses the color pink to show the overzealous display of wealth that was characteristic of Americans in this era and to mock it.  She also uses a sarcastic and mocking tone throughout the essay to show her disapproval of this behavior.

This display of wealth is still present today.  Although it is true that most people do not have pink flamingos in their lawn, people who wear designer clothes are the prime example of people's need to display their wealth.  It isn't hard to see someone walking around with Aeropastale or Hollister clothing.  These company's t-shirts are not that special, except for the fact that the company's name is written on the front of them; however, these t-shirts are almost 3 times the price of a normal t-shirt.  Why buy the designer one? I never understood this.  I myself, a proud Indian, always look for the best deal, going to Kohl's, armed with my 30 percent discount coupons, and I am always headed toward the clearance section.  Okay, that might be an exaggeration, but the point is, why buy a t-shirt for 30 dollars, when you can buy the same thing for a much cheaper price?  It is to display one's own wealth.  It is human nature to want to be above your peers, and one way would be buying more expensive clothing and showing it off, whether it is an expensive Rolex, or a t-shirt with some extra print on the front.

CAUTION

As humans, we sometimes get easily excited and forget to take precautions.  Let's be honest, how many people actually read the safety precautions on anything they buy:  food, mouthwash, ect.  In fact, most of the times, the list of safety precautions is in small text in a discreet location.  For example, when playing Wii, the safety notice that is displayed before every game is often a nuisance is a single screen that most simply get annoyed at.  However, it has shown time and time again that when it comes to scientific discovery and exploration, a necessary caution level of caution, or as Raymo describes it, a measure of restraint, must be considered as we move forward in our technologically explosive world.

In Raymo's essay, "A Measure of Restraint," Raymo discusses various times that humans have been careless in their excitement over new discovers.  For example, Raymo discusses the Curie's and their discovery of Radium.  When they first discovered it, there was a sudden "radium craze," and thousands of people ignorantly used the radium in the most dangerous ways they could, without even knowing!  The harmful effects of this radioactive substance on humans can cause death as well as cancer.  Even the famous woman who discovered it, Marie Curie, suffered with, "radiation-induced leukemia, with cataracts on her eyes and her fingertips marked by sores that would not heal" (214).  Had someone taken the time to measure the risks that this substance had, it might not have been used so recklessly.  In light of this, Raymo points out the need for restraint in the pursuit of knowledge and scientific discovery.

At first, I completely disagreed with his argument.  I believe that, without any restraints, scientific discovers that have revolutionized the world we live in might not have happened.  However, then I began to realize that exploration in science does not have to be restrained:  the products of scientific research and exploration are what need to be carefully examined and researched before they should be used on a large scale.  Had this happened with the famous radium, many lives could have been saved.  

Moving

The pioneers, cowboys, and the explorers were and still are considered the heroes of America.  To constantly move and discover new places is an ideal situation that many wish to be in.  However, in Sander's essay, "Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World," Sanders counters the positive views of Rushdie on moving, and affirms his position that people who stay put care for their community and the environment that surrounds them.  

Throughout his essay, Sanders using a mocking and almost condescending tone towards Rushdie's view.  Through words to make travelers seem barbaric.  He also lists several examples in which travelers and explorers devastated the environment in which they moved to.  For example, he points out the effects of the Spanish explorers on the Native Americans.  He shows that the Spanish conquistadors brought smallpox and nearly killed all of the Natives, which cared and tended the land.  Further, he mocks Rushdie by incorporating Rushdie's style into his own work.  Through all this mockery, Sanders clearly makes his view the stronger:  that those who do not move care more for the environment they live in, and they are not reckless and harmful like the explorers of the past.

I agree with Sanders:  By remaining in one place, people can protect and improve the places around them and help enhance the community that they live in.  People who constantly move do not feel the same sense of protectiveness over the land they live as compared to someone who has lived there for 20 years.  Its this sense of protectiveness that can become a positive force in any community.

Stereotyping: A  New Outlook

  As I have stated in many blog posts ago, it is wrong to judge someone solely on the way they look, for underneath, they may be a good person that could make a great friend.  However, after reading Bryan Staples, "Black Men and Public Space," I believe that in some cases, stereotyping is the safer than sorry approach to seeing strangers on the street.

  In "Black Men and Public Space," Bryant discusses the multiple instances where he has caused a change in other people's behaviors when walking down the street.  A black, tall looking man, Staples certainly bring out an intimidating appearance; however, he discusses the injustice he must face and how he himself must cope with other people's stressful reactions toward him in order to avoid possibly dangerous confrontations. Unfortunately, I must side with the people and not Staples in this incident.  In a perfect world, such behavior as running away from someone due to their appearance would be unheard of; however, in the dangerous society we do live in, it is better to take caution around those who could possibly pose a threat than to take a risk with your own safety.  Although it may offend the intimidating person (in this case Staples), your own safety outweighs the potential of offending someone.  As Staples even concedes, "Women are particularly vulnerable to street violence, and young black males are drastically overrepresented among the perpetrators of that violence" (206).  If this were not the case, then there would no need to fear an intimidating large man walking on the street at night.  Unfortunately, this is not the case.