Cowboys V. Indians

Recently, our class had a reading assignment called Cowboys V. Mounties. In this article, the author, Sarah Vowell, compared American and Canadian cultures in regards to patriotism. The example she emphasized on was the contrast between the cowboys (the symbol of American culture) and the Mounties (the symbol of the Canadian culture).
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?

Cowboys V. Indians

Recently, our class had a reading assignment called Cowboys V. Mounties. In this article, the author, Sarah Vowell, compared American and Canadian cultures in regards to patriotism. The example she emphasized on was the contrast between the cowboys (the symbol of American culture) and the Mounties (the symbol of the Canadian culture).
In Vowell’s article, she states the men of the U.S. army aren’t “nameless, faceless nobodies… they could join the army and still do their own thing.” On the other hand, Mounties are conformists. They “stick together and work as a team.” Vowell interviewed a Mountie, asking him what he thought about not being “cool” in America. Her definition of cool in this context was probably someone who bends or breaks the law because of their personal reasons (usually for the purpose of the “greater good”), someone who’s highly individualized. This assumption of her definition is made clearer in her next statement, “The Mounties have no dark side.” The Mountie responded, “There’s good and bad in everybody…”
I agree with Vowell, but I don’t agree with her definition of cool. Mounties and cowboys are completely different. It’s all due to the upbringing of both nations. America was founded by people with radical views. They wanted change and they wanted it fast. So they went for an all-out rebellion against government. Canada, inspecting this, probably decided to turn away from this approach because of all the blood shed. So they decided to slowly gain their independence. This could dictate why there’s more order and structure in their in Canada’s policing unit. There’s nothing to justify saying they’re not “cool”. In matter of fact, they should be “cool” because they obey authority, they don’t down trod on others, and they show respect towards all peoples regardless of color. Why don’t we call people like this cool?

What about Alex?

My blogosphere class has recently ventured off into the book Into the Wild. In the story, the main character, Chris McCandless, becomes a tramp. At the commencement of his journey, Chris McCandless changes his name to Alex Supertramp, probably in an effort to establish a new identity for himself. Alex’s goal was to go live in Alaska, however he was found dead about 20 days later in Alaska.
At the first glance of the story, Alex seems irrational and ignorant. He had a rich family. He was an incredible student. And he left it all; even his sister, the person most dear to him. Along his journey, he starved for days at a time and lost all methods of transportation. He had to resort to hitchhiking. When he begins his journey to Alaska, he was dreadfully ill-prepared. He only had a bag of rice, a machete, a gun that wasn’t powerful enough to take out ferocious creatures, and some other things. He didn’t even have the proper to survive in Alaska’s harsh weather. He had his reasons though.
As the story progresses, Alex makes more sense. Alex wanted to prove himself. For whom or what is unknown. That’s why he wanted to go into the “wild” with little to no resources. He cut off his family, because he didn’t want them to influence what he was planning by discouragement. At the end of the story, Alex’s journal said that he wished to go home. He was going to return to society. He finally got the “wild” out of his system. His methods were extreme, but he’s like every human being.
Everyone wants to reach that defining moment in their life in which they discover who they truly are. From his youth, Alex was expected to live up to great expectations, especially from his father. That’s why he chose to do what he did. He wanted to be free of all expectations and find himself.