Early 2000's and the Iraq War

      In the 2000's, the most influential presidents were Barrack Obama and George Bush, and they tackled with the same problem. They both were involved in the Iraq war. They know what it means to make mistakes in war and they know what it means to grasp victory. They've dealt with joyful weeping as well as mournful tears. A lot of pressure is put on them to choose wisely, and sometimes they really mess up. It's easy to accredit every failure and success of war to the presidents in charge at the time. At the same time, maybe we give them a little bit too much credit for the events that transpire.
      War is confusing. Good intentions can end up killing thousands. Ideology clashes, and each side see's the other as some sort of monster. Sometimes brother fights against father, and cousin fights against aunt. The real question going through everyone's mind, though, is; who's the good guy? In perfect honesty, neither side is ever going to be purely good. Both sides are putting a value to human life, and neither value can ever be perfect. Further, war is not made up of only a couple opponents; it's made up of thousands. Each side consists of individuals. Some of those individuals may fight righteously, sparing civilians, but others will torture and mock. In the Iraq war, we Americans were shocked when we discovered the misdeeds of some of our soldiers. Some were reported to have hooked Iraqis up to electrical units and tortured them. We had determined ourselves to be the heroes, but in reality, American forces weren't pure as salt.

      One little seen consequence of war is the drastic effect it has on it's veterans. Veterans often come home psychologically compromised and with few options. Especially after the Iraq War, such veterans weren't treated nearly as they should have been. Many soldiers reported they were denied help from the government in order to get new education for work. Vets also have reported long waits for medical attention after getting home, sometimes up to six months. Besides these problems, vets had a hard time reconnecting with others and with a normal lifestyle. Not all vets experienced these difficulties; in fact, the majority of them thrived after coming home. But what about the ones who got left behind?  It's probably a sign the government needs to be more careful, but it might also just mean that life isn't always fair. Either way, these veterans felt and probably still do feel the injustice.

      The thing about the Iraq war that made it different, was that it wasn't a war fought for personal gain. In fact, we were fighting with Iraq for the rights of the people of Iraq. Why? We wanted to defend and uphold justice, and we believed that the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was hugely trespassing those ethics. In addition, we were defending ourselves from possible terrorism by Saddam Hussein. We fought the war to defend, virtue and people, but ironically we began the war, being thus offenders. The Iraq war shows how dynamic war can be in this respect and how defense doesn't always have to be fought on one's own territory. It also shows how sometimes, defense and offense are the same thing.

      Just like neither side of a war is ever 100% good, neither side of a war ever 100% wins. In the Iraq war, Americans lost thousands of soldiers and around 2 trillion dollars. In Iraq, terrorism increased, thousands of lives were lost, and leadership became chaotic once Saddam Hussein was off his throne. His debunkment may have been the only semi-good thing they got out of the war besides unseeable domino effects. Even though war sometimes accomplishes it's goal, the consequences of death and debt sober the victory.
      War has an annoying tendency to seem necessary yet to never seem quite justifiable. Sometimes when a war fails, we blame it's failure on whoever is at the head of things, but in reality, failure is a combined effort. In addition neither side of a war is usually extremely good or extremely bad, which can make things confusing. Soldiers coming home from war experience difficulties readjusting. Wars can be fought with the intention of defending another but end up attacking that other. Lastly, no matter what, neither side of any war is completely victorious. When it comes down to it, war isn't avoidable, but it always causes pain; that's because it's one of the consequences of sin in the world.      
         

 

21st Century Children

No longer the 20th century

      Some people think of the 21st century as an era of rebellion and decay. Other's consider it to be a positive turning point in history. It's hard to say which one it really is, though. While the availability of information has expanded and become much easier to access through the internet, the youth of the early 21st century has reacted to the plethora of accesability to one another in not so comforting ways. Right now, it's only the beginning of this century. Who knows where we'll be by the end. The speed of our growth in technology and of our decay in social interaction leaves hardly any clue to what lies ahead. 

      What defines the children of the 2000's? And by "children of the 2000's", I don't just mean children born in the 2000's. Primarily, I'm talking about kids who grew up then. That includes me, born in 1998 and technically a millennialist. I remember my childhood as being filled with days spent in our little yard playing with my siblings. In the summer, we rollicked around on the hill in our backyard, pretending we were horses or playing hide-and-go-seek-tag. We also biked up and down the block and ruled a domain consisting of a small wooded area across the street. In winter, I remember gearing up to play in the snow (building snow forts, sledding, pretending to be trekking in snow-covered mountain tops) only to come back inside a half hour later shivering and begging for hot cocoa. These are the memories that stand out the most to me. The truth, however, is that my childhood wasn't just an old-fashioned storybook. 

   

      In my early childhood, I delighted in watching movies on our giant cube-shaped TV, and later on, I spent a pretty chunk of my time playing computer games and taking Photo Booth videos on our new computer. I retained creativity in the technological world, mostly taking videos of plays acted out by my toys or by my sister and myself, but my slow introduction to technology and the internet provided that I held no qualms in regard to it. Later on, at the beginning of the 2010's, I began to use the internet and social media in larger amounts, until my use of it became excessive. Looking back, it is obvious to me how at that point, as a young "tween" and teen, the effects of so much time plugged in were not pretty. That period in my life was also probably the one I am least proud of. It's hard to say whether my overuse of the internet was a cause or an effect of that - or both. Either way, the internet didn't help. But going back to my first question, what sets apart me or any other kid who grew up in the 2000's? The children of the 2000's were (and are) the first generation born into easily accessible technology. But besides that, we had our little quirks too.

My sister and I taking a video on our computer

      Growing up, I went through several phases and had several interests. First I was obsessed with tigers, then I wanted to be a tomboy, and finally, I became a teeny bopper. Through all these stages however, I never ceased to be touched by the pop culture at the time. Probably my first experience with any kind of "pop culture" was Barney. He was more like toddler culture, though. Still, every toddler I knew either adored or strongly disliked him. I was part of the booing crowd. Next, it was Miley Cyrus, or "Hannah Montana". We had strong opinions about her too. Again, I turned my nose down on her. Finally, Justin Bieber claimed the lime-light, but he too found my opposition. It was part of my nature, as a kid, to rebel against everything extremely popular. There were, of course, still things I liked that were considered popular at the time. I loved Tamagotchi's, and so did everybody else. They were one of my first experiences of controlling my own mini virtual world. I also liked Taylor Swift at one point, and I probably spent too much time watching her videos online. With regards to fashion, even though I couldn't wear it for lack of money, I too desired after whatever expensive name brand was popular. Although I would never have admitted it at the time, I wasn't as independent from my peers as I liked to think. 

      On the whole, I remember the 2000's better for my childhood memories and nostalgia than for any certain culture, but bit's of culture were still infused into those memories here and there. I remember the neighbor boy's pants always sagged revealing the tops of his boxers. The early 2000's were the height of that popularity. I also recall kids collecting charms for their croc shoes, teens dressing emo, and the popularity of flare jeans. The 2000's were sometimes tacky and plastic, but other times they were actually pretty charming. (or maybe that's just because it was my childhood..) I don't miss them, but I won't forget them either.      

The 1990's America

 

The 1990's, the millennial kids era. It was the kids then that make up today's youth. For that reason, much of our youth culture has some roots in the 90's. We also look back nostalgically on the 90's, even those of us (like me) who only experienced their reverberating effects in the early 2000's. They weren't that long ago, but already, they've taken on a tacky genre. The 90's might best be described as a stale bowl of popcorn leftover from last night's movie. Either that is a terrible comparison or a wonderful one, but it's what works in my head. 

The 1990's were the decade when Princess Diana died in a car accident. She was being chased by the paparazzi when it happened and her driver was trying to lose them. This resulted in a crash and her death. When the public found out, they were horrified and grieved. Much of the blame for her death went to the media and the royal family. Queen Elizabeth wanted little to nothing to do with the whole affair at first, but eventually she was forced to concede a public funeral for Diana and show the public in various ways that she cared. This was because the media and the public was beginning to wonder if there even should be a queen. The loss of Diana was felt everywhere. She had been very loved. The gap she left caused people sadness, but it also tested the monarchy, which be it good or bad, survived. Today, Diana's celebrity status still has an impact as we idolize the current royals. 

Another death marking the 1990's was the murder of Tupac in 1996. He was shot multiple times before being rushed to a hospital and dying from the resulting injuries. His death caused awareness of perhaps some bad things going on behind the rap scene. It also may have made rap more appealing to some and less appealing too others. it probably shifted the audience just slightly. 

Another large event of the 1990's was Y2K, the prediction of the future that scared more than half the nation. it was believed that in 2000, all computers and anything in connection with them would shut down. This would be a giant problem, the end of the world to some. Thankfully, it didn't happen. Since Y2K, however, other conspiracies have formed and Y2K is sometimes referenced.

The 1990's weren't that different than today, but they were definitely still what we would call old school. Bill Clinton, the president, had an affair and famously argued the definition of the word "it". More than a normal amount of people were suspicious of alien life and a decoy alien was created. Nirvana became a popular grunge band; many of their songs are still popular today. And so on, and so on. Yes, this was decade of the Furby and the Tomagatchi, of famous iceskating rivalries and great comedians. Do you remember it? If you do, do you miss it? 

    

 

Yukoslavia Dissolved

      In this blogpost, it is my intention to look at the Balkan Wars and the dissipation of Yukoslavia from the point of view of a Bosniak. First, though, here's an overview concerning what happened then between the Serbs and Bosnia. Bosnia is a country in Europe, along with Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Macedonia. These countries' geographies are not often recognized; people assume they are from the Middle East due to their names and cliches, but also primarily because of the Balkan Wars. In the 1990's, Bosniaks were Bosnians who were Muslim. Before the wars, Bosnia didn't have a clear majority people group. The two main peoples were Bosniaks and Serbs. This lack of majority became a strong cause for the conflicts that broke out in 1992 leading to the Balkan Wars. At that time, the Serbs were becoming increasingly powerful and proud under the rule of Milosevic. When Bosnia declared a partition of itself from Yukoslavia, the country both it and the Serbs took part in (as well as some others [Croatia]), the Serbs were worried that in the independent Bosnia, their majority would be ignored. For this reason, they attacked the Bosniaks in Bosnia, meaning to exterminate them from the country though something called "ethnic cleansing". In reality, the massacre caused by this was far from cleansing.

 Yukoslavia Before and After

     Here's an idea of what it might have been like to be a Bosniak at that time (and also just a story):
   

     Hello. My name is Ajla. I live in Bosnia, a country that used to be part of Yukoslavia. I am a Muslim and I am lucky to be alive. During the Balkan Wars that seperated Yukoslavia, some others I knew were not so fortunate. Me and my family lived in Srebrenica. On July of 1995, I lost my Uncle Abdulan, my brother, Ibro, and my father, Amel, to the Srebrinca massacre. Me and my mother, the only surviving members of our family, fled with some other women and men to Potocari, a nearby muslim city. There, we lived in an unjust combination of fear, grief, and instinct. I never recovered from the deaths of my family, but somehow I pushed those thoughts out of the front of my mind so that I could help my mother and I stay sane. In Potocari we were kept at a Dutch base. Not long into our living there, a suspicious number of Muslims vanished from the grounds. After asking around, we learned that 5,000 muslims had been exported from the base in exchange for 14 of the Dutch peacekeepers beings held captive by the Serbs. My mother and I were horrified. We decided to escape from the Dutch, afraid we would be amongst the next export. With us were four other Muslim women: Hana, Lamija, Enisa, and Esma.

 Ajla and Mother after Srebrenica Massacre

 

       After escaping the Dutch grounds, we were left homeless and without food or water. Lamija had decided to stay with the Dutch the day before we left, so now we were five. We decided to flee to Kladanj. On our way there Esma and Enisa, sisters, dropped from the group in Bratunac, on of the towns we stopped in. Hana, however continued with us faithfully. Sometimes we traveled with other Bosniak groups and other times we were seperated from them, but during the whole journey Hana, my mother and I stayed together. When we finally reached Kladanj, we were feverish and weak. We had eaten little the whole duration of our trek, so our skin sagged slightly in places where we had lost weight. Some of the people in Kladanj had not yet heard of the massacre in Srebrinca, but once we told them, they were very curious. Hana, my mother and I were not eager to impart much detail, having already removed ourselves from the genocide as much as we could. Still, we told them what we could.

     
      Until the wars ended and Bosnia was once more at peace, Hana, my mother and I worked as a unit to support ourselves. We had lost everything because of the Srebrenica Massacre and it wasn't easy getting back on our feet. A kindly woman named Basma took us in for the first few days we came to Kladanj, but it was painful living with her, kind as she was. She was too curious about Srebrenica. Besides, she could not feed the three of us for long. After leaving her abode, a woman named Dana hired us to work in her shoe-making factory when she met us by chance, having accidently spilled her tea on Hana while walking past us in the street. We worked there contently and rented living spaces from a man named Paul Hardt. He was from America and we thought him rather strange, but he was kind. His wive's name was Catherine Hardt and she was very kind as well. She spoke our language hesitantly, but she treated us as family, often reminding us to call her Kate. Both of them were very fond of talking about their God and a man named Jesus. Mother always pretended not to hear. I followed in example. Hana was the only one who showed any interest. When the war finally ended, we three did not celebrate with the crowds of Muslims parading about. No; we produced a dinner of our favorite dishes and had the Hardts over to thank them. I'm afraid the end of the war was more of a relief to us than a joy. Too many sorrows had passed our threshold for joy to come in easy.

       After the war, we supported the arrest of war criminals through our speech, but there was little else we could do. We were not living in either Croatia or Serbia, where the peoples resisted a hunt for the war criminals. Paul and Kate lowered our rent, the economy having loosened it's reigns. They didn't cease to visit us and give us favors, small and large, here and there. Hana and Kate had become close friends and Kate spoke our language fluently now. One day, Hana came back from the Hardts house, barely bigger than the one we rented, with something different about her. She could barely contain herself as she shared with my mother and I what had happened. She had converted to the religion the Hardt's believed in, Christianity. I was confused. My mother was angry. She did not show it bluntly, but she never treated Hana the same. She removed her in the same polite way as she did the Hardts. I could tell Hana was hurt, but she treated my mother the same. She was consistent despite my mother's inconsistency.

      It was the winter of 1997, and my mother did not come back from a trip to the post office. She had taken the city bus, as usual. We all investigated anxiously: Hana, the Hardts and I. It was not until a week later that the police notified us of my mother's death. She had died of a heart attack, as it was reported. No one knew exactly why. After that, I broke. I had prided myself in my ability to press on despite our losses, working harder every day, but now I could see that that was only a facade - a weak shield. Hana tried to console me and the Hardts spoke of God increasingly. Slowly their words gained interest to me. December 6th of 1997, however, I finally heard them for the first time. The God they spoke of was a better God than Allah. I wanted to know such a God and to love him. That day Kate prayed with me and I accepted the gift of salvation. I believe that was the day I was born. I also believe God used the separation of a country to save me, because that is who he is; he brings life out of death.
     

Sikhs, Film Music, and Oral History

      In the Documentary 1984 -- A Sikh Story, I learned about tragedies that happened in India amongst Sikhs in 1984. Sonia Deol, a modern day Sikh, explored these events in the documentary and brought to light through personal investigation the horrors and the truth of what happened. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a leader of the Sikhs, took refuge in the Golden Temple (a center for Sikhs) with some other Sikhs. He was keeping weapons inside the temple and the government was becoming increasingly wary of him. They flushed him out early June and created further havoc in doing so. The temple itself was half destroyed and almost everyone who had been inside, incuding peaceful Sikhs, was killed. This was called Operation Blue Star. Following this event, two Sikhs assassinated the prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, because of the attack on the Golden Temple. Hindus everywhere retaliated by murdering Sikhs. Thousands of Sikhs were brutally dragged from their homes and killed. Thankfully, at least on the surface, the domino effect stopped there. 
      In two other documentaries, Movie Mahal #41--Laxmikant Pyaralal Part 2 and Songs and Memories, Sahira Kazmi, I learned about music and film in the 1980's. In the first documentary, two famous composers of Bollywood film were interviewed. They shared how music is their lives and dialogued the progression of music in Indian film and pop culture. They favor both old-time Indian music and the modern style of music in the west, but they don't use either. This is because the majority of their audience still relates to music between the two. These musical men, however, slowly infused more and more western influence into their music numbers. They wished Bollywood films infused music into their story the way films here do; the music plays in the background while the story continues in the foreground. In Bollywood, this was not the case. When music started up, you knew the characters would object themselves to the song, usually by singing it and dancing.
      In the second of the aforementioned two documentaries, Sahira Kazmi, the only female movie director in her day, described the film industry from her point of view. She had a hard time in the industry of film, because men were not used to being ordered around by women and because of her position, she had to. She also had a hard time because the limitations of films at the time were numerous and strict. However, Kazmi testifies to how this challenge was also good for her in some ways. Ultimately, what Sahira felt was her job to carry out through film, was to liberate and empower women from their humbled position. 

      The people Sonia Deol interviewed in the Sikhs documentary were all directly involved in either the Blue Star Operation or the massacre of the Sikhs. Primarily, she interviewed people who had lost  family members who were Sikhs, people inside the temple at the time of Operation Blue Star, and the man who gave the command for Operation Blue Star. Sonia, herself, was primarily the narrator behind the documentary. The man who commanded Operation Blue Star was a good balance for the documentary as he showed the viewpoint least often considered when the tragedy is inspected. He was probably also biased though and seemed to be in a state of denial. The Sikhs directly influenced by the death and fear of the events surrounding Operation Blue Star are biased as well, but their bias is one of pure experience and pain. They show how innocent people are victimized by mass prejudice and hasty decisions. Sonia is probably very personally biased, but she holds herself together well. She is a Sikh, so for her, the conflicts are grounded in her faith, making it hard for her to be impartial. On the whole, however, this documentary was very informative and revealed to me yet again how corrupted human nature is. 
      In the last two documentaries, the interviews were very personal and focused more on the person being interviewed than any general time trends or events. The first one gave a feel for history, but only in the world of music. It was informative on the making of Bollywood music and how the people behind it don't always get to choose how to carry out their work. It also informed the audience of past composers with such skill, they could create a song in eight minutes. Overall, the documentary was somewhat boring, but it also gave insight into the lives and people behind Bollywood film. 
      Finally, in the documentary interviewing Sahira Kazmi, it was interesting to hear from a woman's perspective in a field primarily consisting of men at the time. She was also biased in this way however, seeing herself is independent from other producers and directors because of her gender. The interviewer's questions are very directional, but because they are based on already existing elements of Kazmi's life, they don't lead the interview into deception. Kazmi liked to talk about her love for family and her childhood, sneaking off to the cinema with her siblings. She also seemed to like explaining her job and the way it worked in the present. She may have been more bored by talking about how her gender makes her position unique because that has grown old to her. 
      From these three documentaries, I learned bit's and pieces of knowledge which have surely added to my jigsaw puzzle of learning. It was interesting and grievous to hear how brutally the Sikhs in 1984 were killed for the crime of two under their religion. Even more intriguing and lamentable, however, was that Sikhs truly believe they are following the truth, and yet they aren't. It was saddening to see such devout people and to know that they were and are far from the truth. I would like to learn more about the Sikh religion and their teachings.
      In the second documentary, I was most intrigued by the relationship between Laxmikant and Pyaralal. They spent so much time together, eventually they almost seemed to have a telepathic relationship with regards to music. There was nothing in that documentary, however, which spurned any further interest. 
      In the third documentary, I was intrigued by the limits on Indian cinema. It was also interesting simply to sort of get to know a random person. I would like to find out more about Indian cinema restrictions and the person of Sahira Kazmi.
   

  Sahira Kazmi

      

1980's or the 1950's? Back to the Future

      

       Right now, it's 2015. This is the year Marty McFly and Doc, from the 1985 movie Back to the Future, went in their time machine. Yes, it is; It's strange to watch a movie from the past about the past's past. In the first Back to the Future movie, Marty didn't go to 2015, but he went to 1955. Through such a point of view, you can see the way the 80's saw the 50's, and not just how we see them. You can also see the differences between the 80's and the 50's and contrast them with today.

      The most obvious of differences between these three decades (50's, 80's, and the 2010's) is fashion - at least, it is the easiest to identify. The 80's were... interesting. Imagine blue eyeshadow, tacky vests, and baggy blue jeans. Better yet, imagine bell bottoms. These were the 80's. It wasn't all neon colors and frizzy hair, though. People liked all sorts of colors, not just the bright ones, and just as our fashion fads and styles vary now, so they did then. 

      The 50's were sweet and charming. Girls didn't really wear pants. Instead, they wore charming knee length dresses or blouses with skirts. They wore sweet little heels of pastel and neutral colors and makeup that was subtle yet charming. The boys were pretty classy. They wore their plaid jackets and their pleated dress pants along with a pair of nice dress shoes. Their hair was nicely slicked back and they had a feel of efficiency to them.

      Today, almost all girls wear pants. Maybe some of us wear skirts and dresses occasionally too, but the common thing is to wear pants. We like our skinny jeans and we like our short shorts. When we wear skirts, they're usually a bit up above the knee paired with a pretty blouse tucked in. We really have a million styles though. I suppose living in the now makes it hard to identify what makes our decade different. Well, we like graphic t-shirts. We like leggings. We like oversized cardigans in winter and undersized shirts in summer (belly shirts, that is). I, myself, like few of these variables, however they are the present within popculture. 

  Cultural and social differences between these three decades are harder to identify. They can be found in a general sense, however. If the film, was accurate, then I am somewhat accurate; if not, I'm not sure where I am. The 80's were all about swagger. People, primarily the youth, had a strong sense of independence about them and seemed as if they might break out into a music number any moment.

One strong example of this street-kid aura is how Marty, from Back to the Future, gets places by holding onto the backs of vehicles while riding a skateboard. At the time, I suppose the 80's kids were cool. It's interesting to look at them now, however, because they seem so tacky. This may be partially due to the fact they are our parent's generation. 

 

      The 50's [to me] said "let's have fun". They were preppy, but exciting; charming, but still real life. Their was a social order and bullying wasn't all too uncommon. It may have been a survival of the fittest sort of regimen. The pretty girls were, well... as in every era, liked. The biggest difference, however, between now and then is that the dumb jock stereotype still had a lot of power back then. They have much less now, at least in my experience.

      How about now? The present just seems like a blender of concepts to me. Because I am not significantly involved in it's pop culture, I can see there is more to the present than our pop culture. I will try to describe it, though. People are doing something unusual today to "fit in". They are trying to be different. At the same time that they're trying to be different, however, they are falling into clumpy categories. Some that come to mind are hipsters, sporty but funny people, and sweet prepsters. Of course, however, people can't be stereotyped too readily, especially when one is up close.

      How did the 80's see the 50's? How do we see the 50's? How do we see the 80's? The main difference between our perception of the 50's and the 80's perception of the 50's is not literal distance of time, but distance of familiarity. The 80's generation had parents from the 50's. They experienced second-hand fifties. The same thing goes for us about the 80's. Teens don't usually want to be just like their parents and judge them more than most people. Most likely, they attach that dislike to their perception of anything closely related to their parents. Therefore, we both see our parent's generation as a bit tacky - a bit ridiculous. The 50's, however, are not so infused within our lives to lose all interest. True; our grandparents came from the 50's, but we don't live with them every single day. The 50's are different enough and unknown enough to still hold appeal. 

The 1980's in America

   

 

      The 1980's are known by some as the golden days and by others as a decade of greed. It was the decade of big business, the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan. I Interviewed my mom, Jalene Line, about the 1980's and found out that they really do match up to many of their stereotypes. She was in her teens during the eighties and so she has a good memory for both what was going on in youth culture and in the world of adults. For her, the eighties weren't necessarily a bad or a good time; they were just a "learning time". 

      My mom wasn't really into punk or hard rock, but she did like a lot of the popular bands of that time. Some of the bands she liked were REO Speedwagon, Journey, Michael Jackson, Prince, U2, and Heart. Some bands she didn't like, but that were popular around that time, were ACDC and Black Sabbath. My mom wasn't one of the punk rockers of the 1980's, but she was definitely still interested in music that was current.

 

      Sports, according to my mom, weren't all too different in the 1980's than they are today. Football, hockey, basketball, and baseball were all popular, but soccer hadn't yet come into play. My mom did cross country running. Going to professional games in the 1980's was a lot less expensive. Parents were also less focused on having their kids in multiple sports the way they are today. Overall, sports were more layed back. 

      Technology of the 1980's, including TV, movies, and electronics, was far behind present day. There were no slim phones like the ones we have now and computers were just beginning to be personalized. My mom recalls having to dial up for WiFi and having to wait, a foreign concept to our present generation. There were no DVDs or CD's. Instead, people used VHS movies (those big black rectangles from your childhood) and cassette tapes. TV's were very bulky; they were pretty much cubes. The ratings for movies were also different. Pg 13 movies were very sketchy at times and so were pg movies. Computer graphics didn't really exist, so movies weren't as realistic and their special effects required a good deal of creativity. My mom watched a lot of TV because it was always on at her mom's. Her parents were divorced too, so her mom wasn't home very often and she got bored easily with only one brother. These characteristics about my mom are pretty direct parallels to the stereotype generation X. 

      In 1985, my mom voted for the first time. She voted for Ronald Reagan and hasn't regretted it since. "He was always smiling and positive", she says, "and he had a grandfatherly feel to him." She also agreed with his Star Wars plan to shoot down nuclear weapons from space. The Cold War made my mom afraid of Russia in a distant sort of way, but otherwise, it affected her little. My mom was a nurse, and so she saw a lot of AIDS patients. This affected her much more. She believes AIDS was God's way of punishing our sin, specifically homosexuality. 

      My mom was half in and half out of youth culture. She recalls mullets and feathering the hair were popular hair styles. Bell bottoms, high rise jeans, puffy sleeved shirts and dresses, satin dresses, and boot cut jeans were all popular types of clothing. She also remembers banana combs being popular, as well as tiger tennis-shoes, star wars merchandise, and star trek merchandise. 

 

      My mom was a nurse, a very common job. She recalls employment being hard to get in Duluth, but much easier in the Twin Cities. Houses in the 1980's were often split level houses, ramblers, or same story houses. They were commonly very floral and french country in style. Lot's of blue's and mauve's were used in decorating. Vehicles were much larger than they are today, and some common ones were Cadillacs, Old mobiles, and Volkswagens. There were also more trains in the 1980's and airplane security was very minimal. In fact, people could accompany a family member all the way to their plane. This was because 9/11 hadn't yet occurred.   

       In the 1980's, Christianity was much more accepted. Bible studies often formed in schools and youth pastors could come visit the kids. My mom remembers being in one such bible study. Their were more christian communities, and other religion were not nearly as common. For example, Muslim communities were not so common. This is to show the increased cultural diversity in the U.S. till now. 

      Health and Exercise were becoming more and more prevalent in the 1980's. There were lots of health clubs, of which my mom joined a few. People were just getting into low fat foods, wheat germ, eliminating cholesterol, not eating eggs, and lots of low fat dieting. 

     My generation, the millennials, aren't sure what to think of the 80's, at least I'm not. They aren't old enough to be attractive, and they aren't recent enough to be a source of nostalgia.   

Pasand Apni Apni

   

      In the Indian film, Pasand Apni Apni (1983), the differences between lower class, middle class, and upper class are clearly portrayed in three main characters: Geeta (Rati Agnihotri), Sandeep Anand (Mithun Chakraborty), and Sriram Chaudhary (Utpal Dutt).

      Geeta is lower class. She lives in a dinky apartment-like building with her brother and her mother. They eat small homemade meals together on the floor. Because they are so poor, Geeta's mother and brother rely on her for financial support. She works as a dancer for Sriram Chaudhary and is constantly arriving to work late due to her own tendencies as well as transportation inconsistencies. In general, it seems like the lower class are less puntual. Her clothes are simple (besides the ones she wears dancing), yet beautiful. She never takes taxis or rides in cars because they are too expensive. Even Sriram Chaudhary, her boss, doesn't usually. Instead, she takes an extremely crowded bus or walks. At the beginning of the movie, Geeta is having a hard time paying rent and is in debt to her landlord. She doesn't eat out often, but when she does, she goes to a more casual place because of prices. Geeta's life is hard, but it's not terrible.

       Sriram Chaudhary is middle class. He owns a play-making franchise and relies on a group of sponsors to continue running his business. During most of the movie, he doesn't have any money to pay his sponsors back and they are growing impatient with them. In their presence, he is helpless, but when he is with his employees, he becomes extremely controlling and bossy. It is probably because of his impatience and anxiety over his lack of money and their demand for it that stirs his anger towards the young actresses. He is also just unreasonable, though. His clothing is moderately nice (ex: shiny black hat) and his style is a bit merchant-like. He is very money hungry, even though he's at a reasonably good place in life. When he finds evidence leading him to believe Sandeep, one of the richest men in Bombay, is in love with his employee Geeta, he decides to take advantage of Sandeep's wealth. There is a stereotype that may be attached to that correlation; that middle class people aren't in need, yet they still want more and more. it is more probable, however, that those are just characteristics of Sriram in particular, as the movie seems to speak against prejudice. 

      Sandeep Anand is upper class. He is the head of a giant franchise and lives by himself in a house with "ten or twelve rooms." He wears suits and "nicer" western clothing and he can write out checks for 100,000 rupees on a whim. He is the only character who has a habit of smoking, a more expensive habit. He has a very professional air about him at his work place and he is very intelligent and assertive. Because he is so rich and respected, people recognize him wherever he goes (unless he's disguised, of course). He is also able to do pretty much whatever he wants. He can chase Geeta around, because he doesn't need to work for a living twenty-four seven - or at all, really. Being rich also probably encourages a sense of being able to have whatever he wants (Geeta, for example). On the reverse, however, he is accountable to his whole company and does hold a lot of responsibility.  

      Ideals of privacy, individualism, and community are more subtly expressed in the film. Geeta is a mixture of pride in the poor community and independent fire. She reminds me of a representative for a group; she is very much her own, yet she loves and cares about "her people". Her problem is that she is very biased against rich people. This however, makes sense. They seem to hold their ease of life over the poor, to her, and she simply doesn't understand them. 

      Sriram doesn't seem to really care who he associates with, as long as it benefits him. For example, he is extremely friendly to Geeta, because she is his connection to Sandeep. He then literally worships Sandeep, because he is his connection to money.

      Sandeep, although he is so rich, has no prejudices against the poor, only petty girls. He is so comfortable with them, that he dresses up as on and then falls in love with one, Geeta. he has mercy towards them as well, and gives Sriram 100,000 rupees. He also seemed to have been showing his money off, however. He is able to have literal privacy (be alone at home), but publicly he is known everywhere, though he doesn't seem to mind. The poor, on the other hand, are around people plenty, but are known of by no one.

      We never see Sriram's living conditions, but we do see Geeta's and Sandeep's and they are quite different. Geeta's house looks as if it is two or three rooms. The whole house is small and somewhat cluttered, but the family is close. it would be physically uncomfortable to live in such conditions, but it would be emotionally and spiritually reviving to have such close family. Living in such a home contributed to Geeta's bias against rich people. It also contributed to her loyalty to her family. Although Geeta is depicted as being among the poor, that probably isn't accurate for that time in Bombay. Around fifty percent of the people were living in the slums in Bombay in the 1980's. Geeta isn't quite living in the slums. The government probably wouldn't have allowed the producers to create a true representation of the poor, because it would raise awareness. 

      As mentioned previously, Sandeep's house is giant. He has twelve rooms all to himself. His bedroom is beautiful, and he sleeps alone in a king-sized bed. He has his own servants, who serve him tea and such. Physically, his life is luxurious, but he is very lonely. his rich position in life causes him to be able to help Geeta monumentally, but it also means she is prejudiced against his true identity when it is uncovered. 

      The urban dream in Bombay during the 1980's was probably right in between where Geeta was and where Sandeep was. They wanted to be hardworking and family oriented, but they also wanted to be reasonably comfortable. For some people, they may have wanted simply to be rich, but there were also a lot of people like Geeta, who held grudges against the rich. This was probably because they felt that people with money should be helping them more instead of spending it on only themselves.