The Future

1. a. Fifty years ago: "All aircraft will be controlled by a giant radar net run on a continent-wide basis by a multiple electronic "brain".", Fish will be a main source of protein, life will be found on Mars, tooth decay, cancer, and the common cold will be cured, regeneration. Communism will vanish from the entire planet, your cell phone will be small enough to carry in your handbag, your home phone will transmit visions. Deep freezing of chicken, and other baked meats, as well as soups and milk. The Third World War between all countries. 
   b. Hundred years ago: One hundred years ago people made many predictions about what the world would be like today. Many predictions were made that digital color cameras would be existent today, which obviously became true. Other predictions such as mobile phones, pre-made meals, television, tanks, rising height of Americans, and larger fruit also became true according to this article, 100 year predictions. Other predictions say that there will be no wild animals, there will be free education for everyone, moveable houses, and police with x-ray.
2. I think the predictions made 100 years ago are wish lists, while the predictions made 50 years ago are warnings. Fifty years ago people thought there would be a third world war, and regeneration of bodies, they move away from such material predictions and focus more on the human development and the sources of life to humans, which comes off as more of a warning to humanity rather than a wish-list. While a hundred years ago, people wished for taller people, bigger fruits, and cameras that made photos in color, more materialistic wishes that were obviously granted, but they were not warnings to the human race as a whole.
3. The one hundred year ago predictions all turned out to be true, Americans are taller, consume larger fruit, and take photos in color before applying a black and white filter on the photograph. However, there has not been a Third World War, and communism is still heavily seen in the world today. The more outlandish and bizarre predictions like life on Mars and regeneration are slowly becoming reality, but I predict that they will take fifty, if not a hundred more years before they are deeply refined and plausible for everyday humans.
4. Fifty years ago, people made more predictions about the humans of today becoming more destructive, and more medical, while a hundred years ago people wished for more materialistic things such as large fruit and cell phones. There are no real patterns but more of guidelines that one hundred years ago people wished for better human life, while fifty years ago, people warned others of a more brutal human race.
5. If I were to predict the future I would say that in fifty years or less we will have talking holograms on our phones in place of skype and facetime, we will 3-D print everything, as in a 3-D printer will replace a normal printer, and we will be able to use different materials in a 3-D printer to in effect, regenerate. In one hundred years I think that cancer will be cured, we will have flying cars, and start living on Mars or other distant planets, and be able to time travel.
6.  We, as individuals have little to no control of our lives. The police and government take full responsibility and usually control of us and we have to follow rules and guidelines set by the state, country, continent, or overseas government every day. As groups, we have more control, but not nearly as much as the government, the phrase two is better than one is true in the sense that a group has more power than an individual, but untrue in the sense that a group has more control than a government, because one single group does not have more control than the government. Seeing as we have little to no control of our lives, it would only make sense that we have little to no control of the future as well, and we don't. We have the power to innovate and invent, but we as individuals cannot determine our destiny or make ourselves more powerful than the government. Individuals, groups, and the entire government has minimal control of the future, and that's why people are so petrified by the idea of the future. I personally think that nobody has control, we are all just waiting for something to happen.

How do you analyze a political cartoon?

3. Going forward, I will look at political cartoons by observing, reflecting, and then questioning them. In observation, I will use questions like, "What do I notice first? What details are in the picture? Are there any words in the picture?" After observing and using those questions I reflect on what I've seen, sort of to form a hypothesis about what I think the cartoon is about. From there I will question the cartoon if there is any more observations and reflections that I am unsure about.

In this political cartoon, President (Vice President at the time) Roosevelt traversed across the sea to Cuba, and carrying a "Big Stick." In reflecting on the cartoon, when I see the words "Big Stick" I think of a paddle or getting a spanking, which could allude to what he as an American is going to do to Cuba, Santo Domingo, and Mexico in the cartoon. My question after looking at this cartoon and observing the boats is, "What does the Debt collector stand for and the Reciever at the caboose? Is it meant to signify the collecting of Cuban tariffs?"

In this political cartoon, the effects of the Spanish American war are heavily shown. I can easily observe the racist views that the Minneapolis Journal has of the Spanish coming into America. I think this cartoon is showing that the kids in America don't think anything about the new population migrating to America no matter how different they are, however the adults of the country care. All three of the children are smiling, holding hands, and waving American flags, but the caption of the cartoon and the way the two children are portrayed really displays the racism and segregation the Spanish faced while coming to America after the Spanish American war. 

In this political cartoon, Uncle Sam is portrayed holding a very dark skinned baby. The baby is tagged as Filipino, however racistly conveyed and resembles a different race because the baby is so much darker colored than most Filipinos. After reflecting and observing this picture, it's easy to see that Uncle Sam isn't happy to be holding the baby, almost as if the baby is unwanted, which is ironic because most Americans didn't want the Filipinos to "pollute" their American lifestyles. I have no questions for this political cartoon because it is pretty self explanatory, from the faces of the two people, to the words of the tag on the Filipino baby, this political cartoon portrays early segregation as a result of the Spanish American war from its ironic and simple drawings.

Eddie Aikau Angle

1. The documentary filmmakers called this film, Hawaiian, The Legend of Eddie Aikau, because he was truly Hawaiian and embodied Hawaiian culture as a whole.

2. This films angle was that Eddie Aikau worked hard to sustain Hawaiian culture and brought honor to his ancestors through his courageous actions and his passion for family and community.

3. This documentary was an ESPN program, so it can be understood that the audience is sports based and looking for more lifestyle based views than factual. The audience could, however, still assume that the documentary was completely factual because it was an ESPN program.

4. If this film had been made by another program besides ESPN, say PBS or the History channel, the film would have been more factual and included more explanation on certain things in the Hawaiian culture such as the boat, and the origin of surfing. If the film wasn't ESPN, it would attract a different audience entirely, and would include specific reenactment and more scholarly speakers than the ESPN documentary already did.

6. Topic: Roosevelt
    Focus: Roosevelt's rise to vice presidency in 1900
    Angle:
Since I've watched the documentary on Eddie Aikau, I'm able to figure out a topic, focus, and angle on a specific subject because I know how to identify good analysis that will then further me to find out more about the topic of Roosevelt's rise to the vice presidency and why someone else under William Jennings Bryan, didn't become president. My focus will be Roosevelt specifically, and will stray away from William Jennings Bryan later in my "documentary." My angle will be that Roosevelt was a great imperialist power who was always popular among the wide majority of Americans because he was a war hero and was able to make great decisions quickly, and while William Jennings Bryan was only able to miscalculate and find discrepancies in smaller things, Theodore Roosevelt had a bigger idea for the nation.

Phrenology

       Today I learned about phrenology. Phrenology is the, " meaning "mind", and λόγος (logos), meaning "knowledge") is a pseudomedicine primarily focused on measurements of the human skull, based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules." (Wikipedia) I looked mostly at the bust that was published/distributed by L.N. Fowler in the late 1800's and learned all about his exploration so that he could come to the conclusion of this bust that was so commonly accepted back in 1875. Phrenology and the L.N. Fowler bust were examples of innovation and early research and allowed people to make inferences about anything dealing with the brain, whether for entertainment or experiment, and it allowed one to basically become a self-taught phrenologist. The phrenology bust gave people the ability to point to a place on their head and explain whether they were more advanced in that subject because of the size of that place on their head, or if a place on their head hurt, whether from injury or "growth." Provenance is, "the place of origin or earliest known history of something." (dictionary.com)