The prettiest people do the ugliest things

Humans are social creatures, and in order for people to interact properly, not only laws were put in place to govern one's behavior, but many, complicated, untold, yet important social constructs. It's generally considered rude to point and laugh at someone. However, what if someone pointed and laughed at someone else who farted on a crowded elevator. Is it acceptable then? Or just a little bit more acceptable, or maybe even more unacceptable? Analyzing social situations becomes even more interesting if more variables are added. The reactions of people might change if it was a child doing the laughing, rather than a teenager, or a middle-aged person. Their judgement might also change if it were a female's flatulence, rather than a male's. Different people are held to different social standards.  Anybody would be more disgusted if a dentist or a lawyer, rather than  a garbageman, picked their nose during work, In The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne, being of  "perfect elegance", is an image of dignity and beauty, except for the fact that she is an adulteress, and her flawless physical appearance only serves to exemplify her crimes. Even 200 years ago, and probably since civilized society has existed, the laws and social codes put in place have been interpreted different- even unfairly- for different people.

Don't be mad cause I'm doing me better than you're doing you

As a human being, one of the things we instinctively do is judge. Although it's offensive to make inferences on a person you don't even know, I'm guilty of this, and sometimes I can't help myself to jump to conclusions based on someone's first impression. Physical appearance- skin color, height, weight, stance- are all used as "clues" into trying to decipher who somebody is on the inside. Sometimes I decide if a person looks "mean" or "nice" just by the way their features are arranged on their face. These preconceived notions distort reality for all of us. Although we try and save all our judgement for ourselves- evaluating our own abilities and limitations,-we always have that thought in the back of our heads like "I bet that asian kid beat me on the math test" or "I bet that black guy will beat me in this race". Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason however, in that they're not true for a majority of their subject. Like any longstanding belief, its unfair to say that stereotypes don't have strong foundations. However, it is unfair to believe Sherman Alexie was going to grow up and become and alcoholic just because he was a "dang Indian". It's also unfair to determine that a college-educated professional journalist is a "mugger, a rapist, or worse" solely by the color of his skin. Prejudiced notions of other human beings have existed in our society from the beginning, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't end anytime soon.

Soy un perdedor

A racist , bloodthirsty man once said "History is written by the victors". That man also happened to be one of the most beloved and well known English prime ministers in history, Winston Churchill. Praised for being one of the great minds that defeated Hitler, Churchill's legacy would've been much different if the Nazis had triumphed in World War II. Indeed, if the axis powers had came out victorious in World War II, the world would be a much different place than it is today. Fascism would have dominated the worlds governments, the holocaust might have expanded to an an unthinkably horrible degree, and Hitler's dream of an Aryan master race might have come true. Fortunately, all we can do today is speculate about what would have happened to the human race if World War II had ended differently. However, this speculation opens a question that can be asked to everything that happened in history, ever- "what happened to the other guys"?

The timelessness of this question proves the validity of Churchill's quote. Theorizing about the changes humanity would've faced if the American revolution had ended differently is as important as thinking about what happened to that kid who cracked his new I Phone screen. The events that have occurred have occurred- history has been "written" and America is now one of the most powerful nations on the planet, and that kid no longer has a functional phone. Although the American revolution seems like a relic of the past, and a broken I Phone is too trivial to reflect on, any and all events in history are fair game to analyze Churchill's statement. The Glass Castle is one of the best examples of this philosophy. Jeannette Walls is a "victor" having worked hard enough to earn an education and succeed in life. Thus, she is writing her own history, literally, in the form of a memoir. The reader feels sympathy for Walls and all her struggles, and they should. However, Jeanette is far from the only person that has had problems with poverty, or molestation, with thousands of people having it far worse than her. Even though millions of people deserve to be heard, they never can be, and never will be; simply because they have "lost" in society's eyes. One of the most influential figures in the modern day is Oprah. She turned her childhood struggles into an extremely popular daytime television show. Now she writes history. Oprah dictates many a life, with thousands of zealous watchers eating what Oprah eats, reading what Oprah reads, and trying as hard as they can to live how Oprah lives. However, for every Oprah, there are tens of thousands of the depressed, the unheard, the forgotten- those that are lost and have lost. They might be more well read than Oprah, more cultured, have more of an appreciation for the arts, but nobody would ever guess that that dirty, homeless man was a Shakespeare connoisseur. Even more meta into the subject of winners and losers in The Glass Castle is a certain instance where Jeanette is discussing her new job with her mother. Instead of covering the "oppressive landlords, social injustice, and the class struggle on the Lower East Side" (Walls 171) she writes articles on the gossip of the city's elite. She is  "winning" by getting a decent job writing about the "winners", that is the wealthy of New York, which provides her the money and credibility to "win" in the future- which is publishing her own book, which deals with how history is written by the victors. Another case is in the Disney movie Frozen, and possibly every other Disney movie ever. The main character always has a happy ending, while the villain is defeated and properly punished. In Frozen, we see Hans, the villain, getting punched off a boat, while we see Elsa and Anna return to a loving kingdom. A sequel is rumored to be released in 2015, which raises the question, "what happened to the other guys?" Did Hans drown after being punched off a boat? Was he exiled from his homeland for his criminal behaviors and eventually killed in the wilderness? Was he executed for his treasonous behavior? He "lost" by failing in his plan to take over Arendelle kingdom, and for that we will never know his story. Perhaps he had good intentions for Arendelle. Maybe whatever he took from his brothers was far worse than anything he ever did to Anna. With a simple example from a childish movie, we can see one of the greatest inequalities in human nature. In a world with so much to say, learn, discover, and be, 50% of  the world is being ignored. History is the study of past events, and with those past events being described and dictated by those that have come out on top, there seems nothing else to do but ignore those on the bottom.