Blog - Agree or disagree on this book's position about war.
Sometimes war is necessary. Sometimes some country will just try to take over another without any chance of working things out. At that point you have two options: roll over and let them take over, or fight back. Fighting back means war, rolling over means submitting yourself to the complete will of another country. I believe that you have the right to fight back. This right should be contingent, however, on there being no other viable courses of action. This right should be contingent on there being no competing interests but the genuine sense of freedom in life. This is where the problems of war lie - in the competing interests. War spawns many things, one of which is war industries. War industries become huge, and they literally take over the political control of a war. Lobbyists, pressure, connections, they all play a role in keeping a country in a war. These companies are supposed to make money, and nothing is easier to make money off of then a fearful nation. In America, this has been the unfortunate reality since the Vietnam War. It has been especially evident in the current War in Afghanistan. The book basically takes on this problem when it talks about the "us vs. them" notion of the upper class getting involved in wars and then sending the lower class to fight them. And equally as upsetting is the brutality of war, the lives destroyed because of somebody else's interests. All that is to say that, I agree with the book's position on war. But sometimes war is necessary. Until every country in the world is focused on peace, then no country can focus on peace. The ultimate solution I can think of right now, is that countries should remain peaceful unless, and this is a big unless, their freedom is being explicitly challenged. Then they have the right, and this should be the only purpose and outcome of war, to defend themselves in the most effective, quickest, and least gruesome way. Ideally, this notion would put to rest war forever.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Trumbo
My favorite part of the book so far has been chapter VI. I really like the way Dalton Trumbo constructed the chapter. The way he flows through sentences, ignoring convential punctuation, and the way he uses short sentences, like “But we’re not. I must have been asleep. I must have been dreaming. It’s so hard to tell” (page 82), entices me. I find myself reading to a rhythm, like a song follows a beat. It seems in this capacity that the timing of a story is more evident. Time merges together much better when commas don’t separate past actions from the present. It’s a different kind of clarity, instead of telling you when things happened, it allows you to decide when time happened – which is a more direct reflection of our mental understanding of life. I find that this is a very intuitive style of writing. It eliminates counter-intuitive elements such as errors in comprehension that overtake the brain’s processes in more important aspects of reading – such as understanding what is going on. I feel as if I could read the chapter over and over again, and it would be no more boring than telling a good story over and over again. It makes sense in spite of the transition from paper to voice – something that is not as easy when punctuation dictates how you say everything.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Umperialism
Blog – discuss this essay in relationship to the book
This pro-imperialism essay is deeply rooted in nationalism. Likely an extension of other movements at the time, particularly the Manifest Destiny, this essay encourages America to spread its government to places around the world, such as "Porto Rico", Cuba, and the Philippines. The essay does not directly advocate war, but one gets the impression from reading it that the author would not be opposed to war if it meant that the US could spread its democracy around the world. The author supports his claims with references to England and France, powerful countries and US allies, that have colonies around the world. The author predicts that US imperialism will give the US a stronger economy as it takes over valuable trading partners. The book, Johnny Got His Gun, is clearly anti-war. This essay tries to dance around the subject of war, instead focusing on the glory of having colonies. War would cut into the point the author is trying to make.
This pro-imperialism essay is deeply rooted in nationalism. Likely an extension of other movements at the time, particularly the Manifest Destiny, this essay encourages America to spread its government to places around the world, such as "Porto Rico", Cuba, and the Philippines. The essay does not directly advocate war, but one gets the impression from reading it that the author would not be opposed to war if it meant that the US could spread its democracy around the world. The author supports his claims with references to England and France, powerful countries and US allies, that have colonies around the world. The author predicts that US imperialism will give the US a stronger economy as it takes over valuable trading partners. The book, Johnny Got His Gun, is clearly anti-war. This essay tries to dance around the subject of war, instead focusing on the glory of having colonies. War would cut into the point the author is trying to make.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Comparing
Blog – discuss this essay in relationship to the book
"America has lost just once" page 769 "invincible"
"American the Beautiful” by Dinesh D’Souza is one of the most biased, and ludicrous, essays I have ever read. The whole thing is pathetic, a case of propaganda and Republican ignorance. The whole essay is about how great we, as Americans, are and how we are shaping the world for the better - more freedom, more individuality. The Muslims (a couple times he/she admits that she is talking about fundamentalists, but overall that point is hiden), according to D'Souza are the antithesis of freedom. They are the antithesis of America. Therefore, they must be bad! As he/she puts it, we are "richer, more varied, and more fun... and morally superior". Because those are totally measurable categories that present no sort of bias, we must fight them all off! It turns out, that in Dinesh D'Souza's quest for nationalism and patriotism, he/she is doing the exact same thing that he/she claims the Muslims do. The hypocrisy is pathetic. We are definitely the most fun, most free society! The Patriot Act is definitely just simply there to ensure our freedom! Christian extremists are just as liberal as the rest of society! They certainly aren't even comparable to those Muslims! The war against Muslim extremists will be fast and decisive for America with the whole nation backing this awesome imperialism! And our women can wear what they want! The essay is pathetic.
Johnny Got His Gun is very much the opposite of this essay. Johnny Got His Gun is a completly anti-war book. Dinesh D'souza directly advocates war, at least in this case, against the Muslim fundamentalists. Johnny Got His Gun directly speaks against all wars.
"America has lost just once" page 769 "invincible"
"American the Beautiful” by Dinesh D’Souza is one of the most biased, and ludicrous, essays I have ever read. The whole thing is pathetic, a case of propaganda and Republican ignorance. The whole essay is about how great we, as Americans, are and how we are shaping the world for the better - more freedom, more individuality. The Muslims (a couple times he/she admits that she is talking about fundamentalists, but overall that point is hiden), according to D'Souza are the antithesis of freedom. They are the antithesis of America. Therefore, they must be bad! As he/she puts it, we are "richer, more varied, and more fun... and morally superior". Because those are totally measurable categories that present no sort of bias, we must fight them all off! It turns out, that in Dinesh D'Souza's quest for nationalism and patriotism, he/she is doing the exact same thing that he/she claims the Muslims do. The hypocrisy is pathetic. We are definitely the most fun, most free society! The Patriot Act is definitely just simply there to ensure our freedom! Christian extremists are just as liberal as the rest of society! They certainly aren't even comparable to those Muslims! The war against Muslim extremists will be fast and decisive for America with the whole nation backing this awesome imperialism! And our women can wear what they want! The essay is pathetic.
Johnny Got His Gun is very much the opposite of this essay. Johnny Got His Gun is a completly anti-war book. Dinesh D'souza directly advocates war, at least in this case, against the Muslim fundamentalists. Johnny Got His Gun directly speaks against all wars.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Resistance
Blog – Think of the Declaration of Independence. What is the role of resistance in democracy?
Resistance obviously played a major role in the forming of this democracy we live in. Resistance plays a major role every time a government changes, no matter what form it may be: authoritarian, anarchy, anarchism, democracy, autocracy, oligarchy, republic, plutocracy, kleptocracy, dictatorship, corporatism, etc. In democracy, specifically, resistance plays a major role in the system of checks and balances. Resistance helps a government from going down the road of groupthink, a mode of group thinking that impairs decision-making because the desire for group harmony overrides a realistic appraisal of the possible decision alternatives (my psychology book). The unfortunate part of democracy however, is that like any type of government, as it strengthens, it stiffles further resistance. Imagine somebody trying to resist today's government in America. It would not turn out very well. Major resistance is not a viable option in large, absolute governments in today's world.
Resistance obviously played a major role in the forming of this democracy we live in. Resistance plays a major role every time a government changes, no matter what form it may be: authoritarian, anarchy, anarchism, democracy, autocracy, oligarchy, republic, plutocracy, kleptocracy, dictatorship, corporatism, etc. In democracy, specifically, resistance plays a major role in the system of checks and balances. Resistance helps a government from going down the road of groupthink, a mode of group thinking that impairs decision-making because the desire for group harmony overrides a realistic appraisal of the possible decision alternatives (my psychology book). The unfortunate part of democracy however, is that like any type of government, as it strengthens, it stiffles further resistance. Imagine somebody trying to resist today's government in America. It would not turn out very well. Major resistance is not a viable option in large, absolute governments in today's world.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Child Custody Laws Are Really Intersting
Blog – Think of other legal questions regarding sexuality or gender that have been in the media recently. Discuss one you find interesting.
I think that women are still oppressed in society. We've talked in class and read about all the ways that it occurs. I would, however, like to talk about an area where the other sex is discriminated in society and in the court of law: child custody laws. I cannot even begin to explain the number of stories I have read about men getting screwed over by court rulings in these cases. The money that many men are forced to pay would be reason enough for outcry (6th paragraph). The real reason for outcry, however, is that men almost always lose child custody cases. These are not isolated claims. But you don't hear about them that much because the people being discriminated against are men, and that is the last thing that society wants to hear - cries of injustice from the top of the food chart. But this much is true - upon divorce, men are pretty much guaranteed to not be able to see their children as often, and they will have to pay an insane amount of money to "support them" (usually far more than is necessary). Lying behind the injustices of the "lesser on the food chart" is an equally unfair injustice to the "higher on the food chart". It seems to be the last thing on the "list of necessary reforms in society", but it is nevertheless worth recognizing, because gender inequality is inequality no matter what side it is on..
I think that women are still oppressed in society. We've talked in class and read about all the ways that it occurs. I would, however, like to talk about an area where the other sex is discriminated in society and in the court of law: child custody laws. I cannot even begin to explain the number of stories I have read about men getting screwed over by court rulings in these cases. The money that many men are forced to pay would be reason enough for outcry (6th paragraph). The real reason for outcry, however, is that men almost always lose child custody cases. These are not isolated claims. But you don't hear about them that much because the people being discriminated against are men, and that is the last thing that society wants to hear - cries of injustice from the top of the food chart. But this much is true - upon divorce, men are pretty much guaranteed to not be able to see their children as often, and they will have to pay an insane amount of money to "support them" (usually far more than is necessary). Lying behind the injustices of the "lesser on the food chart" is an equally unfair injustice to the "higher on the food chart". It seems to be the last thing on the "list of necessary reforms in society", but it is nevertheless worth recognizing, because gender inequality is inequality no matter what side it is on..
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Engaging Text #4
Evan Wolfson definitely uses some of the skill he has obviously learned as a lawyer to justify gay marriage. Consider the near-two-pages of bullets he has laid out describing all the legal advantages of marriage. On page 103, he uses a Supreme Court Case that ruled convicted felons could marry to transition to a group of people that can't marry. Even his writing style - his method of transition - includes a legal reference. He also lists the four attributes of marriage that the justices determined. And consider the example of interracial marriage: "And change still needs to take place in the hearts of many, not to mention the law. As recently as 1998 in South Carolina and 2000 in Alabama, 40 percent of the voters in each state voted to keep offensive language barring interracial marriage in their respective state constitutions."
Thursday, April 15, 2010
More Engaging of the Text
The analogy used by Rick Santorum is apparently a favorable method for conservatives to use when discussing the effects of "traditional marriages" vs. 'everything else' as it was also used by an adviser to Bush. The analogy describes two planes, both have high percentages of getting to the destination, but one has a significantly higher percentage than the other. The plane that gets to to the destination the most often, is supposed to be equivalent to the potential of kids deriving from a "traditional marriage". The other airplane is supposed to be equivalent to the potential of kids deriving from 'one of those other marriages' - there are successful arrivals, but they are less common than those from "traditional marriages". What is sadly hilarious about this analogy is the unstated assumptions that accompany it. The first is that the reader will be wowed by the fact that this analogy has been used by an adviser to Bush. The second is that this analogy is unquestionably perfect - no counterpoint is presented, no possible arguments against comparing marriages to airplanes are confronted. What exists is an analogy, a period, and the next paragraph. I am not a big fan of throwing in random analogies and not supporting/defending them. This analogy was a poor choice for Rick Santorum if he was trying to establish any credibility in the minds of non-conservatives. It was mostly just a rah-rah statement for his followers.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Vázquez Engaging The Text
Blog – Engaging the Text #2 on p. 479
Vázquez waits to disclose the fact that Brian and Mickey are actually straight in order to show that there aren't really any differences between gay members of a sex and straight members of sex other than social orientation. All along, the reader may be thinking that Brian and Mickey were gay, but the author finally releases that they were straight. That is meant to be a moment of clarity and realization to the author - that a person's behavior or appearance cannot be used to define their gender or sexual orientation. The issue of anti-gay violence changes majorly when we realize that sometimes its victims are heterosexual. Humans have a strong tendency to think, 'it's not us being affected, it's them". Somebody who is heterosexual suddenly becomes affected by anti-gay violence. This is sad, but reality of the world we live in. In reality, anti-gay violence is wrong whether it's them or us.
Vázquez waits to disclose the fact that Brian and Mickey are actually straight in order to show that there aren't really any differences between gay members of a sex and straight members of sex other than social orientation. All along, the reader may be thinking that Brian and Mickey were gay, but the author finally releases that they were straight. That is meant to be a moment of clarity and realization to the author - that a person's behavior or appearance cannot be used to define their gender or sexual orientation. The issue of anti-gay violence changes majorly when we realize that sometimes its victims are heterosexual. Humans have a strong tendency to think, 'it's not us being affected, it's them". Somebody who is heterosexual suddenly becomes affected by anti-gay violence. This is sad, but reality of the world we live in. In reality, anti-gay violence is wrong whether it's them or us.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Gender...
Blog – Explain a time in which you were taught a bout gender in the way these authors were taught.
I feel extremely isolated from this subject. I've always recognized it, been aware of it, but it's just not something I think about that much. From appearance, it's not hard to tell what gender a person is, and that is what I assume they are. Not because I have an issue with people identifying with whatever gender they want, but because that is the general way society identifies people - from a very basic level, be it wrong or right. It's not stereotyping, necessarily, because that would assume that a person has certain qualities based on a set of identifiable characteristics, but it's more of a concept of generality. It's like the blue chair idea - everybody assumes the chair is blue, and if somebody wanted to call the chair yellow then that would be fine. Of course, these are people's lives we are dealing with here. Chairs are nonsensical items, but people are not. Many people take gender very seriously. Growing up in Africa, I was pretty isolated from incidents of people determining their own gender. I can only imagine how taboo that would be if somebody there tried to change the gender society labels them as. It just didn't happen. Then again, to a foreigner, there are behaviors that would jump out, such as men holding hands while walking down the streets. In America, that would be considered homosexual. In Kenya, that was what friends did. There was nothing about gender or sexual preference in the image of two men holding hands as in America. But there were defined gender roles just as in America. Women were generally the house-keepers and took care of the children. Women weren't oppressed, it was like how it is in America. Women could work if they wanted, women could live alone, women could wear what they wanted (although clothing was considerably more conservative). But women were also, 9.999999999% of the time, the ones who cooked the meals, took care of the children, and took care of the house. There were, however, women, who quite impressively, did all of that by themselves. Countless women who lost husbands to AIDs and, maybe had AIDs and/or HIV themselves. And some of there children probably did to. And these women did everything. They worked, they cooked, they grew crops, they owned animals, they paid for their children to get through school. And they didn't have any money. The courage and strength of these women is beyond words. And they are not scarce. AIDs is as big of a problem as one will find. I think that's why I never really put that much though into gender. To me, a person is defined by the content of their character, as opposed to their gender. I consider the difference between the genders minuscule because we all just the same.
I feel extremely isolated from this subject. I've always recognized it, been aware of it, but it's just not something I think about that much. From appearance, it's not hard to tell what gender a person is, and that is what I assume they are. Not because I have an issue with people identifying with whatever gender they want, but because that is the general way society identifies people - from a very basic level, be it wrong or right. It's not stereotyping, necessarily, because that would assume that a person has certain qualities based on a set of identifiable characteristics, but it's more of a concept of generality. It's like the blue chair idea - everybody assumes the chair is blue, and if somebody wanted to call the chair yellow then that would be fine. Of course, these are people's lives we are dealing with here. Chairs are nonsensical items, but people are not. Many people take gender very seriously. Growing up in Africa, I was pretty isolated from incidents of people determining their own gender. I can only imagine how taboo that would be if somebody there tried to change the gender society labels them as. It just didn't happen. Then again, to a foreigner, there are behaviors that would jump out, such as men holding hands while walking down the streets. In America, that would be considered homosexual. In Kenya, that was what friends did. There was nothing about gender or sexual preference in the image of two men holding hands as in America. But there were defined gender roles just as in America. Women were generally the house-keepers and took care of the children. Women weren't oppressed, it was like how it is in America. Women could work if they wanted, women could live alone, women could wear what they wanted (although clothing was considerably more conservative). But women were also, 9.999999999% of the time, the ones who cooked the meals, took care of the children, and took care of the house. There were, however, women, who quite impressively, did all of that by themselves. Countless women who lost husbands to AIDs and, maybe had AIDs and/or HIV themselves. And some of there children probably did to. And these women did everything. They worked, they cooked, they grew crops, they owned animals, they paid for their children to get through school. And they didn't have any money. The courage and strength of these women is beyond words. And they are not scarce. AIDs is as big of a problem as one will find. I think that's why I never really put that much though into gender. To me, a person is defined by the content of their character, as opposed to their gender. I consider the difference between the genders minuscule because we all just the same.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Blog – Given today’s discussion, was Eustace a Transcendentalist? Gilbert does comment on this. Do you agree with her interpretation?
To some degree Eustace was a transcendentalist. Without getting too bogged down with the definition, a transcendentalist is a person who believes in the right of the individual to define what they believe in. This is where the biggest disconnect between Eustace and transcendentalism lies. Eustace believes he is right. Whereas transcendentalists were opposed to congregationalism, Eustace wanted everybody to follow him. It's not that concrete though, because Eustace wanted people to adhere to his notion of living, but not necessarily live with him. This is an area of gray, Eustace believes in the individual's beliefs, as long as they lie in the realm of appreciating and coexisting with nature. It is true that nature was a major part of transcendentalism, but there is a difference between that nature and Eustace's nature. Eustace's nature is more extreme. Just as there is a difference between Christianity and extreme Christianity. What Eustace was doing was unique, it cannot be solely defined by any idea that came before, such as transcendentalism. It mirrors various theories of living in some aspects, but is not identical because of the extreme nature of Eustace's beliefs - it has been created by one person, in the mind of one person. transcendentalism was more than an idea created by one person.
To some degree Eustace was a transcendentalist. Without getting too bogged down with the definition, a transcendentalist is a person who believes in the right of the individual to define what they believe in. This is where the biggest disconnect between Eustace and transcendentalism lies. Eustace believes he is right. Whereas transcendentalists were opposed to congregationalism, Eustace wanted everybody to follow him. It's not that concrete though, because Eustace wanted people to adhere to his notion of living, but not necessarily live with him. This is an area of gray, Eustace believes in the individual's beliefs, as long as they lie in the realm of appreciating and coexisting with nature. It is true that nature was a major part of transcendentalism, but there is a difference between that nature and Eustace's nature. Eustace's nature is more extreme. Just as there is a difference between Christianity and extreme Christianity. What Eustace was doing was unique, it cannot be solely defined by any idea that came before, such as transcendentalism. It mirrors various theories of living in some aspects, but is not identical because of the extreme nature of Eustace's beliefs - it has been created by one person, in the mind of one person. transcendentalism was more than an idea created by one person.
=============
Blog – Pick one or two lines that really speak to you and explain them
"The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food."
In this excerpt, Emerson is talking about who can see nature. Just because you have eyes, does not mean you can see nature. One must be able to appreciate it - to be able to wrap all their senses together to appreciate nature. One must have the characteristics of a child - curiosity, sensationalism, exuberance, and keen to their environment. Otherwise, one cannot understand the true beauty of nature.
The second sentence is a metaphor designed to compliment the first sentence. In the first sentence, Emerson presents the "The lover of nature". In the second sentence, he uses this to create the metaphor of "The lover of nature" having "Intercourse with heaven and earth". Emerson believes that one must have some sort of spiritual connection to nature (hence the "heaven" part). Extending on the spiritual connection, he references a religious aspect, "The daily food".
"The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food."
In this excerpt, Emerson is talking about who can see nature. Just because you have eyes, does not mean you can see nature. One must be able to appreciate it - to be able to wrap all their senses together to appreciate nature. One must have the characteristics of a child - curiosity, sensationalism, exuberance, and keen to their environment. Otherwise, one cannot understand the true beauty of nature.
The second sentence is a metaphor designed to compliment the first sentence. In the first sentence, Emerson presents the "The lover of nature". In the second sentence, he uses this to create the metaphor of "The lover of nature" having "Intercourse with heaven and earth". Emerson believes that one must have some sort of spiritual connection to nature (hence the "heaven" part). Extending on the spiritual connection, he references a religious aspect, "The daily food".
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Why Write The Book?
Blog – Why did Elizabeth Gilbert write this book? What does she want us to take away from Eustace. Refer to (and analyze) a specific passage in your response.
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote this book to better understand herself. Specifically, her desire to live in nature, something reflective in Eustace Conway. Shortly after the book begins, Gilbert dives into her story - growing up in a wealthy suburb in Connecticut, pretending she didn't, and moving to Wyoming when she was 22. As she said on page 8, "I went to Wyoming, in other words, to make a man of myself". The key in this excerpt is that she doesn't mean man literally. She means man as in idealism - the kind like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, and even Eustace Conway. She was enchanted, even if, as she admits, she was a "faker".
The other reason that Elizabeth Gilbert writes the book is to explore how the reality contrasts Eustace's idealism. On page 11 she writes, "Eustace told me that people tended to romanticize his lifestyle. Because when people first ask him what he does for a living, he invariably replies, "I live in the woods." Then people get all dreamy and say, "Ah! The woods! The woods! I love the woods!" as if Eustace spends his days sipping the dew off clover blossoms. But that's not what living in the woods means to Eustace Conway." But, people don't know that they are wrong, that Eustace lives in a world full of stress and hypocrisy and struggle. Perhaps, Elizabeth Gilbert is trying to say that there are no "American men" left. Perhaps, Elizabeth Gilbert is saying "American Men" can no longer be 100% Davy Crockett. That is the reality that emerges from Gilbert's exploration of Eustace Conway.
Elizabeth Gilbert wrote this book to better understand herself. Specifically, her desire to live in nature, something reflective in Eustace Conway. Shortly after the book begins, Gilbert dives into her story - growing up in a wealthy suburb in Connecticut, pretending she didn't, and moving to Wyoming when she was 22. As she said on page 8, "I went to Wyoming, in other words, to make a man of myself". The key in this excerpt is that she doesn't mean man literally. She means man as in idealism - the kind like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, and even Eustace Conway. She was enchanted, even if, as she admits, she was a "faker".
The other reason that Elizabeth Gilbert writes the book is to explore how the reality contrasts Eustace's idealism. On page 11 she writes, "Eustace told me that people tended to romanticize his lifestyle. Because when people first ask him what he does for a living, he invariably replies, "I live in the woods." Then people get all dreamy and say, "Ah! The woods! The woods! I love the woods!" as if Eustace spends his days sipping the dew off clover blossoms. But that's not what living in the woods means to Eustace Conway." But, people don't know that they are wrong, that Eustace lives in a world full of stress and hypocrisy and struggle. Perhaps, Elizabeth Gilbert is trying to say that there are no "American men" left. Perhaps, Elizabeth Gilbert is saying "American Men" can no longer be 100% Davy Crockett. That is the reality that emerges from Gilbert's exploration of Eustace Conway.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tocqueville
Blog – Engaging the Text #2 on p. 380
According to Tocqueville, women in America are less equal in society than their counterparts in Europe, but women in America are glorified in their own way. First and foremost, Americans set out to protect the dignity and innocence of women. As he mentioned, "that in the presence of a woman the most guarded language is used, lest her ear should be offended by an expression. In America, a young unmarried woman may, alone and without fear, undertake a long journey. The legislators of the United States, who have mitigated almost all the penalties of criminal law, still make a rape a capital offense, and no crime is visited with more inexorable severity by public opinion." Tocqueville is essentially saying that women in America are treated as if they are perfect, but in Europe they are, "considered seductive but imperfect beings". Tocqueville admits that "women in the United States are confined withing the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is, in some respects, one of extreme dependence." However, he says, "I have nowhere seen women a loftier position" than in America. This is why he suggests that American democracy is enabling women to become "more and more the equal of man" - because they are treated so honorably. It is only a matter of time before the social equality comes about.
According to Tocqueville, women in America are less equal in society than their counterparts in Europe, but women in America are glorified in their own way. First and foremost, Americans set out to protect the dignity and innocence of women. As he mentioned, "that in the presence of a woman the most guarded language is used, lest her ear should be offended by an expression. In America, a young unmarried woman may, alone and without fear, undertake a long journey. The legislators of the United States, who have mitigated almost all the penalties of criminal law, still make a rape a capital offense, and no crime is visited with more inexorable severity by public opinion." Tocqueville is essentially saying that women in America are treated as if they are perfect, but in Europe they are, "considered seductive but imperfect beings". Tocqueville admits that "women in the United States are confined withing the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is, in some respects, one of extreme dependence." However, he says, "I have nowhere seen women a loftier position" than in America. This is why he suggests that American democracy is enabling women to become "more and more the equal of man" - because they are treated so honorably. It is only a matter of time before the social equality comes about.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Realization
Blog – What is Wright’s realization at the end of the novel? Do you agree with it?
At the end of the book, Wright realizes two things: that we are all humans with hunger and that he, himself, needs to write. His last sentence, "I would hurl words into this darkness and wait for an echo, and if an echo sounded, no matter how faintly, I would send other words to tell, to march, to fight, to create a sense of the hunger for life that gnaws in us all, to keep alive in our hearts a sense of the inexpressibly human" combines both elements. The beginning of the sentence deals with his need to write. He says that he will write about the black struggle ("the darkness") and listen for the response ("the echo"). If he felt any response, then he would continue writing to create the "spark in the darkness". He finishes the sentence by explaining the purpose of his writing: to prove that blacks are just as human as whites. In fact, Wright's biggest realization is that both whites and blacks struggle with fear and uncertainty, but yet they both have a "hunger" to survive.
From a modern standpoint, it's hard not to look back and agree. I think we've made enough progress that we can recognize the truth in racial equality.
At the end of the book, Wright realizes two things: that we are all humans with hunger and that he, himself, needs to write. His last sentence, "I would hurl words into this darkness and wait for an echo, and if an echo sounded, no matter how faintly, I would send other words to tell, to march, to fight, to create a sense of the hunger for life that gnaws in us all, to keep alive in our hearts a sense of the inexpressibly human" combines both elements. The beginning of the sentence deals with his need to write. He says that he will write about the black struggle ("the darkness") and listen for the response ("the echo"). If he felt any response, then he would continue writing to create the "spark in the darkness". He finishes the sentence by explaining the purpose of his writing: to prove that blacks are just as human as whites. In fact, Wright's biggest realization is that both whites and blacks struggle with fear and uncertainty, but yet they both have a "hunger" to survive.
From a modern standpoint, it's hard not to look back and agree. I think we've made enough progress that we can recognize the truth in racial equality.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
300
Rising above oppression through humility. The oppressed people in each story have risen above what has restricted them - race and poverty and power. Not by flipping the cards, but by accepting what life (fate?) had resorted them to. In Black Boy, the masses of blacks seeking food among their neighbors has led them to feel tense and embarrassed. But, as Wright observed, they started talking, and soon they were coming together, eliminating their fears by accepting that, "their past had betrayed them". In Langston Hughes' case he seeks revenge on the whites who tell him they cannot eat with them. But not the kind of revenge you would think. They say the best revenge is living well, and that is what Hughes seeks. Putting their pasts to rest is what causes the blacks in the relief station line and Langston Hughes to progress.
Poles
Blog – Do you agree with Wright’s theory that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles?
I do not agree that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles. In fact, artists and politicians can have a mutual relationship. For example, this poster of Uncle Sam is an example of the relationship that art and politics can have. And art can assist a political group in rebellion of another political group, such as this picture glorifying the United States in the Revolutionary War. Art can be used for propaganda. Art can be whatever the artist wants to make it. The only way I can imagine art being on the opposite pole of politics is if it portrayed some kind of natural anarchy.
I do not agree that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles. In fact, artists and politicians can have a mutual relationship. For example, this poster of Uncle Sam is an example of the relationship that art and politics can have. And art can assist a political group in rebellion of another political group, such as this picture glorifying the United States in the Revolutionary War. Art can be used for propaganda. Art can be whatever the artist wants to make it. The only way I can imagine art being on the opposite pole of politics is if it portrayed some kind of natural anarchy.
Monday, March 15, 2010
(parenthesis)
Blog – Even more so than in Part I, Wright the author – not Wright the person in the text – is speaking to us through these passages in parenthesis. Pick such a passage from this chapter and comment.
On page 265, Wright writes, "(It was not until I had left the delicatessen job that I saw how grossly I had misread the motives and attitudes of Mr. Hoffman and his wife. I had not yet learned anything that would have helped me to thread my way through these perplexing racial relations. Accepting my environment at its face value, trapped by my own emotions, I kept asking myself what had black people done to bring this crazy world upon them?
In this passage, Wright offers a reflection upon his first job in Chicago. He shares that he did not trust the Hoffmans, a fact that seems to burden yet reason with him. As he points out in this passage, and many others, he did not know who to trust. He was fresh out of Memphis, where no black man would ever trust a white person. Wright barely even trusted any blacks in Memphis. So it is not surprising that even though he hoped Chicago would free him from the racial tensions of the south, he was overly cautious. At the end of this passage he poses a rhetorical question that not only applies to the specific scenario of his mistrust, but to the whole book and his life. In the book, Wright is a character who cannot get past his own questions about unfairness. One would assume that this is not unlike the author Wright. This question further shows his unsettled, unique disturbance at racial injustice. His disturbance is not rare, for it was no doubt felt by many other blacks, and even some whites, but it is unique because he does not accept it, eve though most blacks did. One can tell that the author Wright, sometime in the future, still has not accepted it.
On page 265, Wright writes, "(It was not until I had left the delicatessen job that I saw how grossly I had misread the motives and attitudes of Mr. Hoffman and his wife. I had not yet learned anything that would have helped me to thread my way through these perplexing racial relations. Accepting my environment at its face value, trapped by my own emotions, I kept asking myself what had black people done to bring this crazy world upon them?
In this passage, Wright offers a reflection upon his first job in Chicago. He shares that he did not trust the Hoffmans, a fact that seems to burden yet reason with him. As he points out in this passage, and many others, he did not know who to trust. He was fresh out of Memphis, where no black man would ever trust a white person. Wright barely even trusted any blacks in Memphis. So it is not surprising that even though he hoped Chicago would free him from the racial tensions of the south, he was overly cautious. At the end of this passage he poses a rhetorical question that not only applies to the specific scenario of his mistrust, but to the whole book and his life. In the book, Wright is a character who cannot get past his own questions about unfairness. One would assume that this is not unlike the author Wright. This question further shows his unsettled, unique disturbance at racial injustice. His disturbance is not rare, for it was no doubt felt by many other blacks, and even some whites, but it is unique because he does not accept it, eve though most blacks did. One can tell that the author Wright, sometime in the future, still has not accepted it.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Engaging
Blog – Engaging the Text #2 on p. 218 BUT think also of Richard. What ‘knowledge’ has he been ‘educated’ by that spurred him on to ‘freedom’?
By learning to read, Malcolm X gained knowledge of history and philosophy. He also gained the knowledge of opinion. By understanding the oppression by whites in Africa, Asia, and America he was able to formulate his opinion that whites were responsible for most of the problems in world history. This knowledge freed and empowered him because it enabled him to understand why he and many other blacks were so mistreated in society (which no doubt had caused him to turn to the streets). And because he understood it, he could fight against it.
Similarly, Richard Wright, feels liberated by reading. It is interesting to note that both Wright and Malcolm X seem to favor nonfiction. Richard Wright feels that he can understand why society oppresses him and with this knowledge, he can subtly fight against the oppressive society by keeping his pride and becoming as well-educated as any white can become.
By learning to read, Malcolm X gained knowledge of history and philosophy. He also gained the knowledge of opinion. By understanding the oppression by whites in Africa, Asia, and America he was able to formulate his opinion that whites were responsible for most of the problems in world history. This knowledge freed and empowered him because it enabled him to understand why he and many other blacks were so mistreated in society (which no doubt had caused him to turn to the streets). And because he understood it, he could fight against it.
Similarly, Richard Wright, feels liberated by reading. It is interesting to note that both Wright and Malcolm X seem to favor nonfiction. Richard Wright feels that he can understand why society oppresses him and with this knowledge, he can subtly fight against the oppressive society by keeping his pride and becoming as well-educated as any white can become.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Change
Blog – Is the change Wright sets in motion at the end of Part 1 (his action to move) a positive or negative change?
The enticing possibilities of Chicago lead Wright to hope moving will be a positive change. Specifically, he hopes moving will allow him the freedom to not be a puppet. In Memphis, he had to act like a black man was supposed to in order to survive. But his natural instincts and curiosity in reading cause him to seek for more in a society where there is not more for people like him. Chicago is obviously not racism-free, but in the eyes of many, it is much better than Memphis or anywhere else in the south. Wright does not really know what to expect, but he sees no point in continuing to live in the south like Shorty when there is the possibility of a better place. Of course, the negative part of moving is that he will once again be living his family (at least the ones he cares about - his mother and brother) behind. In addition, it will be a lot colder in Chicago and it may not actually be any better in terms of opportunity.
The enticing possibilities of Chicago lead Wright to hope moving will be a positive change. Specifically, he hopes moving will allow him the freedom to not be a puppet. In Memphis, he had to act like a black man was supposed to in order to survive. But his natural instincts and curiosity in reading cause him to seek for more in a society where there is not more for people like him. Chicago is obviously not racism-free, but in the eyes of many, it is much better than Memphis or anywhere else in the south. Wright does not really know what to expect, but he sees no point in continuing to live in the south like Shorty when there is the possibility of a better place. Of course, the negative part of moving is that he will once again be living his family (at least the ones he cares about - his mother and brother) behind. In addition, it will be a lot colder in Chicago and it may not actually be any better in terms of opportunity.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Subservience
Blog – Is subservience a necessary part of living?
Subservience is a natural part of living. Everybody starts out subserviently. When we are babies and kids we often obey our parents unquestionably. Even as adults we mostly subserviently obey the law. Subservience can also be a concious necessity, though. In Wright's case, he must be subservient to the whites in order to survive. If he doesn't act how a black man is supposed to, he will get fired or beaten or even killed. In order to keep his job so he can afford food and clothes, and in order to remain alive, he
must be subservient.
In today's society is it necessary to be subservient? Sort of. You have to be subservient to the law. In fact, the most effective societies are the ones with the most subservient people.You cannot go out and do target practice in the mall, and if you do, then you will be prevented from doing it again (prison). On the other hand, today's society doesn't require people to be subservient in the same ways that society did during Wright's time. There are some exceptions, but by and large, when people have to be subservient, there is a reason. And if they don't want to be, there is nothing preventing them from moving to a place where they don't have to be.
Subservience is a natural part of living. Everybody starts out subserviently. When we are babies and kids we often obey our parents unquestionably. Even as adults we mostly subserviently obey the law. Subservience can also be a concious necessity, though. In Wright's case, he must be subservient to the whites in order to survive. If he doesn't act how a black man is supposed to, he will get fired or beaten or even killed. In order to keep his job so he can afford food and clothes, and in order to remain alive, he
must be subservient.
In today's society is it necessary to be subservient? Sort of. You have to be subservient to the law. In fact, the most effective societies are the ones with the most subservient people.You cannot go out and do target practice in the mall, and if you do, then you will be prevented from doing it again (prison). On the other hand, today's society doesn't require people to be subservient in the same ways that society did during Wright's time. There are some exceptions, but by and large, when people have to be subservient, there is a reason. And if they don't want to be, there is nothing preventing them from moving to a place where they don't have to be.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Coping
What does Wright mean when he says he had ‘begun coping with the white world too late’? How does that manifest itself in these next chapters
Richard Wright believes he has not had the same experiences with whites that other blacks have had. Because of this, he was naive around whites - acting as if he were the same as them instead of lesser than them. In the early 1900's, that kind of behavior did not fly, especially in the South. But Richard Wright did not have the same experiences, he was rather isolated. His family wouldn't let him work until he was much older than his friends who started working. It seems that when he was in big cities that he did not have much experience with the other half, and when he lived in the rural areas, he had even less experience. He went to all black churches and all black schools. Wright proclaims that he simply did not understand what his place in society was because of his lack of experience and his natural rebel qualities.
When he moves to Memphis, he experiences culture shock. As he began working, he became more aware of the societal differences between whites and blacks. His friends coached him in how to cope with the white world. Although he wasn't very good at it, he picked up enough to first get some jobs, and second, steal. He learned how to cope with the white world when he began to steal. In order to get ahead in a society that would not let him, he had to do illegal things.
Richard Wright believes he has not had the same experiences with whites that other blacks have had. Because of this, he was naive around whites - acting as if he were the same as them instead of lesser than them. In the early 1900's, that kind of behavior did not fly, especially in the South. But Richard Wright did not have the same experiences, he was rather isolated. His family wouldn't let him work until he was much older than his friends who started working. It seems that when he was in big cities that he did not have much experience with the other half, and when he lived in the rural areas, he had even less experience. He went to all black churches and all black schools. Wright proclaims that he simply did not understand what his place in society was because of his lack of experience and his natural rebel qualities.
When he moves to Memphis, he experiences culture shock. As he began working, he became more aware of the societal differences between whites and blacks. His friends coached him in how to cope with the white world. Although he wasn't very good at it, he picked up enough to first get some jobs, and second, steal. He learned how to cope with the white world when he began to steal. In order to get ahead in a society that would not let him, he had to do illegal things.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Speech Drama
Is Wright justified in refusing to say the speech?
Based off of the limited context of the speech, I would say that Wright is not justified in refusing to say the speech. Surely it must be tradition that the principal writes the speech for the students. Furthermore, Wright appears not confident in his abilities of speech-writing compared to the principal's. On page 177, Wright says, "The principal's speech was simpler and clearer than mine". Wright does not understand that public speaking is about simplicity and clarity. It is not like his book where he can share his elaborate sentences and metaphorical ideas. In this regard, Wright would be well served in heeding the advice of his principal. This is where the lack of context comes in, though. What does the principal's speech say? If the speech is full of self-degradation and continued oppression, then never mind all that I just wrote. Assuming that the speech the principal wrote is a nice, formal, and clear conclusion that steers away from inciting drama, then Wright is not justified. He is missing out on a learning opportunity by being stubborn about fickle controversies.
Based off of the limited context of the speech, I would say that Wright is not justified in refusing to say the speech. Surely it must be tradition that the principal writes the speech for the students. Furthermore, Wright appears not confident in his abilities of speech-writing compared to the principal's. On page 177, Wright says, "The principal's speech was simpler and clearer than mine". Wright does not understand that public speaking is about simplicity and clarity. It is not like his book where he can share his elaborate sentences and metaphorical ideas. In this regard, Wright would be well served in heeding the advice of his principal. This is where the lack of context comes in, though. What does the principal's speech say? If the speech is full of self-degradation and continued oppression, then never mind all that I just wrote. Assuming that the speech the principal wrote is a nice, formal, and clear conclusion that steers away from inciting drama, then Wright is not justified. He is missing out on a learning opportunity by being stubborn about fickle controversies.
Wright and his anger towards Uncle Tom
Why is Wright so angry with his uncle Tom?
Richard Wright's uncle, Tom, moved in with the family and it created numerous problems. First, there was a lack of space - the house was overcrowded. Second, there was another person around to bother Richard. It seemed that everybody in the crowded household had an issue with Richard - whether it was over his lack of religious aspirations, or his disinterest in school, or his desires of getting a job. When Tom woke up Richard one morning to ask him the time, an annoyed Richard told him the time. When Tom took issue with the tone of Richard's response, Richard became angry. The anger was heightened by Tom's attempts to beat him. Richard was spoiled in a way and unfortunate in another. He was not of the generation that knew what it was like to be completely controlled by another human being. He was not of the generations later that were even less informed of what it was like to be beaten. He was somewhere in the middle, at a conflict in generations. On one hand, he was expected by the older generation to take his beatings. On the other hand, he did not understand why he should, having never been part of the generation that grew up in slavery or on plantations. Richard is constantly fighting against the expectations of the older generation that he should take his beatings and go to church and behave submissively because he has a fighting instinct in him. He is unaware of just how racist and unfair the real world is until he starts working and interacting with whites. He does not understand why his world cannot be fair among his family. Richard Wright is an idealist, and that is why he gets mad at his Uncle Tom - a man very much stuck in the real world.
Richard Wright's uncle, Tom, moved in with the family and it created numerous problems. First, there was a lack of space - the house was overcrowded. Second, there was another person around to bother Richard. It seemed that everybody in the crowded household had an issue with Richard - whether it was over his lack of religious aspirations, or his disinterest in school, or his desires of getting a job. When Tom woke up Richard one morning to ask him the time, an annoyed Richard told him the time. When Tom took issue with the tone of Richard's response, Richard became angry. The anger was heightened by Tom's attempts to beat him. Richard was spoiled in a way and unfortunate in another. He was not of the generation that knew what it was like to be completely controlled by another human being. He was not of the generations later that were even less informed of what it was like to be beaten. He was somewhere in the middle, at a conflict in generations. On one hand, he was expected by the older generation to take his beatings. On the other hand, he did not understand why he should, having never been part of the generation that grew up in slavery or on plantations. Richard is constantly fighting against the expectations of the older generation that he should take his beatings and go to church and behave submissively because he has a fighting instinct in him. He is unaware of just how racist and unfair the real world is until he starts working and interacting with whites. He does not understand why his world cannot be fair among his family. Richard Wright is an idealist, and that is why he gets mad at his Uncle Tom - a man very much stuck in the real world.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Gratification
Why does Wright feel gratified after sharing his writing?
Wright feels gratified after sharing his writing because of the reaction he got from it. When he shared his story about Indians with the girl next door, he enjoyed the, "look of astonishment and bewilderment on the young woman's face". He further expands, "her inability to grasp what I had done or was trying to do somehow gratified me". He clearly enjoyed the attention and the feeling of impressing someone else, especially since he was never praised at home, that came from his writing. Another reason that he felt gratified after sharing his writing is that stories were rare. He continuously mentions the lack of reading material he had and how when he got something to read, he was overjoyed. His life was rather boring, he wasn't allowed to talk much, his family didn't interact with him beyond a surface level, and they had their own problems that took the attention. The gratification that he got from simply sharing a story not only entertained him for the day, but it gave him some attention that was so foreign to him.
Wright feels gratified after sharing his writing because of the reaction he got from it. When he shared his story about Indians with the girl next door, he enjoyed the, "look of astonishment and bewilderment on the young woman's face". He further expands, "her inability to grasp what I had done or was trying to do somehow gratified me". He clearly enjoyed the attention and the feeling of impressing someone else, especially since he was never praised at home, that came from his writing. Another reason that he felt gratified after sharing his writing is that stories were rare. He continuously mentions the lack of reading material he had and how when he got something to read, he was overjoyed. His life was rather boring, he wasn't allowed to talk much, his family didn't interact with him beyond a surface level, and they had their own problems that took the attention. The gratification that he got from simply sharing a story not only entertained him for the day, but it gave him some attention that was so foreign to him.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wright's Response
Blog – Explain Wright’s response to his mother’s paralysis.
Wright's response to his mother's paralysis is a period of fear and self-realization. The experience was his introduction to the real world. When his mother fell ill, he first got a job at the roundhouse and then a café. Then they moved three times, and one morning his mother was paralyzed. And then his mother's family came to help support them. Wright became conscious of how much money they did not have, and he quit eating. Then he moved, with his mother, back to Granny's house, and at first his mother got better, but then she got worse. The biggest realization Wright came across was that he was helpless. He was helpless against the whites and fearful of the world without his mother, who was his sole protector against a society that hated him and his kind. Without his mother, a woman who played both a motherly and fatherly role to him, he realized that even though he was a young man, he was just a boy. Eventually, he adapts, and as we see when he fights the other classmates when he lives with his uncle, he understood how his race and his peers were going to judge him. But we also see that he is still very much afraid - he won't sleep in the bed that somebody had died in. Wright’s response to his mother’s paralysis is a period in which he tries (and needs) to grow up faster than normal, but his dependence on his mother causes him to not be able to.
Wright's response to his mother's paralysis is a period of fear and self-realization. The experience was his introduction to the real world. When his mother fell ill, he first got a job at the roundhouse and then a café. Then they moved three times, and one morning his mother was paralyzed. And then his mother's family came to help support them. Wright became conscious of how much money they did not have, and he quit eating. Then he moved, with his mother, back to Granny's house, and at first his mother got better, but then she got worse. The biggest realization Wright came across was that he was helpless. He was helpless against the whites and fearful of the world without his mother, who was his sole protector against a society that hated him and his kind. Without his mother, a woman who played both a motherly and fatherly role to him, he realized that even though he was a young man, he was just a boy. Eventually, he adapts, and as we see when he fights the other classmates when he lives with his uncle, he understood how his race and his peers were going to judge him. But we also see that he is still very much afraid - he won't sleep in the bed that somebody had died in. Wright’s response to his mother’s paralysis is a period in which he tries (and needs) to grow up faster than normal, but his dependence on his mother causes him to not be able to.
Black Boy and Tension
I think that the main reason Wright felt it was in his cultural heritage to hate Jews was that they were more white than they were black. Jewish people were hated by both the whites and the blacks. The blacks hated them because most Jews have lighter skin while the whites hated them because they were different in culture and, although not as much as the blacks, they did have physical differences. Wright, however, cannot understand why his culture hates Jews, only that they do. In this way he is sort of brainwashed into hating Jews. Later on in life, though, he realized that Jews were just as hated by whites as blacks were.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Hungry Wright
Why is Wright really hungry?
Wright's hunger comes from his lack of understanding. He does not understand why whites are different. He does not understand why his mother has to struggle and his father is not around. He does not understand why he cannot do what he wants. He wants to understand, and this motivates him. In addition, the pain of being in an orphanage drives him further. In fact, he would so much rather talk to his father than be in the orphanage. The pain of the visit further makes him hungry because his father makes him mad. His harbored resentment for his father over the next quarter century will no doubt play a major role in determining how hungry he really is.
Wright's hunger comes from his lack of understanding. He does not understand why whites are different. He does not understand why his mother has to struggle and his father is not around. He does not understand why he cannot do what he wants. He wants to understand, and this motivates him. In addition, the pain of being in an orphanage drives him further. In fact, he would so much rather talk to his father than be in the orphanage. The pain of the visit further makes him hungry because his father makes him mad. His harbored resentment for his father over the next quarter century will no doubt play a major role in determining how hungry he really is.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
School is Necessary
To what extent do you agree that we don’t really need to go to school?
I once read a book, and I don't remember what it was called, but it said something like, 'school is a major problem in society, but it is also necessary'. I completely agree with this statement. School is just as bad as society. But for a select few, it is perfect. The comparisons are remarkably similar. The popular succeed and the ones making the highest marks/money thrive. Meanwhile, the rest of us fit in somewhere below on the ladder. Only so many can be the most athletic, the most social, get the best grades, be the most popular, wear the newest fashions. So the rest of us go to school, and depending on where we fit, it's somewhere between "meh" and hell. Ideally, we'd all go to schools like the ones I've been fortunate enough to go to. Ideally, we'd all live in suburban neighborhoods with 2.3 kids and a white picket fence and a two car garage. But never in history has this been possible, not even in the most socialist, communist territories. And for this reason, school teaches us an invaluable lesson: life isn't fair, so do your best. It's ridiculous to think that we can all be Ragged Dick. Fortunately people can find happiness elsewhere. Happiness is your own definition, and those who need to will eventually learn that. I think that in the end, most people grow up. Cliques break up, we move into the real world, and school means nothing anymore. Most of the things we learned, we forget. But there are things we don't forget, and they aren't factual. The ability to think, to make decisions, to comprehend the world we live in, and how to play "the game". Because after it's all said and done, most people move into society, some people move into the wilderness, and a select few continue rolling along in the upper echelons of popularity and wealth. Why should kids not be exposed to this from an early age?
I once read a book, and I don't remember what it was called, but it said something like, 'school is a major problem in society, but it is also necessary'. I completely agree with this statement. School is just as bad as society. But for a select few, it is perfect. The comparisons are remarkably similar. The popular succeed and the ones making the highest marks/money thrive. Meanwhile, the rest of us fit in somewhere below on the ladder. Only so many can be the most athletic, the most social, get the best grades, be the most popular, wear the newest fashions. So the rest of us go to school, and depending on where we fit, it's somewhere between "meh" and hell. Ideally, we'd all go to schools like the ones I've been fortunate enough to go to. Ideally, we'd all live in suburban neighborhoods with 2.3 kids and a white picket fence and a two car garage. But never in history has this been possible, not even in the most socialist, communist territories. And for this reason, school teaches us an invaluable lesson: life isn't fair, so do your best. It's ridiculous to think that we can all be Ragged Dick. Fortunately people can find happiness elsewhere. Happiness is your own definition, and those who need to will eventually learn that. I think that in the end, most people grow up. Cliques break up, we move into the real world, and school means nothing anymore. Most of the things we learned, we forget. But there are things we don't forget, and they aren't factual. The ability to think, to make decisions, to comprehend the world we live in, and how to play "the game". Because after it's all said and done, most people move into society, some people move into the wilderness, and a select few continue rolling along in the upper echelons of popularity and wealth. Why should kids not be exposed to this from an early age?
Nonacademic Education = Good Idea
Blog – Do you value the ‘nonacademic’ education you are receiving? Why or why not?
I am pretty biased, having always received a nonacademic education, but I absolutely think that nonacademic education is extremely important. Even in Africa, the schools put a high focus on it, especially physical education. Perhaps this is most evident in the number of great runners from Kenya. In America, schools focus on even more nonacademic education, especially private ones. I went to a public school in 3rd grade and I remember we had Spanish twice a week, P.E. once a week, Art once a week, and Music once a week. When I switched to a private school, I had P.E., music, Spanish, and art every day. In addition, there were school plays that everybody was required to participate in and recess and projects that included a variety of nonacademic outlets. In high school, it seems to have dropped off somewhat. This, however, has been compensated for with the experience of playing on the school athletic teams. There are many life lessons that you can learn from sports. I'm sure that people who do theater or music would tell you the same thing. I know that there are schools out there that do not give much nonacademic education, mostly due to a lack of funding and time. I think that these kids and schools are missing out, and it would be great if everybody in America got to have recess and art and music and P.E. everyday. There is definitely something to be said for the lessons that nonacademic classes can teach you.
I am pretty biased, having always received a nonacademic education, but I absolutely think that nonacademic education is extremely important. Even in Africa, the schools put a high focus on it, especially physical education. Perhaps this is most evident in the number of great runners from Kenya. In America, schools focus on even more nonacademic education, especially private ones. I went to a public school in 3rd grade and I remember we had Spanish twice a week, P.E. once a week, Art once a week, and Music once a week. When I switched to a private school, I had P.E., music, Spanish, and art every day. In addition, there were school plays that everybody was required to participate in and recess and projects that included a variety of nonacademic outlets. In high school, it seems to have dropped off somewhat. This, however, has been compensated for with the experience of playing on the school athletic teams. There are many life lessons that you can learn from sports. I'm sure that people who do theater or music would tell you the same thing. I know that there are schools out there that do not give much nonacademic education, mostly due to a lack of funding and time. I think that these kids and schools are missing out, and it would be great if everybody in America got to have recess and art and music and P.E. everyday. There is definitely something to be said for the lessons that nonacademic classes can teach you.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Out on the Town Presentations
The presentations for the Rhethoric Out on the Town were all very interesting. I thought everybody did a great job finding photos or magazine pictures. One presentation that stood out to me was Molly's about the LA Fitness picture. She pointed out how the architecture of the building was reminiscent of what you would find in a warmer/more western climate. I hadn't realized that the LA part refers to Los Angeles. I had always assumed it was Spanish, like la casa. Anyways, I had never thought about the way that LA Fitness is trying to present an image of warmer climates, but it makes perfect sense. I thought that Katie's Hamilton 16 Imax picture was very interesting because it was a situation in which dual advertising is going on: they're trying to sell a movie, but they are also trying to sell the theater. I liked how Ashley brought in two different pictures of signs advertising Broad Ripple Village. It was interesting how they advertised in one place multiple times. This helps Broad Ripple set the tone of the community.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Kendall and Media
I agree with Kednall's assertion that "the media do not simply mirror society rather, they help to shape it and to create cultural perceptions". Fox News, for example, can tell us that just 30% of America supports Barack Obama and people will believe it. News, especially statistics, can me manipulated, or even made up, in such a way that the media can broadcast almost any message they want. There are plenty of ways to combat this misinformation such as fact check websites, observing other media sources, and being able to recognize outright lies. The majority of America, for whatever reason, does not have the ability to do so, however. Reasons for this include time, laziness, lack of education, carelessness, and bias. Therefore, I believe that the media can distort our perception of social inequality and I agree that watching TV inclines Americans to run up credit card debt. . Upon reflection, the media has the power to do almost anything it wants. While some people are smart enough to recognize abuses when they see it, others are not. The media therefore has a huge responsibility to present the truth.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Mickey Mouse -----> Rocawear
Blog – What is Gitlin saying about the streams of rhetoric that pour out of America? Do you agree with him?
Gitilin is saying that America sends out a message of "with us". The kids in Hong Kong may not be able to be American, but they can experience America culture. They can go to Disneyland and eat McDonald's and watch Will Smith in a movie. These people can experience the connection with the most watched media in the world. In this regards, Gitilin says that it is not just because the media is American, but because it is so widely popular. "As devotees of Japanese video games, Hong Kong movies, and Mexican telenovelas would quickly remind us, the blends, juxtapositions, and recommendations of popular culture are not just American. American and American based models styles, and symbols are simply the most far-flung, successful, and consequential". While Gitilin recognizes the importance of the actual characters and settings (like Mickey Mouse and Disnelyand), the most important exported idea from America, according to Gitilin, is the models and ideas. In my experience, this has been true. When I lived in Kenya there were a couple of television channels. The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air was on every night on one channel. Friends was on every night on another. The news, which improved dramatically over the years, kept increasing in similarity to the format that is common in America. Sometimes they would even show political meetings - a format that is American in both democracy and the broadcast of major events. If one wanted movies or music, they could simply walk over to the supermarket and pick up (often boot-legged) copies from the group of teenagers hanging out. The teenagers would often wear clothes that were similar to their teenage counterparts in America - Rocawear, Reebok, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Jordan, etc. Never mind that these clothes were brought at the local market, which imported them from organizations collecting clothes that were heavily worn already. They were wearing those clothes - a stark contrast to the clothing of other Kenyans.
Gitilin is saying that America sends out a message of "with us". The kids in Hong Kong may not be able to be American, but they can experience America culture. They can go to Disneyland and eat McDonald's and watch Will Smith in a movie. These people can experience the connection with the most watched media in the world. In this regards, Gitilin says that it is not just because the media is American, but because it is so widely popular. "As devotees of Japanese video games, Hong Kong movies, and Mexican telenovelas would quickly remind us, the blends, juxtapositions, and recommendations of popular culture are not just American. American and American based models styles, and symbols are simply the most far-flung, successful, and consequential". While Gitilin recognizes the importance of the actual characters and settings (like Mickey Mouse and Disnelyand), the most important exported idea from America, according to Gitilin, is the models and ideas. In my experience, this has been true. When I lived in Kenya there were a couple of television channels. The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air was on every night on one channel. Friends was on every night on another. The news, which improved dramatically over the years, kept increasing in similarity to the format that is common in America. Sometimes they would even show political meetings - a format that is American in both democracy and the broadcast of major events. If one wanted movies or music, they could simply walk over to the supermarket and pick up (often boot-legged) copies from the group of teenagers hanging out. The teenagers would often wear clothes that were similar to their teenage counterparts in America - Rocawear, Reebok, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Jordan, etc. Never mind that these clothes were brought at the local market, which imported them from organizations collecting clothes that were heavily worn already. They were wearing those clothes - a stark contrast to the clothing of other Kenyans.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Stewart ------> ?????
Blog – While I think this article is interesting and valuable, Martha Stewart has fallen out of vogue a bit. Name and explain a more contemporary media icon that people are now striving to follow.
It seems that the contemporary media icons change every couple of years. Up until December I would have said Tiger Woods is the clear example. Similarly to Martha Stewart, though, Tiger has fallen from the pedestal he was once on. I read an article the other day online, though, that said Tiger's products are selling as well as ever - so maybe he still belongs on the list. A year ago at this time I would have said Barack Obama, and while he still remains vastly popular as a person, many have been disappointed with his politics so far. Michael Jordan is still an media icon, though nowhere near the one he was in the 90's. Michael Jordan is still seen as the ultimate athlete - a feisty competitor who willed his team to win and could sell shoes just by his name. Over the last five years, Lebron James has taken some of that iconship - especially when he stood up against Darfur. Another athlete who is extremely popular and many try to emulate, especially locally, is Peyton Manning. To many people Peyton is the indestructible quarterback who donated so much money that he got a children's hospital named after him. It is actually quite amazing how many people try to emulate athletes. Oprah Winfrey, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus (especially amongst the younger population), Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Obama, Rich Warren, George Clooney, Sarah Palin, George Clooney, Zac Efron, Jay Leno, Hillary Clinton, and Jay-Z are more people that come to my mind, although they all have a strong crowd of enemies as well. Compare that list to 5 years ago and it's amazing how much has changed - media icons come and go pretty quickly.
It seems that the contemporary media icons change every couple of years. Up until December I would have said Tiger Woods is the clear example. Similarly to Martha Stewart, though, Tiger has fallen from the pedestal he was once on. I read an article the other day online, though, that said Tiger's products are selling as well as ever - so maybe he still belongs on the list. A year ago at this time I would have said Barack Obama, and while he still remains vastly popular as a person, many have been disappointed with his politics so far. Michael Jordan is still an media icon, though nowhere near the one he was in the 90's. Michael Jordan is still seen as the ultimate athlete - a feisty competitor who willed his team to win and could sell shoes just by his name. Over the last five years, Lebron James has taken some of that iconship - especially when he stood up against Darfur. Another athlete who is extremely popular and many try to emulate, especially locally, is Peyton Manning. To many people Peyton is the indestructible quarterback who donated so much money that he got a children's hospital named after him. It is actually quite amazing how many people try to emulate athletes. Oprah Winfrey, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus (especially amongst the younger population), Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Obama, Rich Warren, George Clooney, Sarah Palin, George Clooney, Zac Efron, Jay Leno, Hillary Clinton, and Jay-Z are more people that come to my mind, although they all have a strong crowd of enemies as well. Compare that list to 5 years ago and it's amazing how much has changed - media icons come and go pretty quickly.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Kilbourne
According to Kilbourne, it is dangerous to depict women and men as sex objects because it can degrade members of society (consciously or sub-consciously). Kilbourne hypothesizes that people see commercials that are objectifying and it sub-consciously affects them. I agree that this is a problem for some people. I think that a large part of this goes back to education. Educated people are less likely to be manipulated by these ads. Kilbourne thinks that the objectification of women is more troubling because they already have a lesser role in society. Commercials further push women back in society by making it seem like they are sex objects. I agree, although it's important to realize that women willingly agree to appear in the ads. Either they don't think it is being objectifying or they don't care about morals. I think the former is more likely.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Grammy Awards on CBS
Watch another 30-minutes of television. Blog – Note the time, program and audience of whatever you watched. What did you notice about the ads? How were they catering to a given audience?
It is 8:00 P.M. Sunday night, but I'm starting whenever Lady Gaga quits singing. Putting the TV on mute enables me to notice the audience. There are two different audiences, anyone in the American public (ages 10-50) who listens to music and the live audience (ditto). It looks as if there may be over 10,000 people there. Lady Gaga quit singing, thank goodness, so I can turn the mute off. The host is making very simple jokes - clearly targeted to people who are really into seeing Lady Gaga perform in her 13450981034 costumes, because they would be the only ones deep enough into it already to laugh. Now the host is making some joke to his daughter about guitar hero and some old rocker dude having the high score in it even though he's never played it, and his daughter is playing along. More simple humor but they are effectively bringing together different generations. Useful for keeping the attention of families watching the Grammy Awards together. The host announced that Beyonce won the best song of the year award. This isn't just an observation of THIS award show, but the short speeches remind you who the audience is. Nobody wants to hear Beyonce's posse thank 5 million people. They keep the acceptance speeches short because people would rather see the presentations, performances, various celebrities, and more awards. It's all about keeping the audience focused, and that is why they move along at such a fast pace. The longest segments are the performances, and besides the fact that they are the most popular singers, they also use tons of different camera angles and lighting effects and dancers to create a mass chaos of movement. The noise of the live audience adds a subtle yet effective effect. The thousands of cheering people sends a message to the viewer that they should be watching it because all those people are so excited and enjoying it so much. The first ad is for some Lincoln car. Sure enough, they use a song, Major Tom, as the key part of their advertisement. Shots alter between the singers singing the song and video of the car driving in infinity. The next ad is a contacts ad, a very normal ad there. McDonald's showed an ad next for some burrito looking thing. There were three girls in the ad and a guy eating the food. As the guy walked by all the girls eyed him and they were all smiley and so was he. The message was clearly that McDonald's gets you the girls. Beyonce is now about to perform "If I were a Boy" and it's 8:30. Perfect timing.
It is 8:00 P.M. Sunday night, but I'm starting whenever Lady Gaga quits singing. Putting the TV on mute enables me to notice the audience. There are two different audiences, anyone in the American public (ages 10-50) who listens to music and the live audience (ditto). It looks as if there may be over 10,000 people there. Lady Gaga quit singing, thank goodness, so I can turn the mute off. The host is making very simple jokes - clearly targeted to people who are really into seeing Lady Gaga perform in her 13450981034 costumes, because they would be the only ones deep enough into it already to laugh. Now the host is making some joke to his daughter about guitar hero and some old rocker dude having the high score in it even though he's never played it, and his daughter is playing along. More simple humor but they are effectively bringing together different generations. Useful for keeping the attention of families watching the Grammy Awards together. The host announced that Beyonce won the best song of the year award. This isn't just an observation of THIS award show, but the short speeches remind you who the audience is. Nobody wants to hear Beyonce's posse thank 5 million people. They keep the acceptance speeches short because people would rather see the presentations, performances, various celebrities, and more awards. It's all about keeping the audience focused, and that is why they move along at such a fast pace. The longest segments are the performances, and besides the fact that they are the most popular singers, they also use tons of different camera angles and lighting effects and dancers to create a mass chaos of movement. The noise of the live audience adds a subtle yet effective effect. The thousands of cheering people sends a message to the viewer that they should be watching it because all those people are so excited and enjoying it so much. The first ad is for some Lincoln car. Sure enough, they use a song, Major Tom, as the key part of their advertisement. Shots alter between the singers singing the song and video of the car driving in infinity. The next ad is a contacts ad, a very normal ad there. McDonald's showed an ad next for some burrito looking thing. There were three girls in the ad and a guy eating the food. As the guy walked by all the girls eyed him and they were all smiley and so was he. The message was clearly that McDonald's gets you the girls. Beyonce is now about to perform "If I were a Boy" and it's 8:30. Perfect timing.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Initial Discussions of Language Reminding Me of Stuff
Blog – What about this essay reminds you of our initial discussions of language? What new perspective does it bring up?
There were three basic points of this essay that dealt with how language may differ in television programs. The first point brought up by Neil Postman and Steve Powers is that language is not static - different announcers may choose a different set of words to present the tone of an incident. The second point the article points out is that some announcers may be more ambiguous than others. An announcer can make a statement that is so broad it could refer to millions of people, or an announcer can make a statement so narrow that the viewer knows precisely every detail of a person. The third point that the authors bring up is that words have connotative meanings. The example provided, "high-level policymaker", shows that even though we have no idea what that is, it sounds impressive. Announcers have the ability to say such things about people without the general viewer realizing the bias they are being presented. The essay was designed to help people see these biases.
The essay definitely reminded me of our initial discussions of language. Language is a powerful tool. There is almost always a bias when people talk, but it can be extremely difficult to notice without the proper understanding of language. Even the announcers may not be aware. The essay points out that reports are "thrown together" rather than "designed". Announcers don't have the time to go through each word and make sure it is unbiased in context. That was the biggest new perspective the essay pointed out. People may not intend to be biased, but they are because language can be an unpredictable, unscripted thing.
There were three basic points of this essay that dealt with how language may differ in television programs. The first point brought up by Neil Postman and Steve Powers is that language is not static - different announcers may choose a different set of words to present the tone of an incident. The second point the article points out is that some announcers may be more ambiguous than others. An announcer can make a statement that is so broad it could refer to millions of people, or an announcer can make a statement so narrow that the viewer knows precisely every detail of a person. The third point that the authors bring up is that words have connotative meanings. The example provided, "high-level policymaker", shows that even though we have no idea what that is, it sounds impressive. Announcers have the ability to say such things about people without the general viewer realizing the bias they are being presented. The essay was designed to help people see these biases.
The essay definitely reminded me of our initial discussions of language. Language is a powerful tool. There is almost always a bias when people talk, but it can be extremely difficult to notice without the proper understanding of language. Even the announcers may not be aware. The essay points out that reports are "thrown together" rather than "designed". Announcers don't have the time to go through each word and make sure it is unbiased in context. That was the biggest new perspective the essay pointed out. People may not intend to be biased, but they are because language can be an unpredictable, unscripted thing.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
News
I watched the local news. What is most surprising about the local news is how watered down it is. They talked about the Colts about 4 separate times, and the weather 3 separate times. Between sports, weather, commercials, and other miscellaneous subjects there is actually very little time spent on news that really affects us. Even stories about robberies and murders, however interesting they may be, do not really affect us. What affects us the most is politics, and very little of that was talked about. That in itself is alarming, but consider the way the news is presented and it's even more alarming. The interviews with people related to situations are extremely mind-numbing. The announcers speak extremely fast and seem generally uninterested, except for when they get to talk about the Colts. In addition, they probably wasted a good five minutes laughing at their own inside jokes. In addition, it often seemed that the announcers would run out of things to say and jump to the weather. I can't imagine that I need to hear the weather 3 times in a half-hour span. That's not even taking into account that if I really cared about the weather, or the Colts, I would go online for that information. I am generally unimpressed with the local news and I think that it needs a major renovation. They have a service that other news mediums cannot offer - video - but they do not seem to be taking advantage of it by showing the weather, sports, and other frivolous subjects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)