I would like to again offer my critique of another piece of art which I found in the gallery.
The piece, in short, is of massive proportions and very modernist in nature. It is a large slab of painted plaster, measuring between ten and twelve feet in height, a foot in depth, and perhaps 24 feet in breadth. There were actually multiple copies of this piece and it came in two varieties. One was a piece of the description above in an eggshell white coat of paint, the other is a shad of teal blue. More interestingly, these slabs are adorned with other works of art on them ranging from lithographs to paintings to drawings to photographs--all framed, all haning on the larger plaster background piece.
I think these pieces pair beautifully to create a great commentary on America. The white plaster symbolizes to me the blankness of a character. This is the apathy of American citizens. The other works of art serve to show the disspassion we have toward our actual Americanism and how we define it through various activities and ideals portrayed in these rather distracting images. With out these distractions to pull us away from our basest identity, we are a pure but apathetic character. On the surface, we appear to have many interests, but we these interests are all so superficial. Underneath, we are blank and boring: a white wall.
Until...
Until we are defined deeper with a new color, a new character. That teal blue color of the gallery wall is the new American character. We have just the same superficial identity and interest, but when we look beyond those we find something else. The blue is symbolic of the sky, an open space for us to explore. The white is much like this, but the white is too pure, too blank. The sky is a higher goal for us to reach. A higher purpose for America to aspire to.
Perhaps the blue wall is the symbol of America while the white is the symbol of a nation with out a character.
This is the kind of bullshit I think about.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Independence, Arrogance, or Ignorance?
One of the strongest themes that can be taken from almost any work concerning America is a strong sense of individualism. This individualism is present in the language of the Declaration of Independence, the fear in "The Minister's Black Veil," and the strong attidtudes of "Self-Reliance."
AHEM, a brief bout of scribus interruptus, you must excuse me. Where was I?
Individualism can be viewed a few ways. Generally, we like to portray it positively as "independence." In this case we are making decisions for ourselves and choosing to conform or not to conform as we see fit. On the other hand, we might see individualism as simply being conceited and self-righteous. Clearly, we need to be individuals because no one is as good as you are so you should just ignore everyone else. On the third hand, it might just be unconcious ignorance or apathy that causes this. We want to be individuals because we just don't care or even notice what other people think.
Mark Mulhern's untitled colored pencil print (casually called "Couch") features a man, probably a self-portrait of the artist because of its similarity to another man depicted in a similar painting by the same artist, laying on a couch in a psychologist's office. The psychologist's face is obscured by a cloud of darkness, probably meant to depict dark thoughts. In this cloud over the doctor's face and above the patient's head there are indistinguishable images. One that stands out, though is what appears to be a bald eagle with a body shaped like a heart. On the rug under the psychologist's chair are more rudimentary images. Among them is a truck, a stuffed turkey, leaves, a gun, and a hammer and sickle like that on the flag of the USSR.
The fact that the patient's face is the only readily distinguishable feature in the drawing seems to be speaking about the clarity of self-image in our own minds over the image we have of others. The patient is entirely focused on himself and getting his thoughts out.
The images featured throughout the drawing (the truck, eagle, turkey etc.) are likely to be the anxieties of the patient. The truck and turkey are symbols of America's traditions and work ethic and the patient probably has some anxieties about conformities to these. The hammer and sickle is perhaps the most alarming part of the image, though. Why would a drawing about America have a contemporary (the image was created in 1984) symbol of communism along side all the other symbols of America? Most likely it is to represent the fears and issues Americans felt about communism. Or perhaps, it's place among commonplace objects expresses the mind of Americans (in the view of the artist) that Communism might not be that bad. That, though is a view more of the last ten years than the past 30.
As for the obscurity of the psychologist's face, this is perhaps the most important part of the drawing to its theme of self-absorbance. The thoughts coming from the patient, and what appears to be a clock being tossed aside by the patient, completely black-out the face of the psychologist above his strangely formal dress of a tailcoat, cummerbund, and bowtie. This is a symbolism of the arrogance of the patient. He doesn't care about the psychologist's identity. He wishes to be independent of him. The patient is so absorbed in fixing his own problems, that he doesn't have any idea that other's might have issues as well. He's not even able to be independent and self-reliant because he's depending on the doctor for help defining his own image.
Furthermore, the Valerie Babb excerpt we read seemed to speak of definition through elimination. We define ourselves by what we are not. In this way, the psychologist is defined by not being the patient. By making one thing more clear, we make the other variables less clear (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). In this way, we know so much about the patient that we seem to know nothing about the doctor. Quite the contrary though, we know that the doctor is not the patient, and that might just be enough.
AHEM, a brief bout of scribus interruptus, you must excuse me. Where was I?
Individualism can be viewed a few ways. Generally, we like to portray it positively as "independence." In this case we are making decisions for ourselves and choosing to conform or not to conform as we see fit. On the other hand, we might see individualism as simply being conceited and self-righteous. Clearly, we need to be individuals because no one is as good as you are so you should just ignore everyone else. On the third hand, it might just be unconcious ignorance or apathy that causes this. We want to be individuals because we just don't care or even notice what other people think.
Mark Mulhern's untitled colored pencil print (casually called "Couch") features a man, probably a self-portrait of the artist because of its similarity to another man depicted in a similar painting by the same artist, laying on a couch in a psychologist's office. The psychologist's face is obscured by a cloud of darkness, probably meant to depict dark thoughts. In this cloud over the doctor's face and above the patient's head there are indistinguishable images. One that stands out, though is what appears to be a bald eagle with a body shaped like a heart. On the rug under the psychologist's chair are more rudimentary images. Among them is a truck, a stuffed turkey, leaves, a gun, and a hammer and sickle like that on the flag of the USSR.
The fact that the patient's face is the only readily distinguishable feature in the drawing seems to be speaking about the clarity of self-image in our own minds over the image we have of others. The patient is entirely focused on himself and getting his thoughts out.
The images featured throughout the drawing (the truck, eagle, turkey etc.) are likely to be the anxieties of the patient. The truck and turkey are symbols of America's traditions and work ethic and the patient probably has some anxieties about conformities to these. The hammer and sickle is perhaps the most alarming part of the image, though. Why would a drawing about America have a contemporary (the image was created in 1984) symbol of communism along side all the other symbols of America? Most likely it is to represent the fears and issues Americans felt about communism. Or perhaps, it's place among commonplace objects expresses the mind of Americans (in the view of the artist) that Communism might not be that bad. That, though is a view more of the last ten years than the past 30.
As for the obscurity of the psychologist's face, this is perhaps the most important part of the drawing to its theme of self-absorbance. The thoughts coming from the patient, and what appears to be a clock being tossed aside by the patient, completely black-out the face of the psychologist above his strangely formal dress of a tailcoat, cummerbund, and bowtie. This is a symbolism of the arrogance of the patient. He doesn't care about the psychologist's identity. He wishes to be independent of him. The patient is so absorbed in fixing his own problems, that he doesn't have any idea that other's might have issues as well. He's not even able to be independent and self-reliant because he's depending on the doctor for help defining his own image.
Furthermore, the Valerie Babb excerpt we read seemed to speak of definition through elimination. We define ourselves by what we are not. In this way, the psychologist is defined by not being the patient. By making one thing more clear, we make the other variables less clear (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). In this way, we know so much about the patient that we seem to know nothing about the doctor. Quite the contrary though, we know that the doctor is not the patient, and that might just be enough.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
On "Work Time"
Since our blog posts are usually supposed to be about something we have done in class that week, I choose to write about work time today.
Perhaps a poem would be most fitting:
Work Time
To everything there is a season
A time to read
A time to write
A time to read more
A time to rhetorically analyze
A time to read for fun
But not when you have too much reading
A time to write more
A time to write about what you've read
A time to re-read what you read yesterday
A time to read what you wrote again
A time to re-write what you wrote
A time to read what someone else wrote that you read two days ago
A time to write about what you read about what your classmate wrote after you read what you wrote in analysis of what said classmate wrote about what he or she read while picking out literary strategies in his or her own writing about a reading that we had done which was written by someone who read what you wrote on Monday.
This is work time.
A time to read.
A time to read.
A time to blog.
A time to read.
A time to stop reading because your eyes hurt too much.
A time when you have to start sitting in the front of the class in all your other classes because it hurts your eyes to wear your glasses because you've read way too much of what other people wrote.
A time for peace.
A time to heal those eyes.
A time to relax and listen to some music.
A time to try to listen to music while reading.
A time to start tapping your foot and singing along to the music while you're reading and realize two pages latter that you don't know what you just read.
Just a few thoughts.
Perhaps a poem would be most fitting:
Work Time
To everything there is a season
A time to read
A time to write
A time to read more
A time to rhetorically analyze
A time to read for fun
But not when you have too much reading
A time to write more
A time to write about what you've read
A time to re-read what you read yesterday
A time to read what you wrote again
A time to re-write what you wrote
A time to read what someone else wrote that you read two days ago
A time to write about what you read about what your classmate wrote after you read what you wrote in analysis of what said classmate wrote about what he or she read while picking out literary strategies in his or her own writing about a reading that we had done which was written by someone who read what you wrote on Monday.
This is work time.
A time to read.
A time to read.
A time to blog.
A time to read.
A time to stop reading because your eyes hurt too much.
A time when you have to start sitting in the front of the class in all your other classes because it hurts your eyes to wear your glasses because you've read way too much of what other people wrote.
A time for peace.
A time to heal those eyes.
A time to relax and listen to some music.
A time to try to listen to music while reading.
A time to start tapping your foot and singing along to the music while you're reading and realize two pages latter that you don't know what you just read.
Just a few thoughts.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
I sing Humanity
I am the little boy.
I am the hunger.
I am the suffering
That cries in the daylight
For the terror of the night.
Where darkness hides at dawn
When light comes to destroy.
The night is cold but loving.
The day is harsh and hatred.
Light has come to darken the passion of darkness.
And there are more of me.
I cry for the dark.
I cry for the night.
I sing for my brothers.
I sing for my sisters.
I am the grown man.
I am the triumph.
I am the greed.
The light has engulfed me.
No longer can I see the darkness.
The day is warm and loving.
The night is harsh with hatred.
I sew seeds of life
That grow into death.
Look for my sign
Away from your home.
The light has spread
And killed the young boy.
I cry for my body.
I cry for my soul.
I sing for oppression.
I have sung for evil.
The light has blinded me.
The darkness has left me.
But now I can see the moon again.
Now I see the twilight of our days.
I sing for the world.
I sing for you.
I sing humanity.
I am the hunger.
I am the suffering
That cries in the daylight
For the terror of the night.
Where darkness hides at dawn
When light comes to destroy.
The night is cold but loving.
The day is harsh and hatred.
Light has come to darken the passion of darkness.
And there are more of me.
I cry for the dark.
I cry for the night.
I sing for my brothers.
I sing for my sisters.
I am the grown man.
I am the triumph.
I am the greed.
The light has engulfed me.
No longer can I see the darkness.
The day is warm and loving.
The night is harsh with hatred.
I sew seeds of life
That grow into death.
Look for my sign
Away from your home.
The light has spread
And killed the young boy.
I cry for my body.
I cry for my soul.
I sing for oppression.
I have sung for evil.
The light has blinded me.
The darkness has left me.
But now I can see the moon again.
Now I see the twilight of our days.
I sing for the world.
I sing for you.
I sing humanity.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
On "The Spirit of Disobedience" and Bias
Since we ran out of time and didn't get the chance to talk about this essay in class, I'm going to share a few of my thoughts on it here--mainly because there are some things I'd really like to get off my chest about it.
As most of you know, I could be considered relatively conservative on the political spectrum at McFarland High School, so if you think my opinions are formed out of some sort of bias, they might be, but I do try to assess things equally.
The main thing that I want to point out about Mr. White's essay is this: I smell bias Thoreau and Emerson's beliefs on liberty, but the way Mr. White attacked the ideological views of modern Republicans and fiscal conservatives sent me over the edge a little bit.
As both a Christian and economic conservative "child-of-the-Enlightement" thinker, Mr. White basically called me out as a hypocrite with his argument that the two can't go together. He feels that either Christian virtue or Capitalism had to win the heart of America and Capitalism won out. To this I call out Mr. White for narrow-mindedness. Does he really think that two doctrines that govern fairly separate areas of society are not able to be combined to work to some degree of harmony? There is a certain degree of conflict between the two ideologies, but that is what is so great about America.
The conflict causes us to considere who we really are inside and forwards other parts of society. Christian virtue suggests that we lend a hand to our fellow man. Enlightenment virtue suggests that we only do that privately, no through the government. As a result, we set up non-government, not-for-profit organizations.
Furthermore, I don't see how Mr. White can claim one doctrine won over the other more than the other. In general, I see both of them failing and falling rapidly over the past 20 years. Figures like President George W. Bush who don't get the liberty part of fiscal conservatism and the humanistic part of Evangelical Chrisitianity are those who give these two American virtues their bad name.
I hate to have to make President Bush a scapegoat once again, but he does deserve it. It is people that misinterpret the intention of American virtue who destroy it. The Libertarian and humanitarian ideals of the Transcendentalists are what America should be about. One would think we would listen to the thinkers who have become regarded as the most original in American thought. But instead, we pick one set of virtues or the other.
As most of you know, I could be considered relatively conservative on the political spectrum at McFarland High School, so if you think my opinions are formed out of some sort of bias, they might be, but I do try to assess things equally.
The main thing that I want to point out about Mr. White's essay is this: I smell bias Thoreau and Emerson's beliefs on liberty, but the way Mr. White attacked the ideological views of modern Republicans and fiscal conservatives sent me over the edge a little bit.
As both a Christian and economic conservative "child-of-the-Enlightement" thinker, Mr. White basically called me out as a hypocrite with his argument that the two can't go together. He feels that either Christian virtue or Capitalism had to win the heart of America and Capitalism won out. To this I call out Mr. White for narrow-mindedness. Does he really think that two doctrines that govern fairly separate areas of society are not able to be combined to work to some degree of harmony? There is a certain degree of conflict between the two ideologies, but that is what is so great about America.
The conflict causes us to considere who we really are inside and forwards other parts of society. Christian virtue suggests that we lend a hand to our fellow man. Enlightenment virtue suggests that we only do that privately, no through the government. As a result, we set up non-government, not-for-profit organizations.
Furthermore, I don't see how Mr. White can claim one doctrine won over the other more than the other. In general, I see both of them failing and falling rapidly over the past 20 years. Figures like President George W. Bush who don't get the liberty part of fiscal conservatism and the humanistic part of Evangelical Chrisitianity are those who give these two American virtues their bad name.
I hate to have to make President Bush a scapegoat once again, but he does deserve it. It is people that misinterpret the intention of American virtue who destroy it. The Libertarian and humanitarian ideals of the Transcendentalists are what America should be about. One would think we would listen to the thinkers who have become regarded as the most original in American thought. But instead, we pick one set of virtues or the other.
Monday, March 1, 2010
"To be Great is to be Misunderstood"
In that case, Mr. Emerson, you are certainly a great man. This line, as cliche as it is, happens to be quite ironic as well because it is viewed first as a great line and misunderstood, making it great: mind-blowing.
Being misunderstood is not really a sufficient condition for being great in my opinion. It can be argued that it is a necessary one, though. However, as a witty maxim, this does work. I can think of a lot of people who are misunderstood, but I would struggle to call these people great in any way.
Emerson's focus on genius of originality and greatness of misunderstanding is kind of awesome. For one thing, he makes himself a genius by his own definition. For another thing, he's probably pretty close to being right. Geniuses are well ahead of the thought of their time. Their though processes are either too radical or too unconventional for the rest of society to keep up with. As a result, they are often distrusted. For example: Jesus was martyred for his preachings, Newton wasn't understood widely until 200 years after his theories on calculus, Socrates was martyred, Galileo was martyred. Emerson mentions all these men and their greatness.
These are people who probably "got it" a lot more than anyone else. As a result, they become either feared, loved or both. Furthermore, the things geniuses say and theorize often go against the grain, causing their interpretation to be unclear, leading to misunderstanding, making them great by Emerson's definition.
The idea that genius must be achieved by orginality is admirable. I have no problems with defining a great thinker as someone who figured some profound thing out with out the help of many other sources. This does discredit many pre-approved geniuses though. Stephen Hawking loses a lot becuase he just improved on Einstein's and others' theories. Or what about Plato? He basically took many things Socrates said and made them better and easier to understand. That almost defies greatness.
It's easy to misunderstand a genius, I guess.
Being misunderstood is not really a sufficient condition for being great in my opinion. It can be argued that it is a necessary one, though. However, as a witty maxim, this does work. I can think of a lot of people who are misunderstood, but I would struggle to call these people great in any way.
Emerson's focus on genius of originality and greatness of misunderstanding is kind of awesome. For one thing, he makes himself a genius by his own definition. For another thing, he's probably pretty close to being right. Geniuses are well ahead of the thought of their time. Their though processes are either too radical or too unconventional for the rest of society to keep up with. As a result, they are often distrusted. For example: Jesus was martyred for his preachings, Newton wasn't understood widely until 200 years after his theories on calculus, Socrates was martyred, Galileo was martyred. Emerson mentions all these men and their greatness.
These are people who probably "got it" a lot more than anyone else. As a result, they become either feared, loved or both. Furthermore, the things geniuses say and theorize often go against the grain, causing their interpretation to be unclear, leading to misunderstanding, making them great by Emerson's definition.
The idea that genius must be achieved by orginality is admirable. I have no problems with defining a great thinker as someone who figured some profound thing out with out the help of many other sources. This does discredit many pre-approved geniuses though. Stephen Hawking loses a lot becuase he just improved on Einstein's and others' theories. Or what about Plato? He basically took many things Socrates said and made them better and easier to understand. That almost defies greatness.
It's easy to misunderstand a genius, I guess.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Relationships in The Great Gatsby
Perhaps my general worldview is a bit skewed, perhaps Fitzgerald just did a poor job of portraying depth, or perhaps these people are just superficial.
It seemed to me that in The Great Gatsby, the relationships between people were generally quite surface level and (in the case of romantic ones) generally infatuous (not a real word). Incidentally, or perhaps not, these relationships were a central focus of the book. My guess is Fitzgerald purposely made these interactions fairly superficial, or portrayed them that way through the often pensive but confused mind of Nick.
Let's just examine a few of the relationships one by one:
Nick & Daisy: A non-romantic one that actually has threats to become one. These two are cousins, but act more like they've been each other's booty call in the past. She flirts with him and he acts as a confidant for her. However, he doesn't reveal things she should know about her husband to her so I am confused about his allegiance.
Nick & Jordan: The fact that this one seems to be love-at-first-sight is a clear indication of the immaturity of it. The two don't seem to talk about many deep things, and if they do its by accident. In general, it seems to be a fairly physical attraction and attraction to the most surface-level parts of each other's personalities. There is romance, but it falls apart quickly and without much push. It seems about as deep as a summer fling between 15 and 16-year-olds. High schoolers should be doing that, not people in their late 20s.
Nick & Tom: These two aren't "bros." But I think Tom tries to be. Tom, like everyone, likes Nick, so he tries to get him to hang out with him. When Tom takes Nick with him to see Myrtle, he's basically indoctrinating Nick into some sort of sacred Manlationship. He trusts Nick enough to take him to meet his mistress and take part in his second life. Nick, on the other hand, has almost no trust for Tom.
Nick & Gatsby: Much like Tom, Gatsby seems to view his relationship with Nick as if the two are very close friends. Gatsby confides his deepest, darkest secrets in Nick as Nick just listens in wonder, awe, and distrust. Gatsby is the whole time the dominant half, but he doesn't really realize that Nick has the power to crush him--he just doesn't use it.
Tom & Daisy: Two attractive people who have very little in common except their ability to influence others. They seem like they could get along, but Daisy is too powerful and independent in her own right to make things work out the way Tom views them as working. There seems to be very little real love in this relationship.
Gatsby & Daisy: They've both fallen very hard for each other, Gatsby sickeningly so. It would appear that they had some sort of quality relationship in their past. However, Daisy's fidelity is questionable and she seems to be the type who is easy to be led-on by. She claims to love Gatsby, I'm sure she does on her terms, but who knows what her terms really are? Gatsby is just disgusting, he needs to get his head on straight.
Tom & Myrtle: I'm not going to lie, this is probably one of the deepest relationships in the book. There is more than business to be had here. Furthermore, they actually seem to have genuine love for each other. Or at least Tom has genuine love for Myrtle, Myrtle might just be gold-digging a young, athletic stud. The fact that Tom goes for an older, plumper, uglier woman as his mistress is telling: he's not hunting for new sexual satisfaction or anything of that sort, he's finding a real companion. The fact that they can't leave their spouses and commit is a blip, though. They clearly aren't so into each other that they would leave their old lives.
I don't really know what to think except that the characters of this book are generally just horrible people who don't know how to interact with other human beings on a level beyond chit chat and surface emotion.
It seemed to me that in The Great Gatsby, the relationships between people were generally quite surface level and (in the case of romantic ones) generally infatuous (not a real word). Incidentally, or perhaps not, these relationships were a central focus of the book. My guess is Fitzgerald purposely made these interactions fairly superficial, or portrayed them that way through the often pensive but confused mind of Nick.
Let's just examine a few of the relationships one by one:
Nick & Daisy: A non-romantic one that actually has threats to become one. These two are cousins, but act more like they've been each other's booty call in the past. She flirts with him and he acts as a confidant for her. However, he doesn't reveal things she should know about her husband to her so I am confused about his allegiance.
Nick & Jordan: The fact that this one seems to be love-at-first-sight is a clear indication of the immaturity of it. The two don't seem to talk about many deep things, and if they do its by accident. In general, it seems to be a fairly physical attraction and attraction to the most surface-level parts of each other's personalities. There is romance, but it falls apart quickly and without much push. It seems about as deep as a summer fling between 15 and 16-year-olds. High schoolers should be doing that, not people in their late 20s.
Nick & Tom: These two aren't "bros." But I think Tom tries to be. Tom, like everyone, likes Nick, so he tries to get him to hang out with him. When Tom takes Nick with him to see Myrtle, he's basically indoctrinating Nick into some sort of sacred Manlationship. He trusts Nick enough to take him to meet his mistress and take part in his second life. Nick, on the other hand, has almost no trust for Tom.
Nick & Gatsby: Much like Tom, Gatsby seems to view his relationship with Nick as if the two are very close friends. Gatsby confides his deepest, darkest secrets in Nick as Nick just listens in wonder, awe, and distrust. Gatsby is the whole time the dominant half, but he doesn't really realize that Nick has the power to crush him--he just doesn't use it.
Tom & Daisy: Two attractive people who have very little in common except their ability to influence others. They seem like they could get along, but Daisy is too powerful and independent in her own right to make things work out the way Tom views them as working. There seems to be very little real love in this relationship.
Gatsby & Daisy: They've both fallen very hard for each other, Gatsby sickeningly so. It would appear that they had some sort of quality relationship in their past. However, Daisy's fidelity is questionable and she seems to be the type who is easy to be led-on by. She claims to love Gatsby, I'm sure she does on her terms, but who knows what her terms really are? Gatsby is just disgusting, he needs to get his head on straight.
Tom & Myrtle: I'm not going to lie, this is probably one of the deepest relationships in the book. There is more than business to be had here. Furthermore, they actually seem to have genuine love for each other. Or at least Tom has genuine love for Myrtle, Myrtle might just be gold-digging a young, athletic stud. The fact that Tom goes for an older, plumper, uglier woman as his mistress is telling: he's not hunting for new sexual satisfaction or anything of that sort, he's finding a real companion. The fact that they can't leave their spouses and commit is a blip, though. They clearly aren't so into each other that they would leave their old lives.
I don't really know what to think except that the characters of this book are generally just horrible people who don't know how to interact with other human beings on a level beyond chit chat and surface emotion.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
A Note Regarding the Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence, along with the Gettysburg Address and MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, is probably one of the most recognizable and defining documents in American history.
So often, it is analyzed from a wide range of perspectives, and unfortunately it is often read with out much feeling besides the patriotism behind it. When really considered, it's a beautiful complaint. Thomas Jefferson's prose is outstanding. Before he begins whining and listing the grievances, his first two paragraphs are filled with important words. I am convinced that not a single word in that paragraph is there as filler or just because he needed a word. His phrasing, eloquent syntax, and word choice are nothing short of masterful. Even as he moves into the pissings and moanings of the colonists, it's still the most put-together crying I've ever seen.
Moving beyond the surface or even the deeper meaning of that preamble, I'd like to address some things about Thomas Jefferson's Declaration vs. the one that was published and approved on July 4, 1776. Clearly, Jefferson drafted this document numerous times. My guess would be that the copy we know and love was on the order of his fifth or sixth revision. I have, however, a copy of the draft he submitted to the Continental Congress on July 2 (I believe that's correct) in order to be reviewed and submitted. This document bears a strong resemblance to the final copy. Mostly there are just some words changed around here or there, but there are some significant alterations.
Th e most important and provoking of these follows:
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostitued his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this asslemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.
This is explosive.
This is the only ommission that is not merely rephrased or comes within another paragraph in the final copy. The Continental Congress choose to specifically NOT MENTION slavery at all. Thomas Jefferson himself held slaves, but he chose to write against the slave trade. He also makes a huge point with this to literalize the meaning of that much-debated "all men are created equal and [endowed with] Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Had this been left in the Declaration, I am quite sure that the character of our nation would be very different today and certainly in its first century. This clause would probably have been a catalyst in putting forth legislation to end the slave trade earlier and help to abolish slavery sooner. Or, perhaps we would have seen a nation that became divided over this issue in 1776 rather than in th 1850s. The result of this would have been disastrous. There is no way freedom from Britain would have been won by two divided bodies. In fact, the south would have been likely to remain loyal to Britain.
As much as that paragraph is a beautiful statement for human rights. Hindsight here says that the ends justified the means for America. Slaves got shafted big time and had to wait until 1865 for freedom and then wait again until 1965 for true equality.
Which is more just? Choosing to eliminate this paragraph to save AMERICA and give us our current nation with YOUR human rights in exchange for those of others. Or making a bold statement about HUMAN RIGHTS for ALL RACES and knowing it is likely to cause your society's demise.
So often, it is analyzed from a wide range of perspectives, and unfortunately it is often read with out much feeling besides the patriotism behind it. When really considered, it's a beautiful complaint. Thomas Jefferson's prose is outstanding. Before he begins whining and listing the grievances, his first two paragraphs are filled with important words. I am convinced that not a single word in that paragraph is there as filler or just because he needed a word. His phrasing, eloquent syntax, and word choice are nothing short of masterful. Even as he moves into the pissings and moanings of the colonists, it's still the most put-together crying I've ever seen.
Moving beyond the surface or even the deeper meaning of that preamble, I'd like to address some things about Thomas Jefferson's Declaration vs. the one that was published and approved on July 4, 1776. Clearly, Jefferson drafted this document numerous times. My guess would be that the copy we know and love was on the order of his fifth or sixth revision. I have, however, a copy of the draft he submitted to the Continental Congress on July 2 (I believe that's correct) in order to be reviewed and submitted. This document bears a strong resemblance to the final copy. Mostly there are just some words changed around here or there, but there are some significant alterations.
Th e most important and provoking of these follows:
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostitued his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this asslemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.
This is explosive.
This is the only ommission that is not merely rephrased or comes within another paragraph in the final copy. The Continental Congress choose to specifically NOT MENTION slavery at all. Thomas Jefferson himself held slaves, but he chose to write against the slave trade. He also makes a huge point with this to literalize the meaning of that much-debated "all men are created equal and [endowed with] Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Had this been left in the Declaration, I am quite sure that the character of our nation would be very different today and certainly in its first century. This clause would probably have been a catalyst in putting forth legislation to end the slave trade earlier and help to abolish slavery sooner. Or, perhaps we would have seen a nation that became divided over this issue in 1776 rather than in th 1850s. The result of this would have been disastrous. There is no way freedom from Britain would have been won by two divided bodies. In fact, the south would have been likely to remain loyal to Britain.
As much as that paragraph is a beautiful statement for human rights. Hindsight here says that the ends justified the means for America. Slaves got shafted big time and had to wait until 1865 for freedom and then wait again until 1965 for true equality.
Which is more just? Choosing to eliminate this paragraph to save AMERICA and give us our current nation with YOUR human rights in exchange for those of others. Or making a bold statement about HUMAN RIGHTS for ALL RACES and knowing it is likely to cause your society's demise.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
On Pocahontas
I have a confession: I think I am in love with the title character of Disney's Pocahontas. In my mind, she is the most beautiful of all the Disney princesses.
Now that I have that off my chest, let's talk about Pochantas the movie.
Being one of the few Disney movies that is historical fiction and attempts to recount real events, this is an outlier among Toy Story, Snow White, and The Little Mermaid. Still, it is extremely fictional.
The characters in the movie bare little resemblance to their real-life counterparts. John Smith's golden hair, blue eyes, and strong jaw are pretty funny though because he is made to be the ideal man he really felt he was. William Ratcliffe on the other hand is much like the Scar character in Disney's Lion King: disproportionate, self-absorbed, alternatively motivated, and a flaming homosexual. Thirdly, Pocahontas is portrayed as a beautiful young woman of about 19 to 20 years old with a slender yet voluptuous figure that not even the most desirable models have today. Not to mention that hair! Sorry, my point is, she's unbelievably attractive. In any pictorial documentation I have seen of Pocahontas though, she is not a very attractive woman. Additionally, let's not forget that she was 12 or 13 at the time of the British landing in Jamestown.
The depiction of the landscape makes 17th Century Virginia look more like the serene, rugged forests and mountains of the Sierra Nevada or Yosemite National Park. The waterfalls, towering pines, and babbling brooks are far too perfect.
Furthermore, the depictions of the whites and the depictions of Indians are so stereotypical it was almost laughable.
I understand the focus of catering to children for the movie, but the ideas and scenes that the catchy tunes and beautiful animation put in my mind as a child are startling. I haven't seen much of Disney's more recent works, but I hope they are trying to be a little more accurate if they intend to do any historical fiction or use human characters.
Now that I have that off my chest, let's talk about Pochantas the movie.
Being one of the few Disney movies that is historical fiction and attempts to recount real events, this is an outlier among Toy Story, Snow White, and The Little Mermaid. Still, it is extremely fictional.
The characters in the movie bare little resemblance to their real-life counterparts. John Smith's golden hair, blue eyes, and strong jaw are pretty funny though because he is made to be the ideal man he really felt he was. William Ratcliffe on the other hand is much like the Scar character in Disney's Lion King: disproportionate, self-absorbed, alternatively motivated, and a flaming homosexual. Thirdly, Pocahontas is portrayed as a beautiful young woman of about 19 to 20 years old with a slender yet voluptuous figure that not even the most desirable models have today. Not to mention that hair! Sorry, my point is, she's unbelievably attractive. In any pictorial documentation I have seen of Pocahontas though, she is not a very attractive woman. Additionally, let's not forget that she was 12 or 13 at the time of the British landing in Jamestown.
The depiction of the landscape makes 17th Century Virginia look more like the serene, rugged forests and mountains of the Sierra Nevada or Yosemite National Park. The waterfalls, towering pines, and babbling brooks are far too perfect.
Furthermore, the depictions of the whites and the depictions of Indians are so stereotypical it was almost laughable.
I understand the focus of catering to children for the movie, but the ideas and scenes that the catchy tunes and beautiful animation put in my mind as a child are startling. I haven't seen much of Disney's more recent works, but I hope they are trying to be a little more accurate if they intend to do any historical fiction or use human characters.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
We Silly Whitefolk
The reading by Valerie Babb really got me thinking about whiteness in America. In a lot of ways, the fundamental formation of whiteness in America remains the same. Certainly, there have been changes from the Puritanical Christianity of New England and the loose and rough living of Virginia. However, certain elements of each of these have contributed greatly to the way whites in America live today. What I enjoyed greatly about the reading by Babb and also the capture narrative of Mary Rowlandson, the John Smith piece, and the Cotton Mather writing is the way that one can pick out some nuances of the way these people chose to portray their white culture in comparison to other cultures. The nuances include word choice and the hidden emotion they used as well. Also, many of the attitudes (especially towards other races) they reflected are considered disgusting today by whites, and we as white people like to try to make up for our ancestors' mistakes. This is what leads to the current American whiteness--a comic thing, really. Be sure to remember number 20 for later.
The comic side of it is what white people like to do these days. They go out of their way to do things that make it clear they are good white people and try their hardest to be cool. This has given birth to social awareness movements, yuppie culture, hipster culture, indie rock, music or film festivals, Barack Obama's fame, McDonald's SnackWraps, Hollister Co., vegetarianism, popular R&B music, and so many other funny little white people things.
White people like to make sure they are seen as tolerant to other races. It is not enough to be siliently tolerant, a white person must be blantant about it.
White people like to make sure you know your lifestyle is OK to your face.
White people like to secretly hate or envy others' lifestyles.
White people enjoy being offended on behalf of other people. Especially when it's a group of people that they do not belong to (eg. A white straight female being offended by the word "faggot" in reference to a homosexual male; a white 50-something making it clear he is not okay with someone making fun of the poor black kid.)
White people love you. Just accept that.
White people hate you. Just accept that.
White people will go out of their way to make it known that they liked your favorite band long before that band had any Top 100 hits. In fact, they have a copy of that band's first album (the self-titled Your Favorite Band: Before They Were Cool) on vinyl and it was recorded using analog. Which brings me to two new points.
White people love the irony of indie culture. In fact, they love irony in general. They also like struggling to be cool, but hate actually being cool.
White people love vinyl records. It's not just vinyl records, though. They love the vinyl records because they are described as something that is ever-so-important to white people. That is vintage.
White people like black people.
White people hate white people who don't like black people.
White people hate black people think they are white people.
White people like Asian people.
White hate it when you make jokes about Asian drivers and Asian kids in math classes who play the violin.
Remember #20.
White people hate Asian drivers and Asian kids who do better than they do on math tests and can play classical music on stringed instruments.
White people love texting.
White people love making up words like texting.
White people probably hate me.
White people like sex.
White people do not like sex on TV before 9 PM.
White people love sex on TV past 9 PM.
White people love Old Spice.
I could go on so far with this list. I have more right on the top of my head, but I think you get the point.
This post was largely inspired by the blog "Stuff White People Like." I feel that the list is very in complete. Some things are missing like Dave Matthews Band, Labrador Retrievers (referenced in Dogs), Acoustic Guitars, The North Face jackets (referenced in Outdoor Performance Apparel), and other things. However, you must take the time to read some of the blog. Or at least glance at some of the titles. After doing this, go back and score yourself on how many you must admit that you like. You don't need an actual number just get an idea. You'll find out just how white you really are despite your counter-productive attempts not to be.
Some of the one I really enjoyed because of the silly truth are: #3, #8, #11, #12, #18, #20, #35, #40, #41, #66, #88, #93, #106, #108, #116
The comic side of it is what white people like to do these days. They go out of their way to do things that make it clear they are good white people and try their hardest to be cool. This has given birth to social awareness movements, yuppie culture, hipster culture, indie rock, music or film festivals, Barack Obama's fame, McDonald's SnackWraps, Hollister Co., vegetarianism, popular R&B music, and so many other funny little white people things.
White people like to make sure they are seen as tolerant to other races. It is not enough to be siliently tolerant, a white person must be blantant about it.
White people like to make sure you know your lifestyle is OK to your face.
White people like to secretly hate or envy others' lifestyles.
White people enjoy being offended on behalf of other people. Especially when it's a group of people that they do not belong to (eg. A white straight female being offended by the word "faggot" in reference to a homosexual male; a white 50-something making it clear he is not okay with someone making fun of the poor black kid.)
White people love you. Just accept that.
White people hate you. Just accept that.
White people will go out of their way to make it known that they liked your favorite band long before that band had any Top 100 hits. In fact, they have a copy of that band's first album (the self-titled Your Favorite Band: Before They Were Cool) on vinyl and it was recorded using analog. Which brings me to two new points.
White people love the irony of indie culture. In fact, they love irony in general. They also like struggling to be cool, but hate actually being cool.
White people love vinyl records. It's not just vinyl records, though. They love the vinyl records because they are described as something that is ever-so-important to white people. That is vintage.
White people like black people.
White people hate white people who don't like black people.
White people hate black people think they are white people.
White people like Asian people.
White hate it when you make jokes about Asian drivers and Asian kids in math classes who play the violin.
Remember #20.
White people hate Asian drivers and Asian kids who do better than they do on math tests and can play classical music on stringed instruments.
White people love texting.
White people love making up words like texting.
White people probably hate me.
White people like sex.
White people do not like sex on TV before 9 PM.
White people love sex on TV past 9 PM.
White people love Old Spice.
I could go on so far with this list. I have more right on the top of my head, but I think you get the point.
This post was largely inspired by the blog "Stuff White People Like." I feel that the list is very in complete. Some things are missing like Dave Matthews Band, Labrador Retrievers (referenced in Dogs), Acoustic Guitars, The North Face jackets (referenced in Outdoor Performance Apparel), and other things. However, you must take the time to read some of the blog. Or at least glance at some of the titles. After doing this, go back and score yourself on how many you must admit that you like. You don't need an actual number just get an idea. You'll find out just how white you really are despite your counter-productive attempts not to be.
Some of the one I really enjoyed because of the silly truth are: #3, #8, #11, #12, #18, #20, #35, #40, #41, #66, #88, #93, #106, #108, #116
Monday, November 2, 2009
A quick note on satire
I don't mean to pick on my class, perhaps its my own shortcomings, but I wrote my Op-ed piece as a satire, and no one picked it up.
I intended my op-ed to be a satire on big government programs with hints at the healthcare bill etc. I thought it was a fairly scathing satire with comparisons to the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and some ridiculous arguments like how I was twisting free speech to be a bad thing. However, of four peer editors, none realized my argument was satirical. All of them thought I was arguing for a "universal media" rather than degrading the idea of state-supported and controlled media.
Assuming I did a halfway decent job of making the piece satirical (hopefully I did), there's a problem with the way people are reading things. Everyone is too serious. If this trend is widespread, I could post articles from the Onion all over and people would think they're legit news!!
In the future, be careful to take everything you read lightly and with a grain of humor!
I intended my op-ed to be a satire on big government programs with hints at the healthcare bill etc. I thought it was a fairly scathing satire with comparisons to the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and some ridiculous arguments like how I was twisting free speech to be a bad thing. However, of four peer editors, none realized my argument was satirical. All of them thought I was arguing for a "universal media" rather than degrading the idea of state-supported and controlled media.
Assuming I did a halfway decent job of making the piece satirical (hopefully I did), there's a problem with the way people are reading things. Everyone is too serious. If this trend is widespread, I could post articles from the Onion all over and people would think they're legit news!!
In the future, be careful to take everything you read lightly and with a grain of humor!
Friday, October 30, 2009
On "Apocalypse Now"
SPOILER ALERT: IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE AND DON'T WANT IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE PLOT REVEALED TO YOU DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER.
I decided to put in Apocalypse Now tonight because it's one of those movies all young men have to see, and we're doing the Vietnam unit so I figured it was relevant to class.
The movie is a work of art. It goes beyond a normal war film. Many war films do have some deeper meaning linked to them, but this one is just loaded with the deeper meanings, and for a movie that's thirty years old, the special effects are wonderful. This easily makes my list of top 10 best movies I've seen. With a cast so star-studded that Harrison Ford, Jon Voight, and Laurence Fishburne play minor roles, how could it not be?
Multiple themes and motifs emerged as I watched it. The main ones I spotted and will focus on were noise and the degradation of morals and civilization towards Hell.
First the noise: I noticed this even in class when we watched the scene involving the 1st of the 9th Brigade. Throughout the entire movie, there was all sorts of back ground noise that tells me the director is trying to overwhelm the viewer. During the early parts of the movie, there were helicopters everywhere; towards the middle, shots and flares were all over; by the end, it was just strange music. The music actually showed up often, and it creeped me out. The music described by Mitchell Sanders in The Things They Carried definitely seemed to be being played in the background of Apocalypse Now. I think the goal of overwhelming the viewer was a way to make the war even more real. It begins to wear on you and it actually takes a physical and emotional toll after about an hour, making the movie hellish.
The decay in humanity that was portrayed in the movie certainly goes along with the title and was certainly a purposeful method of embodying the immorality of the Vietnam War and war in general. The movie begins in Saigon with the main character, Captain Willard, drunk and in poor spirits, utterly depressed. This is shows a personal decay.
During the scene we watched in class, the colonel played by Robert Duvall is just nuts. He's got his crap together and is actually an excellent officer, but he's freaking crazy! A bad-ass, but crazy! This scene does a good job of showing an eccentric stage on the trail to insanity.
As Willard progresses on his journey with a crew of four on a small PT boat, they come across a few army outposts. At the first, the scene is a bit of a sensory overload, but then again the whole movie is. Starvation and desire for America and the licentiousness of America is portrayed at this outpost. The 500+ some troops at the outpost are treated to a USO show featuring Hugh Hefner and the best of the Playmates. Things get out of hand when the girls are dancing as the young soldiers have a hard time containing their lust. Nothing too much happens, but the message that they are being starved and are losing conscience is clear.
The next outpost they come across is not nearly as civilized. The soldiers can't even name their commanding officer and bombs, flares, and shots go everywhere. As the boat pulls through the river, soldiers swim after it crying "Take me home! Get me the #$%^ out of here!" It's absolutely shocking to watch. The horrors of this scene make it seem like a living Hell. The scene is filmed at night and only the erratic spurts of muzzle light and flares light the scene. As a viewer, I was rendered speechless and thoughtless. I could only think, "how terrible." When it was emphasized multiple times that there was no CO, it became clear that the reason this scene was there was to emphasize the incompetency of the American commanders and FUBAR situations that occured. I wondered if it could get worse.
As the boat proceeded down the river into Cambodia, they did. When Willard finally got to his destination, the true Hell became apparent. Dead, mangled bodies were everywhere yet there were hundreds of people to care for them and do something about it. The colonel Willard was instructed to kill, played by Marlon Brando, is a heck of a character. There are many strange people in the movie, but he is just insane. As you learn more about the character in the final scenes of the movie, you realize he seems to believe he's not taken steps backward on the continuum of humanity, but has transcended it. Early in the movie, you learn that this colonel, Colonel Kurtz, is a very intelligent and ambitious man but has gone renegade and likely insane. He has come to be a complete autocrat, a demigod more, of a tribe of native Cambodians. Having only watched the movie once and not being a psychology or sociology buff, I don't have much to say except that I was absolutely stunned by the Hell he created.
Besides "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," there are tons of great lines in the movie. Some are just a bit too corny, though. The narration seems to offer tons of cliches like "Oh man, the bullshit piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it. " or "charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500." There was one that stood out as particularly meaningful to the plot, though. "We had reached the end of the river." This just made it obvious that the brink between sanity and insanity had been reached and it was further than anyone thought.
Before I close, there's one more thing I'd like to bring up. The idea of truth and true war stories. We've seen this mentioned in TTTC, but I definitely seems to spread to other Vietnam media as well. If someone tried to tell me that Apocalypse Now actually happened, I would refer them to a doctor. The movie is wacked-out, man! Just FUBAR. Then again, maybe that's why it could be true.
Without seeing Apocalypse Now, there's no way you could ever understand it. It's so powerful and so provoking that it would take three or four viewings to really get it. These are only half of the reactions I got from it in one viewing. I don't think I'm going to sleep tonight...half because I'm thinking about the depth of the movie, half because it scares me a bit too.
I decided to put in Apocalypse Now tonight because it's one of those movies all young men have to see, and we're doing the Vietnam unit so I figured it was relevant to class.
The movie is a work of art. It goes beyond a normal war film. Many war films do have some deeper meaning linked to them, but this one is just loaded with the deeper meanings, and for a movie that's thirty years old, the special effects are wonderful. This easily makes my list of top 10 best movies I've seen. With a cast so star-studded that Harrison Ford, Jon Voight, and Laurence Fishburne play minor roles, how could it not be?
Multiple themes and motifs emerged as I watched it. The main ones I spotted and will focus on were noise and the degradation of morals and civilization towards Hell.
First the noise: I noticed this even in class when we watched the scene involving the 1st of the 9th Brigade. Throughout the entire movie, there was all sorts of back ground noise that tells me the director is trying to overwhelm the viewer. During the early parts of the movie, there were helicopters everywhere; towards the middle, shots and flares were all over; by the end, it was just strange music. The music actually showed up often, and it creeped me out. The music described by Mitchell Sanders in The Things They Carried definitely seemed to be being played in the background of Apocalypse Now. I think the goal of overwhelming the viewer was a way to make the war even more real. It begins to wear on you and it actually takes a physical and emotional toll after about an hour, making the movie hellish.
The decay in humanity that was portrayed in the movie certainly goes along with the title and was certainly a purposeful method of embodying the immorality of the Vietnam War and war in general. The movie begins in Saigon with the main character, Captain Willard, drunk and in poor spirits, utterly depressed. This is shows a personal decay.
During the scene we watched in class, the colonel played by Robert Duvall is just nuts. He's got his crap together and is actually an excellent officer, but he's freaking crazy! A bad-ass, but crazy! This scene does a good job of showing an eccentric stage on the trail to insanity.
As Willard progresses on his journey with a crew of four on a small PT boat, they come across a few army outposts. At the first, the scene is a bit of a sensory overload, but then again the whole movie is. Starvation and desire for America and the licentiousness of America is portrayed at this outpost. The 500+ some troops at the outpost are treated to a USO show featuring Hugh Hefner and the best of the Playmates. Things get out of hand when the girls are dancing as the young soldiers have a hard time containing their lust. Nothing too much happens, but the message that they are being starved and are losing conscience is clear.
The next outpost they come across is not nearly as civilized. The soldiers can't even name their commanding officer and bombs, flares, and shots go everywhere. As the boat pulls through the river, soldiers swim after it crying "Take me home! Get me the #$%^ out of here!" It's absolutely shocking to watch. The horrors of this scene make it seem like a living Hell. The scene is filmed at night and only the erratic spurts of muzzle light and flares light the scene. As a viewer, I was rendered speechless and thoughtless. I could only think, "how terrible." When it was emphasized multiple times that there was no CO, it became clear that the reason this scene was there was to emphasize the incompetency of the American commanders and FUBAR situations that occured. I wondered if it could get worse.
As the boat proceeded down the river into Cambodia, they did. When Willard finally got to his destination, the true Hell became apparent. Dead, mangled bodies were everywhere yet there were hundreds of people to care for them and do something about it. The colonel Willard was instructed to kill, played by Marlon Brando, is a heck of a character. There are many strange people in the movie, but he is just insane. As you learn more about the character in the final scenes of the movie, you realize he seems to believe he's not taken steps backward on the continuum of humanity, but has transcended it. Early in the movie, you learn that this colonel, Colonel Kurtz, is a very intelligent and ambitious man but has gone renegade and likely insane. He has come to be a complete autocrat, a demigod more, of a tribe of native Cambodians. Having only watched the movie once and not being a psychology or sociology buff, I don't have much to say except that I was absolutely stunned by the Hell he created.
Besides "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," there are tons of great lines in the movie. Some are just a bit too corny, though. The narration seems to offer tons of cliches like "Oh man, the bullshit piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it. " or "charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500." There was one that stood out as particularly meaningful to the plot, though. "We had reached the end of the river." This just made it obvious that the brink between sanity and insanity had been reached and it was further than anyone thought.
Before I close, there's one more thing I'd like to bring up. The idea of truth and true war stories. We've seen this mentioned in TTTC, but I definitely seems to spread to other Vietnam media as well. If someone tried to tell me that Apocalypse Now actually happened, I would refer them to a doctor. The movie is wacked-out, man! Just FUBAR. Then again, maybe that's why it could be true.
Without seeing Apocalypse Now, there's no way you could ever understand it. It's so powerful and so provoking that it would take three or four viewings to really get it. These are only half of the reactions I got from it in one viewing. I don't think I'm going to sleep tonight...half because I'm thinking about the depth of the movie, half because it scares me a bit too.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Drawing the line on jokes
Earlier this week, we learned briefly about the use of humor in writing, particularly satire. I tend to enjoy using humor in my writing. Usually, I don't use it in the papers that I am really involved in already. Instead, I tend to use it as a relief while writing something I really don't want to be writing. If I have the energy for it (which I often lack, as I do now), these works can become massive satires while just barely serving their actual purpose.
Humor and satire can be used to distract a reader from an otherwise lacking paper. I find myself searching for jokes to tell when I run out of things to say. This goes for conversation as well as writing. Luckily, I have some time to think about what I'm going to say while writing so I don't make a fool of myself by telling a terrible joke. By making a reader laugh, you can make it seem like you're saying a lot more than you actually are.
On the other side of this, I sometimes find it difficult to incorporate humor into papers about topics on which I feel strongly. If I intend to poke sarcastic fun at something I use humor, but unfortunately I'm losing this wit as I try to make my arguments stronger and attempt to use rhetorical strategies beyond my humor that had been signature throughout middle school and early in high school.
I had always considered humor to be important in writing. It helps keep the reader awake and interested. Recently, I've felt like I'm failing to do this. Am I getting too mature? Am I losing my touch for humor in writing? From here on out, I am going to try to make my writing a little lighter when I can and use my wit to help my arguments rather than disregarding it.
Humor and satire can be used to distract a reader from an otherwise lacking paper. I find myself searching for jokes to tell when I run out of things to say. This goes for conversation as well as writing. Luckily, I have some time to think about what I'm going to say while writing so I don't make a fool of myself by telling a terrible joke. By making a reader laugh, you can make it seem like you're saying a lot more than you actually are.
On the other side of this, I sometimes find it difficult to incorporate humor into papers about topics on which I feel strongly. If I intend to poke sarcastic fun at something I use humor, but unfortunately I'm losing this wit as I try to make my arguments stronger and attempt to use rhetorical strategies beyond my humor that had been signature throughout middle school and early in high school.
Note must be taken, however, that humor is not always appropriate. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Serious topics can have jokes. Those jokes have to be in the right tone to work otherwise they can be construed as disrespectful attempts at making-fun.
It is important to word your passion carefully. A single joke might make an argument collapse on itself if it is not told tactfully.I had always considered humor to be important in writing. It helps keep the reader awake and interested. Recently, I've felt like I'm failing to do this. Am I getting too mature? Am I losing my touch for humor in writing? From here on out, I am going to try to make my writing a little lighter when I can and use my wit to help my arguments rather than disregarding it.
On "Times have changed for student protestors"
This article was really intriguing to think about after watching "Two Days in October" and learning about the UW-Madison protests during the Vietnam War.
I have to say, I'm not at all surprised that things have changed and become this way today. I'm not one to protest wars, but I'm not usually in fervent support of violence either. However, I think that people who feel that they are truly against the war should be stepping up to make their point known. They aren't apathetic; we know that because they do voice an interest in the topic. Yet they aren't empathetic on the topic either.
Recently, it seems that I've come across a lot of reading about the apathy of today's young people and they ways our generation likes to take the easy way out. I agree that we often do this. In the case presented by this article, though, it is not a case of apathy, but rather a lack of action. People have opinions and are apparently willing to voice them. That's much better than apathy. But there is a problem because we now need people not just to be willing to voice their opinions, but to actually take action to do so.
The social effects of the Vietnam War were certainly greater than that of those of the Wars on Terror. We aren't affected daily and at home by these conflicts by drafts, protests, enormous death tolls, and living-room footage as much as the Americans of the 1960s and 1970s.
Still, it is sad that something like "Grey's Anatomy" would infringe on the ability of students and citizens to exercise free speech and the right to assembly. Certainly media networks are not actively trying to take these rights away (with the exception of FOX), but they are passively breeding latent civic emotion.
We cannot continue to allow the things in our life that really don't matter all that much to take over the things that do matter. It's not too much trouble right now in the situation of war, but what about other things that might escalate to be massive social problems. If people shut off their televisions, looked up from their text messages, and removed their ear buds to take in the world around them and do something about it, we might see some amazing social movements. I can guarantee that there are millions of Americans out there who have ideas to help mend our economy or the environment (they don't have to be big ideas either), but citizens have a loss of efficacy that makes them feel like their opinion won't do anything. As a result, rather than taking action, we open a bag of Doritos and look for the latest developments in the relationships of our favorite celebrities.
What are you going to do about it?
I have to say, I'm not at all surprised that things have changed and become this way today. I'm not one to protest wars, but I'm not usually in fervent support of violence either. However, I think that people who feel that they are truly against the war should be stepping up to make their point known. They aren't apathetic; we know that because they do voice an interest in the topic. Yet they aren't empathetic on the topic either.
Recently, it seems that I've come across a lot of reading about the apathy of today's young people and they ways our generation likes to take the easy way out. I agree that we often do this. In the case presented by this article, though, it is not a case of apathy, but rather a lack of action. People have opinions and are apparently willing to voice them. That's much better than apathy. But there is a problem because we now need people not just to be willing to voice their opinions, but to actually take action to do so.
The social effects of the Vietnam War were certainly greater than that of those of the Wars on Terror. We aren't affected daily and at home by these conflicts by drafts, protests, enormous death tolls, and living-room footage as much as the Americans of the 1960s and 1970s.
Still, it is sad that something like "Grey's Anatomy" would infringe on the ability of students and citizens to exercise free speech and the right to assembly. Certainly media networks are not actively trying to take these rights away (with the exception of FOX), but they are passively breeding latent civic emotion.
We cannot continue to allow the things in our life that really don't matter all that much to take over the things that do matter. It's not too much trouble right now in the situation of war, but what about other things that might escalate to be massive social problems. If people shut off their televisions, looked up from their text messages, and removed their ear buds to take in the world around them and do something about it, we might see some amazing social movements. I can guarantee that there are millions of Americans out there who have ideas to help mend our economy or the environment (they don't have to be big ideas either), but citizens have a loss of efficacy that makes them feel like their opinion won't do anything. As a result, rather than taking action, we open a bag of Doritos and look for the latest developments in the relationships of our favorite celebrities.
What are you going to do about it?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The Civil Rights Movement briefly touched upon
Since we've been talking in class about the civil rights movements and African-American culture so much, it's been on my mind. The Letter from Birmingham Jail certainly expanded these thoughts.
This summer I had the opportunity to take a class in Washington D.C. on American history and politics that focused largely on civil rights. As expected, the texts for the class included essays and speeches like The Ballot or the Bullet by Malcom X, the famed I have a Dream by Dr. King, and many others. The final exam for this test involved an essay section. One of the possible essays was "According to Martin Luther King, what are the goals of the civil rights movement and why do they justify non-violent civil disobedience? What is Malcolm X's criticism of King's goal and his approach?" This was an excellent essay question, but I don't recall if I actually answered this one. In any case, I think it is important to understand the relationship between Malcolm X and MLK.
The two men disagreed over the idea of integration. In King's mind it was important to integrate the negro race into society and not just desegregate. King claimed that civil institutions and legislation could only break down racial barriers so far. Cities and states could choose to desegrate and therefore whites and blacks would be using many of the same facilities and such, but this did not mean the races would get along or love each other. The white American was apathetic to the civil rights cause. Most didn't care whether things were desegrated or segregated. King made the call to sensitize the white man to understand that de jure desegregation wouldn't be enough. It needed to be de facto, or through natural means--"color blindness." Integration would mean that blacks and whites weren't just putting up with each other, but actually interacting socially with each other for personal enjoyment rather than state order. King hoped to achieve this by positive action and encouraging whites and blacks alike to welcome each other through community involvement and good character.
Malcolm X on the other hand was not so happy a singer of Kum-bay-ah. He said that civil rights and the argument over integration came down to two things: the ballot, or the bullet. As it sounds, this was the idea that blacks would gain rights either through civil action or they would eventually take them by force. Black Nationalism was Malcolm X's argument against integration. He felt that black and white could never live together in true harmony and therefore they shouldn't try to do so. X didn't even consider himself American, he considered himself a Negro. In this idea, the government was nothing more than a conspiracy to retard the Negro. X doesn't condemn non-violence either, but instead says that "I'm non-violent with those who are non-violent with me." Black Nationalism required the creation of black communities that did not deal with white society. For some time, these communities thrived culturally. However, their economies were lacking and underground activity, particularly drugs, began to ruin them. While Malcolm X wasn't intending to be violent, he was certainly radical and willing to attain rights through any means in a Machiavellian manner.
History tells us that MLK won this argument, but perhaps we can learn from the seperatism of Malcolm X. Also, reading essays and speeches of both these men give us examples of some of the best rhetoric on the most fiery topic of the 20th century. If you don't know much about the civil rights movement I pity you. If you think you do, look deeper because there is SO much to learn from it.
This summer I had the opportunity to take a class in Washington D.C. on American history and politics that focused largely on civil rights. As expected, the texts for the class included essays and speeches like The Ballot or the Bullet by Malcom X, the famed I have a Dream by Dr. King, and many others. The final exam for this test involved an essay section. One of the possible essays was "According to Martin Luther King, what are the goals of the civil rights movement and why do they justify non-violent civil disobedience? What is Malcolm X's criticism of King's goal and his approach?" This was an excellent essay question, but I don't recall if I actually answered this one. In any case, I think it is important to understand the relationship between Malcolm X and MLK.
The two men disagreed over the idea of integration. In King's mind it was important to integrate the negro race into society and not just desegregate. King claimed that civil institutions and legislation could only break down racial barriers so far. Cities and states could choose to desegrate and therefore whites and blacks would be using many of the same facilities and such, but this did not mean the races would get along or love each other. The white American was apathetic to the civil rights cause. Most didn't care whether things were desegrated or segregated. King made the call to sensitize the white man to understand that de jure desegregation wouldn't be enough. It needed to be de facto, or through natural means--"color blindness." Integration would mean that blacks and whites weren't just putting up with each other, but actually interacting socially with each other for personal enjoyment rather than state order. King hoped to achieve this by positive action and encouraging whites and blacks alike to welcome each other through community involvement and good character.
Malcolm X on the other hand was not so happy a singer of Kum-bay-ah. He said that civil rights and the argument over integration came down to two things: the ballot, or the bullet. As it sounds, this was the idea that blacks would gain rights either through civil action or they would eventually take them by force. Black Nationalism was Malcolm X's argument against integration. He felt that black and white could never live together in true harmony and therefore they shouldn't try to do so. X didn't even consider himself American, he considered himself a Negro. In this idea, the government was nothing more than a conspiracy to retard the Negro. X doesn't condemn non-violence either, but instead says that "I'm non-violent with those who are non-violent with me." Black Nationalism required the creation of black communities that did not deal with white society. For some time, these communities thrived culturally. However, their economies were lacking and underground activity, particularly drugs, began to ruin them. While Malcolm X wasn't intending to be violent, he was certainly radical and willing to attain rights through any means in a Machiavellian manner.
History tells us that MLK won this argument, but perhaps we can learn from the seperatism of Malcolm X. Also, reading essays and speeches of both these men give us examples of some of the best rhetoric on the most fiery topic of the 20th century. If you don't know much about the civil rights movement I pity you. If you think you do, look deeper because there is SO much to learn from it.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Definition
I'm sitting in my dining room right now getting ready to write my definition essay. I was sidetracked by the realization that I hadn't done a blog post yet this week so I hopped on to write this.
The essays we read in class for examples were all very interesting. The two poverty ones and the music one were my favorites.
As I sit here trying to figure out what I should write about, I come across a few topics. One that seems to come to mind immediately is virtue and value. I'm sick of writing about that though. In the past three weeks, I've written three college essays on that topic and used a definition argument on virtue in my DBQ for AP Euro this Friday.
Another possibility is music. I thought about this topic a little bit last night at the Homecoming dance but decided I didn't have a good argument for it. Perhaps this was just the result of too many distractions and too little sleep impairing my critical thinking ability.
Last night brought up some more issues for definition as well. The lines between acquaintances, friendships, and relationships for some seemed to be so prevalent and bolded at the dance while for others these lines became so blurred that they are probably in need of redrawing today or over the next week. I have so many thoughts on these definitions flying through my head I can't seem to form an articulate point about any of them yet. Hopefully I will overcome the throbbing bass-induced headache, and 1.5 hours of sleep I've had in the past 54 hours to be able to write a coherent paper on this subject.
So here goes...
Not five minutes after initially posting this, I have already come back and decided that this topic is going to be difficult to write about. Any anecdotes I have to share are ones that I don't know if I'd be comfortable sharing. Maybe I'll overcome this and go for it anyway, but this brings up a new thought:
If the essay is just for an English class, and only a few others in your class and your teacher will be the ones reading it, does it matter what you are divulging?
Or is it easier to divluge personal information to a wide audience of people who don't know you on a personal level and don't really care about you?
The essays we read in class for examples were all very interesting. The two poverty ones and the music one were my favorites.
As I sit here trying to figure out what I should write about, I come across a few topics. One that seems to come to mind immediately is virtue and value. I'm sick of writing about that though. In the past three weeks, I've written three college essays on that topic and used a definition argument on virtue in my DBQ for AP Euro this Friday.
Another possibility is music. I thought about this topic a little bit last night at the Homecoming dance but decided I didn't have a good argument for it. Perhaps this was just the result of too many distractions and too little sleep impairing my critical thinking ability.
Last night brought up some more issues for definition as well. The lines between acquaintances, friendships, and relationships for some seemed to be so prevalent and bolded at the dance while for others these lines became so blurred that they are probably in need of redrawing today or over the next week. I have so many thoughts on these definitions flying through my head I can't seem to form an articulate point about any of them yet. Hopefully I will overcome the throbbing bass-induced headache, and 1.5 hours of sleep I've had in the past 54 hours to be able to write a coherent paper on this subject.
So here goes...
Not five minutes after initially posting this, I have already come back and decided that this topic is going to be difficult to write about. Any anecdotes I have to share are ones that I don't know if I'd be comfortable sharing. Maybe I'll overcome this and go for it anyway, but this brings up a new thought:
If the essay is just for an English class, and only a few others in your class and your teacher will be the ones reading it, does it matter what you are divulging?
Or is it easier to divluge personal information to a wide audience of people who don't know you on a personal level and don't really care about you?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Pencil, Pixels and all that stuff
As I was reading Pencils to Pixels, I was somewhat intrigued by the idea of rejecting a pencil as too technological. It was also interesting to learn about the ways some people prefer type, some pencil, some pen. I began to think about what I prefer.
There's no doubt that when I'm writing something of considerable length, I prefer to use a computer. I can type much, much faster than I can write, and it's also easier to go back and edit my type. I prefer to type almost anything that anyone else is going to see, as well. My horrid handwriting prevents others from reading what I've written or scribbled as notes. This is sometimes good because then people are deterred from reading things I don't want them to see. However, it sometimes is bad because occasionally I can't even read my own writing. I used to hate writing when I was younger because my teachers always assumed I was no good at it because of my poor handwriting. Now that I can use a machine as media for my ideas, I can convey them neatly and in an easily readable fashion.
There are sometimes that I would prefer to use pen or pencil. When doing math or science homework and having limited space to show my work, I prefer a pencil to go back and erase and correct mistakes. However, over this past summer, I've discovered that whenever I write something, I prefer to do it in pen. I used to be the type to write with heavy pencil in a spiral notebook. Now my preferred media is a legal pad with a ball point pen. The ball point pen flows easier than graphite and doesn't blot like plain ink does. The other reason I prefer pens to write with is so that I can write faster. Often, if I go back and try to erase something, I forget what I wanted to say next. With pen, I just but a strike through unwanted text and continue writing. The resolve and permanency of pen means that even if I change what I've written, it's still on the paper. My more personal writing is done in pen rather than in type. Poems and short pieces or letters to people are often first drafted with pen on a legal pad and later typed. The pen is so much more personal.
It's strange that I've gone from hardcore pencil enthusiast to a pen lover. I never even used to carry pens at school. Now I only use pencil for tests. This summer I got a free Ripon College pen at Badger Boys State and when it ran out of ink early this schoolyear, I felt sad inside. It was my favorite pen and I had written some fun stuff with it. Although it was just a plain ballpoint, I had a difficult time adjusting to a new pen. Habits in writing form quickly, apparently.
There's no doubt that when I'm writing something of considerable length, I prefer to use a computer. I can type much, much faster than I can write, and it's also easier to go back and edit my type. I prefer to type almost anything that anyone else is going to see, as well. My horrid handwriting prevents others from reading what I've written or scribbled as notes. This is sometimes good because then people are deterred from reading things I don't want them to see. However, it sometimes is bad because occasionally I can't even read my own writing. I used to hate writing when I was younger because my teachers always assumed I was no good at it because of my poor handwriting. Now that I can use a machine as media for my ideas, I can convey them neatly and in an easily readable fashion.
There are sometimes that I would prefer to use pen or pencil. When doing math or science homework and having limited space to show my work, I prefer a pencil to go back and erase and correct mistakes. However, over this past summer, I've discovered that whenever I write something, I prefer to do it in pen. I used to be the type to write with heavy pencil in a spiral notebook. Now my preferred media is a legal pad with a ball point pen. The ball point pen flows easier than graphite and doesn't blot like plain ink does. The other reason I prefer pens to write with is so that I can write faster. Often, if I go back and try to erase something, I forget what I wanted to say next. With pen, I just but a strike through unwanted text and continue writing. The resolve and permanency of pen means that even if I change what I've written, it's still on the paper. My more personal writing is done in pen rather than in type. Poems and short pieces or letters to people are often first drafted with pen on a legal pad and later typed. The pen is so much more personal.
It's strange that I've gone from hardcore pencil enthusiast to a pen lover. I never even used to carry pens at school. Now I only use pencil for tests. This summer I got a free Ripon College pen at Badger Boys State and when it ran out of ink early this schoolyear, I felt sad inside. It was my favorite pen and I had written some fun stuff with it. Although it was just a plain ballpoint, I had a difficult time adjusting to a new pen. Habits in writing form quickly, apparently.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
College Thoughts
I'm glad that we did the college essays in class last week because it got me rolling on my applications. I had just started to do my Personal Statement the weekend prior and I probably wouldn't have touched it until now had we not done it in class.
Now that I'm off and running with essays and applications, the weight of what needs to be done is really starting to become obvious. It seems like the application process is only going to be half the battle. By the time my whole process is over, I will have written something like four different types of personal statements because of the different requirements for each application on top of any other essays.
The Common App pretty much is saving my life right now. That someone finally thought to provide one application for some 300 schools is a relief to high school seniors nationwide. Of course, it doesn't make it easier that many of these schools still require a supplement for admission. For some of these schools, the supplement is no more than an additional sheet for scholarship and financial aid application. For others, such as the University of Chicago, there are two or three additional essays to be written.
There is even great difference in those schools that require supplements. Some are the generic:
"Why do you want to attend X University?" While others, again using UChicago as an example, are insightful and require a great deal of creativity. One of the possible prompt choices for Chicago this year is "How did you get caught? (Or not caught, as the case may be)."
It's amazing how many different essays one might write to get into college. From a student's perspective, this is both reassuring and daunting. I don't want to write a ton of different essays to apply to a few colleges, but on the other hand I also don't want to have my admission dictated by only one essay like the Common Application Personal Statement.
Some colleges, such as Marquette University (Advantage application) and Loyola University-Chicago, require only that a student submits a writing sample. This can be almost anything a student has previously written. Creighton University also accepts a previously graded essay from a class for their Quick Application, but this must be under 400 words. Getting under 400 words for a graded assignment is awfully difficult. Creighton also accepts a personal statement on their Quick Application, but this too has to be under 400 words. I don't know that I can express myself properly in 400 words! Marquette and Creighton both also take the common application, but they offer free application if you use the Advantage or Quick Applications that they offer to some students.
Some schools, including most public universities do not accept the Common App and require their own essays that can be some difficult topics. The University of Wisconsin-Madison requires two essays. The first asks the applicant how he or she will "enrich" the campus, and the second asks about the applicants goals and plans for the future.
At face value these seem, to me at least, to be fairly daunting. For one thing my goals are all over the place and I feel like writing about them would be difficult. In regards to the first essay, I really wonder how I would provide diversity and enrichment on a campus of tens of thousands of students as a white, middle-class, Christian male. After putting some thought into it though, I did find that these essays are not as difficult as I thought at first.
So now you've read me venting about my college applications process. I want to hear some other opinions-comment about your experiences or provide a link to a post about it below.
Now that I'm off and running with essays and applications, the weight of what needs to be done is really starting to become obvious. It seems like the application process is only going to be half the battle. By the time my whole process is over, I will have written something like four different types of personal statements because of the different requirements for each application on top of any other essays.
The Common App pretty much is saving my life right now. That someone finally thought to provide one application for some 300 schools is a relief to high school seniors nationwide. Of course, it doesn't make it easier that many of these schools still require a supplement for admission. For some of these schools, the supplement is no more than an additional sheet for scholarship and financial aid application. For others, such as the University of Chicago, there are two or three additional essays to be written.
There is even great difference in those schools that require supplements. Some are the generic:
"Why do you want to attend X University?" While others, again using UChicago as an example, are insightful and require a great deal of creativity. One of the possible prompt choices for Chicago this year is "How did you get caught? (Or not caught, as the case may be)."
It's amazing how many different essays one might write to get into college. From a student's perspective, this is both reassuring and daunting. I don't want to write a ton of different essays to apply to a few colleges, but on the other hand I also don't want to have my admission dictated by only one essay like the Common Application Personal Statement.
Some colleges, such as Marquette University (Advantage application) and Loyola University-Chicago, require only that a student submits a writing sample. This can be almost anything a student has previously written. Creighton University also accepts a previously graded essay from a class for their Quick Application, but this must be under 400 words. Getting under 400 words for a graded assignment is awfully difficult. Creighton also accepts a personal statement on their Quick Application, but this too has to be under 400 words. I don't know that I can express myself properly in 400 words! Marquette and Creighton both also take the common application, but they offer free application if you use the Advantage or Quick Applications that they offer to some students.
Some schools, including most public universities do not accept the Common App and require their own essays that can be some difficult topics. The University of Wisconsin-Madison requires two essays. The first asks the applicant how he or she will "enrich" the campus, and the second asks about the applicants goals and plans for the future.
At face value these seem, to me at least, to be fairly daunting. For one thing my goals are all over the place and I feel like writing about them would be difficult. In regards to the first essay, I really wonder how I would provide diversity and enrichment on a campus of tens of thousands of students as a white, middle-class, Christian male. After putting some thought into it though, I did find that these essays are not as difficult as I thought at first.
So now you've read me venting about my college applications process. I want to hear some other opinions-comment about your experiences or provide a link to a post about it below.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
My Biggest Fear
Everyday, I have to face my fear at 8:00 AM. I gather up the courage to pull myself away from a table with all my friends in the cafeteria and walk up the stairs with a trembling in my chest that makes it difficult for me to talk in a level voice to anyone. After reaching the second floor, my anticipation of the fear is overcome by such a rush of adrenaline that my body functions at a higher level than any other time. My heart races at just over 80 beats per minute; my veins stick out of my arms like small pieces of hosing popping from a wall; my pupils dialate to take in enough light to fight whatever foe I might encounter; my muscles swell with blood and water; my ears close out all the white noise and hear only the unusual sounds.
This ecstatic, intense feeling continues as I enter room 213 and see that evil instructor of the English language dwelling in his studious lair and listening to the twangs of bluegrass music to pull in the unsuspecting music enthusiast. This man is the Kunkle. He trains to terrorize high school students day and night all year round. His foul methods of instruction slowly inject one with knowledge that is unwanted.
My fear of this monster began in my freshman year. Every morning I would make the same journey to the Kunkave that I do now as a senior. I have grown no less fearful. Some say that facing a fear is the best way to overcome it. I disagree. Daily, I continue to make myself trek to that lowly room where he waits in inglorious sea of poetry and rhetoric. Waiting to teach, but I resist the knowledge. Wanting to inspire, but I remain complacent.
The fear I have was created during the Mythology unit in English 9. Learning of gods and titans, muses and fates, I realized that there was something horrid about this man. He continued to attempt to poison my fellow freshman and me with a daily poem that was the appetizer for his gruessome feast of language and composition. A banquet filled with the sour taste of grammar. The horrors continued daily as we moved into Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. One would have expected such a classic novel to be palable. However, the story of love offered no love of any kind under the harsh regime of the Kunkle. I am lucky to have survived to take the class in which I am currently enrolled.
It is my hope that by conditioning myself gradually to this man's mad approach to instruction I may overcome my fear. By exposing myself to his methods for an hour and a half each day, I hope to either reverse his terribly tyrannical type of teaching or to become so atuned to it that I no longer am fearful.
This ecstatic, intense feeling continues as I enter room 213 and see that evil instructor of the English language dwelling in his studious lair and listening to the twangs of bluegrass music to pull in the unsuspecting music enthusiast. This man is the Kunkle. He trains to terrorize high school students day and night all year round. His foul methods of instruction slowly inject one with knowledge that is unwanted.
My fear of this monster began in my freshman year. Every morning I would make the same journey to the Kunkave that I do now as a senior. I have grown no less fearful. Some say that facing a fear is the best way to overcome it. I disagree. Daily, I continue to make myself trek to that lowly room where he waits in inglorious sea of poetry and rhetoric. Waiting to teach, but I resist the knowledge. Wanting to inspire, but I remain complacent.
The fear I have was created during the Mythology unit in English 9. Learning of gods and titans, muses and fates, I realized that there was something horrid about this man. He continued to attempt to poison my fellow freshman and me with a daily poem that was the appetizer for his gruessome feast of language and composition. A banquet filled with the sour taste of grammar. The horrors continued daily as we moved into Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. One would have expected such a classic novel to be palable. However, the story of love offered no love of any kind under the harsh regime of the Kunkle. I am lucky to have survived to take the class in which I am currently enrolled.
It is my hope that by conditioning myself gradually to this man's mad approach to instruction I may overcome my fear. By exposing myself to his methods for an hour and a half each day, I hope to either reverse his terribly tyrannical type of teaching or to become so atuned to it that I no longer am fearful.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
On "Seeking"
"Seeking" was the article that Melissa chose to share with our class for her Choice Essay presentation. I read it last night and was absolutely taken away by it.
The article basically told about how our brains get a great deal of pleasure by searching or hunting for things. In fact, they receive more pleasure from the chase for something than actually getting it. This explained to me so many things in life in so many different areas. This explains a lot about love and sensual excitement learning, eating, and all sorts of things.
I love to learn and I figured out why it's so rewarding for me: it's an ongoing search and there is no final goal or ending point at which I am let down some by the final high. Dopamine is the stimulant that gets one excited in the chase, while opiates are what is released when the reward is reached. Dopamine is a stimulating high and opiates are a relaxing high. So basically, when I'm learning it's like having a high without ever having the let down. The same part of the brain is stimulated by sexual excitement. I won't go into the physiology of sex too far, you can read that on your own...but if you think about it, sex brain chemistry can relate to lots of things in life.
I found myself relating to the article at every point: personal experiences were ubiquitously connected. In fact, I was connecting what I was doing at the time with the article. While reading the article, I was multitasking by reading, Facebooking, and chatting. The article spoke about conditioning and Pavlov's dog and how people become excited when they get a new message, or their phone rings. I got a sense of expectation everytime my Skype account dinged that I had a new instant message from someone or everytime the little red box of Facebook notifications popped up. It's clear that Facebooking has become a source of dopamine for me. That's probably not a good thing either. When I get bored with doing homework I go on Facebook or Youtube, even if I know there's nothing to see.
The fact that seeking for information online is becoming like a drug addiction is well-founded. We must be careful about how much we are googling or twittering, etc. I don't think that these things are as dangerous as the author says, but we must exercise discretion in how we use them. Searching for information is a good thing; it's just important that we do it at the right time in the right way.
External links: "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr
The article basically told about how our brains get a great deal of pleasure by searching or hunting for things. In fact, they receive more pleasure from the chase for something than actually getting it. This explained to me so many things in life in so many different areas. This explains a lot about love and sensual excitement learning, eating, and all sorts of things.
I love to learn and I figured out why it's so rewarding for me: it's an ongoing search and there is no final goal or ending point at which I am let down some by the final high. Dopamine is the stimulant that gets one excited in the chase, while opiates are what is released when the reward is reached. Dopamine is a stimulating high and opiates are a relaxing high. So basically, when I'm learning it's like having a high without ever having the let down. The same part of the brain is stimulated by sexual excitement. I won't go into the physiology of sex too far, you can read that on your own...but if you think about it, sex brain chemistry can relate to lots of things in life.
I found myself relating to the article at every point: personal experiences were ubiquitously connected. In fact, I was connecting what I was doing at the time with the article. While reading the article, I was multitasking by reading, Facebooking, and chatting. The article spoke about conditioning and Pavlov's dog and how people become excited when they get a new message, or their phone rings. I got a sense of expectation everytime my Skype account dinged that I had a new instant message from someone or everytime the little red box of Facebook notifications popped up. It's clear that Facebooking has become a source of dopamine for me. That's probably not a good thing either. When I get bored with doing homework I go on Facebook or Youtube, even if I know there's nothing to see.
The fact that seeking for information online is becoming like a drug addiction is well-founded. We must be careful about how much we are googling or twittering, etc. I don't think that these things are as dangerous as the author says, but we must exercise discretion in how we use them. Searching for information is a good thing; it's just important that we do it at the right time in the right way.
External links: "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)