Modern Day Walden

I found this article in the NYT magazine on my driveway this morning. I posted the link - it seemes like these people are a true example of living deliberately, and they are forced to face the realities of life. Thought it was really pertinent to class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Squatters-t.html?ref=magazine
So do you guys think these guys are truly modern-day romatics? How closely do they adhere to Thoreau's ideas/the values of Romanticism?
-emily

Was the Transcendentalist Movement a Failure?

Over the last two classes, we've been discussing whether the transcendentalist movement was just one big glorious failure. I think we all came to a general consensus that the movement's lofty idealism is what made it unsuccessful. However, does this mean that transcendentalism has failed to make an impact on society?
The movement at its most extreme certainly seems to be highly unrealistic. By just looking at Thoreau's Walden experiment, we see that pure individualism and independence are unobtainable (apparently, Thoreau's mother brought him food and did his laundry over the course of his stay at Walden Pond). Furthermore, Thoreau himself admitted that his attempt at being self-sufficient was a failure. However, does this mean that transcendentalism can be rejected as a valid philosophy? Or does the movement still have merits despite its huge flaws?

-Bryce C.

Thoughts?

This is that poem that I was failing to quote today in class. Jeffers and Thoreau are definitely not on the same page. Thoreau suggests that civil disobedience is the best, if not the only, way to bring about change. Jeffers supports violence as an agent of change. Who do you guys agree with?

The Bloody Sire

POEM VIEWS: 13350

Although closely associated with the California coast, Jeffers was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and spent much of his boyhood at boarding

. . . MORE »

BY ROBINSON JEFFERS

It is not bad. Let them play.

Let the guns bark and the bombing-plane

Speak his prodigious blasphemies.

It is not bad, it is high time,

Stark violence is still the sire of all the world’s values.

What but the wolf’s tooth whittled so fine

The fleet limbs of the antelope?

What but fear winged the birds, and hunger

Jewelled with such eyes the great goshawk’s head?

Violence has been the sire of all the world’s values.

Who would remember Helen’s face

Lacking the terrible halo of spears?

Who formed Christ but Herod and Caesar,

The cruel and bloody victories of Caesar?

Violence, the bloody sire of all the world’s values.

Never weep, let them play,

Old violence is not too old to beget new values.

http://poetryoutloud.org/poems/poem.html?id=11973

-Colin

The Value of Transcendentalism

Today we were talking about whether or not Emerson would have considered his work and transcendentalism a "success." Is success measured in terms of practical application of an idea or in terms popularity? I think we agree that transcendentalism, while not necessarily a commonly followed idea, is certainly more popular than it is practical. However, if success is something concrete, then the most accurate way to gauge success is by looking at application, the only tangible aspect of philosophy. No one in class today seemed to think that idealist movements like transcendentalism could be applied to the real world, so how can one can one begin to measure their merit?

And if we can't measure their merit, is there a point in looking at them at all?

-Colin

Emerson on Children

When I was reading "Self-Reliance," Emerson's ideas pertaining to children caught my attention. R.W.E. makes the point that children are perhaps the most self-reliant people. Unlike adults, children aren't bound by social customs and mannerisms, and are instead free to act as they see fit. Furthermore, children are free to make judgments without regard to "consequences" and "interests."
While I think Emerson made some valid points, his idea as a whole seems counterintuitive to me for a couple reasons. First, when I was a child I know for a fact that I was anything but self-reliant. My parents had to do everything for me, and even now I'm still dependent on them for plenty of things. Next, while children may not be bound by customs, they are in many cases not knowledgeable enough to make good decisions and fair judgments. To label this ignorance as independence, as Emerson does, is foolish.
-Bryce C.

More peer editing for my poem?

Hey! I was wondering if any of you had any more suggestions for my poem. If you could critique it, that'd be great, thanks!

-- Tori

“I sometimes cannot find the words for what I feel.” – Billy Budd

From His Perspective, Maybe

Silence.

Always silence.

From the time the sun’s rays slash my eyelids in early morning

To the time I gaze at the slit of moonlight

That pierces the jagged edges through the shades.

Colors chop the light,

The halting, uneven movement of her lips,

The pixels of blood red and tainted pink.

They tell me that the mouth forms words

But I only know this from a priori sources,

Never a posteriori experiences.

In my mind, I can almost imagine

A different life,

A different me...

A different world in which I can

Almost smell the sounds

That exit the sharp angles of her mouth,

Almost feel the noises

That shove the air molecules around;

If only.

They say that silence is “deafening.”

One word.

One word, one meaning.

One word, one meaning, one million shattered feelings.

They don’t know how much it hurts.

I wish I could explain how caustic, how biting

The meaning behind that word is to me.

She, tireless, patient,

Sympathetic, but not empathetic.

Never empathetic.

I love her.

But, sometimes,

I resent her.

She can hear.

I was a cracked, unfilled glass cup before.

Then she sloshed into me

All the words I know

And she overflowed me

With all the possible gestures I can use

To express myself.

But she doesn’t know.

I may be full to the brim,

But I am still broken, lonely and empty.

And when anyone gets too close, I cut them

On my jagged edges.

And so, even with years of gaining more words,

More twists of the fingers,

More bends of the arms,

More turns of the hand,

I still don’t know enough

To express myself.

Billy Bud and A Few Good Men

In class today, we discussed the idea of shunting emotional desires and emotional reasoning aside in favor of the law. This discussion reminded me of a movie that I had just been watching in my debate class. The movie, A Few Good Men, deals with many of the same themes as Billy Bud. It centers around the debate concerning whether orders should take precedence over personal choice, especially in a military setting.

The main difference between the ideas behind the two films is that A Few Good Men completely condemns the idea of following orders and ignoring emotional instincts. Billy Bud, seems to be far more ambiguous, especially during the captain's argument to his fellow jurors. Should orders be allowed to take precedence, especially in regards to the military? Was it the captain of The Avenger or Tom Cruise who was right?

Tara

Artificial Intelligence

Today we were talking about some of the things what can be done with technology in recent times, and I remembered seeing this Video on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ByGQGiVMg

What do you think? I know that Asimo is not the only robot capable of learning (nor do I think he is the most advanced). Should we be doing this? I can't help but wonder whether we are playing god, or simply making a strange form of child...

-Melissa

For those interested...

This is the introduction to my research paper so far:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYt0U46uX1OXZGduMms2OTdfMzFmOXp6cWpocw&hl=en

Comments/critiques are appreciated!
-emily

Windows

Poe spends a lot of time describing the rooms and I thought his detailed description of the windows of the rooms was symbolic. Does anybody know what windows may symbolize?

-Joanne Park

There is a fair amount of personification in The Masque of the Red Death. Poe makes characters out of objects or ideas like death, the clock, and dreams. Death is a relatively common personification, and deliberately and overtly portrayed. But Poe more subtly depicts the clock as having "brazen lungs" and a voice. Dreams, too, are personified in that they can stand, stalk, take steps, live, and "writhe to and fro... merrily." However, only Death has any major impact on the plot of the story. The others seem to have no purpose except to enhance the story stylistically, like the themes of colors, time, and sounds.

-- tori

The Red Death = Tuberculosis?

As I was reading "The Masque of the Red Death," I couldn't help but remember how Poe's wife Virginia died of tuberculosis. Perhaps Poe's personal experiences with disease and death had an impact on how and why this story was written. Thoughts?

-Bryce C.

The Cask of Amontillado

On Friday, we talked about why Montresor never said what it was that Fortunato had done to anger him to the point of murder. I think that Montresor's omitting this is extremely interesting. I don't know whether Poe intended this or not, but I think the omission adds something to the story that we didn't talk about: it makes it harder for the reader to justify (or not justify) Montresor's actions. Had the insult of Fortunato been mentioned, I think the reader would have felt either more or less inclined to side with Montresor. If Fortunato's insult had been something terrrible, the reader might have seen the murder as more deserved. By the same token, if the insult had been something small and undeserving of murder, the reader would have been even more appalled by Fortunato's death. What do you guys think?

~Elizabeth

Longfellow and Dreams

I know this was last unit, but I forgot to blog about this earlier. In Longfellow's A Psalm of Life in the first stanza, "life is but an empty dream!" reminded me of "life is but a dream" in the childhood song, Row, Row, Row Your Boat. I mentioned it to Emily and she noted how Row, Row, Row Your Boat is often sung in canon and canons are supposed to be never-ending. It made me think about how Romantics write about death and the end of life. And if you've ever tried to sing Row, Row, Row Your Boat in canon with anybody, it mostly ends in giggles and catastrophe.

The metaphor that life is a dream in both the poem and song also suggests that dreams end, life ends, and we can't live in dreams forever. Rip Van Winkle may have lived in dreams for 18 years, but his stupor eventually ended. The Romantics were very invested in the idea of life turning into a sleeping death, and the dream idea goes well with it. Dreams occur when we sleep, and sleeping is like being dead ("For the soul is dead that slumbers"), so is he saying life is death? That would be the ultimate paradoxical statement.

-- tori

Don't ask me where I find these things.

Poe

What's his problem? Mrs. Lopez was saying that the dark nature of his writing can be traced to his dismal relationships with women, but I'm not seeing it. If that were true, shouldn't there be more women involved in his stories? Just thinking of his more famous pieces, I don't find many women involved (e.g. Tell Tale Heart, Cask of Amontillado, The Fall of the House of Usher, The Pit and the Pendulum). Where does all the negativity come from?

-Colin

The Afterlife

From the Romantic poems we've read so far, I've noticed that the afterlife has definitely been an important topic. In "Thanatopsis," Bryant discusses how after death, one "shalt lie down with patriarchs of the infant world." Thus, after death every person becomes equal, regardless of their economic or social class in life. Again, in Longfellow's "A Psalm of Life," the idea of the afterlife is introduced. In this poem, Longfellow urges the reader to recognize that death is not bad, but merely a transition into another life.
My question is, why were the Romantics so obsessed with the afterlife? Was there obsession with it simply a rejection of neoclassical rationalism? Or were they trying to embrace religion?

-Bryce C.

Crevecoeur and El Greco

In Spanish class, we've been perusing the artists of the Golden Age, and are currently watching a video on El Greco. He was a Spanish painter, but was born under a Greek name in Greece. In his early years, he studied Renaissance painters such as Rafael and Michelangelo, and attempted to mimic their styles rather than the Byzatine style of his native Greece. But after moving to Spain and living in Toledo for a number of years, historians say that he finally developed his true "El Greco" style. Interestingly, it was unlike the Renaissance painters' works that he had studied for so long, but was rather more similar to Byzantine works.

I found this to be an interesting parallel to Crevecoer. Crevecoer, though not a native of America, considered himself (somewhat) to be an American and seemed to find his personal identity here rather than in his native France. It seems as though both men "found" themselves and developed a true sense of identity outside of their native land. What do you guys think of this?

Does Crevecoeur Consider Himself an American?

This was an interesting question that was posed in class a few days ago, so I just wanted to extend the discussion. Personally, I feel that Crevocoeur does consider himself somewhat of an American, as evidenced by his use of the "we" device. However, at other times his pronoun usage is questionable which leaves me to wonder just how strongly he feels about his identity. What do you guys feel about this?

-Bryce C.

Crevecoeur's Definition of American

In class today, we discussed how St. John Crevecoeur defined an American, and whether or not he considered himself to be one. From what I have interpreted, I believe he defines an American based on the individual's desire to work hard in order to become successful, his or her desire for justice, and his or her pursuit for property.

Most importantly, however, I believe Crevecoeur claimed that anyone who decided to journey to America--no matter what nationality he or she was--had already cast aside his or her past ties and created a new one: that of a "new race of men," as he puts it. This "new race of men" was the welcoming of everyone from different races to America. Crevecoeur states that men from "all nations are melted into a new race" when his "labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world." Therefore, it is not the nationality of a man that makes him more or less an American, but rather his aspiration to be a hard-working, free man of the New World, and his achievements from such hard work and perseverance.

-Chloe Martianou

Is Franklin Too Bold?

After reading Franklin's "Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduce to a Small One", I couldn't help but think that perhaps Franklin was being a bit too bold. If I were a British politician, I would feel that his incessant use of sarcasm is simply obnoxious. Does anyone else get a similar impression of his work? And if so, do you think this was Franklin's intent?

-Bryce Cody

Ben Franklin's Warrant

I had been meaing to ask in class today about Franklin's what the warrant of Franklin's letter was. His audiences were, as we stated in class, English officials, the English public, and the American colonists. But if we look at the letter as an argument through the Toulmin model, what would his warrant be for these audiences? Would it be the same for all or different for each? Does it have anything to do with the cake analogy?
-a confused emily

Translations

I remember a few months ago we discussed Chief Seattle's speech and how its legitimacy was questionable since it was translated first into a different Native American language and then into English. Well, over the past few months of translating Latin, I've come to the decision that Seattle's speech as we know it is all but useless in understanding what he actually meant. Why? Because even in translating from Latin to English, Western languages with the same alphabet and other large similarities, huge gaps in understanding emerge. (e.g. "Theseus himself chose to put forward his own body for the dear Athenians, rather than such deaths of Athenians not dead bodies be brought to Crete" -translated from Catullus 64) Half the time, I can barely understand what the translation means and the other half the time the translation is very awkwardly worded.

Now, if going from Latin to English creates this many misunderstandings, I can only wonder what going from a Native American language to English does to a work. And on top of this, Seattle's speech was also first translated to a different Native American language before being translated to English. So, in the end, I must admit that I've lost all faith in our English version of Chief Seattle's speech and that I feel it can hardly be treated as a trustworthy historical work.

-Bryce C.

As promised, one hypothetical dilemma

The Situation:

Three days ago, nuclear war broke out around the world with massive attacks in all heavily populated areas. For the first 24 hours, radio broadcasts reported tremendous damage and loss of life in all areas, including the near-total annihilation of most of the earth's population.

For the past 48 hours there have been no broadcasts. Fortunately, the people listed below were able to reach a fallout shelter in time to take cover and survived the initial devastation. They have a radio transmitter/receiver, through which they were able to make contact with you,  a scientist working alone at an isolated government monitoring facility that is still intact.  Having heard nothing to the contrary, you can only assume that those in the shelter are the only other survivors left on Earth.

The dilemma: there are currently 12 people in the fallout shelter, but there is not enough food, water, and other supplies to keep them all alive until the contamination in the atmosphere has dropped to safe levels. To survive, the people must stay inside the fallout shelter for at least three months. The problem is that if all of them stay in the shelter, all of them will starve to death or die of dehydration. There are enough supplies to allow 7 of the 12 people to survive.

Your task is to decide, based only on the information given, which people will be allowed to remain, and which people will be required to leave. They have all agreed to abide by your decision without question or debate, and will leave peacefully if they are ordered to do so.  

At stake is the survival of humanity. If human beings are to repopulate the Earth, such re-population will begin with those survivors you choose.

The Survivors:

James Stanley [M]
Age: 43
IQ: 112
Health: Good
Education/Training: 2 yrs college, 2 yrs military
Work Experience: 15 yrs farming

Janie Stanley [F]
Age: 13
IQ: 120
Health: Excellent
Education/Training: 8th Grader
Work Experience: None

Gerald White [M]
Age: 35
IQ: 98
Health: Fair
Education/Training: High School Diploma
Work Experience: 4 yrs army infantry, 10 yrs construction laborer

Martha Gray [F]
Age: 25
IQ: 142
Health: Good
Education/Training: PhD in Music Theory
Work Experience: 2 yrs teaching college

William Gray [M]
Age: 8
IQ: 150
Health: Good
Education/Training: 3rd Grader
Work Experience: None
 

Wanda Brice [F]
Age: 50
IQ: 140
Health: Fair
Education/Training: Master's Degree Psychology
Work Experience: 15 yrs mental health case-worker, 10 yrs director of mental health counseling services

Bill Waters [M]
Age: 27
IQ: 104
Health: Excellent
Education/Training: Tech school graduate
Work Experience: 10 years heavy construction and welding

John Davis [M]
Age: 33
IQ: 125
Health: Fair
Education/Training: Dual college degrees - Chemistry / Education
Work Experience: 12 years high school chemistry teacher

Michelle Patterson [F]
Age: 19
IQ: 105
Health: Fair
Education/Training: High School diploma
Work Experience: 3 yrs retail

Marjorie Blaylock [F]
Age: 39
IQ: 133
Health: Poor
Education/Training: Medical school graduate
Work Experience: 10 yrs general family medical practice

Ray Wilson [M]
Age: 69
IQ: 127
Health: Good
Education/Training: 4 yrs college, business major
Work Experience: 10 yrs bank teller, 20 yrs bank president

Fred Frederick [M]
Age: 54
IQ: 132
Health: Excellent
Education/Training: advanced training - electronics (master rating)
Work Experience: 25 yrs U.S. Navy electronics technician, 10 yrs private electronics repair

Communist Candy

This is kind of random, but it has to do with the whole red scare communism thing, and I thought it was funny, so I'll share it with you guys.

On Saturday my family went to visit my grandmother in her new apartment-type building. She grew up in Poland and was sent to a labor camp during World War II, and is a bit crazy now, but in a good way. She was talking to us about someone who visited Poland and brought back candy for her but when she ate it, she didn't like it. She said, "it was very bad, so I thought it was Communist candy." My mother and I started laughing at this and asked her what she meant by Communist candy, but she didn't really have a reason for calling it that. She didn't think there was anything wrong with making that assumption.
I was telling Tara this story, and she said that materials or goods made by communist countries were often considered sub-par, so maybe that is why my grandmother thought the bad candy was "communist." While this may be the case, I also think she has a very anti-communist bias, and the whole situation just made me see how ingrained biases can be that 60 plus years after the war, "communist" is still basically a synonym for "bad" to my grandmother. Thoughts?

-Alexa

The Omitted Scene

If the omitted scene of The Crucible were not omitted, the play would have been more realistic. The scene can explain the girls' strange behaviors when they faced Proctor and Mary Warren, since Proctor visited Abigail the night before and told her what he was going to do. This gave Abigail a chance to prepare for Proctor's accusation toward her and she probably planned the show with the girls. This scene can explain the odd behaviors of the girls and make the play more realistic, but why was it omitted?

Is reality important in the play? Or is reality not needed to get the point across?

-Joanne

When the Puritans, the Beatles, and Karl Marx meet

I was re-reading the essay in The Beatles and Philosophy that I am reviewing for the assignment when a certain line caught my eye. The essay is about Marxism and the Beatles, and the specific paragraph I was reading was talking about Marx's take on religion and how it relates to John Lennon's song "Imagine".

"Furthermore, when Lennon asks us to imagine no religion, he further reiterates Marx's efforts to counter religious ideologies that divert human conciousness from unjust socio-economic realities with promise of divine rewards in the hereafter."

This sentence screamed "Puritans!" all over to me. Of course, there are many reasons for the Puritans' religious fanaticism, and the "unjust socio-economic realities" of their original home in England and then their adopted home in America is definately a contributer. The Puritans had to go to so much trouble just to survive in the early days of their American settlement that would have driven their already extreme faith to new levels.

-Audrey

Back to the National Anthem

So if you've been watching the Superbowl (go Saints!), you probably saw the opening ceremony. And if you saw the opening ceremony, you watched Queen Latifah sing "America the Beautiful" AND THEN Carrie Underwood sung the national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner". And if you, as an AP English III student, saw all this, you probably gave your head a little scratch.
Why sing "America the Beautiful" before the national anthem? Why was the opening ceremony opened by a black woman who was followed by a white woman? Is this symbolic of the ushering in of a new era in America? Will "America the Beautiful" be replaced as our national anthem? Will the Saints win? (as I type they're down one)
(emily)

The Repeated Reign of Terror

There is certainly an archetype with fear and terror that has been seen through history. The French Revolution, with its Reign of Terror, set the stage. There were leaders of the Reign of Terror who accused people of being traitors and enemies of the revolution. The accusations often had hasty trials and unjustly led to executions. The leaders turned on each other, when Robespierre killed Danton, Saint-Just was killed, and then Robespierre was killed himself in the Thermidorian Reaction. The same events repeated themselves in the Salem witch trials. Certain leaders of the movement claim that their neighbors are witches left and right. Some accusers were accused themselves, and the trials were mostly unfair because they involved pressing the accused to confess (like Giles Corey in The Crucible) and suspicious evidence like fainting and supposed effects of witchcraft. Then the archetype was seen again in McCarthy's Red Scare. McCarthy is known for accusing without evidence, and in some cases not even having tangible names of the accused. And then the pattern manifested itself in the aftermath of 9/11, as we talked about in class. All of these movements were based solely on fear. One could not speak out against the ludicrous, irrational nature of the events for fear of being guillotined, hanged, or sentenced as Communist next. Fear and terror are clearly effective techniques in achieving certain goals. But why can't humans stop the pattern from recurring, if the source of the problem can be identified? Is it merely because when there are no foreign enemies, a given population will turn within themselves?

-- tori

The Red Scare Now and Then

I just wanted to continue our class discussion on Friday about the comparison between McCarthyism and the current "anti-socialism" movement. To me, the parallels between now and then are quite apparent. Both are group movements involving a demagogue or group of demagogues who appeal to people's fears and emotions. In the case of the 1950s, it was McCarthy who stirred up fear of the Soviet Union by emphasizing the internal threat to the United States posed by government officials and college professors taking orders from Moscow. Now, however, its media reporters and radio broadcasters such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh stirring up fear of "socialism" and "government takeovers."

How similar would you guys say these two movements are? The biggest difference I would note is that McCarthyism was more of a national movement while today's "teabaggers" are a certain passionate minority. Thoughts?

-Bryce C.

Puritans in Elementary Schools

Yesterday I was talking to my 11 year old cousin (5th grade) who lives in California. We got on the subject of school, and she mentioned that she was learning about the Puritans. Of course, I took this wonderful opportunity to find out just what she knew about them. To her, three things really stood out about the Puritans: they prayed a lot, they read a lot, and they were ALWAYS nice to each other. I actually laughed when she said the last one, thinking about the witch trials (which they haven't learned about yet). Other than that, her class hadn't learned anything else about them, other than the basics about why they came to America. They certainly had never learned about the "fire and brimstone" Puritans, which I found interesting, since that is the general Puritan stereotype.

This really reminded me of back in the fall when we were talking about history being sugar-coated for young kids. So, what do all of you think? Is it better to not tell kids about the fire and brimstone things, or should they get a mix of the good and bad? Also, I was wondering about the difference of the east and west coast education. Do you think we might have a different view of the Puritans than kids in schools who are further in location from the Puritans' original home?

-Audrey

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

During the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," I think that ethos play the most significant role among the other factors. Jonathan Edwards does use some logos with the verses of the Bible he included in his sermon, but his selection and his explanation of those verses are highly opinionated. He purposely includes certain kinds of excerpts from the Bible that portrays the "Angry God" and although he does use the Bible as a source, his sermon does not seem very factual.

Edwards's sermon could be emotional (pathos), but during the class discussion, we found out that the way he delivered the sermon was calm and somewhat less passionate. Therefore it could be said that the greatest factor of his sermon was ethos.

In order for an orator to drive fear out of his audience, he needs the ethos. If it were somebody random delivering the speech, it might not have been so affective. The sermon was so affective because the speaker's reputation and his social rank enabled him to drive fear out of the audience.

-Joanne

Some Semantics

http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-enforcer-to-take-r-word-pledge-20100204-ngaa.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liane-kupferberg-carter/the-r-word_b_443627.html

Today my friend was talking about the R word, and I wasn't really aware of what it was, and that it is sometimes treated like a curse word (like the F word). That surprised me, because I don't think I've ever really consciously witnessed the evolution of a word in this way. The first link above is for information on its current controversy. The second link leads to an article that reminded me of Hayakawa, especially the last two paragraphs. The author says, "And I know that if we banish this word from everyone's vocabulary, something equally noxious will probably take its place. But the malice behind this word is palpable and ugly and heart constricting." We have talked about how affective connotation is added onto words. Words describing race with added on connotation are particularly sensitive words. We also talked about how the symbol represents something and even when the symbol itself is gone, the thing symbolized doesn't necessarily disappear too.

The author of the article says, "I am asking for no less than a basic cultural shift." This goes back to Hayakawa as well. I remember talking about how it is hard to create a change in language because pragmatically, people would have to start thinking a different way before speaking a different way, unless thoughtcrime and telescreens existed (which didn't even work out in the end anyway). Hayakawa used the example of Mussolini trying to get people to use the word "voi" instead of "tu" and failed, because language is hard to control when it's in the hands of the people. But I am really interested to see if the R-word campaign will eventually accomplish its goal of eliminating the use of the word from everyday speech. I remember reading about how some economic growth was retarded in the American Pageant last year and being surprised because the word was used in its dictionary-definition intended use, with only the informative connotation. So many words are skewed with connotation and are ruined from then on.

-- tori

Popularity as Value

Today while I was reading "Harry Potter and Philosophy" for the term paper essay, I came across this passage in the introduction:

"British pilosopher Bertrand Russell once claimed that, given the general silliness of mankind, a view's popularity is sure evidence of its falsehood. Clearly Russell overstated the case. Something's popularity is decisive evidence of neither its truth nor falsehood, neither its value nor worthlessness."

It goes on to say that since something is popular, it has clearly "struck a chord of some sort."
This reminded me of the discussion we had about Anne Bradstreet a few days ago and what determines what belongs in an important collection. I definitely agree with this quote, but understand where Russell is coming from. The majority of people are not scholars, and therefore if something is popular with a majority it doesn't mean it is a classic work or has heavy literary weight. However, it must have some sort of significance or value to society for being so popular. I think if a work is extremely popular, that doesn't mean it should be immediately disregarded for inclusion OR immediately included in such a collection. It just means that it should definitely be considered. Thoughts?

-Alexa

Is Affirmative Action Right?

Tori's mention of affirmative action made me think of the last unit. When we were discussing the possible essay topics for the unit test, we mentioned the equilibrium between keeping the tradition and assimilating into the new culture. What about diversity? What factor determines the perfect ratio of diversity?

-Joanne

Affirmative Action

In class, we were talking about who decided what authors went into the canon. The decision-makers felt bad for not including women among the Dead White Men. It reminded me of affirmative action. In Contemp, we talked about how Americans felt bad for excluding blacks in the past and not including blacks in schools and in the workplace now. So the US came up with affirmative action. But the consequence is that some people question the merit of the minority. "Are they in that high position because they actually are that smart, or were they helped along the way by affirmative action laws?"

In both cases, it's difficult to tell why the particular group was included. Both were included because the arbitrators were looking at posterity, not wanting to be judged as racist or sexist. I think that even if Bradstreet was chosen because she was female, that's okay. The canon should bring in a woman's point of view. In addition, her work is valid and has merit too, so her inclusion in the canon should not be questioned.

-- tori

Liberties in Poetry

Taylor's poems clashed with the Puritan beliefs with their ideas on nature and comparing man to a wasp. Saying things outright like this would not be acceptable among the Puritans. However, it seems that this strict culture allows more leniency for poets. The whole concept of the metaphorical conceit seems to say that in poetry it is okay to stretch the boundries. I don't think it would go well if Taylor gave a sermon that began "People are like wasps." However, it is more accepted in a poem. At least that was my impression, what does everyone else think?

~Becca

Below the Surface

Poetry has always been an interesting form of literature to analyze. People interpret certain phrases from a poem differently from others. After reading and analyzing the metaphorical conceits of Taylor's three poems, I wondered whether or not Taylor might have more secrets within his poems.

I've observed that a poet is very personal when writing. He can expose his personal beliefs and philosophies in poems in a very subtle way, or express them openly. He may not even actually express any private thoughts on matters, but we may end up interpreting certain profound lines as such.

What I'm even more curious about is the true motive of poets. Taylor's metaphorical conceits were pretty well-concealed in his poems because they went against certain Puritan beliefs (such as the Puritans' detestment of nature). Perhaps other poets at that time shared the same motive as Taylor? Perhaps they wrote poetry as an expression of their personal beliefs as opposed to the commonly accepted Puritan beliefs?

-Chloe Martianou

Is Hypocrisy Bad?

This was inspired by Bryce's blog and our discussion in class today. We're all guilty to some extent. Everyone always has been. People can't live perfectly, even to their own standards.

So is it bad?

-Colin

John Winthrop

After our discussion today, I got to thinking about whether John Winthrop was a hipocrite and whether he was a fundamentally bad person for adhering to the sexist, racist, and elitist principles of Puritan society. Certainly, from the perspective of our modern culture he would be considered these things. However, almost everyone in the world from that time period had certain beliefs that would be frowned upon by most people in our society today. So what do you guys think? Was he really that bad a person and that much of a hypocrite? Or was he simply a man of his time?

-Bryce C.

Slightly Superficial...

Today, my family was watching American Idol, and as I was doing work on the computer, I couldn't help but notice what was going on in the program. At one point, though I'm not entirely sure why, American Idol did a quick interpretation of American History in about two minutes. Watching this segment made me consider another possibility of areas in which people are exposed to sugar-coated histories. It seems as though some of the problem lies within popular culture and what students are exposed to at home. For an American who has little interest in history and finds it irrelevant, the segment on T.V. could be all that they care to really understand about the history of our nation.
Another example that I can think of is a show that I used to watch on PBS called "Liberty Kids." Essentially, the show would simplify events from the Revolutionary period into short, half-hour segments. The show, of course, was extremely nationalistic, and I remember having to push some of the things I "learned" from watching the show to the back of my mind in order to comprehend what really went on during that time period.
Essentially, I found it really interesting to see how a person's interpretation of history can be skewed, not just by what they might not be taught in the lower grades, but by what they might be watching at home. Thoughts?

-Tara

Even More on History

For homework tonight in Contemp, I have to read a couple articles and answer some questions. As we established in our class discussions, history in 9th grade was boiled down to looking up the answers to questions on worksheets and not getting a full sense of the material. However, this year I have noticed that Mr. Wright provides us with articles offering opposing viewpoints and leads class into debates every week. While I answer questions, I also understand the history as a whole, not just snippets cut here and there. In class, we have debated the justification of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and whether we ourselves would racially discriminate in a real-life situation. And tonight, the article is bashing all sorts of aspects of America quite severely (how plastic we are, how bureaucratic "they" are). It struck me as odd that I'd be hearing such an acerbic view on America from a history class, which I have always viewed as a dry subject with just rote memorization of facts.

The nationalism that some history textbooks and some history teachers will preach in, for example, US history, is a way to circumvent controversy. A teacher does not want to be labeled an unpatriotic person, or an America-hater, so he/she sings the praises of the US and all its achievements. But my Contemp teacher, by giving us articles written by different viewpoints and not claiming any as his own, avoids controversy directed at himself but still provides us with various points of view on controversial topics. At the same time, it is emphasizing how different interpretations to history exist, instead of leaving us with a simplified, sugarcoated knowledge of history.

-- tori

Do We Need to Learn History?

During the school day, I always hear somebody say "how does this information apply to me?", "when would I ever need/use this in my life?", "why do we have to learn this?", and more qustions of these types in every single period. I sometimes (most of the times, actually) agree that I will never need to know the information that is given to me, but I do think that knowing/learning history can help.

I think that learning history is not memorizing dates and names but understanding the people who made such decisions. In AP Euro, I did not understand why Dr. B was teaching us humanism and other abstract ideas since I did not consider those abstract topics as history. To me, history was composed of names, dates, and wars. However, I now understand why he wanted us to know the reason things happened the way they do. After understanding the reason one would act in a certain way, I finally knew the difference between understanding history and memorizing random facts of history.

I feel that one is capable of applying the subject "history" to his everyday life only if he understands the people of the history. I certainly do not think that I would use all the detailed facts of history in my life, but as long as I have the general understanding of the reason why people act in ways that they do, I would have a better understanding of the human nature.

-Joanne

More on History

I was looking over a US history textbook with my brother tonight, when I noticed another side of bias that we didn't really mention in class. The text seemed to throw all its support behind the winning side, whether in an election or in a war. For me, it just seemed to further cement the idea of constant bias serving as a roadblock against the achievement of a historian's ideal (to portray events completely objectively). This bias towards the winning side reinforced for me how omnipresent bias is in history, and how it's essentially impossible to be rid of. Any other thoughts?

-Tara

Making Sense of the World

I was talking with a friend the other day who is really into learning about zodiac signs and their meanings. She was telling me about all the different personality types associated with when someone is born and what moon he or she is born under, etc. Listening to her, I found what a complex "science" astrology is. Many disregard that zodiac signs have any real meaning and that those daily astrology advice columns are just bogus. After all, if you read through them, they're all give very general advice that can be applied to most life situations and problems. So why get hooked?

My friend made it clear that she studied all of this stuff out of entertainment and for the "psychiological" aspect of it all, not as a religion. She does believe that some of it is true, but still has a Christian-based faith. It made me think that although there is little hard, factual evidence to back up astrology, it's still a way that people make sense of the world. For my friend, it was a way to make sense of the actions and behaviors of herself and the people around her, and a way to seek self-improvement when her religion couldn't clearly answer these questions. After all, aren't we all looking for clarity in life? Don't we all want to know that what we believe is the true and right way? Just in the same way the Puritans held fast to their faith, we all need some sort of belief system by which to orient our lives. And even though others may think these beliefs are bogus or radical, they're still important to those who are faithful to them.

Thoughts?
(emily)

Puritan Influences

I just felt like continuing our class discussion about how much Puritan influence remains in the United States since I didn't think we had enough time to finish the talk in class today. Personally, I feel that the Puritan tradition of education is certainly pervasive in the New England area, with so many elite universities in these areas. Along with this, the idea of having to work hard for personal gain is a widely held American belief. However, I still feel that it's a great stretch to say that our society today is still rooted in the Puritan model.

While religion and belief in God remain powerful forces in America, they certainly aren't what they used to be. I would even argue that the emphases on the individual and on wealth have long ago supplanted God as the dominant American ideals. Therefore, I feel that it would be foolish to say that our society, which has become more and more secular, is closely related to a society in which everything centered around God. Thoughts on this?

-Bryce Cody

Slanted Words and Vocabulary

Today, my mom received a survey asking what she thought of President Obama's policies. We began to answer the questions, but threw it out when we realized how slanted the words were. One question asked "Do you think we should have a universal health care plan run by government bureaucrats?" First, this is a vocab word. Second, this is a slanted word designed to make you say "no". No one wants bureaucrats running the policy, but had they said officials or some more positive term, you would be more inclined to say "yes". I don't remember the other questions but they were all of a similar nature. This shows how word choice can affect the answers people give and how they think about politics.

On the back of the survey was a form asking for donations. They expected to rile people up after using slanted words so that they would be more willing to donate.

This remided me of Hayakawa while using a vocab word, so I thought I would share it and see what everyone else thought.

~Becca

Puritanism

I had a flashback in class today to the book I read back first marking period, The Stuff of Thought. I can't remember whether the author, Stephen Pinker, or someone he quoted is the source, but either way the book had a nice definition of Puritanism.

Puritanism - the fear that someone, somewhere, is happy

It's a little harsh, perhaps, but amusing regardless. And is it really that far off from the truth?

-Colin

Dreams and Symbolism

So I had a fever over the last couple days (its gone now) and had a dream right out of a soap opera. Someone I used to know (now deceased) came to me and gave me profound advice. Which got me thinking. Are there some 'universal' elements to dreams. We've been talking about metaphorical dreams, but what about the real one's? Maybe, for the most part, the dreams we have at night are random but there are themes everyone shares that pop up at times. I guess what I'm asking is whether or not there is such thing as a universal symbol, even a very vague one?

-Melissa C.

A New Year?

When it comes down to it, to me nothing seems really different between December 1, 2009 and January 1, 2010 other than name. Why is it then, that so many people think it is a remarkable opportunity to change? Any day is as good as any other to make a resolution, and I don't know many people that follow through with their New Year's Resolution any way. Why do people wait for a New Year to change, when really a New Year is just a symbol we use to measure time? I was arguing with someone about this, and they told me it had some sort of symbolic value, but I just didn't get it. What am I missing?

-Colin