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