This I Believe

I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we live. After that shocking and profound statement, dear reader, I have two options. After technically having completed my blog assignment, I can ramble, or I can explain myself. I guess, mostly due to a lack of rambling material, that I will explain myself. I think that life is only worth living when there is a real and constant danger of losing it. Without living on the edge of survival, there is no point. Right now, because of the systems set up by our society, I could survive doing absolutely nothing. I could sit around on my ass all day, taking a few hours to find some food for free at a food pantry, farmed by someone else, packaged by someone else, bought by someone else, and given to me for free. Even if I do work, I type numbers into a box and at the end of the day I am handed paper so I can drink water purified by someone else, live in a box built and maintained by someone else, eat food that was brought to me by someone else. Essentially, there is no purpose for me. I am not doing anything except living for others and by others. Only when I am literally hunted and hunting, escaping predators as I search for my own prey, living on the edge of death because I do everything, everything, by myself and for myself, only then am I living. This I believe.

Something

So the AP test is coming. I have taken two already, and I suppose this familiarity has made me a little calmer about the process. But then again, familiarity breeds contempt, and maybe this contempt will lower my potential to do well. If I hold the test itself in contempt, the issue really falls down to me. I can treat it as lesser than me, as something not worth doing, and watch my grade suffer, or I can visualize it as something contemptible for its ease, and blaze through it with a five. I suppose only time will tell. I can recount the tales of my previous AP essays, in order to calm my nerves, or at least feel the triumphant rush of knowing those tests are over and done, regardless of how I did. AP Calculus was wednesday of last week, and was honestly a mixed bag. The free-response questions were actually easier than I thought, with several I felt completely confident about and only a few that I had to take educated guesses on. The multiple choice was a little rough, with several questions focusing on specific concepts I had struggled with. I guess time will tell how I did. AP Bio I destroyed, due to good preparation and a heavily science-oriented brain. I only left one multiple choice question blank, and had to guess on just a few. The essays I felt very strong on, and I hope I did well overall.

It was my birthday...

I turned 17 yesterday, to the tune of a dozen choir members trying as hard as possible to sing off-key. I liked it though, and I would have (slash have) done the same. Perhaps the coolest gift I've gotten is my new watch, which is black and manly with some of the inner workings of the clock (or fake inner workings) visible behind the face. Its pretty cool. Another interesting gift was the purchase of a ticket to the new Star Trek movie by Henry Johnston. However, I bought Henry's ticket to the same movie for his birthday, so it turned out to be a wash. Great movie though, I highly recommend it even if you never saw Star Trek (I hadn't). Another gift was the return of my sister from college. Her last final was on friday and she returned home late last night. Although we were never close as kids, my sister and I have gotten better at maintaining a real relationship and she has helped me through much of my cliched teenage drama. The other cool news is that my family just bought a car: a dark gray Prius. What this means is that my sister and I will no longer have to fight over the Honda Civic to get places this summer, and that after she goes back to Kenyon I get to drive a Prius (sky blue, but manly nonetheless) around all of the time. Sweet deal.

Desires

Well, because you were not in class today, dear reader, I am not precisely clear on what those desires are, specifically. He has sexual desires that are fulfilled by the nurse, and he has desires to see Kareen again, and soon after he has desires to never see her again. He then wishes to be among people, to be in the light where he can at least sense the movement of the living around him. These desires I completely understand, and would likely go through myself. The deeper desire, which is likely the one I am supposed to be talking about, is his desire to communicate his story about the state of the world and the horrors of war. The need to communicate, to interact with a world he can no longer be a part of, is simply human, and every single person alive would have similar desires. The need to condemn war is more complex, although understandable in that he is attempting to rectify the situation that brought him to his current state. I am not entirely sure if I would break my silence just to condemn war, mainly for the reason that I would likely be isolated for my radical political ideas and I could not stay sane in that isolation, having just breached the wall of silence. However, if I knew I could be successful in my attempt to condemn war without losing my sanity, I would indeed follow Joe's fictional example and scream without vocal cords against the horrible institution of war.

Bullying

I am upset about the reaction to today's presentation on bullying. The most articulate response I heard surrounding it was that it was pointless because bullying is not an issue at UHS and that the administration is shoving this down our throats. I disagree with all parts of that statement. The administration is actually doing the opposite of shoving this down our throats: they aren't talking about it enough. In my three years at UHS I have heard school-wide discussions about the issue of bullying twice. Twice. Hardly shoving it down our throats. And bullying is definitely an issue at UHS. Maybe physically beating other kids up doesn't happen here, but we all know about incidents where peoples clothing was forcefully removed, and so the physical side is still there. Worse, though, is the verbal side, because for all the accepting atmosphere of UHS and for the community days and the sense of unity we all enjoy, gossiping about and mocking other students is still something I hear daily, and unfortunately occasionally find myself participating in. I'm not pointing the finger because everyone does it, but we should all be made more aware of what bullying is and what it means so that we can at least slow it down.

The parading of the cloth square

And I thought D'Souza was impassioned. This Beveridge is even more zealous about the glory of America, and his arguments are based less on fact and history and more on the generalized concepts of glory, honor, and self-righteousness. His countless references to god simply underscore that he believes America is the chosen land and we should be able to take whatever we want based simply on that belief. Again, this is an individual Joe would greatly dislike. Based on abstract, intangible concepts like god and manifest destiny, Beveridge believes that we should send young men to war simply for reasons that we cannot see or feel or hear. And the most tangible of those reasons is selfish. Beveridge believes we should take the Philippines to open up new avenues of trade, and to find new areas of land and resources to exploit in order to make America better, likely at great cost to the natives. Beveridge's entire argument is based on selfish reasons of bettering America regardless of what happens to the rest of the world, and he is willing to sacrifice young American men like Joe to do it.

America

Well, its clear he loves America. I worry, though, that D'souza's devotion to America seems a bit too much like the religious fervor of many of the groups he was condemning. But maybe that's just me. He seems more like a man from one of those cultures that forces virtue: he is so zealous about how amazing America is, it doesn't appear as if he got to that conclusion by choice. However, some of his points were good, if at times a bit stretched, and the patriot in me is all too eager to accept his go-america attitude. But, as he relates to Johnny, D'Souza is exactly one of the people that joe hates so much. D'Souza is all about intangibilities, about sending other people off to die to protect the glory that is America, about being on the side of the angels... Joe would say that D'Souza never fought for these ideals he supposedly believes, would never give his life for america despite the zealotry apparent in his writing. Joe went to war because of the attitude presented by people like D'Souza: he went protecting the greatest country on earth and defending democracy, the gift to the world. He ended up eternally crippled because of this blind devotion to the country that believes it is on the side of the angels.

Thoureau

You ask me to write a blog about Thoreau, but he would say that you are taxing me unfairly, by taking my time away and punishing me if I do not concede to your will. Thoureau might suggest that I disobey you outright, and in fact refuse to subjugate myself to your will at all, and be thrown into prison for disobeying the laws of the state. There does seem a certain attraction to that idea, but as you are reading this, I must have decided to let your will prevail...at least for now. Thoreau's ideas relate directly to Joe's ideas about war at the end of book 1. Thoreau believes there should be no government, or at least that government should recognize fully that individuals are the absolute power and grant them their deserved influence, and Joe is simply applying that overarching concept to the issue of war. Joe believes that government should give the individual the right to choose, to go to war or not, and should never force a man to give up his life for a concept he cannnot touch or even imagine in many cases. Joe now believes that the government has no right to command men to go to war, to force them to fight, to subjugate them. He agrees with Thoreau that the individual, his rights, his wants, his needs, should come first and above all else.

The Three Books

Let me begin with the silliest and probably least worthwhile of the books, and yet likely the most enjoyable. This book is the aptly named Fool, by Christopher Moore. Among its pages unfolds a tale of murder, scandal, and debauchery as told by a doubly fictitious fool to Shakespeare's King Lear. By adapting this work of old to a more modern and less grandiose purpose, Moore takes us into depravity and base humor that at once make one feel ashamed and laugh out loud. There is art in the pages of this book, and yet it is of a less refined form than one would normally expect to find it. However, as previously mentioned, the book is the most enjoyable to read of the three. The next book on the list, if memory serves, is The Dead Zone, by Stephen King. Here we have more literary merit and a more sophisticated story, but less throwing one's head back and laughing. Here we have the tale of a boy who slips on back ice and is thus given the power to see briefly into the future. Dark and chilling, and no doubt leading up to a stunning conclusion of epic proportions. The third book currently being synthesized is Johnny Got his Gun, by Dalton Trumbo. This is an anti-war book about a man with no face, no arms, and no legs, remembering his life while lying in a hospital bed. This will be mentioned in later posts further, you can be sure.

Blog du jour

Dear, reader, I am about to let you in on a little secret. I am about to use a rhetorical device by appealing to pathos and uniting you, the petty mortal, with me the information source akin to the the great library of Alexander. How will I accomplish this great feat, you might ask. The secret is simple. I will reveal an aspect of myself that you would not suspect of me, dear reader. And this secret of mine is that my knowledge does not actually stem from god, miraculous as that knowledge might seem. I, too, read the works of other fountains of information just as you are reading mine currently. Now doesn't that make us seem closer? More like brothers and less like the worshipper and the worshippee? Well, that is the whole point. Let me elaborate. I am currently reading three books. Yes, unlike you, a mere mortal, I learn from multiple sources simultaneously and synthesize them together into a magical amalgam of thought. These three books have varying degrees of literary merit, and yet each of them contributes some to the aforementioned amalgam, sadly pushing me further and further into the realm of enlightenment and away from your sad world filled with clouded thoughts and mistakes. Those three books are as follows: Fool, The Dead Zone, and Johnny Got his Gun. I will eschew my heretofore clear writing for a more prolix examination of these works in a subsequent discussion.

Real Life Comes Back

So, we can blog about anything in our lives, as long as it is relevant and well-written. Then I, dear reader, will approach the subject of Chris Dobbs. He and I have a constant debate over blogger going, because in the writing of said blogs there are often details that one or the other of us get wrong, or in Chris' case, whole blogs that are simply fabricated, and we approach our comments to each other as opportunities to expose the faults of the other. Let me begin by saying that Chris is often wrong about what he says. Take for example, his gender blog where he makes a bad analogy. I will not dwell on that now because my comment on said blog goes into enough detail about it. However, my real purpose in writing this blog about Chris Dobbs is not to expose his inaccuracies and logical fallacies, despite their prevalence and the aggravation they cause me, but to applaud his commenting efforts and to spur other who have been less than stellar in their comments to follow Chris' example. No matter how wrong or unfounded the idea is that Chris Dobbs is defending, he will write slightly better than mediocre comments with real passion in his words and a real goal that he is aiming for. I hope that some of the bloggers who comment solely for points and not for the satisfaction commenting can give will join Chris in the fight for truth.

Gender....

This is a very complex issue, and I would like to begin with a qualification of my ideas to come. I believe that we will never fully understand the issue, and the concept is something like the aristotelian truth that we can approach but never reach. That said, I believe that gender is a mix of societally influenced and inherent to an individual. I believe that regardless of the society around me, there are aspects of my personality and my identity that would not change. I agree with De Tocqueville in that women and men are inherently different, and we should not subjugate one or the other, but neither should we make them interchangeable. We must recognize the unavoidable differences that make us men and women and use them to our advantage rather than ignore them at great cost. I don't think that any specific individuals have influenced this decision,. although I do think that my opinion has been shaped by the readings we have done in class about gender, and Eustace Conway has also been instrumental in altering my view of "manliness" and of myself as a man. Despite my insistence on certain characteristics that are inarguably male and female, I do believe that expressions of manhood or womanhood are shaped by societal influences, that women play with barbies and men with G.I. Joes. That men go to war and women foster children is human nature, but the specific interactions they have with society are often shaped by that society.

Media Images

Media images play a role in Ortiz Cofer's story not so much as the main focus of her tale, but as background information. The main point of her story is about real life images, about the way real life is affected by the visual implications of race and size. The santa is the first place the story goes, because the Puerto Rican family is forced to conform to the ideals of the United States by giving presents on Christmas rather than their traditional holiday. This example of how their religious rites are transformed by the media and corporate structure of another country just backs up the thought of her body being judged differently in a new culture. The incident with the susie doll is another example of the media controlling aspects of her life. Her image of beauty is affected by the culture around her to make her want a white doll. Then, the contrast between the white golden-haired doll and the obviously Puerto Rican girl is likely what caused the butcher to yell at her. The contrasting images of media and reality are what lead to many of the problems that she faces, from the inability to perform to cultural athletic standards to her departure from the norms of beauty that cause her so many problems.

Gay Marriage

Well, many can likely predict the answer I am about to impart to you, dear reader, as I am an active member of the UHSGSA, and do not only believe in gay rights, but work to make them happen. At least on a small scale. So, the question turns not to what, but to why. And that answer is also very simple. Like the esteemed Ralph Waldo Emerson, I am a deep believer in self reliance, on individual liberties and rights and ideas. I am deeply committed to maintaining my own way of life, but I know that to deny anyone else the rights I have myself would be not only unfair but completely ridiculous. And so, the simple answer to the gay marriage question is simply that I don't care, as strange as that sounds. I don't care who marries who, or what their religion is, or even if they are headed to hell (which I don't believe, by the way). I simply realize that if my way of life is to be respected I must respect the way of life of others. And therefore, I grant to every gay individual who wants to marry the person they love my permission to do just that. What they want. Their marriage doesn't affect my life, and I don't believe I have any right to step into matters not about me. I believe in choice, and it is as simple as that.

Numero Cinco

Essentially, Wolfson introduces the court case of Turner v. Safley because it presents an analogous claim to the rights of marriage. His rhetorical strategy in bringing this case to light is to show how a case that could be argued to be similar was successful, thereby implying that his own cause would or should be successful if brought to court. Turner is appropriate to this case because prisoner's represent a small, minority group that was denied its right to marriage by the government. If you see the case the prisoner's brought to court as an example of a group unfairly denied its marriage rights, as the court evidently did because of their favorable decision, one would argue that gays, another small, minority group denied its marriage rights, should be allowed its marriage rights. By presenting these arguably analogous cases in the middle of his argument, Wolfson presents the case that gays should be allowed their marriage rights as the prisoners were.

Airplane!

In paragraph 5 of his essay on the benefits of traditional family situations and the unavoidable evils of non-traditional family styles, Santorum compares the horrible people in atypical family situations to pilots of an airplane that only sometimes makes it to the destination, with standard households representing an airplane with a much higher rate of success. If one is in a single-parent household, for example, it is fairly likely that a child will do well. In fact, it is probable. However, Santorum argues that there is a much higher probability of a favorable outcome with a traditional family. It is obvious that everyone should choose the living situation with a higher rate of success, right? The comparison to the plane exaggerates the supposed evils of non-standard family situations by comparing a potentially (although subjectively evaluated) negative outcome in child-rearing to a fiery and bloody death in the midst of an airplane crash. By playing off a fear commonly found in citizens of an airplane-using society and a terrifying image even for those who have never flown, Santorum hyperbolizes what is likely not even a legitimate concern.

Appearances

Vasquez waits to disclose the fact that Brian and Mickey are straight in order to prove the point that it is impossible to tell another person's sexuality, and it is impossible to prove one's sexuality. Any man can be thought gay, and any woman can be seen as a lesbian. Vasquez waits to show that the men attacked were straight to show that the scope of homophobic violence is extensive and not even limited to homosexuals. When heterosexuals are being attacked as a result of homophobic violence, it is obvious how ridiculous and unfounded that homophobic violence is. The issue itself does not change, however, when we realize that heterosexuals are occasionally the victims. It is still a wrong, terrible thing and the victims do not matter. The point of Vasquez's argument is that a straight person is just as human as a gay one, and so whether the violence affects heterosexuals or homosexuals is really irrelevant. People are being attacked, and that is wrong. That the victims of such attacks are everyone and not just the hated group just goes to show how ridiculous and truly unfair the homophobia is, and how wrong a concept it is that one should delineate humanity along lines of sexual orientation.

Transcendental Eustace

If my options are to defend, challenge, or qualify, I choose qualify. There are always things that support and attack Eustace's identity as a member of various systems of thought, and so Eustace is simultaneously a transcendentalist and not. He believes in many of the tenets of transcendentalism, such as the outpouring of discipline and beauty solely from nature. He wants to become more than he is, to feel a different kind of life by reconnecting with nature, and in this way wishes to transcend. He is spiritual, and always seeks to find god in nature. In all of these things one would call Eustace a transcendentalist, but I believe he is not entirely one of them. The main difference is that Eustace is not cognizant of what he is doing. He did not find thought, and take action because of those ideas. He did not realize that god was in nature while living in the city, but simply found god and all of his transcendence by simply being among the world and the things he loves. Transcendentalism is premeditated, and Eustace simply wanted to live in the best and freest way he could. He sought out nature because of things like the scene where he fights the deer. Being in nature makes him whole, but not because he spent his life philosophizing and eventually realizing this should be so, but because he experienced life firsthand and then pursued it because he could.

Nature

"He will perceive that there are far more excellent qualities in the student than preciseness and infallibility; that a guess is often more fruitful than an indisputable affirmation, and that a dream may let us deeper into the secret of nature than a hundred concerted experiments": Here Emerson is talking about the contrast between the tangible and the intangible aspects of the world in which we live. There is more than truth, than the ability to spit back numbers. An attempt at something unknown can lead to answers beyond the question itself, and so a lack of knowledge can be even more powerful than knowledge in its own way. And, the final, beautiful sentence tells us that imagination, ambition, the mad ramblings of the mind attempting to give form to life will always show us more of true nature than science, or math, or any concrete examination of the natural world. This line really puts forth an idea that much of his writing seeks to convey, and in simpler, more understandable prose that is for its accessibility more beautiful than his endless explanations could ever be. Emerson is telling us that nature is not found in data about the natural world, in numbers cataloguing dry facts about animals or plants, but in the seemingly insane tendencies of the human mind to seek out answers that cannot be answered, to dream while sleeping rather than falling into oblivion, to guess at the world around us when we do not know where the real answers to our questions lie.

Destiny

In writing Last American Man, Gilbert is not attempting to turn everyone into Eustace Conway. She is not writing a book to spread the exact same message Conway is, although perhaps that is an added bonus to her work. Instead, Gilbert is trying to make the country realize that it has lost its ability to truly live, to experience life as those who have gone before us did. I don't know whether Gilbert is trying to save that concept, to carry on Eustace's traditions, or, as the title suggests, she is merely writing the epitaph to a dying concept. However, regardless, Gilbert is writing about the necessity of being an active participant in the world. The necessity of being self-aware, living life instead of sitting by and letting it flow around you. To achieve Gilbert's and I believe Eustace's in a small way, we need not live in the forests, but we must find our true calling; not the one society has thrust upon us, and pursue it with passion and drive. We must all become Men of Destiny in a way, feeling what we are meant for and actually going after it. We need not change the world, but we must follow our hearts, as the gardener did. Textual evidence for this lies in the paragraph straddling pages 82-83, where Eustace talks of his need to do "things" rather than talk about "things." He needs to feel alive, to experience the world, to exert himself. And, in the final words of the paragraph, he must follow destiny. Gilbert's message put simply is to follow destiny with all you have.

Morality

Wright really learns morality from himself. He seems to have a set of morals from the time he is born, influenced in part by his mother, as exemplified by her reaction to the murder of the cat. In a way she tries to educate him in religious morals, but the main portion of his morality comes from himself, and from his reactions to the world around him. Wright learns not to steal when he steals and feels the shame of that action boil up inside him. He learns about the morality of information when he refuses to give a speech that was written for him. Finally, he learns about the morality of the world around him when he sees the blatantly amoral actions of his comrades at the end of the book. The relation between his own moral journey and that of the common schools exist in the tie between literature and morality. The public schools taught morality, conveyed morality, through scripture. Wright does not read the bible in the book, but he learns of the world and his place in it through reading, and attempts to spread his morals and in essence his world view through the written word, as the common schools initially did with the bible.

Epiphany

Basicallly, Wright realizes at the end of the novel that Americans are not human. The issue does not come down to political hatred or religious hatred or even racial hatred, but to the fact that throughout his experience in America he has seen no examples of how to live a human life. He realizes that it not just the blacks that are being crushed and dehumanized in their suffering, but that everybody, white or black, is circling the same pit of despair for the simple reason that their humanity is not whole, their connection to the rest of the world not quite whole. Everyone is going down together, and there is no way to stop it. However, Wright must try to make some connection, to bring light onto the human heart and a human path of existence. He must attempt to "fling a spark into this darkness." Because Wright now realizes he is alone. Not because he is isolated from his political party or from a majority of people because of racial dynamics, but because no one is living their lives how they should, because no one is searching for the essence of the human heart like he is. He is alone because he is one of a kind and there is no one else trying to search for the meaning he must find. Because of his isolation, he must now let go of his dreams of using writing to unite man, and must instead try to bridge the gap between himself and the rest of the world, unite his own version of reality with that of the rest of humanity.

Artists vs. Politicians

At this point, I would like to quote (the movie) V for Vendetta. "Artists use lies to expose the truth, while politicians use lies to cover up the truth." In this light, as well as in the way Wright brings to the fore, politicians and artists really do use different abilities and methods to accomplish different goals. Art is about intensifying life, using a great focus on one topic to bring about a new world view or at least an appreciation of a new world view. The politician does the opposite, keeping foci broad, making generalizations and refusing to look at the specific, for, really, what good can the specific do him? Politicians have no real goal in convincing one voter, or in mobilizing one mob member. They need to convince or mobilize great swarms of people, and to do this he must break life into its impersonal aspects, forcing men into large groupings with other men who are not like them in order to accomplish its goals. The artist seeks to remind man he is an individual, with valuable thoughts and actions, while the politician seeks to dehumanize man, turn him into a machine, a number, a voter, a faceless mob member. In observing what they do to the people who follow them, it is clear that an artist and a politician are clearly two very different types of people.

This impetus brought to you by...

To be honest, it depends greatly, on both the voice and the masses he is trying to force into motion. There have been men and women in our history, who, through their skills in oration, or their intelligence, or their eloquence, have caused huge changes in the world with just their voice. Martin Luther King jr. could be considered a great example of this. Because his message was one of power, and because of the great leadership abilities he possessed, MLK jr. was able to move mountains with just the strength 0f his voice. And yet, his power and influence also greatly rested on his audience. The people he moved were people receptive to his claims, tired of one thing or many and ready to do something about it. In essence, one man cannot make an explosion: he can only light a fuse. There must be power, controversy, potential for change already inherent in his audience for his words to have any effect. If MLK spoke only to white individuals, or if the issues he attacked had not occurred, then he would have had zero followers no matter how gifted of a leader. Where the two elements combine- the powder keg and the person capable of lighting the fuse -  only there can an explosion occur.

Parenthetical Passages

Besides the brilliant alliteration in my title, what more do you want to know? Well, the first time in this chapter where current Wright breaks in to talk about past Wright, he discusses the continued issue of racial tension that I suppose he had hoped to avoid by coming to the north. Instead of an active, tangible tension that broke out into violence or confrontation, the tension in the north is mainly in the psyche, breaking a man down from the inside. One of the main concepts present Wright discusses in his tale of the north is the concept of self-hate. Because the whites hate the blacks and because they are a part of this culture that hates them, they begin to hate themselves. They enter into a vicious cycle where they hate themselves because the whites hate them, but refuse to show their self-loathing for fear of allowing the whites satisfaction. Because of these contrasting pressures, blacks are tense and nervous, only further satisfying the stereotypes whites have of them. Wright himself is not immune from this vicious cycle, but engages in dreams that are never realized, and hopes of organizing the blacks that eventually lead to displacement of his disappointment and self-hate on the blacks around him.

Positive/Negative Change

At the end of Part 1 Wright is setting in motion his move to the north. There are plans, dreams, and insinuations that the change will be positive, but we the reader do not yet know where Wright's path will take him. Indeed, some of the comments of the white men Wright was working with seemed foreboding, and in a novel I would likely assume that this was purposeful. They suggest that the north isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that he will be unhappy there. However, we do not yet know if the white men have some insight Wright lacks or if they are merely defending their southern lifestyle or even just trying to keep a worker. Regardless, the north will likely be a step up in quality of life for Wright, but may not live up to all of his expectations, perhaps becoming a negative change just because he will have reached the fabled land of milk and honey and found it only slightly better than the desert. Even worse, the promised land was his destination and he will have few other options to seek out a life better than the one in the north. Whether this move will break his dream or the conditions will be improved enough to at least temporarily sate his hunger for equality is something, I suppose, that remains to be seen.

Subservience

In a word, yes. But I'm sure you want more. Every one in society is forced to be subservient in order to exist in that society. The levels to which each of us bend to stay within that system differ, but none of us can stand completely upright. Those who try die, as evidenced by Chris McCandless. He tried to live outside of the system, and was happy for a spell, but eventually everyone dies if they remain above the system. To survive, each of us must give up some of who we are. If I was utterly free I could steal or kill as I chose, essentially destroying the freedoms of others. To preserve the majority of the freedoms everyone enjoys each of must give some of our individual freedoms, which is subservience to the system, or to the greater good, depending on your viewpoint. However, no one today has to face the level of subservience Wright was forced to endure in the south. He has to control every impulse, hide every thought, nearly literally bow to the whites around him. When he tries to break out of this harsh system he is beaten, or cast out of a job. In order for Wright to survive even on a day-to-day basis he must be so subservient as to lose some of himself.

Late to the game

All around him, Wright observes a nearly Pavlovian response to whites in the blacks he coexists with. When a white appears, blacks shrink back, and in some cases jump out of the way. They lose their individuality and become robots, always offering a yessir and a quick jump to the task at hand. They are just as human as Wright, but have been deeply conditioned into this response through fear and pressure from a very young age. However, because when he was young Wright was unexposed to and even unaware of the issue of race, he never received that conditioning. As Mann wrote, the young are pliable, and by the time Wright experienced white supremacy he had already allowed himself expectations of self-respect and individuality, huge mistakes in the eyes of the whites. This unwillingness and even inability to conceal himself, to become just another black man with downcast eyes leads to much of the suffering Wright experiences. When he refuses to accept white mistreatment of black women he is nearly shot by a security officer. He consistently loses jobs when his pride refuses to let him be subjugated. Even when he wants to bow to the will of the whites he is unable to conform. Wright is late to the game and so can never be a natural or even very good player.

Speech Giving

In chapter 8, Wright graduates valedictorian of his class, and is asked to write a speech to give to his classmates and assembled people that are white and black. However, the principal has pre-written his speech so that it does not offend whites (presumably) and demands Wright read his prearranged speech. Wright refuses, and is perfectly justified in doing so. Throughout his life Wright is unable or unwilling to bend to authority just because it is authority. He will do what is right even if those in power are trying to force him to do the opposite. Wright is so committed to his code of morals and ethics that he would rather give up his diploma and his graduation than say a speech he had not written. In a way, he is being stupid. He will find it harder to get a job and the principal could have prevented him from graduating, and the only reward for these great risks was the right to say a speech that probably means little to those hearing it anyway. However, Wright is showing backbone in the face of adversity, an unwillingness to bend to the sterotypes and limits of his socioeconomic class when everyone around him is giving up and living under the boot of the system. Wright is standing up when everyone else is lying down.

Uncle Tom

Is it just me, or is oddly suspicious that our young black boy trying to break out of racial stereotypes and boundaries has an uncle Tom? Anyway, Wright is so furious with his uncle because the man is trying to interfere with Wright's way of life without having any say in it. Wright accepted the beatings of his parents because they were responsible for him, and (to a lesser degree) the beatings of his grandmother for similar reasons. What rankles him greatly about his uncle, and his aunt as well, is that they have no real stake in his life, no responsibility for his life, and give no aid to his life, and yet expect to run his life. This so fundamentally goes against Wright's views of himself and of his nuclear family that he has no choice but to fight back. Another reason that Wright is so frustrated with the incident in this chapter is that his uncle seems to be merely  finding a pretext to beat him rather than actually having a reason. Wright is not being disrespectful (although I am not sure, not hearing his tone of voice), and yet his uncle takes offense and decides to beat him. Illogical beatings are not beating Wright believes he has to take lying down.

Gratification

Wright felt gratified when the woman heard his story because he could finally communicate. I now concede my earlier point; Wright really is trying to equate hunger with the desire to communicate, to understand. In essence, his hunger is a hunger to belong in this world which hates him so thoroughly. White people hate him because he is black, blacks distrust him because he is educated, or because he unwittingly sells KKK newspapers. Even his family hates him, seeing him as a lost soul and someone who refuses to repent and be welcomed into the arms of Christ. Everything he says or does is pounced upon by someone else and he is made to pay for it, either with a beating from his family, a beating from schoolmates, or humiliation in some form or another. Because the world hates him so Wright is hungry- starving, in fact- for acceptance and belonging. Which brings me back to the point of this blog. Wright finally finds a way of belonging, or if not belonging, of at least forcing the world around him to accept him for who he is. He has changed the world by writing his story and he finally has a way to make the world understand him as well as a way to understand the world.

Paralytic Reaction

Wright reacts too his mother's paralysis by paralyzing himself: closing himself off from the rest of the world with a wall of pain and cynicism. But I'm getting ahead of myself. When he first sees his mother is paralyzed he is afraid, both for his mother's life and his own, as the two are inextricably linked. He then sends for his grandmother, a show of dependency, but refuses or accepts very little of the food offered to him by his neighbors; a clear sign of independence. Wright is retreating from others and instead is focusing more on the support of his family to carry him through his now greatly-altered life. As his mother gets the immediate attention she needs and Wright realizes she will not die, but simply be a burden on his family for years to come, his reaction changes. He connects all the suffering and poverty he has gone through with his mother's illness and her pain, and this symbol causes him to build the aforementioned wall. He no longer meets people afresh, but meets them colored by a melancholy cynicism shaped by his mother's suffering. He can no longer accept joy for what it is, but must remain skeptical of true happiness. His mother's illness prevents him from experiencing life for what it is because he is behind his wall, paralyzed and alone.

Cultural Heritage

Where to begin? This is a perfect example of the socialization process in action, and the socialization process is responsible for the dark world Richard Wright is forced to inhabit. Because the parents of these children permit or even actively encourage anti-semitism in young children, it becomes instilled in them as they see their peers and leaders disparage another group in order to displace anger. Because of their hatred and fear of the white oppressors, blacks must find an attackable target to unleash their pain upon, and this becomes the jews. But Wright sees these same reactions when young white boys disparage him and his friends. Because the white parents do the same for blacks as the blacks do for jews, white children are taught to believe that blacks are inferior and racism is not only acceptable but encouraged. If Wright had then been conscious of what he was doing I would call him a great hypocrite: he is doing to others exactly what has been done to him time and time again. And yet, he was but a child and so, to some degree, blameless. The fact that he overcame his racism as an adult (I assume) shows the man he really is.

Hunger

I don't believe that Wright is really hungry for anything except food. He is poor, black, fatherless, and stuck in an orphanage. As a result, he does not have enough food and is hungry. Amazing concept, I know. The only possible symbolism that one could take from the chapter is one paragraph where he mentions how hungry he is waiting in the kitchen for his mother to finish work and realizes he has to wait for the rich white people to finish eating before he can even get scraps. Here one could draw out racial inequality and the fact that the racial minority is starving waiting for our leftovers. However, as aforementioned, this was one paragraph. The real reason he is "hungry" is because he has a terrible situation (which I assume he overcomes eventually). I understand that the boy loves to learn, and there are multiple examples of how much Wright seeks out and retains information that much of us would be unable too comprehend nearly as quickly. What stunned me was the ability of Wright to learn to count to 100 in one afternoon (also that the coal man was honest...). However, hunger and his love of learning don't really come together without a massive stretch of the imagination that I don't believe Wright intended the reader to make.

No need for school

Well, this essay was epic. It is definitely mind-blowing to think that our school system is designed to suppress rather than free us. However, to some extent I can agree with this argument. Our education systems are falling further and further behind other countries' based on achievement when we claim to be one of the best in the world. And also, the American populace is a perfect indicator that Gatto is correct. We can see the results of his supposed "factories" around us today, with individuals caught up in conformity and consumerism rather than individuality and independence. People are too dependent on quick entertainment like television and other easy means of staying away from boredom. Gatto's idea (really his grandfather's, I suppose), that boredom is only your own fault, is also revelatory. I love the concept and agree that schools everywhere are full of bored students who should be finding ways of making their own entertainment. However, despite all the evidence for Gatto's theory, smoke does not always mean fire. I still have trouble believing that our leaders are deliberately using our "education" to suppress us, although I could see this result being an accident that our leaders are unwilling to break free from. I agree with much of what Gatto says but find such a conspiracy hard to fully accept, although maybe that is because I myself spent time in public schools...

Non-Academic Education

To be honest, University High School is the first place where I feel I received any non-academic education at all. Everywhere else I went I focused only on academic matters and UHS is the first place which I deemed important enough to pay attention to subtler things that aren't just about math or english. The mentoring system is where some people would jump to concerning non-academic education, but I don't personally find mentoring all that important to my development. Instead, the simpler relationships I have with other teachers who are not in fact my mentor have been more important by far. I value my mentor but easy, natural conversations I have in passing with other teachers are much more influential in my life. Also, specific group that I attended and do attend at different times are also important. I have recently begun attending GSA, which has broadened my horizons and I find definitely worthwhile. Other activities like games club have let me see the lighter side of adults around me and let me connect with teachers in ways not normally possible. J-terms and out-of-school trips to caves and the smoky mountains have also helped develop a love of nature and physical activity, another important area mentioned by Mann. 

Rhetoric on the town

The presentations today were definitely an experience. First of all, the concepts that I myself had in mind for my project were also thought of by many other students: Daniel Hellman, Marta Hamilton, and others all used the concept of Carmel trying to be classy and upscale, trying to look quaint when much of it is new. Steve talked specifically about neighborhoods in Carmel making specific rules that limit personal choices among its residents in order to provide a unified and "beautiful" neighborhood. However, what I truly found amazing is the diversity of places people found rhetoric. From Matt Faller's One Shot button to Elise Lockwood's picture of Tina Taliercio, there  was rhetoric everywhere one looked. I understand that everything is rhetoric, but it seems to me like the obvious ones that people normally look for are more blatant and more easily seen than the ones found by my classmates. I have different ideas about why this phenomenon occurred. The first is noble: that my classmates simply have different perceptions of the world than I do and think of different kinds of rhetoric that they experience in their lives. The other reason, less noble, is that many of my classmates were rushed and careless and made longer stretches than they should have in finding their rhetoric.

Kendall

Kendall is correct in asserting that the media shapes our society. As previous articles have suggested, our media is becoming increasingly important in our lives as the world becomes flatter and people rely more and more on the opinions of "experts" to define the world rather than to define it on their own. When we allow the media to tell us what our world looks like, we allow them to shape the world because our perception of the world around us defines what the world really is. The media is also definitely able to alter the way we see social inequality. The way the media portrays the lower class and the homeless is often unfavorable, showing them as crazy and responsible for the levels of crime and disaster that ravage large cities. Shows that portray all of the wonderful things rich people have and tell viewers to aspire to those goals also force individuals to hate the way they are and strive beyond their means. The combination of hatred towards lower classes and aspiration towards riches leaves people angry at themselves and poorer classes and reaching for things they cannot afford, leading them to debt when they buy houses and cars beyond their means.

Rhetoric Pics

I went to two places in order to gather pictures. Initially I had intended to go down to the 71st street exit to photograph the intech sculpture which tries to represent the sophistication of the entire corporate structure in a single piece of art. However, time did not allow this and I ended up only going to two different sites. However, each was rich in rhetoric, and I took around 30 pictures total. The first place I visited was Clay Terrace, a place infamous for its over-the-top fake sophistication. I found many different examples of this rhetoric, with "classy" wooden fences enclosing the entire area and old-timey lampposts which just screamed sophistication. Overall, it was perfect for my purposes and I found many perfect examples. I next went to the Carmel Arts District, another place destined to be filled with rhetoric because the entire area was forced to be artsy, designated by the city to be the arts district. It did not become the arts district after it was deemed an artful place in town, but was rather forced to become carmel's epitome of art. This being so, it would have some rather obvious, forced attempts at art. I photographed the sculptures paid for by the city and the arches created solely for the purpose of designating when someone enters the arts district.

Americanization

Gitlin is essentially stating that rhetoric is pouring out of America because the attitude of that rhetoric is one conducive to being spread, as well as the fact that the rhetoric is the spawn of ideas taken from all of the countries it is being spread to. Because American rhetoric is all in the idea of "fun," because it pursues elements that cross cultures because it gives everyone the sense that they have a right to be entertained, it can easily jump national boundaries. It allows everyone to be a part of a global identity without any effort except to buy a product or listen to a set of music. It gives belonging without sacrifice. It is also the spawn of African, Jamaican, European and other ideas because America is the bastard child of the rest of the world. We take ideas from our "parents," change them to make them accessible to everyone due to the already diverse culture of America, and spit them back out in a form everyone can relate to. I agree with many of Gitlin's points, and agree that the departure from old cultural standards occur as people give in to selfish tendencies of quick and easy pleasure, although I disagree that our "diverse" culture leads to acceptable material for everyone. Hollywood makes its money perpetuating stereotypes and we have already disproved the myth of the melting pot, so I cannot see how the two can both hold true simultaneously.

Objectify

It is dangerous to depict men and women as sex objects because it allows the opposite sex to take advantage of them, treating them as objects instead of the people they actually are. In the case of women, this allows men to objectify them, leading to more sexualization and even violence, in the form of rape and battery which can in some cases become life threatening. In general it is harmful to everyone because it forces women into a role of submission where they accept their place as sex objects, and men into a role of abusiveness where they are told it is okay or even "manly" to objectify and sexualize women. This forces the genders into unnatural, abusive, damaging roles that they should not ever have to endure, causing instability and the violence we now view as commonplace. The objectification of women is more troubling because they are already in a state of fear, constantly living in fear because of the role of domination men have over them. In a world where women are forced to be afraid of men because of their vulnerability, there is less literal danger in objectifying men, because they are traditionally in the more powerful role. Women, however, are already vulnerable and their objectification only makes this problem worse.

Commericals

I was not surprised by much during the super bowl commercials. Most were well-written, clever commercials, and many had the themes I was expecting: sexy women, humor, and relationship themes. One taco bell commercial shows a man meeting a woman at a party and then progresses through the relationship "at the speed of taco bell." Another clever commercial shows a roboticized scarecrow singing "If I only had a brain," telling a musical tale of how GE is going to make their electricity more intelligent. A few commercials surprised me, though. One showed ads in 3d over normal television, something I had never seen before. The others were less pleasant surprises. An ad for a flower company showed a girl receiving boxed competitor's flowers that said extremely offensive things, like "no one wants to see you naked." The punch line is this; you never know what your boxed flowers will say. I was honestly offended by the harshness of the insults and was shocked more than amused. Another ad that would have seemed harmless last year showed a nagging potato head female doll lose her mouth when Bridgestone tires braked rapidly. It seemed funny at first glance, but definitely had misogynistic undertones that disturbed me when I pondered it further.

Bias of Language + Pictures

Hello again, dear reader. It certainly has been a while. But I will reward your patience with a cohesive and well-written blog, as always. Basically, this article makes three assertions about the bias of language, that words are re-presentations of events and not events themselves, that words have different levels of meaning, and that almost all words have connotations. All of these apply to our previous discussion of rhetorical strategy, although the authors do not present them as tools for manipulating an audience directly. They rather present them as necessary evils of communication, hindrances that should be anticipated and accommodated because they simply cannot be avoided. In order to listen to or read the news appropriately, one must realize these three assertions about communication are constantly operating and judge a story for itself and not because of these limitations on true conveyance of the story. All of these ideas tie directly to our rhetorical analysis work because this class attempts to teach us how to account for these hindrances as well as to use them for our own benefit. A new idea this article presents is the concept that the news is in many senses just a means of entertainment, with stories not judged for their merit as stories but for the quality the accompanying video will lend to the entertainment of the viewers. This is a fascinating and yet disturbing side of the news, one that I believe we are all aware of subtly. However, this article brings the ugly side of televised news into the foreground.