Irony is a wonderful thing. For example, I'm writing about an article that was posted on a website(after being put in a newspaper/magazine), talking about how the Internet has changed the way we read, on a website, for other people to read. To give you an idea of where I am on the Internet good/bad debate, or at least electronic entertainment in general. I have been raised in the 21st century. I believe that entertainment, of almost any form is not a problem, it is more so the people that use it that create problems, based on their interpretations of the media. I spoke about how violent entertainment is not a true factor in public shootings, rather the individuals that were doing the shooting, in a persuasive speech for my English class last year. I used examples of the killers' psychological profiles, how slightly increased aggression was the only result of taking part of such entertainment, and even used examples of people in my class that enjoyed entertainment of a violent nature, and were so obviously not people to go on a violent rampage in their school.
But I've seen arguments from the other side of the debate that had a lesser form of logic that Mr. Carr used. Overall, he had a very impressive stance on the issue he was arguing. He stated that he experienced a change in the way he read, not being able to keep his focus on reading an article or book. I occasionally find myself in the same predicament, but he is a fully grown adult, and I am an adolescent. I.e., focus is not exactly my primary function.
But is this stupidity? Maybe this is just a different way of thinking. Granted, there is value in finding beauty as well as information in a written piece. But skimming an article, looking for information, is not a robotic attribute, nor is it a sign of laziness. Our brains are simply changing. For example, during the Renaissance, the great thinkers of that era were thought to be challenging previous beliefs and thoughts, and while maybe they were, today, they are revered as some of the greatest men and women of humankind. But back then, maybe they were called "stupid," or a variation of that. Perhaps, a few decades from now, skimming an article won't be a detriment, but a different kind of thinking. Probably not as a reverence, but an understanding.
Friday, July 25, 2014
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
The Ethics of Living Jim Crow response
Being a white kid living in a town that is predominantly white, in the 21st century, it has to go without being said that racism is something that is pretty much nonexistent. Not in a utopia-like sense, where everyone considers everyone else completely equal, more of that there is no real exposure to humanity's prejudices on that level, at least. The most exposure we get here is in the reading in classes, or history films, showing the plights of Martin Luther King Jr., or Gandhi. Sometimes it feels like it's almost shoved down our throats about things like this. Now I can be quite cynical, I mostly am unfazed by these means of information. So, I was very surprised by the recounting on life under Jim Crow laws that Mr. Wright painted in his memoir.
More than anything, I think it was because the autobiographical viewpoint best captured the life that blacks had to endure in the South during the 1930's. Most of the people we have heard from, describing the racism of the past, were people that had not experienced said racism themselves.
It's easier to not necessarily understand the dire straits of those effected by the Jim Crow laws, but to at least picture what the straits were. The fact that they always had to say "sir" to a white man, that they were still not considered human, that even their own families admonished them if they "stepped outside their boundaries."
More than anything, I think it was because the autobiographical viewpoint best captured the life that blacks had to endure in the South during the 1930's. Most of the people we have heard from, describing the racism of the past, were people that had not experienced said racism themselves.
It's easier to not necessarily understand the dire straits of those effected by the Jim Crow laws, but to at least picture what the straits were. The fact that they always had to say "sir" to a white man, that they were still not considered human, that even their own families admonished them if they "stepped outside their boundaries."
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
(Men)struation
When I first read this article, I was rather indignant that Ms. Steinem would imply that men would follow a common stereotypical line if they had to deal with a monthly period. Upon further reviews, I realized how close to the mark she really was. I thought about what men value, in an incredibly general sense. Men tend to value achievements above many other things. We tend to want to constantly "one-up" our fellow man, whether how nice our cars are, how big our TV's are, how well our sports players are doing against others, how large our *ahem* muscles are.
So it would make sense that men would consider something so painful and embarrassing to be an achievement, even make fun of it. I certainly had a few chuckles while reading. It's one of those funny "what-if" situations, where everything is flipped on its head.
Her analogies and alternate thinking practically painted a picture in my head of the world she was describing. It was both hilarious, and interestingly enough, realistic.
So it would make sense that men would consider something so painful and embarrassing to be an achievement, even make fun of it. I certainly had a few chuckles while reading. It's one of those funny "what-if" situations, where everything is flipped on its head.
Her analogies and alternate thinking practically painted a picture in my head of the world she was describing. It was both hilarious, and interestingly enough, realistic.
Talk of the Town response
As I was very young on September 11, 2001, my memory is not able to recall much from that day.
It was, then, surprised to find at how vividly Mr. Updike's article creates the atmosphere. The horror to have witnessed a thousand lives snuffed out like a candle, what used to be a fast, safe, and easy mode of transportation used as a missile of our doom, the naivete of what seems to be an afterthought gone in a moment.
Mr. Updike also emphasized that people needed to move on from the events of the day. I am well-inclined to go along with said emphasis. I believe that a tragedy has, of course, to be mourned, such a death of a friend or family member that you were particularly close to. But there has to be an end to the mourning eventually. Moving on past grief is one of the first steps to accepting grief.
However, one must still have that mourning period. I feel like reality should have to set in once the shock has mostly wore off, but I also feel like Ms. Sontag was a teetering on the edge of insensitivity. She distanced herself from the emotion that would have followed 9/11 and instead just took the statements that were probably spoken from the tongues of scared, angry, and shocked men and women. We had been attacked on our own soil, our wall of seeming inexorable comfort had been obliterated. It's natural for us to feel like we need to reveal our emotions, not our logic.
It was, then, surprised to find at how vividly Mr. Updike's article creates the atmosphere. The horror to have witnessed a thousand lives snuffed out like a candle, what used to be a fast, safe, and easy mode of transportation used as a missile of our doom, the naivete of what seems to be an afterthought gone in a moment.
Mr. Updike also emphasized that people needed to move on from the events of the day. I am well-inclined to go along with said emphasis. I believe that a tragedy has, of course, to be mourned, such a death of a friend or family member that you were particularly close to. But there has to be an end to the mourning eventually. Moving on past grief is one of the first steps to accepting grief.
However, one must still have that mourning period. I feel like reality should have to set in once the shock has mostly wore off, but I also feel like Ms. Sontag was a teetering on the edge of insensitivity. She distanced herself from the emotion that would have followed 9/11 and instead just took the statements that were probably spoken from the tongues of scared, angry, and shocked men and women. We had been attacked on our own soil, our wall of seeming inexorable comfort had been obliterated. It's natural for us to feel like we need to reveal our emotions, not our logic.
Introduction
It's more of a tendency on my part to babble on about things that are not very gripping, so to say. So, if you'll forgive me for doing so, I shall proceed.
I'm Saul, a junior in high school currently. I am the youngest of 5 kids, and have experienced many of the advantages (i.e., my older brothers would often be told off whenever they teased me) and disadvantages (the age difference between my next older brother, 5 years, has led me to have to do the work that my parents don't want to do) of being where I am.
My interests are many, and one that is particularly close to my heart is the dramatic arts. While I've been "trying" to keep a hold on "The Worst Dancer in the History of Mankind," the other two pillars of the stage are my forte, the singing and the acting. I've been playing parts like Cogsworth from "Beauty and the Beast" and The Voice of the Plant in "Little Shop of Horrors." I'm currently in a production of "Fame" in another town, playing the part of Mr. Sheinkopf. It's a relatively small part, but I've been with this company for three years now, and have been "moving up" in my part size.
If you were to ask me about what I would like to do after school, I wouldn't really know what to say. I've been saying for the past few months that I would like to be a history professor or a museum curator. But it has seemed to be everyone's prerogative to discourage my going into either of those jobs. The main rationale is either "You probably won't be able to find a place that will need that job filled," or "The salary is incredibly low, why don't you do something else?" It's almost that "doing whatever you love to do" has been replaced by "doing whatever brings home a lot of money" as the ideal mindset for picking a job. I would much rather work at a place where I have little money after all my needs are taken care of, and love that job, than being able to have wads of cash in my pocket, but hate everything to do with my job.
One thing you must know about my blog posts: my cynical attitude will show itself often, if provoked. If it's any consolation, most of said attitude is how I am off the computer.
I'm Saul, a junior in high school currently. I am the youngest of 5 kids, and have experienced many of the advantages (i.e., my older brothers would often be told off whenever they teased me) and disadvantages (the age difference between my next older brother, 5 years, has led me to have to do the work that my parents don't want to do) of being where I am.
My interests are many, and one that is particularly close to my heart is the dramatic arts. While I've been "trying" to keep a hold on "The Worst Dancer in the History of Mankind," the other two pillars of the stage are my forte, the singing and the acting. I've been playing parts like Cogsworth from "Beauty and the Beast" and The Voice of the Plant in "Little Shop of Horrors." I'm currently in a production of "Fame" in another town, playing the part of Mr. Sheinkopf. It's a relatively small part, but I've been with this company for three years now, and have been "moving up" in my part size.
If you were to ask me about what I would like to do after school, I wouldn't really know what to say. I've been saying for the past few months that I would like to be a history professor or a museum curator. But it has seemed to be everyone's prerogative to discourage my going into either of those jobs. The main rationale is either "You probably won't be able to find a place that will need that job filled," or "The salary is incredibly low, why don't you do something else?" It's almost that "doing whatever you love to do" has been replaced by "doing whatever brings home a lot of money" as the ideal mindset for picking a job. I would much rather work at a place where I have little money after all my needs are taken care of, and love that job, than being able to have wads of cash in my pocket, but hate everything to do with my job.
One thing you must know about my blog posts: my cynical attitude will show itself often, if provoked. If it's any consolation, most of said attitude is how I am off the computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)