When I first wrote this essay I was not sure of what to exactly write about, so it quite hard to get started. I did a little bit of research on both of the authors and that helped me come up with ideas on what to write about. However, I did forget to point out the fact that one essay was written by a woman and the other one by a male; and how this can help explain their contrasting views on marriage. I tried to fit this idea into the essay, but I just can't seem to find a good spot to included at, and I just don't seem to have enough for a new body paragraph. My peers comments were very positive. The only thing they did point out was that I needed better transition in the paragraphs. I added more transitions, but I can't seem to be good with transitions just yet. I'm looking forward on editing this essay for the third time so I can add it to my portfolio.
The popular belief is true to much extent, because it is a special bond shared between two souls, who tie the wedding knot after promising to be companions for a lifetime. It is the physical, mental and spiritual unison of two souls. It brings significant stability and substance to human relationships, which is otherwise incomplete. However, a marriage is defined by each individual couple; the couple gives meaning to the word marriage. In John Donne’s “A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning,” the couple’s marriage is an eternal bond filled with happiness and indescribable love. On the other hand, in Judith Minty’s “Conjoined,” the speaker describes marriage as an unnatural and burdensome bond. In both poems, the authors use symbolism, metaphors, diction and similes to show their views on marriage.
Donne shows his meaning of love and marriage through metaphors, similes and symbolism. Donne wrote this poem to comfort his wife while he was in France in a business trip and she remained in England. Just like the title says, he did not want her to cry over their physical separation because this would cheapen their love and reduce it to the level of the ordinary. For example, Donne uses the metaphor, “So let us melt, and make no noise, no tear-floods, nor sight-tempest move, ‘twere profanation of our joys to tell the laity or our love.” In this, Donne treats their love as sacred, elevated above that of ordinary earthly lovers. He feels their love is transcendent and heavenly. That unlike common people who know only physical, earthly love, weep and sob when they separate for a time, for they dread the loss of physical closeness, their love will forever remain intact because their souls are one and no physical barrier can keep them apart. In addition, Donne uses the simile, “If they be two, they are two so as stiff twin compasses are two; thy soul, the fix foot, makes no show to move, but doth, if th’other do.” Here we see his insight into what he believes a marriage is. By comparing the spouses to the legs of the compass and marriage to the circle they make, he lets us know that without one of them there would be no marriage. That marriage is a bond they need to rely on each other and work together to make the marriage work. Furthermore, he goes on to say in lines 29-30, “And though it in the center sit, yet when the other far doth roam, it leans and hearkens after it, and grows erect, as that comes home,” that even when they are far apart, their love will stretch until one of the them (the leg of the compass) comes together and their love will grow erect and they will fall in love once again. Their souls will remain united- even though their bodies are separated- until he returns. Moreover, Donne also uses symbolism to express the quality of their love and marriage. He uses gold to represent their bond and relationship. Gold is a durable material that is used to represent union, just like in wedding rings; it represents everlasting love and unity. It is almost indestructible. This shows that Donne believes marriage to be a bond that should not be broken and that it is a pleasant happy institution. Also, gold is used to represent wealth and royalty. This is why he uses it to symbolize their love, because he believes their love to be above the common people. The connotation that gold gives to their love is one of everlasting glory and abundance.
On the other hand, we can say the complete opposite for Minty’s interpretation of marriage and her views on it. Minty also shares the same figurative techniques to show her bitter look on this institution. To start off, Minty uses an onion and onion peel to symbolize marriage and the spouses. Unlike Donne, she decides to use a symbol that will give marriage a bad connotation. She uses the metaphor, “The onion in my cupboard, a monster, actually two joined under one transparent skin; each half-round, then flat and deformed where it pressed and grew against the other,” to give the feeling that marriage is unnatural and rather uncomfortable. The “two onions” are the spouses and they are held together awkwardly by the “transparent skin” which would be marriage. Although, both poems represent the unity of marriage as unbreakable, Minty makes it seem almost painful, because she uses the onion to represent it, and as we all know onions can make you cry as soon as you cut them. Furthermore, she moves on to give an example of a rather weird, almost monstrous, as she would call it, event. She uses the simile of the calf, “An accident, like the two-headed calf rooted in one body, fighting to suck at its mother’s teats;” With this she says that marriage is a rather competitive bond, in which each spouse is trying to survive even if that means taking the other down. Minty also uses another simile to show another view of marriage: “-or like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed to live, even make love, together for sixty years.” This simile is just a reminder of how unnatural bondage of marriage.
All in all, marriage is defined by the way a couple wants to express their feelings for each other. It is a shared independence that is only truly found once you meet the person that wants the same things as you do and for others it does not necessarily need to be that, it can be a physical connection, or a more heavenly one. In both Donne’s and Minty’s poems we can see contrasting views of what a marriage is, however, they do agree in something: marriage is an unbreakable bond that is meant to last forever.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Things They Carried....
SO..........
Yes this book is definitely interesting and annoying in a way, specially when it comes to How to Tell a True War Story. Why you may ask? because it contradicts itself; it tells you that there is no true war story, but at the same time there is.
Well to start of in this chapter, O'Brien definitely appeals to the audience's feelings. For example when he tells the story of the water buffalo. He knows that this story will appeal to the sensitive side of the reader. He goes on by telling us that this story is not true, that this never happened and that is why this is a true war story. This was confusing to me until I realized during class on Friday, that what he was trying to get at with the whole idea of what a true story is, is that a war story is not based on details or facts about what really happened, but the feeling behind it. Telling the story in detail, takes away the reason why it is told. These stories are told by the soldiers to get the audience to feel the pain they are going through so they feel less alienated. When they come back from war, they feel alienated because no one knows what they have been through, and it is really hard for them to explain. They use stories to try to feel less alone, so people feel just as bad as they do so they can have something in common. For example, going back to the water buffalo story, the fact that the story was sad was enough to make it a true war story. The fact that this story is being told in the book, also shows that the soldiers need someone else to feel the pain they are going through, that's why the brutal killing of the water buffalo, they wanted him to suffer. Another way to deal with their pain is by saying bad words, which is another reason why they feel alienated and feel the need to make people feel bad with their stories. People don't like the fact that when men come back from war they say a lot of obscenities, but if you really think about it it is their own fault for voting for them to go to war in the first place. Once in war they get used to saying bad words because it is a fact that if you say a bad word when you get hurt it helps you feel less pain. So it makes sense that they come back from the war with a really dirty mouth.
Well this is all I have for now. I'm sorry if it is a little confusing.
Yes this book is definitely interesting and annoying in a way, specially when it comes to How to Tell a True War Story. Why you may ask? because it contradicts itself; it tells you that there is no true war story, but at the same time there is.
Well to start of in this chapter, O'Brien definitely appeals to the audience's feelings. For example when he tells the story of the water buffalo. He knows that this story will appeal to the sensitive side of the reader. He goes on by telling us that this story is not true, that this never happened and that is why this is a true war story. This was confusing to me until I realized during class on Friday, that what he was trying to get at with the whole idea of what a true story is, is that a war story is not based on details or facts about what really happened, but the feeling behind it. Telling the story in detail, takes away the reason why it is told. These stories are told by the soldiers to get the audience to feel the pain they are going through so they feel less alienated. When they come back from war, they feel alienated because no one knows what they have been through, and it is really hard for them to explain. They use stories to try to feel less alone, so people feel just as bad as they do so they can have something in common. For example, going back to the water buffalo story, the fact that the story was sad was enough to make it a true war story. The fact that this story is being told in the book, also shows that the soldiers need someone else to feel the pain they are going through, that's why the brutal killing of the water buffalo, they wanted him to suffer. Another way to deal with their pain is by saying bad words, which is another reason why they feel alienated and feel the need to make people feel bad with their stories. People don't like the fact that when men come back from war they say a lot of obscenities, but if you really think about it it is their own fault for voting for them to go to war in the first place. Once in war they get used to saying bad words because it is a fact that if you say a bad word when you get hurt it helps you feel less pain. So it makes sense that they come back from the war with a really dirty mouth.
Well this is all I have for now. I'm sorry if it is a little confusing.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Postmodernism?
OK so this semester we have been talking about Postmodernism and its definition.
It is really hard to define what Postmodernism is because there is no right or wrong answer.
While listening to the discussions in class I still can't make up my mind on what the definition is but I will give it my best try. I'm sorry if what I'm saying only makes sense in my head.
Postmodernism is the concept of not having an universal truth. There being a center to things. And not having right or wrong way to see things. For example, opposites like good and evil, couldn't exist without each other. How would you know if something is good, when there is no evil to compare it to? This is what postmodernism is all about, having different concepts that coexist with each other and being able to accept them at the same time. For example, who would have ever thought that a comic book could be about the Holocaust? This narrative can't really be categorized because, would it be a comic book or non-fiction or would you find it along with other history books that talk about the stories of other Holocaust survivors? Moreover, take the Nazi's for example, their ideals led them to believe that it was necessary to get rid of all those who were not like them. Their beliefs are definitely not like most of the beliefs of people today.
Also postmodernism is about beign able to looking at different ideas and points of view and trying to make the best of them.
This is what I think the definition of postmodernism is :)
It is really hard to define what Postmodernism is because there is no right or wrong answer.
While listening to the discussions in class I still can't make up my mind on what the definition is but I will give it my best try. I'm sorry if what I'm saying only makes sense in my head.
Postmodernism is the concept of not having an universal truth. There being a center to things. And not having right or wrong way to see things. For example, opposites like good and evil, couldn't exist without each other. How would you know if something is good, when there is no evil to compare it to? This is what postmodernism is all about, having different concepts that coexist with each other and being able to accept them at the same time. For example, who would have ever thought that a comic book could be about the Holocaust? This narrative can't really be categorized because, would it be a comic book or non-fiction or would you find it along with other history books that talk about the stories of other Holocaust survivors? Moreover, take the Nazi's for example, their ideals led them to believe that it was necessary to get rid of all those who were not like them. Their beliefs are definitely not like most of the beliefs of people today.
Also postmodernism is about beign able to looking at different ideas and points of view and trying to make the best of them.
This is what I think the definition of postmodernism is :)
Maus II
Geeeezzzz….I have no idea what I want to write about at this point. I read the book and I understand it and everything, but I just don’t know what to write about it.
So far I think I might want to talk about the guilt Art feels about not having gone to a concentration camp and Vladek for surviving the camps. This is shown in different parts in this book, for example at the beginning Art confesses to his wife that it is hard for him to understand what it was like to be in a camp or much less put it into words. This goes with the idea that such a tragic event cannot be represented in just one story.
Also I want to talk about the relationship between the past and the present; Vladek’s past and how it affects Art’s present. I want to mention the fact that Vladek is living like if he was still in the concentration camps. For example, he won't throw away crumbs because in the camps he didn't even have that much and he had to keep everything and make it last as long as possible. Also, his personality changed from being a loving man to a miserly Jew that just likes to argue.
I will probably mention Art’s guilt in writing the book and putting his father’s story out there.
Ummm....also, Art feels guilty for portraying his father as a miserly Jew. I will expand on this stereotype.
I don't know exactly what I'm going to end up talking about or what my thesis will be. This are just some thoughts.
So far I think I might want to talk about the guilt Art feels about not having gone to a concentration camp and Vladek for surviving the camps. This is shown in different parts in this book, for example at the beginning Art confesses to his wife that it is hard for him to understand what it was like to be in a camp or much less put it into words. This goes with the idea that such a tragic event cannot be represented in just one story.
Also I want to talk about the relationship between the past and the present; Vladek’s past and how it affects Art’s present. I want to mention the fact that Vladek is living like if he was still in the concentration camps. For example, he won't throw away crumbs because in the camps he didn't even have that much and he had to keep everything and make it last as long as possible. Also, his personality changed from being a loving man to a miserly Jew that just likes to argue.
I will probably mention Art’s guilt in writing the book and putting his father’s story out there.
Ummm....also, Art feels guilty for portraying his father as a miserly Jew. I will expand on this stereotype.
I don't know exactly what I'm going to end up talking about or what my thesis will be. This are just some thoughts.
Hmmm....so I kinda mention this Google thing on my last blog, but I shall go on more detail today.
I believe that Vonnegut wrote his book the way he did as a way to makes us aware of what it is going on. People can no longer read long books or pay attention to something for a long period of time. His book is structured to keep us interested in it. This is why the chapters are short and there are a lot of them. A person's attention spam is shorter than it was years ago.
This is all due to the fact that so much information is compressed or simplified so we can know what is going on by reading a paragraph rather than reading a book on the subject. Search engines like Google have made our lives a lot more simple that is for sure. For example, Carr says “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I've got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.” Back then it took a lot of people and tons of books to find the answer to a question. Now all you have to do is type in a question and have people answer it for you. We don't really have to read a book anymore because we have things like Sparknotes or Cliffnotes, basically a whole book summarized by chapter and it also comes with an analysis. So now we don't even have to think of the meaning of the book because you can just go along with what sparknotes says. The thinking is done for you.
Another thing is that technology advances so fast, you can no longer have the latest anything, because a couple of weeks later if anything, there will be a new and improved product. For example, computers, you buy one and later you find out that there is one that is a lot better and can so much more than the one that you just got. Or cellphones, they can basically do anything now and there is always a new and better one. So are we ever going to be happy with what we have? Are we ever going to catch up with technology? Or by the time that we realize that we are going in a vicious cycle is it going to be too late?
I believe that Vonnegut wrote his book the way he did as a way to makes us aware of what it is going on. People can no longer read long books or pay attention to something for a long period of time. His book is structured to keep us interested in it. This is why the chapters are short and there are a lot of them. A person's attention spam is shorter than it was years ago.
This is all due to the fact that so much information is compressed or simplified so we can know what is going on by reading a paragraph rather than reading a book on the subject. Search engines like Google have made our lives a lot more simple that is for sure. For example, Carr says “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I've got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.” Back then it took a lot of people and tons of books to find the answer to a question. Now all you have to do is type in a question and have people answer it for you. We don't really have to read a book anymore because we have things like Sparknotes or Cliffnotes, basically a whole book summarized by chapter and it also comes with an analysis. So now we don't even have to think of the meaning of the book because you can just go along with what sparknotes says. The thinking is done for you.
Another thing is that technology advances so fast, you can no longer have the latest anything, because a couple of weeks later if anything, there will be a new and improved product. For example, computers, you buy one and later you find out that there is one that is a lot better and can so much more than the one that you just got. Or cellphones, they can basically do anything now and there is always a new and better one. So are we ever going to be happy with what we have? Are we ever going to catch up with technology? Or by the time that we realize that we are going in a vicious cycle is it going to be too late?
Video
SO............okay I watched the video and the facts are insane.
I can definitely believe them though. There are so many different ways to get information now a days, that it makes you wonder what is going to happen next. Decades ago there was no such thing as the Internet or texting, not even cellphones. Like if you ask my grandmother to do something in the computer it would be so overwhelming for her. It is ridiculous how fast we can access information today. I can be here sitting in my room and I can be reading a newspaper from China and I can know what is going on over there. The Internet is probably one of the biggest inventions and advance in technology so far. You can do so much with it. If it wasn't for the Internet I wouldn't be able to share my thoughts with all of you via this blog...But even though our technology right now is so convenient, is it good to have everything so easily done for you?
Are we becoming more lazy and lazy every day? Thanks to the Internet we don't have to go to a library and look through thousands of books to find the answer to a history question. Now we can just google it. Yes that is right one of the most well known web search engines is now used as a verb. This shows how much we rely on the Internet now a days. And it is not only the Internet is the cell phones, the portable video games and everything in between. Thanks to this advances in technology we are becoming less social. For example, now we don't have to go visit with family and friends we can just easily talk to them on a cell phone no matter were they are; actually not even that we can just text each other. Some people say, why talk on the phone when you can just text someone? you can basically abbreviate any word now and it takes you half the time. I mean I'm not saying that I hate technology, because there are a lot of advantages, but what worries me is that we are going to some day end up like the people in Wall.E. with everything handed to us, someday there will not be a need to get off a chair because you can control everything with the push of a button or probably not even that with like voice commands or something.
Even though so many great things come with the advances in today's technology. The miss use of it can possibly lead to a not so convenient future.
I can definitely believe them though. There are so many different ways to get information now a days, that it makes you wonder what is going to happen next. Decades ago there was no such thing as the Internet or texting, not even cellphones. Like if you ask my grandmother to do something in the computer it would be so overwhelming for her. It is ridiculous how fast we can access information today. I can be here sitting in my room and I can be reading a newspaper from China and I can know what is going on over there. The Internet is probably one of the biggest inventions and advance in technology so far. You can do so much with it. If it wasn't for the Internet I wouldn't be able to share my thoughts with all of you via this blog...But even though our technology right now is so convenient, is it good to have everything so easily done for you?
Are we becoming more lazy and lazy every day? Thanks to the Internet we don't have to go to a library and look through thousands of books to find the answer to a history question. Now we can just google it. Yes that is right one of the most well known web search engines is now used as a verb. This shows how much we rely on the Internet now a days. And it is not only the Internet is the cell phones, the portable video games and everything in between. Thanks to this advances in technology we are becoming less social. For example, now we don't have to go visit with family and friends we can just easily talk to them on a cell phone no matter were they are; actually not even that we can just text each other. Some people say, why talk on the phone when you can just text someone? you can basically abbreviate any word now and it takes you half the time. I mean I'm not saying that I hate technology, because there are a lot of advantages, but what worries me is that we are going to some day end up like the people in Wall.E. with everything handed to us, someday there will not be a need to get off a chair because you can control everything with the push of a button or probably not even that with like voice commands or something.
Even though so many great things come with the advances in today's technology. The miss use of it can possibly lead to a not so convenient future.
Cat's Cradle and Postmodernism
There are a lot of postmodern ideas in this book.
One of the most presented in this book so far, would be religion.
In Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, the religion is Bokononism. This religion is a perfect example of postmodernism. This made up religion may be all lies , but the people, still believe in them. This religion is only true because a group of people give it importance and have faith in it. Even the first verse in the Book of Bokonons says: "All of the true things I'm going to tell you are shameless lies." By this we can see that Vonnegut's view on religion is that, people are always looking for something to believe in, specially when horrible things are happening, having faith in something even though it is not concrete can help cover up all the horrors of life. For example, "Truth was the enemy of people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better and better lies, " Bokonon, just like the book Cat's Cradle it self, tries to make a horrible eve, like the atomic bomb, be more understandable and not as bad for people to read about it.
"If you find your life tangled up with somebody else's life for no very logical reasons, that person may be a member of your karas," It is true that a person can have an effect in you life like if you try to help a person cross the street and a car hits you. Yes this can definately have an effect in your life, but what the Karass is about, is Fate. Fate is a postmodern idea. Fate is the supposed force, principle, or power that determines events, as well as the invevitable events presdestined by this force. Basically accepting that you are not in charge of your future, that you have no idea of what is going on, but something or someone does.
One of the most presented in this book so far, would be religion.
In Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, the religion is Bokononism. This religion is a perfect example of postmodernism. This made up religion may be all lies , but the people, still believe in them. This religion is only true because a group of people give it importance and have faith in it. Even the first verse in the Book of Bokonons says: "All of the true things I'm going to tell you are shameless lies." By this we can see that Vonnegut's view on religion is that, people are always looking for something to believe in, specially when horrible things are happening, having faith in something even though it is not concrete can help cover up all the horrors of life. For example, "Truth was the enemy of people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better and better lies, " Bokonon, just like the book Cat's Cradle it self, tries to make a horrible eve, like the atomic bomb, be more understandable and not as bad for people to read about it.
"If you find your life tangled up with somebody else's life for no very logical reasons, that person may be a member of your karas," It is true that a person can have an effect in you life like if you try to help a person cross the street and a car hits you. Yes this can definately have an effect in your life, but what the Karass is about, is Fate. Fate is a postmodern idea. Fate is the supposed force, principle, or power that determines events, as well as the invevitable events presdestined by this force. Basically accepting that you are not in charge of your future, that you have no idea of what is going on, but something or someone does.
In Postmodernism for Beginners Jim Powell states that," The myth requires no authorization or legitimization other than itself;The myth defines what has the right to be said and done in the culture(25)." Since the beginning of times, narratives have been used to try to explain the unexplainable. Myths have been created to explain why humans are the way the are or why natural disasters happen. But in the end all of this little narratives are just a part of a meta narrative. For example, after the narrative of how the earth was created, the narratives that explain our existence can to be. There is not right or wrong narrative, as long as a group of people believe in it, it is valid. Most of them however, get replaced with time, by other narratives or by a scientific explanation. A lot of myths exist to explain different cultures and their customs Even though the events in a myth are usually impossible, they try to send a message that has an important social or religious meaning. There are some things that need to be explained in a narrative, such that cannot be explain by scientific research. For example, why should we use scientific research? or what is love? these kinds of questions cannot be calculated or proven by using science. For example, you don't know if you are in love with someone, by just figuring out an equation. People know that what they are feeling is Love, based on narratives, myths. Like Love is the reason that you get butterflies in your stomach; well we all know that there can't be butterflies in your stomach, but we still believe this happens when you like someone. Narratives are needed in every society to explain things we can express mathematically; they give meaning to our lives.
Brave New World
Let's start by saying..."WOW this is such a Weird book!"
OK now that I got that out of my system, let's move on.
Aldous Huxley has created a world were people are biologically engineered to have a predestined life. In groups like the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon, each person is just like everyone else within the group. Can you believe just being one out of a 100 others who look and think like you? Not having the right to individuality? To being what you want? I can’t. There is not room for growth and development. What makes humans so different form any other specie is the chance we have to be who we want to be. No one human being is like the other, not even twins are equal from one another. Each twin has a different personality, different goals in life, different opinions. This is what the head people in Brave New world want to get rid of the differences between humans. Without different opinions there would not be any conflict. Everyone thinks and acts the same. This brings up the irony in this book, the fact that they want a world were everyone is the same, but at the same time there are groups of people with different characteristics and abilities.
Moreover, this Utopia lacks one of the greatest gifts given to men the gift of love. Love is what keeps our world running, but in New World, love does not exist. Humans are genetically engineered and artificially created. The chance that humans have of sharing a precious and strong bond with one another in today's society, by "making love" is eradicated from this Utopia. Women are used just to please man and to have fun. But there are no feelings behind their actions. If one person stays with another for too long than it is weird, because they are taught to only have sexual intercourse to have fun and to relax.
Basically Huxley is trying to show that as advances in technology are being made, the wanting of humans to try to have everything under control and free of problems, is going to take away our humanity in the end.
OK now that I got that out of my system, let's move on.
Aldous Huxley has created a world were people are biologically engineered to have a predestined life. In groups like the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon, each person is just like everyone else within the group. Can you believe just being one out of a 100 others who look and think like you? Not having the right to individuality? To being what you want? I can’t. There is not room for growth and development. What makes humans so different form any other specie is the chance we have to be who we want to be. No one human being is like the other, not even twins are equal from one another. Each twin has a different personality, different goals in life, different opinions. This is what the head people in Brave New world want to get rid of the differences between humans. Without different opinions there would not be any conflict. Everyone thinks and acts the same. This brings up the irony in this book, the fact that they want a world were everyone is the same, but at the same time there are groups of people with different characteristics and abilities.
Moreover, this Utopia lacks one of the greatest gifts given to men the gift of love. Love is what keeps our world running, but in New World, love does not exist. Humans are genetically engineered and artificially created. The chance that humans have of sharing a precious and strong bond with one another in today's society, by "making love" is eradicated from this Utopia. Women are used just to please man and to have fun. But there are no feelings behind their actions. If one person stays with another for too long than it is weird, because they are taught to only have sexual intercourse to have fun and to relax.
Basically Huxley is trying to show that as advances in technology are being made, the wanting of humans to try to have everything under control and free of problems, is going to take away our humanity in the end.
Monday, January 18, 2010
9/10/09 "Editing History"
Hi everyone!
OK so let’s start off with...seriously? I mean come on I don't even know how the idea of getting rid of importance people such as César Chávez, was even brought up. These leaders made a difference in people's lives, they were the only one's that were able to step up to the challenge to improve the community, I believe that the last thing the board of education in Texas should do is erase them from history.
This is why I wonder if the history we know of today is really what happened... If you think about it, maybe people long time ago got together and did some "editing" here and there. What if there are many other leaders that made a drastic change in history, yet they are not mention because of reasons like being a liberal or not being a good example for kids. Oooo watch out a lot of damage can be done to children if you teach them to fight for their rights and/or for a better life.
In my opinion US history books should contain information about people that have had an impact on society in a large scale. It should also make reference to everyone no matter their race, political believes or religion. In addition, US history should not emphasize religion so much. The book should stick to facts and statistics not necessarily what makes the US sound better. Things like current wars and events should be updated with new versions of books; however, the people that already made history thousands of years ago should stay part of the books. These figures are all linked together. For example, if Martin Luther King was erased from history, how would you explain African Americans being equal today? How would you explain African Americans from being slaves, to having an African American president? It wouldn't make sense.
Facts should be added on as time progresses, not "edited" by erasing facts or dates. It should be as neutral as possible. People are always going to have a different interpretation of history, there are always going to be arguments.
OK so let’s start off with...seriously? I mean come on I don't even know how the idea of getting rid of importance people such as César Chávez, was even brought up. These leaders made a difference in people's lives, they were the only one's that were able to step up to the challenge to improve the community, I believe that the last thing the board of education in Texas should do is erase them from history.
This is why I wonder if the history we know of today is really what happened... If you think about it, maybe people long time ago got together and did some "editing" here and there. What if there are many other leaders that made a drastic change in history, yet they are not mention because of reasons like being a liberal or not being a good example for kids. Oooo watch out a lot of damage can be done to children if you teach them to fight for their rights and/or for a better life.
In my opinion US history books should contain information about people that have had an impact on society in a large scale. It should also make reference to everyone no matter their race, political believes or religion. In addition, US history should not emphasize religion so much. The book should stick to facts and statistics not necessarily what makes the US sound better. Things like current wars and events should be updated with new versions of books; however, the people that already made history thousands of years ago should stay part of the books. These figures are all linked together. For example, if Martin Luther King was erased from history, how would you explain African Americans being equal today? How would you explain African Americans from being slaves, to having an African American president? It wouldn't make sense.
Facts should be added on as time progresses, not "edited" by erasing facts or dates. It should be as neutral as possible. People are always going to have a different interpretation of history, there are always going to be arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
