Uncharted Territory

Uncharted Territory

               

                Something that came up in our most recent Socratic seminar on Things Fall Apart really got me thinking about the world today.  A scenario was presented stating that a new land was discovered in the middle of an ocean, and then we proceeded to discuss how the world would react to such a discovery. Some thought that we would roll in, guns blazing, and obliterate the current residents for their land or for their resources. I must say that I disagree with this hypothesis, to a degree. I think that we have grown since Christianities conversion rampages, since the slaughtering of the Native Americans, even since the holocaust. I think that, unless there where substantial valuable resources, the world would leave them alone. In Things Fall Apart the whites came and basically took control, and it wasn’t even that cruel or an overall detrimental experience, there was minimal bloodshed and the whites brought technology. I don’t believe in any way that this was warranted or okay for the missionaries and whites to do, but you have to see that over the hundreds, even thousands of years that the Africans have lived there they never progressed past the Stone Age. They never had a higher or more complicated form of government than cheiftanism, they didn’t even invent the wheel. I don’t mean to be arrogant or cruel, but although these people may have thought that their life was adequate, it could have been much better. Eventually some form of change had to happen, and who says it was a bad change anyway? Okonkwo’s society was a rough one, murder and theft was pretty commonplace, it could have continued to be that difficult of a life for a very long time, but with any change some things have to fall apart, whether it is only the old ways of doing things, or other more important things. What is a little culture loss when it would have morphed and changed over a few years anyway? Is the cost of losing some culture too much for the technology and benefits that came out of it? I’m not one of those people that think things happen for a reason or that there is some sort of plan for the universe, but I think that there are always good things associated with change.  What if we discovered a new land and there was a native society?  Think of how difficult it would be for them to conform to society or even understand us, if it would even be possible. Wouldn’t it be better to have been introduced when our two societies where somewhat close in technology and culture rather than having centuries of gap between them? I for one can confidently say that if some higher being where to come to earth and offer enlightenment and technological advancement I would accept it no matter the cost to our petty cultures and traditions. I understand that that may be out of context or from someone without much culture to lose, but stand firmly in the belief that in the end these changes may have been for the best.

The "Classics"

AP English

Monthly Blog

The “classics”

What makes something a classic? Our society considers so many things classic, from classical music, to classic cars, to classic attitudes, to classic behaviors, to classic phrases, to classic books. The dictionary definition of classic is=-

clas·sic/ˈklasik/

Adjective:	Judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.
Noun:	A work of art of recognized and established value.
Synonyms:	classical - standard

What I specifically want to speak about is classic books that schools make children read. Lets be honest for a moment, how many classic books are enjoyable to read? Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, To Kill A Mocking Bird, The Scarlet letter, The Importance Of Being Earnest!?... Really? Yes, all of these books may teach a valuable lesson, or be written with considerable skill, I will admit I don’t think I could write a book or novel that would match any of these in anything except entertainment value. That isn’t what I am arguing, I am simply arguing that these books are neither enjoyable or practical to make people read. Supposedly they are classics because they have themes that still apply today or include universal constants that apply to our lives. Have you ever realized that they may apply to our lives because we see these “constants” every day? We don't need some dry academic book to show them to us. Plus these books hardly show anything that is very profound. To Kill A Mockingbird's main theme is good vs. evil.... I’m pretty sure this theme is expressed in a million other books, movies, and plays. Trust me, for I am speaking from experience, it is not a profound or highly informative book. So couldn't we read an enjoyable book that explores the same themes and gives the same messages? I don't understand how a group of people can make such dry and uninteresting books mandatory or highly recommended for schools across the nation. I think, perhaps, that group psychology may have come into play here. I think in the beginning, like decades ago, when book lists where being made for schools, these books where at the forefront of people brains, being at least somewhat recently written, and excellent works for their time. Then whomever was deciding which books should be read, joined a sort of bandwagon, that has ever since kept school reading books the same. Only adding fresh books when forced, or when they find an equally uninteresting or out of date book. One of the reasons that people, specifically younger generations, don’t enjoy reading could be a result of these “book lists”. On a grander scale this could be the source of many other problems, like unemployment, or our country falling behind the rest of the world. This is because when people where in school they were forced to read horrible books, which inspired them to despise learning and reading, meaning they don’t want to work for anything. This could be a major reason that our country is becoming dumber by the second. There are plenty of books that won’t bore kids to death, but will also teach important lessons and values. We simply need to find this line and select new books so that kids of the future may have a joy or need for learning and reading. With internet and all the technological revolutions that are occurring at what seems like a mile a minute, there is less and less reason to read. Reading develops important parts of your brain, and can give children a head start and a thirst for knowledge that can drive them throughout their lives.

Am I an individual? ... Are you?

12 AP English
Monthly Blog

Am I an individual? ... Are you?

           There are so many people in this world, and it is so difficult to be unique, to have your own ideas, questions, and answers. I believe in what I call the “Individual Issue”, the only way to be completely your own person is to not even think about what others are like and how they act. When you conquer the “Individual Issue”, you aren’t ever comparing yourself, judging yourself to standards set by others, trying to not be, or not be like someone else because that is how you believe you should be. Being an individual is one of the most difficult goals to attain, for many reasons. There is always a constant pressure that people exert on each other, knowingly or not, that influences how they behave, act, dress, even think. In a way even saying you are an individual is showing that you aren’t because you have analyzed others behaviors and seen that you aren’t like them, which influences how you act.

            Over the summer we read the three books The Power Of One, The Fountainhead, and The Invisible Man. Each of these books presents the idea of individualism vs. collectivism in many ways. The Power Of One, my personal favorite, told the story of a boy named Peekay (which is not his real name), who lived his life for himself. He always did what he wanted to do, whether it was box, stay religiously unaffiliated, or pay his own way through school. In The Fountain Head Howard Roark is uncompromising and will not change his ideals or architectural designs for any reason. The Invisible Man decides that he will live alone and without racial discrimination, which really means a lot because everything starts with an individual. Everyone of the characters portrayed in these books are individuals against society, but are they really individuals? Peekay is constantly trying to be his own person, trying to be more than he average person, to not be like some people (his mom) and be like others (Doc), a classic case of the “Individual Issue”. Howard Roark is simply a stubborn fool that will be stubborn even if it means not eating or having enough money for basic commodities. This isn’t being an individual, many people are to stubborn for there own good and believe they are better than everyone else,which shows that they have compared themeslves to others. The Invisible Man is always trying to be a collectivist or a part of a group, he just isn’t good at it. Which shows that he is clearly not an individual.

            To avoid being another member of the group that has the “Individual Issue” I don’t like to say whether I am an individual or whether I’m not. Not only beacause I’m not sure, but also because I never really think about it. I try to always live for myself, not in a selfish, stubborn, or cruel way, but in a way that I always try to be happy and enjoy myself to the fullest with the least amount of damage to others. So I ask again, are you an individual? Do you have your own drive? Do you have your own reasons behind your actions? Are you a conqueror of the “individual issue”? If you can say without a shadow of a doubt that you are all of these things, then congratulations. You are part of a very small and very special group… to rephrase, you are a type of person that is very special, and will have a better life because of it. If you are then I am envious, and I wish I was a part of that group…