Forbidden Topics

I think that most topics can be taught in school, but I think there is only one thing that is taught in some schools that should not be taught at all; sexual orientations. Schools do not teach about sex other than simple videos advising caution. I think this should be used in the area of sexual orientation as well.

In Connecticut, there are some places were homosexuality is taught in schools through pamphlets and short classes. They are taught in elementary schools, a setting that is completely unnecessary and unethical. The teaching of this subject is completely out of context for children, because they are not even familiar with sex yet.

I do not think, however, that the teaching of the subject should be removed from schools entirely. It should be approached by the anti-discriminatory side of things, to make sure hate crimes are understood and taught against. Kids should know that orientation does not make a person any less of a person.

An important thing to note, however, is that sexual orientation has never been proven to be a hereditary trait that is unchangeable. This idea is a theory, no more, no less. Like evolution, schools should recognize the theory as a theory and not teach it as fact. To do this would be to infringe upon parental rights and would be widely rejected by the religious community. This subject is like fire; it should not be played with.

Debate Reflection

Preparing for the debate was a little harder than I thought. We decided to split the subjects up in groups of two so that not only two people would be speaking. I ended up with the subject about history. The actual reason title was "History Has Made Us What We Are." I had an interesting time trying to find direct facts about that argument, so I mostly did the whole thing on concepts. I worked together with Isaiah to figure out the perfect wording, and eventually got the rhythm right.

I think my part turned out well. For not using very many facts, I got an equal as far as the rating of the reason, so I'm okay with my work. Thanks to Isaiah, though! He developed the first and last paragraphs.

Silvino and Thien definitely stood out on my team. Their arguments were very solid and they spoke very well. Plus, they earned the points for their reasons (yes!).

I definitely didn't change my opinions, though. If anything, I learned how to articulate my own thoughts by the arguments of others. Plus, there was one argument, Silvino's, that I hadn't really thought about which became clearer to me at the end of this debate.

Overall, it was fun.

Huck's Ideas on Race Relations

I think Huckleberry Finn wouldn't be pleased with the race relations today. People have become so touchy about racism that his ignorance would be rejected. Jim might enjoy it, too, although he seems to be the kind of person who wouldn't like the reputation poor blacks have now.

I think the main problem would just be with status. Huckleberry Finn's idea of a black person's status in society would conflict with the current society's social equality. Huck is very opinionated about this, shown by his comments about how blacks are property and his racist thoughts about Jim's intelligence, shown during his discussion with Jim about Frenchmen and foreign languages. Jim also expects certain things from white people and other blacks, and I think he wouldn't approve of the behaviors of many blacks today. I think he would think they thought too much of themselves.

Spike Lee's Huck Finn

The difference between Jim in Spike Lee's script and the book is Jim's cognizance. In the script, he acts more white, recognizing his injustices and holding anger longer than the Jim in the book. When Huck plays the trick on him after they get separated in the fog, the Jim in the script is still angry even when night descends, whereas in the book it doesn't give an exact time, but it couldn't have been all day. Also, when Huck and Tom play a trick on him at the beginning of the book by taking some candles and hanging his hat on a tree, in the script, Jim is aware of what was going on and let them be, giving them a knowing smile like an amiable father would, whereas in the book he is just an easily fooled slave.

I think Spike Lee depicted Jim as more aware of what was going on to further the impact of Jim's character and the understanding of the equality between the races. It was certainly relevant during the times, especially with the Rodney King riots and the racial issues in California around the early 1990's.

To Teach, or Not to Teach...That is the question...

Arguments Against Teaching:

It can come across racist.
It USUALLY comes across as racist.
It can be emotionally damaging or difficult for certain students.
It may not be age appropriate.

Arguments For Teaching:

It satirizes society, slavery, and racism.
It is a hugely successful and influential piece of literature.
It can cause discussion and growth within students who read it.
It can help people understand the ridiculousness of slavery.

Personally, I think that the book has a lot of power to teach and to persuade through it's satirical nature. The racism of the book is appropriate because it is realistic, and it's implications about slavery are so clear that the supposedly racist situations really become anti-racist. The book may not be appropriate for certain age groups, but it should certainly be taught at one of the upper levels in school so that it's genius is not overlooked in ignorance.

Comparing Book to 1960 Film

1) The book ends with Jim becoming a free man, Tom's gunshot wound healing, and Huck finding out his father is dead and he doesn't have to worry about his money anymore. It's a little anti-climactic, but it was still interesting. The author chose to end the book on a similar note to when it started; Huck hated it when people tried to "sivilize" him.

Satire

Satire is the use of humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity and vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

The Onion is a satire because it uses humorous stories to get points across about different things going on in our country. It used a story on an asphyxiated masturbater to emphasize the degradation of the Christmas season, and humorous titles about Bush being gay to emphasize the ending of his term.

Banning in America

I think that banning certain books and music from certain reading lists and atmospheres is a good thing. The reason why they ban them is because they do not feel the material is appropriate to spread wherever they are, and the reason they do not feel it is appropriate is because they do not think the parents would approve of it.

The banned books and music list isn't censorship. Parents and children can easily go buy the books and music at their local stores, or order them online. The restricted list is really just a way that the educational systems, radios, and other establishments make sure they do not offend parents. Parents have the power to decide what material is appropriate for their children, not the government or the radio or the school board. If the various establishments play such music without consent from the parents, they infringe upon their rights as parents.

And, personally, I agree with parents censoring what children read and hear. There are many things that should not be on a child's mind that is out there in the world. They aren't ready to deal with those things the way they should. They are too impressionable.

So, on the whole, yes, censorship is sad, and I wish we didn't have to censor anything, but it is necessary, because children should not be privy to things they are not mature enough to handle. People should wait until they are old enough to understand them and have their own thoughts on the matter.

The Lowest Animal

There are a ton of things I would want to change about human nature. I believe in original sin, although not really in the conventional sense. I believe people are born with the capacity to do both good and evil, but their bodies tend toward the selfish. I think that people are innately bent towards doing wrong because doing wrong tends to be fun or satisfying in the short run.

I think that it takes a lot of strength to move against one's natural human inclinations. I think that the biggest stumbling block for this is human pride, and I think that if I could choose, human pride would be the part of human nature that I would change.

Pride is said to be the root of all evil. I think this is mostly true. I think when we are selfish, we pridefully believe we are more important than others. When we are cruel, we pridefully believe that we can get away with it, or it was justified because of our circumstances. When we exalt ourselves above others, we do so because we feel the need to pridefully give ourselves meaning and purpose that makes us better than other people. Part of human nature is the need to have purpose and to be special. I think this manifests itself in our pride, and it causes us to fall short of our moral goals.

If we could eliminate pride, we would not worry about what others think about us when we act. We would not be cruel in order to feel powerful; we wouldn't need the power. And I think that reaching our idealistic goals would be so much easier, because the competition for fame and glory would be swallowed, and the competition for success and reform would be so much more fruitful.