Technology: Does it Damage?

Technology does have a dark side. While it frequently makes things faster, easier, more entertaining, and cheaper, it also takes away deep thinking, patience, and creates apathy. The current technology today has led to increasing global warming through carbon dioxide emissions. People have become apathetic to the environment and basic health because of its convenience. The constant stream of media and information keeps us from thinking to deeply on any given subject. They keep our thoughts jumping from one subject to another. They keep us from patience, too, making sure that we're always waiting for the next thing, the next title, the next scandal, the next soundbite.

Basically, it makes things too fast, too polluted, too ritual.

The Human Element

I believe that all people can affect change, they just have to know how. The characters in the books we have read have each found a way to fight against an unjust society. Whether it was Montag's flight and memorization of Ecclesiastes, Proctor's prayers before the noose, or Huck and Tom's ridiculous attempt to free Jim, they each stood up for what they felt was right. People can affect change by moving. All movements, like the old cliche of a ripple on a pond, can affect everybody around them, no matter how small.

The changes affected by the characters varied in grandeur. Sometimes, they helped somebody gain their freedom. Sometimes, they left a simple legacy of honor and boldness. Their contributions were small and large, for now and for later, and the important thing is that they contributed.

Perhaps the books portray the influences one's actions can have as a little exaggerated, but while not all people can do as the characters did, a few people have definitely done things as significant as the characters' actions. The books are about what could be if people cared enough to try.

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.