ape21's Blog

“Dissent (which comes from the Latin, dis and sentire) means originally to feel apart from others.” The keyword in this phrase is originally. Perhaps dissent meant to feel apart hundreds of years ago. Heck, want originally meant to need. Yet we do not take the word want in that context anymore. Neither should we take dissent in its original context, for its meaning too has changed from its archaic form. Nowadays want means to desire something. Likewise, nowadays dissent means to hold opinions that are different with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed. Sound familiar? Perhaps that is because disagreement is an extremely close synonym of dissent. While Boorstin argues that dissent is “the cancer” of democracy, while disagreement is its “life blood,” in fact, dissent and disagreement are essentially the same thing.

The definitions and current meanings of disagreement and dissent are almost exactly alike. Both lack entire approval, both cause disruption within groups, both involve arguing a specific point, both (hopefully) end in a specific outcome or compromise. Admittedly, Boorstin is correct when he says that “people may disagree and both may count themselves in the majority. But a person who dissents is by definition in a minority.” Yet people may disagree and still count themselves in the minority. Look at the US House Senate for example, currently with its Democratic majority and Republican minority. When Republicans disagree, by sheer numbers they must consider themselves in the minority. If this minority (Republicans) are disagreeing, then according to Boorstin, they must be dissenters. Therefore, according to Boorstin, they must be killing the liberal society. Although some people would agree that Republicans are threatening this liberal society we live in, most would acknowledge it is simply the fact of life that the minority will often oppose the views of the majority. The line of dissenting and disagreement is so blurred, that dissenting and disagreement appear to be the same thing.

Boorstin writes, “Disagreement produces debate but dissent produces dissension.” How is it that disagreement does not produce, well, disagreement? Yet dissent produces dissension? I propose that both disagreement and dissent produce debate. Perhaps dissension is the first step towards a debate. Yes, dissension is generally a minority. Yet all debates in the Supreme Court, Senate, the House of Representatives have all been born of a minority. Opposition begins with one voice that is willing to go against society, one mind with a dream of a better future. Would Boorstin consider Abraham Lincoln a dissenter? Thomas Paine? In fact, it was those in the minority who caused “dissension” that eventually helped the occurrence of the 15th Amendment or the birth of the United States of America. It is the minorities, those “dissenters,” that begin these disagreements that eventually turn into debates.

I believe that dissent is one of the greatest attributes of America today. The fact that people are allowed to voice their opinion, even if they are in the minority. That citizens are allowed to say what they think is a privilege that many other countries do not share. Boorstin argues that dissent and disagreement are two very different things. On the contrary, I believe them to be parallel in their meanings. Boorstin argues that disagreement leads to debate, while dissent leads to dissension. Yet, since disagreement and dissension have essentially the same meaning, shouldn’t dissension also lead to debate?

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde

Throughout my 12 years of schooling, I have learned far more than I can fit into my little brain. I have learned how to do stoichiometry, use the quadratic formula correctly, maneuver through the unit circle, and differentiate a granite rock from a sulfur rock. Yet what of this am I going to use in my life? Will the quadratic formula help me pay my taxes (not unless I plan on becoming a math teacher, I supposed). Will stoichiometry help me grow into a selfless person, thinking of others instead of living my life dedicated to my own personal happiness? I know it sounds tacky and generic (which it is), yet it is still true. I will not learn how to help a friend when they need it the most in my English literature class. I won’t learn how to have a perfect relationship with someone simply by sitting lifelessly in my world history class. I won’t even learn how to cook something other than Cup of Noodles for myself in any of the classes I have taken at Shorewood.
As Oscar Wilde much more eloquently put it, it’s the time you take to write someone a letter telling them that you are thinking about them or take time out of your busy schedule to go to coffee with someone that you really learn. You learn about them, their life, their frustrations, their worries. Yet you also learn about yourself. What qualities in a person you prize most, what in life is important to you, how you want to be seen by other people. Like Wilde said, education is an important, probably essential thing to have, but the important things in life, how to love, how to get along with each other, cannot be taught out of a book or through a test.

Ever since the American school system was established there have been ongoing debates about the literature pupils should read. Tempers have flared over whether a book is appropriate enough, applicable enough, whether it is well written, and so on. A more recent debate that has plagued America is the question of whether there should be specific texts that all high school English students should read. However, there should NOT be specific texts in order to preserve the English teacher’s freedom of choice and individuality, and also so that schools can create their curriculum in the best way to fit their students and the different cultures that are present in schools.

Each and every English teacher has an idea about which books high school students should read. Some prefer Hemingway, others Dostoevsky, some both. In fact, that is one of the wonderful things about the American school system that teachers have this freedom to teach their students such a wide range of literature. As Clayton Eshleman (Source C) writes in The Council Chronicle in regards to teaching poetry, “teachers have to make their own decisions” about what to teach their students. They cannot depend on a requisite poetry anthology to answer all their student’s questions about the impact of poetry. Dissenters may argue that this process of free choice is unfair, because private school children are more privileged and get to read better books than the public school children. However, a study by the National Council of Teachers of English conducted in 1992 (Source B) showed that on average, both public schools and private schools read the same books. In fact, the top three most frequently required titles in both lists were Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and Huck Finn. There were only two books that were only on one list—Of Mice and Men and The Odyssey. In order to preserve and even respect the freedom and choice of individual English teachers, high schools should not start requiring specific texts.

Schools should be able to tailor their curriculum to fit the needs of the students. For example, in a school that is predominantly African-American, let the students read books about their own culture, rather than Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights. Studies have proven that multiethnic literature is an indispensable tool in the classroom. Florez-Tighe, who was a pioneer researcher into this area (Source E), showed that ethnic children’s literature was beneficial to African-American children’s language development and their thought processes. Her research also indicated that teaching African-American folk tales read in the classroom taught a respect for the African-American culture and also confirmed a child’s feelings of self-merit. Schools need to be able to fit their English curriculum around the different heritages and cultures of their students.

American schools should not develop a national school curriculum. One of the many aspects that makes this country great is the distinction it allows its teachers, the opportunity to hand select which ancient masterpieces they deem most important to bestow upon their pupils. Do not sacrifice that freedom to choose that our forefathers fought so hard for.  Secondly, adapting a national school curriculum would be to ignore the diversity that is so apparent in this melting pot of a nation. Embrace the culture that is deeply embedded all around you! Understand the legends of the Native Americans that cultivated this land long before you were even a glimmer in your parent’s eyes. Read the folk tales of the African-Americans that sweated on this earth, listen to the stories of the settlers that put there blood and tears into making this country a great one. By doing so, you will have a fuller knowledge of the world you live in, and perhaps, by reading those stories written by your ancestors, you will have a fuller knowledge of yourself.

The situation the author finds himself in is one of a big choice. All the Burmans make fun of him because he is British, and now the author finally has a chance to make the people stop laughing at him. The choice he has is whether or not to shoot the loose elephant. If he does so, people might think him cruel. Yet if he does not, he will displease the people even more and make them laugh at him even more so. The author is arguing that he was justified in shooting the elephant. He does this by showing the situation he is in and writing it so that people feel sympathy for his decision. He talks about how all the Burmans laugh at him and how English guys can’t get any respect over there. Essentially, he was writing that this was his only chance to get some respect and love out of the Burman people. That is his argument for shooting the elephant. There is not much legitimate backing in this argument. Obviously there are no statistics or anything, but there aren’t quotes or anecdotes from other people. The author is the only point of view the audience gets to read. Thus, there is not much legitimate backing in his argument. The speaker changes his rhetoric to reach people in the West who have never been to India, or wherever he is. He describes the Indian culture and Burman culture so people like me can understand where he is living and thus relate to him.

Feminism: What went wrong?

In this situation, the speaker finds herself right in the middle of this new feminist “issue.” She is observing these teenage girls in their Living Doll culture, yet she still considers herself a part of the second wave of feminism. 

The writer uses stories and anecdotes from other women to argue her point. Using these, she argues that feminism has gone back a few paces and/or has been redefined by this new generation. She writes, “Like many young women, [Shields] feels fine about wearing provocative clothes, if she chooses. What she doesn’t like is the lemming-like way in which young women are led by magazines to feel that they should emulate scantily clad, surgically enhanced celebrities. Neither she nor I can understand why women would want to look like Jordan rather than yearn for the dignity of, say Meryl Streep or Keira Knightley.” This argument explains that this new culture needs to change their way of thinking and living. She proposes that this would be an improvement, because if they change, these girls will become more elegant and dignified like respected actresses, such as Knightley and Streep. 

The author establishes her creditability in this piece by showing that she has had first-hand experience with this Living Doll culture by way of her teenage daughter. By sharing her experience with her daughter, she proved that she had experienced this culture and is not just judging from the outside. In the first paragraph she writes, “I thought my teenage daughter was joking when she said that the only thing she wanted this Christmas was the new Jordan book…on the limitations of the former glamour model, but I included the book in my daughter’s stocking, as a joke.The laugh turned out to be on me. Not only did she read it from cover to cover on Christmas morning, she also begged permission to order three more copies before the turkey was even served…” By sharing her experience with her readers, the author establishes her creditability as someone who is entrenched inside this Living Doll culture. 

Clay Shirky’s thesis seems to be that businesses need to complex to grow, but their complexity causes an imminent collapse. Essentially, his thesis is stating that complexity only results in more and more complexity, which then spins into collapse. 

Shirky uses lots of induction in his argument. Essentially, he takes multiple pieces of data and from that information, he draws a conclusion. He gets this information from sources such as Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies, an MIT mechanical engineering professor, friends at AT&T, TV executives, and of course, the success of YouTube. 

Also in this article/posting, Shirky uses ethos to relate to his readers. He does this by using anecdotes the readers can understand and also by using a confident tone in his writing. Shirky uses anecdotes from professors, YouTube, TV executives, his own friends, and media journalists to ensure that his readers understand what he is talking about and can relate to his argument. Also, Shirky’s consistent confident, what I am saying is right tone, convinces the reader that Shirky actually IS right and what he’s arguing is fact. 

The caption reads WARSOP VALE, England—Miners at the end of their shift, 1974.

Overall, we notice the goofy smiles of the mineworkers. One guy is pointing and laughing at another guy, who is looking sheepishly at the camera. In the background is another miner, laughing as he surveys the scene. In particiular, the details that standout are their smiles and their clothes. Their overalls seem to be stained with dirt and their white hardhats are dark with soot.
The observations in this picture draw a paradox. The men are dirtied and tired from their job, yet they are still laughing and joking around with each other. One might ask themselves, how do they still have energy to joke around, because their jobs seem exhausting? Yet they still seem to manage to have a good ol’ time.
These observations (their smiles, dirty clothes, etc) seem to add up to the main theme of the photo—that despite their obviously grueling, unhealthy, messy jobs, these men can still kick back at the end of the day and share a few laughs and good times. Although they work hard throughout the day, they can still get along well at the end of it. Perhaps this photo serves as a reminder to people who always seem stressed and complain about all that they have to do, such as drive their kids to school, pay those bills, etc. Perhaps it is a reminder to kick back, relax, and have a few laughs at the end of the day. For if these guys, who spend their whole day in a dark, dreary mine, can still crack a smile, then why can’t you?

The main aspect in this picture is the focus. The boy, at the foreground, is slightly fuzzy and unfocused. However, the bulldozer (I think that’s what it’s called), is the clearest image. By doing this, the photographer has put more emphasis on the machine that is clearing away the rubble than on the boy who is standing there and watching it clear.
Another large aspect of this picture is the landscape, or rather lack thereof. The landscape in this photo is almost entirely barren and rocky, save for two green trees hidden by the dust of the soil. By filming the white, dirty landscape, the photographer captures the state of turmoil that Haiti is in, 70 days after the earthquake.
The last main aspect that the photographer uses in this photo is their intention. Why did the photographer take this picture? Well, we can conclude that one reason they took this particular picture is to remind the world that Haiti still needs help. It’s government, people, and land are still a mess, even though everyone else in the world has moved on with their lives. Yet this shot of a barren, dusty land, with a skinny, barefoot boy in the foreground, reminds the world that Haiti is still in trouble and needs help.

In Literature for Real, Rob Nixon illustrates his opinion of the book in a way that is reminiscent of how an elementary school teacher teaches their more gifted students. He begins with complimenting the book, but ends by talking about what the author could have done to make the book better (in Nixon’s opinion). It’s kind of a, “This was really good, but this could have been better,” sequence. For example, Nixon writes “‘As a literary historian, Yagoda’s instincts are Linnaean…but Yagoda’s neat categories sometimes merely stereotype.’” 

The above part also pertains to Yagoda’s thesis and what he writes. There are parts that Nixon seems to simply drool over, yet others that Nixon thinks could be improved upon, such as expanding the categories Yagoda uses to place memoirs. Also, Nixon is frustrated that Yagoda seems to sell short the creativity of the non-fiction novel…errr book.

When you say those who oppose it, what do you mean exactly? Those who oppose non-fiction? Or those who oppose Yagoda’s book? I’m assuming non-fiction, yet I can’t find much about Nixon’s opinion of people who oppose non-fiction. Really, he just talks about how no one reads non-fiction, yet how he feels it is essential, possibly even more so than fiction, to the literary world. If you read more into Nixon’s writings, it seems he is critical of those who oppose non-fictin, probably because he thinks so highly of it himself. Especially at the end, he subtly makes fun of a candidate for a literary position who twitched and turned at being asked a question about non-fiction writing. 

It seems in this piece that Nixon is advocating the introduction of non-fiction into the literary world. He deems it most important, because it’s based on facts, rather than a bundle of made up stories. He is also lamenting the scarcity of non-fiction found in schools and universities and the fact that, people simply don’t read it. I wonder, however, whether Nixon has ever considered that people prefer fiction over non-fiction for a reason. Perhaps people read fiction to escape from the reality of life, which is present in non-fiction. Perhaps fiction is simply more interesting to read than non-fiction. Yet, Nixon still believes that non-fiction should be read much more so than it is now. 

The House That Had Enough, by P.E. King, gets straight to the thick of the plot when, on the very first page, Anne wakes up on the floor with a big BUMP! On the second page, the reader finds out the reason for the rude awakening is because her bed is getting up to leave! Eventually, all her toys, belongings, food ends up leaving the house, because Anne takes good care of them. In order to understand more clearly which toys left and for which reason see the table below:

Toys that left Reasons they left 1. Bed 2. Clothes 3. Toiletries 4. Refrigerator 5. Dishes 6. Toys 7. Garbage cans, bike, paint, hammer 8. House 1. Jumped on it, leave it unmade 2. Don’t wash, fold, or put away 3. Don’t rinse, put cap on, or hang up to dry 4. Don’t clean inside 5. Don’t wash 6. Don’t get put away, get stepped on 7. Pound like drums, ride down stairs, paint front lawn, hammer sidewalk 8. Slam doors, open windows in rain, put posters on walls with pins Yet at the end, with only her pillow for company, Anne learns the errors of her ways. Convincing her house, bed, clothes, toys, etc. to come back, Anne begins to clean up her house and treat it with more respect. Of course the question has to be asked, why is a 13-year-old taking care of a house herself in the first place? No wonder everything is in a mess—that’s what happens when you leave a child in charge of a house by themselves. Who is there to train her to pick up her stuff? Who will teach her that it is necessary to put the cap back on the toothpaste? Obviously this book is used to teach kids to keep their rooms clean, but one still must wonder.