yeah. the title lies. this is merely gibberish on maus. well at least that is my opinion. there may be something worth discussing in this post, but i doubt. i actually decided to uppercase the "m" in maus in the title. you should be proud of me. have to say i really did enjoy reading this comic book yeah. wayyyy easier than reading a three hundred page novel. yup. anyone else notice how as the year progress, the shorter and shorter our books are getting???
anyway. back to maus - not that i really started talking about anything rather important......
mmm. okay. i have no idea what to right about. the only thing that seems like i could write approx. 1200 words on is the whole represenation junk ( you know, the mice, cats, dogs, and all other lovely animals). other than that my mid is rather blank. i must state that i did rather enjoy the book. wait, an idea just popped into my head.....how about writing about how things must be generalize so that more people can feel like they can relate in a way...like mix that with representation. i don't know. i don't even know if that made sense.
well, i haven't really done much research on outside sources for this upcoming essay....that's what winter break is for. :]
what i really fancy about the book is the fact that it was a comic book but it told a story about the jews – well not all of them. Okay yes but mainly the spegielman side mmmm. writing about how it breaks traditional form. how about that?? Or even how the author doesn’t even know what the whole point of him drawing such a comic was – besides telling his dad’s story…….
i don’t know. mainly because i didn’t catch much postmodernism in this story……..did you??
alright. i'm going to go study for AP Gov test tomorrow. yay.
11.15.2009
humans suck.
random fact: my group SUCKS at commenting on blogs. just thought i should share.
anyway......................
Google is making us stupid. perfect example: ME. i always self guess myself (mainly on spelling) and refer to google to make sure i have spelled it correctly (you know that handy dandy line that says did you mean: blah blah). however i do think that google is a blessing. i mean come on. all the knowledge you could possibly want unknowingly in front of you just waiting to be searched for. kudos to those two Stanford kiddos who thought of the whole concept of google.
i do think it is sad that google is like held up to the same level as food and water. you know. like you can not live with out it. it processes information for us and gives it to use in like a sentence or two. honestly. when i saw the article on the AP Lit blog the first thing i did was see how long it was. why? because i didnt want to deal with a long (possibly) boring article. i think we all do it. the longer the scrollbar on the right the better. no joke when i bought cat's cradle i was happy it had big font and not that many pages. i don't think we know how to handle a big book anymore or a big article. i know for my press releases for AP environmental science i skip over long articles. i think it's human nature. why? because of our dang small attention spans. not going to lie, reading carr's article was an irony in itself. the article was sort of long and i guess you could say somewhat difficult. there were a few moments when that my mind dove off to other thoughts (i was thinking about Thoroughly Modern Millie and how excited to see it this winter just incase you wanted to know) as you surf the net, carr says "A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we're glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper's site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration." yup. that happens to me all the time. in fact it just happened. thank you facebook. i think this also explains why everyones blog posts are so random. they jump from subject to subject but you know what. it's alright. why? because at least we can (well most of us) acknowledge our problem.
Vonnegut (fact: i just used google to make sure i spelled his name right) is a pure genius in my eyes for writing his book the way he did. i think it tricks the mind to think that its engulfing more information and being more productive than usual. like oh. i read 20 chapters last night when it was like fifteen pages yet we can still process and enjoy the book. magic.
it's quite scary how "stupid" and reliant we are on the internet.....let's just imagine how the younger generations are going to turn out.
anyway......................
Google is making us stupid. perfect example: ME. i always self guess myself (mainly on spelling) and refer to google to make sure i have spelled it correctly (you know that handy dandy line that says did you mean: blah blah). however i do think that google is a blessing. i mean come on. all the knowledge you could possibly want unknowingly in front of you just waiting to be searched for. kudos to those two Stanford kiddos who thought of the whole concept of google.
i do think it is sad that google is like held up to the same level as food and water. you know. like you can not live with out it. it processes information for us and gives it to use in like a sentence or two. honestly. when i saw the article on the AP Lit blog the first thing i did was see how long it was. why? because i didnt want to deal with a long (possibly) boring article. i think we all do it. the longer the scrollbar on the right the better. no joke when i bought cat's cradle i was happy it had big font and not that many pages. i don't think we know how to handle a big book anymore or a big article. i know for my press releases for AP environmental science i skip over long articles. i think it's human nature. why? because of our dang small attention spans. not going to lie, reading carr's article was an irony in itself. the article was sort of long and i guess you could say somewhat difficult. there were a few moments when that my mind dove off to other thoughts (i was thinking about Thoroughly Modern Millie and how excited to see it this winter just incase you wanted to know) as you surf the net, carr says "A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we're glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper's site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration." yup. that happens to me all the time. in fact it just happened. thank you facebook. i think this also explains why everyones blog posts are so random. they jump from subject to subject but you know what. it's alright. why? because at least we can (well most of us) acknowledge our problem.
Vonnegut (fact: i just used google to make sure i spelled his name right) is a pure genius in my eyes for writing his book the way he did. i think it tricks the mind to think that its engulfing more information and being more productive than usual. like oh. i read 20 chapters last night when it was like fifteen pages yet we can still process and enjoy the book. magic.
it's quite scary how "stupid" and reliant we are on the internet.....let's just imagine how the younger generations are going to turn out.
11.09.2009
fact: i will NOT be talking about cat's cradle.
i find all this "junk" rather interesting. i call it junk because i don't know what else to call that sums it all up in one term. oh and by "all" you know what i mean correct??? if not, let me know and i guess i'll provide an explanation....
okay. back to business. i do indeed agree with Kirby. post modernism is dying out. okay he states it's dead, but i think there is still a smidge of it clinging on to its final moments of life.
kirby states that "Postmodern philosophy emphasises the elusiveness of meaning and knowledge." well now-a-days people could care less about the meaning and such UNLESS it somehow effects them. kirby says that Pseudo-modernism is primarily responding to the will of the viewers. we seek to be entertained but yet are so easily bored. why? because we are in search of easy thrills. take american idol or any talent show for that matter. most people don't really care about the real talent on the show, instead they care more about all the william hung's out there that are going to make a complete fool out of themselves. why? because it's "entertaining"
i mean it's cool and everything that we as an audience can interact and influence the outcome of thing - gives people a sense of power i guess. but the sad thing is that all the technology is actually making us rather stupid. mmmm. let me prove my case. how many teenagers now-a-days actually understand one of shakespeare's plays WITHOUT the help of an outside (ie sparknotes). i'm just going to guess and say like one out of ten. but why don't we bother to understand such language? because we're lazy and are so used to quick messages (thank you texting and instant messaging for developing another own language). here's a Shakespearean insult: you are now sailed into the north of my ladies opinion, where you will hang like an icicle on a Dutchman's beard (from Twelfth Night - for those people who don't know the movie She's the Man with Amanda Bynes is the modern version) (oh this is clovis west's straight (non-musical) show this year incase you're interested) i guess we just don't realize how much more fun it is to take those extras words to insult someone rather than use one or two obscene words.
aside from stripping away our brain power, technology is also capability to interact with other human beings. why? almost everything is automatic these days. you can do all your shopping (grocery to clothes to your "soul mate"). rather depressing isn't it?? i think so. even if you are one of thsoe legit people that actually go to the store and have your items rung up by a cashier, i bet you try to avoid conversation hoping that it will result in you going on with life faster. yeah. i know. i'm a cashier myself. most people avoid talking at all cost. or they are on their stinking cell phones texting away. i bet people text a person more than they actually talk to in person with that person.it shouldn't be a surprise to us that majority of marriages result in divorces.
i think have unkowningly pressed our own self destruct button.
i promise to finish this later. i think my bed is calling my name and sleeping sounds nice right now.............plus i'm safe if i've exceded the word count but am not done "rambling??"
okay. back to business. i do indeed agree with Kirby. post modernism is dying out. okay he states it's dead, but i think there is still a smidge of it clinging on to its final moments of life.
kirby states that "Postmodern philosophy emphasises the elusiveness of meaning and knowledge." well now-a-days people could care less about the meaning and such UNLESS it somehow effects them. kirby says that Pseudo-modernism is primarily responding to the will of the viewers. we seek to be entertained but yet are so easily bored. why? because we are in search of easy thrills. take american idol or any talent show for that matter. most people don't really care about the real talent on the show, instead they care more about all the william hung's out there that are going to make a complete fool out of themselves. why? because it's "entertaining"
i mean it's cool and everything that we as an audience can interact and influence the outcome of thing - gives people a sense of power i guess. but the sad thing is that all the technology is actually making us rather stupid. mmmm. let me prove my case. how many teenagers now-a-days actually understand one of shakespeare's plays WITHOUT the help of an outside (ie sparknotes). i'm just going to guess and say like one out of ten. but why don't we bother to understand such language? because we're lazy and are so used to quick messages (thank you texting and instant messaging for developing another own language). here's a Shakespearean insult: you are now sailed into the north of my ladies opinion, where you will hang like an icicle on a Dutchman's beard (from Twelfth Night - for those people who don't know the movie She's the Man with Amanda Bynes is the modern version) (oh this is clovis west's straight (non-musical) show this year incase you're interested) i guess we just don't realize how much more fun it is to take those extras words to insult someone rather than use one or two obscene words.
aside from stripping away our brain power, technology is also capability to interact with other human beings. why? almost everything is automatic these days. you can do all your shopping (grocery to clothes to your "soul mate"). rather depressing isn't it?? i think so. even if you are one of thsoe legit people that actually go to the store and have your items rung up by a cashier, i bet you try to avoid conversation hoping that it will result in you going on with life faster. yeah. i know. i'm a cashier myself. most people avoid talking at all cost. or they are on their stinking cell phones texting away. i bet people text a person more than they actually talk to in person with that person.it shouldn't be a surprise to us that majority of marriages result in divorces.
i think have unkowningly pressed our own self destruct button.
i promise to finish this later. i think my bed is calling my name and sleeping sounds nice right now.............plus i'm safe if i've exceded the word count but am not done "rambling??"
11.02.2009
cat's cradle.
Alrighty. So....so far Cat's Cradle has been an interesting read. I like how each book gets more and more interesting. thank you Dominguez for choosing interesting books. Okay. now time to get to business....
So so far the sense of meaning from this book that i have understood is that peeople come from different backgrounds and the way they are brought up effects like their attitude/perspective on life and such. like remember that lady that wanted the dog house."the lady claimed to understand God and His Ways of Working perfectly. She could not understand why understand why anyone be puzzled about what had been or about what was going to be." yet somehow that lady was not able to comprehend something as simple (in regards to the world's greatest mysteries that she claims to have answers to) as a blueprint. really lady?? way to be a hypocrite. kudos to you.
i think the way this whole shin dig relates to the concepts of postmodernism is because of the quest of knowledge. the more you go in search for it the more and more you don't know. you loose sense, in a way, of believing those narratives because you want to discover the "truth" though it's much more complicated than saying the reason for thunderstorms is because God is mad at all the humans who make stupid decisions and leaving it at that. i think the easiest and most obvious example of this is when the father is playing around with the string and making a cat's cradle (do you make a cat's cradle or do you play it???)
i honestly think that this quest for knowledge strips away the essential characterisitcs that make a human...well....a human. of course i'm referring to emotions. every human has emotions; some are just more emotional than others. and like we all know the difference between right and wrong and what's a "sin" and what not unlike felix whats-his-face who states "what is a sin?" another example is when frank is "experimenting" with bugs and making them fight. alrighty. i forgot what i was going to write about this example. so i'm just to going to stop for now. and edit this later and finish.
:]
So so far the sense of meaning from this book that i have understood is that peeople come from different backgrounds and the way they are brought up effects like their attitude/perspective on life and such. like remember that lady that wanted the dog house."the lady claimed to understand God and His Ways of Working perfectly. She could not understand why understand why anyone be puzzled about what had been or about what was going to be." yet somehow that lady was not able to comprehend something as simple (in regards to the world's greatest mysteries that she claims to have answers to) as a blueprint. really lady?? way to be a hypocrite. kudos to you.
i think the way this whole shin dig relates to the concepts of postmodernism is because of the quest of knowledge. the more you go in search for it the more and more you don't know. you loose sense, in a way, of believing those narratives because you want to discover the "truth" though it's much more complicated than saying the reason for thunderstorms is because God is mad at all the humans who make stupid decisions and leaving it at that. i think the easiest and most obvious example of this is when the father is playing around with the string and making a cat's cradle (do you make a cat's cradle or do you play it???)
i honestly think that this quest for knowledge strips away the essential characterisitcs that make a human...well....a human. of course i'm referring to emotions. every human has emotions; some are just more emotional than others. and like we all know the difference between right and wrong and what's a "sin" and what not unlike felix whats-his-face who states "what is a sin?" another example is when frank is "experimenting" with bugs and making them fight. alrighty. i forgot what i was going to write about this example. so i'm just to going to stop for now. and edit this later and finish.
:]
10.04.2009
gibberish on the upcoming BNW essay.....
okay. so we're suppose to begin composing a thesis....oh boy. i have NO idea where to begin.
wellllll............the first thing that comes to my mind is the lack of individuality and the whole concept of stability and identity.....then out of the blue Bernard Marx just creeps into my mind; maybe because he fascinates me so much. so maybe i could talk about the oppression going on here and like utopias and how they actually don't really work that way i can shove my best buddy bernard marx into the conversation!!!!!!!
mmm. perhaps i can talk about the religious parody; you know the whole Ford vs Jesus type thing. would the agrument of the perception of a "civilized" society vs a more savage like one fit under this....mmm. maybe. wait, does that even make sense?
another thing that i feel could really spark some conversation could be the way BNW and 1984 portray love and the home environment... they are both like complete opposites you know? or even the way they handle emotions and what not... okay i think i'm going to sratch that idea; i don't feel like comparing the two anymore. or maybe..i don't know; there are just SOOO many ways one can go with this essay it's going to be interesting how it all comes together.
so for the texts that i can use as a reference are: obviously postmodernism; that one article in the back of BNW; eh. i guess google will really come in handy in this department....i need to find some legit references, but i think we all do so im alright with that.
wellllll............the first thing that comes to my mind is the lack of individuality and the whole concept of stability and identity.....then out of the blue Bernard Marx just creeps into my mind; maybe because he fascinates me so much. so maybe i could talk about the oppression going on here and like utopias and how they actually don't really work that way i can shove my best buddy bernard marx into the conversation!!!!!!!
mmm. perhaps i can talk about the religious parody; you know the whole Ford vs Jesus type thing. would the agrument of the perception of a "civilized" society vs a more savage like one fit under this....mmm. maybe. wait, does that even make sense?
another thing that i feel could really spark some conversation could be the way BNW and 1984 portray love and the home environment... they are both like complete opposites you know? or even the way they handle emotions and what not... okay i think i'm going to sratch that idea; i don't feel like comparing the two anymore. or maybe..i don't know; there are just SOOO many ways one can go with this essay it's going to be interesting how it all comes together.
so for the texts that i can use as a reference are: obviously postmodernism; that one article in the back of BNW; eh. i guess google will really come in handy in this department....i need to find some legit references, but i think we all do so im alright with that.
9.28.2009
thoughts on postmodernism and other randomly thrown in subjects.
okay. i must state that i absolutely LOVE how almost everyone begins there blog with some little story that is completely off topic (just like this one) about how they like addressing prompts, or providing a warning of their upcoming gibberish. these stories help me look forward to reading other people's blogs. ;]
anyways....
postmodernism. a very interesting way of thinking don't you think? Obviously after our class discussion on whatever day it may have been, it's safe to say that we all know what a narrative is - correct? people, does not matter what type of person one may be, uses these niffty things to justify ideas, beliefs, whatever floats your boat. no matter what you do, you always have to turn to narratives to justify your case. then from there you have the choice to a metanarrative and a local narratives. mettanarrative are “big stories, stories of mythic proportions – that claim to be able to account for, explain and subordinate all lesser, little, local narratives” (Powell 29). a local narrative is merely a smaller story that is part of the bigger story....
when i first read that definition i immediately thought of religion. i think of religion as one gigantic metanarrative since there are no real hard core facts, at least in my opinion. this helps create the foundation of thier beliefs, lifestyle, morality, and so forth.... so it is their way of providing a "why" for all those questions that make one break a mental sweat (i.e. what is the meaning of life).
in BNW the grandnarrative is the compiled values of technology, efficency, community, identity, and stability. Bernard Marx shows the danger of a postmodernistic society as he feels rather oppressed by his society's grand narrative. He feels that he does not truly belong in a place where everything and everyone is shared. When gazing at the sea, he remarks "It makes me feel as though....I were more me, if you see what I mean. More on my own, not so completely a part of something else. Not just a cell in the social body (Huxley 90)."
alright. i'm done blabbing.
anyways....
postmodernism. a very interesting way of thinking don't you think? Obviously after our class discussion on whatever day it may have been, it's safe to say that we all know what a narrative is - correct? people, does not matter what type of person one may be, uses these niffty things to justify ideas, beliefs, whatever floats your boat. no matter what you do, you always have to turn to narratives to justify your case. then from there you have the choice to a metanarrative and a local narratives. mettanarrative are “big stories, stories of mythic proportions – that claim to be able to account for, explain and subordinate all lesser, little, local narratives” (Powell 29). a local narrative is merely a smaller story that is part of the bigger story....
when i first read that definition i immediately thought of religion. i think of religion as one gigantic metanarrative since there are no real hard core facts, at least in my opinion. this helps create the foundation of thier beliefs, lifestyle, morality, and so forth.... so it is their way of providing a "why" for all those questions that make one break a mental sweat (i.e. what is the meaning of life).
in BNW the grandnarrative is the compiled values of technology, efficency, community, identity, and stability. Bernard Marx shows the danger of a postmodernistic society as he feels rather oppressed by his society's grand narrative. He feels that he does not truly belong in a place where everything and everyone is shared. When gazing at the sea, he remarks "It makes me feel as though....I were more me, if you see what I mean. More on my own, not so completely a part of something else. Not just a cell in the social body (Huxley 90)."
alright. i'm done blabbing.
9.20.2009
Brave New World: beyond trippy
Okay. This book is obviously really trippy. I think we can all agree on that. For me, the thing that trips me out the most from Brave New World is...okay there is more than one thing. I think it's most of their beliefs. For example, "generalities are intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but fretsawyers and stamp collectors compose the backbone if society." when i first read this i seriously paused and then blurted out "really?" what's so great about having a stable society? Nothing interesting happens. in my opinion, it just seems rather lame and boring. Oh and then it gets even better. the whole concept of "progress." the whole description from page six of how like ninety-six "humans" can be made from one embryo. i would understand if you were talking about like production junk and whatnot, but humans? how in the world is this progress???? What is so beneficial from having tons of people who look alike, have the same name, and were created for the same function? the D.H.C. just goes off about how this process is the key to social stability. hmmm. it's just hard to wrap my mind around this concept. .
Question: did anyone else catch like all the satirical religious references? like the whole A.F. deal. “after ford,” like today’s calendar system begins with the birth of Jesus (Anno Domini, meaning “in the year of the lord”). and the whole shindig with predestination and whatnot.......anyone???
I found it rather depressing when they condition people to not feel emotions. i don't feel like going back into the book and finding the exact quote, but it was something to do with like parents, romance, etc. and then the kids just start cringing at the sound of those words. oh and the books and flowers thing! how cruel!!! they just like electrocuted babies!! the D.H.C claims that reading is a waste of the communities time; so does this mean we are wasting our time reading Huxley's book?? alrighty so i'm going to see if i understand the motive behind hating flowers. flowers = nature = no consumptions of goods = bad. is that correct? they want the consumption of goods to continue to rise and nature only cause the consumption of transportation.
this world is just a weird, perverted society; i would never understand why anyone would want to live in such conditions. ah i found the quote if anyone cares: "mother, monogamy, romance" another question: what is the whole deal with sex? why must everyone, starting at a very young age, be very very promiscuous?? does it show that they are devoted to society or something? that's one thing i just don't really get at all about this book.
Bernard Max. is he looking for something more meaningful than sex? or is just a big grump? someone please explain this to me. or not. i think it'll become more clear as the book goes along??? hopefully.
alrighty. i'm wrapping up this big hodgepodge of thoughts. thanks for reading it! :]
Question: did anyone else catch like all the satirical religious references? like the whole A.F. deal. “after ford,” like today’s calendar system begins with the birth of Jesus (Anno Domini, meaning “in the year of the lord”). and the whole shindig with predestination and whatnot.......anyone???
I found it rather depressing when they condition people to not feel emotions. i don't feel like going back into the book and finding the exact quote, but it was something to do with like parents, romance, etc. and then the kids just start cringing at the sound of those words. oh and the books and flowers thing! how cruel!!! they just like electrocuted babies!! the D.H.C claims that reading is a waste of the communities time; so does this mean we are wasting our time reading Huxley's book?? alrighty so i'm going to see if i understand the motive behind hating flowers. flowers = nature = no consumptions of goods = bad. is that correct? they want the consumption of goods to continue to rise and nature only cause the consumption of transportation.
this world is just a weird, perverted society; i would never understand why anyone would want to live in such conditions. ah i found the quote if anyone cares: "mother, monogamy, romance" another question: what is the whole deal with sex? why must everyone, starting at a very young age, be very very promiscuous?? does it show that they are devoted to society or something? that's one thing i just don't really get at all about this book.
Bernard Max. is he looking for something more meaningful than sex? or is just a big grump? someone please explain this to me. or not. i think it'll become more clear as the book goes along??? hopefully.
alrighty. i'm wrapping up this big hodgepodge of thoughts. thanks for reading it! :]
9.09.2009
history and religion: not such a good mix.
Sorry if this doesn't make loads of sense or is all fragmented. I mereley wrote what came to mind at the moment.
Last Wednesday we "discussed" history, religion, miniorties, and all that good stuff. In my opinion, this whole debate makes me feel like the public has turned into little kids fighting over a toy or something. I think Texas should just relax. Just because the country doesn't unamiously agree that Christianity should be shoved down people's throats doesn't mean it needs to over react and attempt to sucede from the U.S.
I do believe that Christianity did indeed play a vital role in influencing this country, but I do think we should consider other factors as well besides religion. If my mind is doing me justice, I believe that the first successful place that was settled was Jamestown, Virginia. It was settled for economic reasons, was it not? Then from there religous affilations that were being prosecuted back in their mother country felt the need to escape so they could get religious freedom. Eventually, as the colonies were settled it slowly split to the south being more economically founded while the north based more on religion. So why is religion emphasized? I think both of these should be emphasized equally.
I know in the Constitution is does not state in bold print that there is seperation of church and state, but don't you think this would be wise especially after 1692 (we all know how well it went for all the "witches" in that time). But alas, this is somewhat impossible to implement when it comes to history, since it did have somewhat of an impact. I believe that history books should state the facts and provide a mini explanation of the incident. Just like Connie stated in class, "history books can't just say 'They were Christians. There has to be some sort of an explanation.'" The goal is an unbiased textbook, but we ALL know that's rather impossible. It would be like beating a dead horse. Rather pointless.
Anyways, I do indeed that we are suppose to tie this discussion with 1984 aren't we not? Well you know that one quote "Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past." It seems like we are in this dilemna. Religious affilations, minorities, political parties are all trying to prove why their way is the way to go. It feels like each one of these groups is trying to justify the reason why they are the "best." Honestly, what happened to thinking for ourselves? Remember the good ole days when we were able to generate opinions off facts and not off biased propaganda. Alright. These "good ole days" I'm referring to go further back than the early nineties. Wait. I take that back. I don't these days I speak of even exsist because (I think) there has always been at least a smidge of bias. Oh boy. The process of thought is rather complicated.
Anywhoo, to wrap this sucker up I think that it would be simply rather rad if there was a way to include all perspectives on every event in history into one book. Yeah. That would be a HUGE book. Until that day comes I guess we'll continue to debate this issue.....
Last Wednesday we "discussed" history, religion, miniorties, and all that good stuff. In my opinion, this whole debate makes me feel like the public has turned into little kids fighting over a toy or something. I think Texas should just relax. Just because the country doesn't unamiously agree that Christianity should be shoved down people's throats doesn't mean it needs to over react and attempt to sucede from the U.S.
I do believe that Christianity did indeed play a vital role in influencing this country, but I do think we should consider other factors as well besides religion. If my mind is doing me justice, I believe that the first successful place that was settled was Jamestown, Virginia. It was settled for economic reasons, was it not? Then from there religous affilations that were being prosecuted back in their mother country felt the need to escape so they could get religious freedom. Eventually, as the colonies were settled it slowly split to the south being more economically founded while the north based more on religion. So why is religion emphasized? I think both of these should be emphasized equally.
I know in the Constitution is does not state in bold print that there is seperation of church and state, but don't you think this would be wise especially after 1692 (we all know how well it went for all the "witches" in that time). But alas, this is somewhat impossible to implement when it comes to history, since it did have somewhat of an impact. I believe that history books should state the facts and provide a mini explanation of the incident. Just like Connie stated in class, "history books can't just say 'They were Christians. There has to be some sort of an explanation.'" The goal is an unbiased textbook, but we ALL know that's rather impossible. It would be like beating a dead horse. Rather pointless.
Anyways, I do indeed that we are suppose to tie this discussion with 1984 aren't we not? Well you know that one quote "Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past." It seems like we are in this dilemna. Religious affilations, minorities, political parties are all trying to prove why their way is the way to go. It feels like each one of these groups is trying to justify the reason why they are the "best." Honestly, what happened to thinking for ourselves? Remember the good ole days when we were able to generate opinions off facts and not off biased propaganda. Alright. These "good ole days" I'm referring to go further back than the early nineties. Wait. I take that back. I don't these days I speak of even exsist because (I think) there has always been at least a smidge of bias. Oh boy. The process of thought is rather complicated.
Anywhoo, to wrap this sucker up I think that it would be simply rather rad if there was a way to include all perspectives on every event in history into one book. Yeah. That would be a HUGE book. Until that day comes I guess we'll continue to debate this issue.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)