Okay, you can all stop worrying now!

To those of you I have not yet alerted, I FOUND MY PACKETS. I left them in Mr. O'Reilly's room (I have Excel after English) along with a jacket. It seems like my lack of sleep this year is finally affecting my memory...
I'm going to have to call off the school-wide search- I know you guys were looking everywhere for them.

So anyways, Longfellow is a pretty interesting poet. What I found particularly characteristic of his writing was that he made references to many minority populations in the United States that were not perceived as "true Americans" in the 1800s. Longfellow was an Early Romantic, and like many other people from this sub-category, he attempts to develop an American tradition and heritage. In "The Jewish Cemetary at Newport," for example, he juxtaposes the still cemetery with the wild ocean just a short distance away. However, his tone is almost sympathetic with the Jewish people, and he wonders why they have been persecuted in both Europe and America:

How came they here? What burst of Christian hate;
What persecution, merciless and blind,
Drove o'er the sea-- that desert desolate--

These Ishmaels and Hagars of mankind?

Besides being a wonderful opportunity to blockquote, this quotation makes reference to the Exodus of the Bible.

Longfellow was an open abolitionist, and his views on the topic of slavery are best expressed by "The Slave's Dream, " in which he describes a slave, so lowly in America, dreaming about the royal life he would be living if in Africa. In the end, Longfellow takes a surprising turn by revealing that the slave has died, but that his death has released him from his physical shackles and allowed him to roam into the paradise he has dreamed of. This optimistic perspective on death is comparable to Bryant's "Thanatopsis," in which Bryant describes how death is the just the next phase of life, in which one "wraps the drapery of his couch About/him, and lies down to pleasant dreams."

Longfellow also talks about America's oldest group, the Native Americans (of the Ojibway tribe), in "The Song of Hiawatha." Keep in mind that this in an epic poem, so if you plan to read it be sure to set aside a couple of hours/days. This seems like a reliable website, for all of you adventurous readers: http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/hiawatha.html

April 25th Class Recap (Ben)

Just a couple of notes about the outline...
1.) It's now due Wednesday intsead of Monday.
2.) "Intro" and "Conclusion" are not valid headings for the introduction and conclusion sections of your outline because all outline components must be complete sentences that will eventually be tranferred to your rough draft.
3.) No two quotes can be placed in a row and all quotes must have anchors.

Thats enough about the outline, though, because the majority of our discussion was about Bryant's To A Waterfowl. One main idea of the poem was the idea that there was something guiding the waterfowl (duck). Bryant called this guide "a Power" in stanza four. It's interesting that Bryant chose "a Power" to describe what tought the waterfowl its way because it is open to so much interpretation. Was this "Power" god? Was it nature? Was it natural instinct? I don't think that Bryant would have thought it to be God because he was a Deist and Deists believe that God created the universe then stepped out, but then again, I don't think that even Bryant himself would've even had an opinion as to what "a Power" represented.
It is also interesting that he chose "a Power" because it is so broad yet so narrow at the same time. Bryant leaves the it up to the reader to determine what the Power is yet he specifically makes the arguement (that some might disagree with) that there is something larger than ourselves guiding this duck.
Bryant or the "universal narrator" of this poem also mention's that the duck's leader will lead him as well (He who from zone to zone, guides...will lead my steps aright.) It is also interesting that Bryant picked something so boring and ordinary like a duck to be the subject of his poem rather than something majestic like an eagle. I think by doing this he's recognizing that almost everything in nature is beautiful.

Comparisons

Hey, it's Erin.

Right from the start of his poem "Thanatopsis," Bryant compares and contrasts many different things in order to get his message across. We already talked today how Bryant compares death to sleep. But he compares so many other things, for example, people as "brother to insensible rock." The tone of the poem seemed, to me, to get dark right away, though it was relatively happy to begin with: "to him who in the love of nature holds communion with her visible forms, she speaks a various language; for his gayer hours she has a voice of gladness and a smile and eloquence of beauty; and she glides into his daker musings, and with a mild and healing sympathy..." instantly moves in to "when thoughts of the last bitter hour come like a blight..." Perhaps Bryant moved so quickly from life to death to signify how brief life is - we are dead much longer than we are alive, as Bryant says that there are more people dead than walking on the earth - or how inevitable death is. As he describes those who fall to the power of death, he juxtaposes the "speechless babe and the gray-headed man," once again asserting that death is certain, and in it we are equal. He also compares the earth to both a "mighty sepulchre" and one that "nourished thee."

I thought his view of the dead was interesting because it reminded me of the speech of Chief Seattle and what's-his-name (sorry!) who wrote the "Indian Burial Ground," both addressing the subject of death. Chief Seattle remarks on how his people, though dead, still enhabit the earth to some extent, that they never fully leave it but are always close by. His thoughts are also similar to Bryant's that there are more people dead in the earth than living, because he speaks of how many of his people there were, and how few there are now. The pre-romantic (oh! Freneau, right?) who wrote the "Burial Ground" adopted a much different view of death, one of activity rather than sleep.

4/24/08 Class Report. Cristy

So today we wrapped up discussion on Rip Van Winkle and then went a little into William Cullen Bryant. We began discussion with trying to resolve on an appropriate moral for Rip Van Winkle and came up with a few ideas. Allison seemed to hit the nail on the head when she stated that NOTHING had happened to Rip by the end of the story. He remained exactly the same. It seems that Irving is condemning Rip who sedately watches life pass him by. It seems to say that "likeability isn't everything". Although, no bad comes to Rip, no good comes to him either. He simply becomes a curious relic of the past. Mr. Lazarow connected him to Newton's laws of motion. 1. an object at rest stays at rest. 2. An object in motion stays in motion. It seems that Rip was an object completely at rest while the town was in motion rolling through a revolution into a new age.
The story ends "...it is a common wish of all hen-pecked husbands in the neighborhood, when life hangs heavy on their hands, that they might have a quieting draught out of Rip Van Winkle's flagon." the key word is "wish" . We all have responsibilities and problems and although we may wish to escape them in a thoughtless slumber but indespite of our "wish" we carry on with our lives. It is a wistful ending. We all wish we could bypass rough times but we know it is never that simple. Irving sought to create American heritage and American legends that would allow Americans to stand by themselves, apart from the europeans.

William Cullen Bryant
The tone of Bryant's poem was soothing and soft. It sought to make us welcome death as a return to a loving mother nature. It glorifies nature and is Romantic then in that sense that it encourages us to become "one" with nature. He makes the progression to death seem like the wanted destiny. Our discussion took a slightly creepy turn when we began to think about how there are more people dead in the Earth than alive on it. Death is the great equalizer no matter what your class rank or economic status no one escapes death in the end. Ian kindly contributed that "Thanatopsis" means meditation on death. More on Bryant to come tomorrow.

Class Update: 4/23/08

We discussed Irving's "Rip Van Winkle" in class, officially starting another journey through our BFFs, the PACKETS! Both Paige and Allison agreed that the tale showed a remarkable degree of irrationality and fantasy, and decided that it was a rejection of reason. From the first to the very last line of "RVW" there is an unending supply of imagery, one of the telltale markers of the Romantic period. Irving was an early Romantic, and like many other early Romantics, he sought to define the "American tradition" through writing. Ashley stated that Van Winkle was the "All-American man" for his unselfish ways and gregarious nature. Even so, Mr. Lazarow questioned this analysis, saying that Van Winkle would most likely have supported the Tories in his desire to maintain the status quo; he followed authority unfailingly and without question. Cristy added that Irving may have been trying to show that he had "no backbone" (for example, his interaction with his wife), but Ashley said that he was simply a product of his time period and could not be blamed for his ways. When he wakes up and returns to town, for example, he staunchly supports the King because he does not know what has happened. His ignorance is understandable.

Van Winkle was a person who allowed life to just pass him by, as is exaggerated by his "20-year nap." There was much discussion and philosophizing outside the inn, but little action (a very stationary lifestyle). Ben suggested that this section of the story was Irving's criticism of the Enlightenment, when there was supposedly "too much thinking" without anything actually being done. The Romantics, on the other hand, advocated instinct over reason; for example, Irving portrays Van Winkle at his best when he is in nature. Jasmine questioned whether Van Winkle's lifestyle was the result of many generations of such living- in other words, it was more hereditary than anything else. Mr. Lazarow included that this went back to the "nature vs. nurture" argument, and that some people were just not inclined towards work. However, readers of "RVW" are still inclined to like Van Winkle and to condemn his "matriarchal" wife because of the rhetorical mode of the short story.

Mr. Lazarow wrapped up class today by saying that the story remains its freshness because there are still people like Van Winkle today- especially in politics, which is another message Irving was trying to convey.

REMINDERS: Outlines are due NEXT Wednesday. Also, be prepared to discuss Bryant in class tomorrow.

The Pennsylvania Debate: American Flag Pins

Hey guys, it's Jasmine.

The other day, I heard that somebody had questioned Obama about his wearing of the American flag pin in the Pennsylvania debates. I thought this was pretty interesting, because we were talking about the American flag and patriotism a couple of weeks ago. I remember reading in Hayakawa (way back in the summer) that the first George Bush had visited a flag factory to show his patriotism. Here's part of the transcript of the debate:

NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the
flag. I want to know why you don't.
MR. GIBSON: Just to add to that, I noticed you put one on yesterday. But -- you've talked about this before, but it comes up again and again when we talk to voters. And as you may know, it is all over the Internet. And it's something of a theme that Senators Clinton and McCain's advisers agree could give you a major vulnerability if you're the candidate in November. How do you convince Democrats that this would not be a vulnerability?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, look, I revere the American flag, and I would not be running for president if I did not revere this country. This is -- I would not be standing here if it wasn't for this country. And I've said this -- again, there's no other country in which my story is even possible; somebody who was born to a teenage mom, raised by a single mother and grandparents from small towns in Kansas, you know, who was able to get an education and rise to the point where I can run for the highest office in the land. I could not help but love this country for all that it's given me....And let me just make one last point on this issue of the flag pin. As you noted, I wore one yesterday when a veteran handed it to me, who himself was disabled and works on behalf of disabled veterans. I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins.

Obviously, just because someone doesn't wear a flag pin does not mean that she/he is unpatriotic. The reverse is also true - wearing a flag pin or a flag T-shirt does not automatically make you patriotic. I just thought this little tidbit was interesting - it's funny that voters are getting hung up on little details instead of focusing on the real issues. Also, reading through this part of the debate, I noticed that Obama referenced the American Dream. He talked about how he was born to a teenage mom and raised in small towns, yet he is now running for the "highest office in the land." I think part of the reason he said this was to show that he is patriotic and grateful to live in America, and also to appeal to middle/lower-class Americans who want to believe in hope and change.

I don't know why some people are making such a big deal about wearing the American pin. Somehow I doubt that they wear flag pins themselves. Lastly, looking back to the first statement, the person who asked Obama the question said, "I want to know if you believe in the American flag." How can you "believe" in a material object like the flag? What do you guys think?

Easy Outlines- well not really...

Just to let everyone know, I found a Microsoft Word format for the outline that is actually correct (I think it is...). I have Microsoft Word 2003, so I don't know if it will work on older versions, but if you go to "Format" at the top and then click on the "Bullets and Numbering" button, a box pops up. From there, click on "Outline Numbered." The third from the left in the second row has the correct format, but I doesn't go past "(i)". Can someone else try this out to see if it works/to verify the format?

April 21st class: The OUTLINE

Hey guys, it's Jasmine.

Today, we got our notecards back, so we're on to the next step - the outline. The outline is used mostly for structure, while the rough draft adds style. Since our paper is going to be roughly 10 pages, our outlines should be 8-10 pages long (15 is too much).

Rules:
1) Unlike the final paper, the outline is single-spaced.

2) Here's the basic structure:
A. Topic Sentence
-->1.
----->a.
-------->(1)
----------->(a)
---------------->i.

3) The outline is in complete sentences. Use ONE sentence per index point - not 2 sentences semicoloned together, or ridiculously long sentences. The exception is quotes: we can use 1 quote per index point.

4) Where there is an A, there must be a B! Where there is a 1, there must be a 2! No point will exist in isolation.

5) I. is the introduction and X. (your last Roman numeral) is the conclusion.
II., III., IV., etc may be subject headings from notecards. They may represent paragraphs or groupings of paragraphs - bigger ideas.

6) How are paragraphs constructed?
1. Introduction - topic sentence
2. Development
3. Support - quote/paraphrase
4. Explanation of support - **Explain how the support backs your topic sentence and thesis.
5. Conclusion/transition
An intro paragraph goes from general to specific, culminating in your thesis sentence. The conclusion paragraph answers the question, "So what?" - why does your paper matter in a broader context?

7) Rules for quoting
If the quote is less than 4 lines, use in-text citation. If it is 4 lines or more, use a block quote.

No quotes may be used at the beginning of paragraphs (so they can't be used at Roman numerals) or at the ends of paragraphs. They MUST be anchored to the text. Ex. As the author says, "____" (Watson 93).
Every quote needs to reference the author's name/page. Since quotes must be surrounded by explanation, there should be no quote stacking.

Outlines are due in a week (4/28)! Good luck!

thursday blog

Hey, it's Amy! On Thursday we continued taking notes on Romanticism. Romanticism a movement that is born in urban society that opposes urbanization and comes from the development of neoclassicism and is against neoclassicism. Confusing, I know. Anyway, the core of the movement was in the original 13 colonies, despite expansion westward, as these are the most developed urban centers. However, especially with more transportation to other areas being more accessible and pushing the frontier further back (steamboat, railroad, Erie canal), writers of Romanticism were affected by westward expansion and wrote of adventure and pioneering tales.

The first time that "writer" was considered a profession, or a skill that someone could make a living off of was during the mid-1600's in England, but was still not accepted in North America. Writers were not guaranteed a living, most got into publishing and editing to earn money and publish their own work.

Transcendentalism was unpopular in the US, less practical but more influential. It's core belief was that one could best understand oneself when he renews his connection with nature. It was a response to urbanization and industrialization, where factories decreased the influence of the individual and everyone began moving to cities to mass produce goods, rather that hand make the goods. It focused on eliminating artificial want, the idea that things tell us that we want them and we have no real need for them. Religion also played a huge part in the development of transcendentalism. Transcendentalists saw organized religion as not true faith, rather the true experience is individual experience, and the idea of organized religion portrayed God as a bully (you weren't good unless you went to church with a certain group of people and said the right prayers at the right times. Rather than congregations of organized religion, small, intimate experiences and things were thought to really reveal the grandeur of the universe. This went along with the idea that if all things are from God, then all things have a part of God in them, and what we want to find is the God in all things. To the general public, these ideas were extremely unpopular and were thought to border on paganism.

But even with the idea of appreciating the individuals and all things possessing God, in the 1840's there was a huge anti-Catholic press movement, with immigration of Catholics seen to pose a threat to the Protestant church, especially in New England. Also, most writers ignored the treatment of Indians. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 went quietly, under the mindset that it was the will of God that the stronger take from the weaker. Slaver was seen as the big issue, and books like Uncle Tom's Cabin were extremely influential, while other issues were pushed aside.

We are starting Irving on Monday and will probably be getting our outline details.

First Day of Romanticism

Today we talked about the American Romantic movement in the 18th century. The notes we took were roughly as follows:

Romantics believed that logic is never the answer, but rather human emotion is. Thus, Romanticism was in many ways a response to Neoclassicism. People involved in the movement favored the common man, nature, the individual over the group, and content over form. The movement in general was characterized by dissatisfaction and upheaval. It is not a coincidence that many of these ideas were prominent in the French Revolution. That particular movement had great influence on Romantics in the following century.

The three main groups of Romantics were Early Romantics, who were concerned with American heritage and culture, Gothics, who wanted to understand human psychology, and Transcendentalists, who were extremely idealistic and really loved nature. We started to talk about the Early Romantics in a little more detail. Romanticism in the U.S. was heavily influenced by British literature, especially Sir Walter Scott, who invented the historical novel. After reading his works, American writers gave up epic poetry and took up novels. James Fenimore Cooper is the first of those early novelists. Although he plagiarized off Scott and was an average writer, he influenced American literature is greatly. A much better Early Romantic writer was Washington Irving, who subtly tried to define a rural American heritage and culture. He influenced Mark Twain later in the century. More notes to follow tomorrow.

April 14th

Hey, it's Erin.

We started out this morning with an in-class essay as the conclusion for our American dream unit. We also had a sub. In addition, we received four packets for our next unit - romanticism (which eventually need to be read). As a reminder, our annotated bibliography is due tomorrow. That was about all that happened in class today.

Anyway, I'll see everyone again bright and early tomorrow :)

In Response to Jasmine's Post: Can We Accept Reality?

I originally was going to write this as a comment to Jasmine’s post but, I got a little carried away and I thought a really long comment would be obnoxious.

I agree with your post 100%. People always want what they can’t have, even if it is a little cliché to say. Often times we have this romantic view of the ‘frontier’. People in my town in California saw New York City as a place that was buzzing with life and opportunity. They neglected to see the crime, the homeless, and the extremely expensive places to live. They always go to New York City and come back disappointed because they have been idealizing it for so long.

The same thing is true with the people who live here, that LOVE California. Many people go to California and they fall in love with it, but they only go on vacation, they don’t go to live there. Whenever people ask me about my experiences in California I always say that it’s a nice place to visit, but not a nice place to live. The schools in California that I attended were a joke, there is a serious water shortage in a lot of the places that I used to live, and there are just too many people. And sure, the sun and warmth might seem nice but trust me after a while, 60 degree weather gets old.

I feel that Fitzgerald and Miller’s works personify this. We become caught up in something that is not reality. We think of California as Laguna and we think of New York City as Sex in the City. It is no wonder that Willy became suicidal when he finally realized that in reality nothing ties up into a neat bow. Children will disappoint us, loves will leave us, and every city/state has its fair share of problems.

It may seem pessimistic, or I may come off as too much of a ‘realist’ but I don’t really feel as though I am. I’m not saying that we can’t hope and aspire to do great things, but I feel that there is a point in our lives where we must accept limitations. People like Arnold Schwarzenegger would argue that ‘we can do anything we put our minds to’ but I don’t believe in that either.

I row, and I really enjoy it. However, I’m in the back of the pack when it comes to erg scores. I am limited by my body type (I’m not 6 ft tall and I don’t have 600 pounds of muscle) which has made me accept that I will most likely never be in the Varsity four boat (the most competitive boat on the girls team). Most people would tell me that I’m giving up but I’m not. I improved a lot this season and I dropped many seconds off my time. I want to win and I try very hard, but I realize that I can only go so far.

Gatsby spends years pining over his love, when in reality she was not the person that he remembered (and he is not the person he claimed to be). In the end Gatsby was so disappointed when Daisy admitted that she had loved Tom. Willy was disappointed when he realized that his kids were not the perfect sons he had idealized them to be.

So, do we have an inability as society/individuals to separate what we think or hope to be true from reality?

April 11

Today was our last day of in-class discussion on "The Great Gatsby" and "Death of a Salesman." First, we discussed Willy's work ethic. Some people thought that Willy didn't have any desire to work and he was stuck in the past much like Gatsby was stuck in the past with his feelings for Daisy. Others thought that Willy was stuck in the past, but he was still successful because he was able to pay off his mortgage.

Then we discussed the topic of infidelity in both stories. Donna felt that Tom's affair was an example of the moral degredation of the '20s. Since he was rich and lived a fast life he thought it was normal to have a wife and a mistress. Willy, on the other hand, felt guilty because of what he had done. Perhaps because of the different decades they lived in and their different views of life makes the difference in their reactions.

We ended class on the topic of business ethics. We contemplated whether or not it was fair for Willy to be fired from his job since he had become less productive. It was decided that since a company's goal is to make money, it was fair to fire Willy. He didn't work hard anymore and he wasn't bringing in enough money. Then we discussed whether or not companies, such as Disney, should aim to please their consumers. As long as consumers buy the products, companies will not change their products for the better or to please the costumers. Yes, companies do lie to us, but unless we stop buying into their lies and consuming their products, they won't stop.

Our annotated bibliography is due on Tuesday, but you can always bring it in earlier for help!

Dissatisfaction: Uniquely American or Human Nature?

Hey guys, it's Jasmine.

Today we were talking about how Willy and Gatsby always wanted more. While Linda was excited that the mortgage was almost paid off, Willy saw it in a negative sense. He couldn't appreciate his achievements, because he never thought they were good enough. Gatsby's main motivation in amassing his fortune was to win Daisy back. He thought that if he got Daisy back, he would finally be happy; however, the Daisy that he truly loved only existed in his dreams, and he had idealized her in his mind for five years. Thus, he could never be satisfied, since Daisy could never meet his expectations. Also, his money meant nothing to him, since the main reason that he worked to become a millionaire was to impress Daisy.

Like Donna was saying in class the other day, people on the East Coast want to go to California, while people who live on the West Coast want to go to New York - they want the opposite of what they have. Also, people who have straight hair always complain about how their hair is limp and flat, and they envy people with curly hair. On the other hand, those with curly hair often desire straight hair. Also, when I went to visit Taiwan last summer, I was surprised to hear that Asians try to keep their skin as white as possible - they cover up with layers of clothing, and sometimes even resort to using whitening creams. I thought this was funny because in America, we have more of an obsession with tanning. Both groups of people are dissatisfied with their natural skin color. Also, a lot of Asians get double eyelid and nose surgeries to look more like Caucasians. I've even heard about people who get a surgery in which their legs are broken and then screwed together with a space in between - eventually new bone will grow, making them taller. It sounds extremely painful to me, but I guess some people are so discontent with being short.

So what do you guys think? Do you think that Fitzgerald and Miller were using the idea of dissatisfaction to say something about the 1920's and the 1950's? Do you think that they were trying to point out flaws in American values, or in humans in general? Lastly, do you think that dissatisfaction can lead to more positive than negative results? Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he succeeded because he was never too satisfied - he kept creating new goals and dreams.

The Stapler

A classic favorite for our class has been to look at the stapler on Mr.Lazarow's desk and say that its not a stapler. While this may be true in a Hayakawan universe, this is not truly possible. The problem of Hayakawa's theory is that it assumes a perfect objectivity and ability to separate oneself from perception that doesnt exist. Hayakawa's claim that the symbol is not the thing symbolized is flawed because he assumes that it is actually possible to separate these things in one's mind. No matter how much we say that the stapler is not a stapler, no one actually believes it. While it is an interesting mental excercise to assume the possibilty of separating symbol and symbolized, it is impossible. My theory on this is that our basic biology is based on the signal reaction. Even the most simple organisms (as we all learn in bio) have some form of response and this continues up through us. Our most basic responses to burns, pain, pressure, etc. are all signal reaction. Our more complex reactions such as language, etc. are simply multitudes of these simple reactions mashed together. Therefore, our very act of forming a language is to participate in a signal reaction. When we see the word "PIG'', our first action is not to say, "Its three discrete geometric figures composed of lines and arcs." We say its a pig and immediately recall the characteristics of a pig.
Furthermore, we all know that Hayakawa argues that no two words mean the same thing twice. However, these differences must be so small as to be negligible in most thought - otherwise any meaningful communication is impossible if we cannot even agree on some representation of a thing. It is important to stress that everything is at some level of abstraction.
Tying this to our current discussion, while we can say that notions such as the american dream or pride, etc. cannot be defined, in a sense this is to some extent all farce. We all carry some innate definition of what we feel these words mean, and despite our best efforts, we cannot separate our definition from the term. However, we assume to be able to operate at this level when in reality we cannot. The question that now arises is if we can pretend something false is true in order to come to some greater truth. Can we pretend that we all somehow have the ability to be true symbol reactors in order to learn some higher knowledge? In fact, can this be done in any discussion? Mathematicians invented the imaginary number i, the square root of -1, in order to solve higher equations. Similarly, can we invent truths to get true truths? And finally, if we can now invent truths to arrive at truth, what is truth?
The stapler, for being as ordinary, grey and red, and stapler-ish as it can be, has proven to be much more complicated than we first thought.

American dream for Americans or Immigrants?

Hey! It's Amy!

We were talking in class a couple days ago whether pride was inately American. I would have to say that pride is definitely a strong characteristic that we possess in different ways than in other countries. As I brought up in class, the first wave of Cuban immigrants that came to the US after Fidel Castro gained power in Cuba were the "cream of the crop," the lawyers, the doctors, the businessmen, the well educated. However, they were willing to leave all of their wealth behind in Cuba in the hopes of starting a new life in America. This partially contradicts the idea that immigrants are willing to take menial jobs because they are better than the jobs in their home country. The wealthy and upper-middle classes were washing dishes, collecting trash, cleaning the streets, etc for even less that a caucasion would get paid to do these jobs.

If an American were to go to another country, we would expect to take whatever we wanted with us and would expect our degrees, bank accounts, and licenses (professional) to carry over. From our attitude towards the rest of the world, we seem to have this pride that says that the world bows down to America and that various nations are expected to speak English. Many nations have pride for their country, but Americans seem to take it to the level where we see our nation as the global leader.

Cubans are one of the most successful immigrant groups in the United States, but why were they able to leave all wealth and possessions behing in Cuba when US citizens would expect everything to just work out and carry over to the next location?

Class Summary for April 9, 2008

Hey guys! Sorry for posting the summary of yesterday's class today, but I forgot my notes in my locker. Rather than try to remember what happened in class and potentially forget an important point someone brought up, I just waited until today to blog. Hope that doesn't inconvenience anyone!
So, on April 9 we continued our discussion of The Great Gatsby and Death of a Salesman. Ian began by noting that Fitzgerald was a member of the Lost Generation, an important distinction to make when analyzing Gatsby. (The Lost Generation refers to the time period between the end of WWI and the beginning of the Great Depression. This generation was largely disillusioned by the chaos of war and the extreme number of casualties. The generation that won the war turned away from conservatism toward money, opulence, and exuberance to compensate for the tragedy of war.) The cultural fascination with wealth of Fitzgerald's era is clearly reflected in Gatsby.
Ben observed that the deaths of the main characters in each of the novels were exaggerated endings, perhaps unnecessarily tragic ends to already miserable plot lines. Laz commented that while these endings were bleak, at least they were definite outcomes. Jasmine postulated that Willy's death was more tragic, but Grace disagreed because Gatsby's death was outside of his own control whereas Willy's death was of his own volition. Grace suggested that Gatsby's death paralleled the Americn fear of not being able to control one's own destiny.
Arka pointed out that Willy believes wholeheartedly in the American dream. He relentlessly pursued success and wealth but never achieved it, thus his life was a failure. Laz questioned whether Willy was truly a failure, or if he simply had a different perception of success. Allison stated that Willy was in fact a failure, because Charley offered him a job (a chance to make his American dream a reality), but he was insulted by the offer and considered it to be beneath him. A person who truly desires success would jump at the chance to rise through the ranks, even if it means started at the base position. Laz wondered if this was archetypally American - to be unwilling to work but to also crave success. Donna mentioned that even Willy's desire for Biff's success was a bit selfish, because Biff's success and wealth would allow Willy to boast that he had raised an accomplished son and would also allow him to finally experience success, though it would be felt only vicariously.
Laz brought up the significance of owning property and how owning a home fufilled part of the American Dream. Paige recalled Willy's lack of enthusiasm when his wife told him that they had finally made the last payment on the house. She questioned whether owning his own home was a component of Willy's American dream. But Cristy pointed out that Willy also tried to start a garden in the backyard, suggesting that he at least tried to make something out of his meager position.
Ben returned to the topic of pride vs. seizing the opportunity to earn money. He felt that one should cast pride aside and take opportunities as they come, and worry about the consequences later. This is the path that some of the richest men in American history have followed - Rockefeller and Carnegie practically had monopolies over their markets, (due to corrupt prcticies) but no one can argue that they were not both huge successes. Grace stated that it all really depends on how an "opportunity" is presented. Someone might be influenced to take a job depending on the context and manner of the offer. She brought up Hayakawa's story of A-Town and B-Ville and the 'welfare checks' as an example. Jasmine agreed and felt that this was even a contemporary issue. Many people won't take jobs at McDonald's or other fast-food chains because they think it is degrading and beneath them, but these same people are struggling to make home payments, insurance payments, and car payments and are falling into thousands of dollars of debt. Laz brought up the fact that the majority of these positions are filled by immigrants. Immigrants are willing to take jobs that seem "unglamorous" to most Americans. He asked who was more American in the pursuit of the American dream.
Erin suggested that Americans aren't willing to take these jobs because stigmas against them are taught to children at a very young age. Amy was able to draw connections to her own research paper, and explained that when Castro came to power, the wealthiest Cubans fled the country for America. They were used to comfortable lifestyles back home, but took very basic jobs in the US to support their families and set up simple establishments.
Arka introduced the topic of what the East and West represent, both in America today and in Gatsby. Gatsby wanted to go to the city to learn the bond trade, but eventually found out that the East was obsessed with all things material and their behavior was immoral. In early America, the frontier was the American dream. Having one's own plot of land to do whatever one pleased was ideal. Now that the frontier has disappeared, the "corrupt East" has spread its values across the country. Donna added that when she lived in California, her friends were obsessed with New York City luxury. But over here, many are awed by California's laid back sunshine stlye. The East wants to be like the West, and the West wants to be like the East. Not to sound cliche, but the grass does always seem greener on the other side.

This was about where we ended the discussion for the day. I believe Paige and Allison had a bit more commentary, but I can't seem to read my own handwriting and my notes trail off there. (I can only write for so long before my broken finger begins to throb - I have a legit excuse, people!) But yesterday's was an excellent discussion indeed!

-Ashley

It's Paige

I have been thinking a lot about Bif, and I know a lot of people have been mentioning how sucessful he was in comparison to his father. However I have to disagree, I think he knew how much potential he had lost by not passing math. During the book he tells Happy how he could make a "go of it" in the country if only he would go with him. He tells him how he feels like he isn't living a decent life which is what draws him back to the city, yet once he is there he isn't happy. He wasn't really sucessful either way. It seems to me that the American Dream is to be content, and the characters of "Death of a Salesman" prove this. Willy's wife was content despite all the hardships faced, and the faults of her husband. On the other hand Bif couldn't seem to control his own life which lead him to rebelious behavior such as stealing. "The Pursuit of Happiness" seems to drive people to the American dream. I think it's just better to live life and see where it takes you based on the choices you make. If you live in an abstract world of defining things than you are limiting yourself. Isn't that what Willy did? He had set definitions of sucess and lifestyle that he could not break away from which really lead to his demise.

On another note I found it very interesting how you can really feel the opinions of T.S Eliot about religion in his poem. Specifically in this stanza:
"Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men."

I interperet this as his critisism of people who he seems to think are blind to the fact that God has abandoned them. It seems so strange to me that he would become a devote Christian later in his life. I tried finding out what lead him to religion but I wasn't sucessful. Does anyone know why?

Biff versus Bernard

Hey guys,
I was going to bring this up in class today but we ran out of time. Allison was commenting on how Willie thought that because he was a good friend of his bosses' father that the son would respect him and lend him a helping hand. Willie's world crashes in on him as he realizes that business runs solely on the material objects, which he is lacking. This was a really important part in the story, that a lot of connections (willie's and biffs) all fell through. I thought this problem was developed not only by the son firing willie but also by Bernard's success in comparison to Biff (the bum) lol. Bernard is treated like a dog during the first part of the book. He is entirely taken for granted, put down, and ignored. Then he becomes a really successful lawyer (go bernard!) but what's more he is very modest, and doesn't brag to Willie about it all when you might think he should hold some kind of resentment towards a man who told him to his face, when he was young that he was nothing to Biff. I think this is just again to show that Will's pride is a fault. Bernard was the little guy tagging behind Biff in high school. But he might have symbolized the voice or reason, like when he tried to help Biff with math..etc.

The American Dream: Immigrants, Willy Loman, and a bit of Dumbledore

Hey guys, it's Jasmine.

Today we were talking about how immigrants are more willing to work menial jobs, while some natural-born Americans are too proud to work at McDonald's, even when they're living on the streets. I think that your definition of the American Dream has a lot to do with the environment where you grew up. I think that all of us believe that we're going at least to be in the same social class as our parents, if not in a better one. Often we go to school and college in pursuit of a job that pays more than our parents' jobs. In Careers class, we wrote about what we wanted our future to be like. A lot of ours were pretty luxurious lifestyles - I know I picked out a $700,000 house and someone else calculated their income out to be $500,000 a year. We never really expect to be worse off economically than our parents were. I think that a lot of immigrants are more willing to work minimum-wage jobs because they come from poorer countries, and even just being in America is part of the American Dream. I think it'd be really interesting to have the same discussion we had in class in a poorer American town. I wonder what high school students who live in really destitute areas would say about their expectations for the future. We can't really get into their heads, but do you guys think they have lower expectations than we do, since their parents are in a lower socioeconomic class?

I was really curious about the immigrant aspect of the American Dream. My parents came to America when they were in their twenties, so I just asked my mom about her notion of the American Dream. She said that my grandparents decided to come to America in pursuit of a better life (I know, it's cliched, but I guess it's true). They saw the American lifestyle as rich and luxurious - their perception of America was mostly based on TV shows and movies, like the TV show "Dallas." I have no idea what the show was about, but apparently it portrayed Americans as being extremely wealthy. So in a way, the American Dream's really materialistic - it's about chasing something that might not even exist. I think that you have to adjust your definition of the American Dream as you grow up. You can't go through your whole life thinking that you're going to become the multimillionaire CEO of a huge corporation without first appreciating smaller achievements. You have to realize that you have to work your way up - there's more to the American Dream than just being the CEO. I think there's also less of a stigma against immigrants when they work at McDonald's, or a lawn-mowing service, so they're not held back as much by their pride. If someone who had grown up in Moorestown decided to take on a full-time job at McDonald's, people would look at them more negatively than at a person who just immigrated from a foreign country.

I think the reason that Willy failed was that he couldn't appreciate what he had done, and couldn't get over his pride. He kept dwelling on what could have been (his hopes for the future): he could have gone to Alaska with his brother and gotten rich, Biff could have gone to college and become a football star, etc. He was stuck in the past - he kept telling his boss about how successful he had been in the past. There's a quote from Harry Potter (I know it's not the best book to be talking about in English class, but I like it). Dumbledore says, "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live." Willy stubbornly adhered to his dreams without considering the present. Sometimes people forget that they often have to work hard now to succeed later. You can't just wake up one day and achieve the American Dream.

Business Ethics in Fictional Novels?

Hey guys, it's Allison.

Today in class, we debated whether or not we considered Willy a failure. Though it is a somewhat unrelated thought, i began to wonder if both books subtly commented on the changing ways of the business world.

The late 1800's and early 1900's in America brought about rapid change in the traditional business politics of America. The so-called "Robber Barons" were taking away big business from "mom and pop" type establishments. These monopolists changed the face of business forever when they achieved success by stepping on all of the "little people". From the situations presented in Death of a Salesman and The Great Gatsby, I began to think that the authors of the two novels had commented on these changing business ethics.

In Death of a Salesman, Willy is dumbfounded when he addresses Howard about working closer to home, and he ends up getting fired from the company. Willy had been working for Howard's father since before Howard was even born and couldn't believe that he was being let go. Willy had been a close friend of Howard's father, who not only told Willy that he would always have a job for Willy, but he also asked Willy if he should name his son Howard. With such experiences with friendly business values, Willy couldn't believe that he was fired just because he wasn't making enough profit to be "pulling his weight" in the company. Willy thought that since he was almost family, he should have been able to keep his job, even if he wasn't making the company any money.

In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby made his fortune doing business, albeit illegal, which allowed him to maintain such an opulent lifestyle. Gatsby conducted his business in an impersonal manner and seemed to be more concerned with his own personal gain than with the well-being of his business partners. Towards the end of the novel, Tom Buchanan confronted Gatsby about his illegal business deals and how Gatsby had cheated one of his business partners (who happened to be friends with Tom). Another bit of evidence that shows that business was impersonal was that even Gatsby's number one business partner didn't attend his funeral because he "didn't want to get mixed up in it".

By depicting the business world in such an impersonal manner, I think the two authors were commenting on the way in which the old business values that held friendliness to a high standard were replaced by values brought about by the monopolists that said that personal gain and making profits were more important than looking out for the well-being of others. Business had become an impersonal atmosphere and I guess you could say that this was the beginning of the phrase "it's nothing personal, it's just business".

What do you guys think?

Innate Pride Cannot Exist

Hey this is Ben...
I agree with most of what Christy said at the end of the period today but I disagree with her claim that someone can just be innately proud. When people use the word proud in a sentence they ususally follow it with the word of and then an object...I am proud of my father, I am proud of my test score. I am proud of our lacrosse game. If the word proud is not followed by the word of it's followed by "to be", for example, I'm proud to be an American, I'm proud to be German, or I'm proud to be a Texan. It can be argued that this second type of proud (the "to be" type) is not equivalent of innate pride but this is not really the case. When someone says they're innately proud to be American, German, or Texan, they're not actually innately proud. Because simply being an American isn't exactly an accomplishment, they're proud to be an American for some reason or set of reasons, that, even if they only exist in the person's self concious, still exist all the same. It's more than just a "gut feeling." Maybe they're proud because they like America's welfare system, our constitutional values, or they like the fact that we have the world's strongest military. Basically, People might claim to have a "gut sense" or an "innate" pride to be an American, but this is nothing more than a subconsious affinity for abstract American values or concrete American successes. If a particular country had a rapacious dictator, failing economy, racist values, abundance of crime, and widespread genocide, I'd be willing to bet that nobody in that country would have a "gut sense of innate pride" to be a citizen. Lee Greenwood understands this idea perfectly in his song "Proud to be an American." In this song he sings: "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me." In those lyrics he expresses his pride, then uses examples of both abstract American values (freedom) and concrete American success (men who died valiently in battle). This whole argument, of course, is based off my own meanings of the words. Dictionary.com defines innate as "existing in one from birth" and proud as "feeling pleasure or satisfaction over something regarded as highly credible or honorable." Because of the meanings of these words, and the fact that nobody feels satisfaction over accomplishments the very second they are born, "innate pride" is an oxymoron.

Characters in Death of Salesman

Hey guys, this is Cristy.
So I was really interested in the Death of a Salesman characters. I also liked reading it as a play because (to me at least) it made the plot more exciting because there were curves so that you couldn't see what was coming. I like extracting the scene from a person's words. (Back to the characters) In class, we mentioned how Willy had such high expectations for his sons that they seemed doomed to failure. Perhaps he got his idealistic views from his brother Ben's success in the jungle..."I walked into the jungle...and I walked out rich" Ben here is like the Arnold Shwarzenegger of the story. I don't know about everybody else, but I disliked the character Ben during the book because he was absolutely no help to Willie or his family. Ben just ignored their problems and looked down his nose at them. I think sometimes we just expect people to succeed. Isn't there the view that we shouldn't give money to the homeless because they're poor and they must have done something to deserve to be where they are? We don't all just fit molds. Another point in the book I thought was interesting was the child-parent relationships. At the beginning, Biff and Happy's admiration for their father seemes overdone but by the end it has bounded to the opposite extreme to the point when I was disgusted with their behavior towards their father. (referring to the time when they leave him disoriented in the restaurant). Do we treat senior citizens as second class citizens? I know seniors used to be treated regally as the wise elders in a town, holding a lot of power and prestige but it seems like that has become reversed in this age. It's old fashioned now to say "respect your elders" but I don't thinks it should ever become obsolete. We talked about how the Great Gatsby might have been more about Nick than Gatsby but in Death of a Salesman I feel like each character was fundamentally important to the overall story. Even Linda was a very interesting character to analyze. She seems to be the mediator but then she takes a stand and defends her husband who she is so loyal to. Willie takes her entirely for granted most of the time, but you can tell there are times when he realizes that he is not treating her well. There is remorse but what is it worth if he can't transcend it into actions? Okay, these were just some things I was thinking about while I was reading the play and I hope we'll talk more about the individual characters tomorrow in class. See you then!

Imagery in "The Great Gatsby"

From the moment I received my worn copy of Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby," the two eyes that stared out immediately caught my attention. However, as I read through the novel I couldn't help but to realize that imagery was extremely important throughout. The most important, besides the cover, are the valley of ashes and the eyes (of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg).

In the publisher's afterword (starting on page 195), it states that

"Cugat's [the illustrator of the cover] rendition is not illustrative, but symbolic, even iconic; the sad, hypnotic, heavily outlines eyes of a woman beam like headlights through a cobalt night sky. Their irises are transfigured into reclining female nudes [which is very difficult to distinguish unless you take a good look at the painting]. From one of the eyes streams a green luminescent tear; brightly rouged lips complete the sensual triangle. Below, on earth, colored carnival lights blaze before a metropolitan skyline."

Perhaps the artist, Cugat, was trying to suggest that though the period known as the 'Roarin' 20s' was externally beautiful but lacked any real body (in this case, a face). I spent much time trying to figure out who it may be depicting- Daisy? Myrtle? Jordan? However, I came to the conclusion that maybe, as was suggested, that it was simply symbolic. The greenish tear reminded me of the green light that is mentioned throughout the book (at the end of the Buchanans' dock). Do you think this was intentional?

Similar to the cover, I found that the valley of dust and ashes to be symbolic the time period. Starting on page 27, Nick describes how one could make out entire farms, cars, and people from the ashes on the way to New York City. It seems that this image represents the costs of the decadent lifestyle of many in the 1920s. I also found it to be similar to Gatsby's life. Even though it was clear that there were 'dust people' and many other objects behind the ash, we cannot distinguish them. Gatsby's mysterious wealth and surprisingly humble upbringings seem to mirror the lack of clarity in this location.

The advertisement for Doctor T.J. Eckleburg (the large, faceless eyes) presents a different issue.

" 'I spoke to her [Myrtle],' he muttered, after a long silence. 'I told her she might fool me but she couldn't fool God. I took her to the window-' With an effort he got up and walked to the rear window and leaned with his face pressed against it, '-and I said 'God knows what you've been doing, everything you've been doing. You may fool me but you can't fool God!' '
"Standing behind him Michaelis saw with a shock that he was looking at the eyes...which had just emerged pale and enormous from the dissolving night.
" 'God sees everything,' repeated Wilson."

Fitzgerald wrote this book following World War I. This war is notoriously famous for being one of the first "modern" wars- many new weapons and tactics first used then are still being used today. Understandably, the writers of this age felt significantly disillusioned about America. By placing 'God's eyes' in the ash valley, perhaps he is trying to reawaken the notion that God did not care about people. What do you think?

Hi it's Paige

Today was a fun filled tuesday. We started out by turning in our notecards which were stained with the sweat,tears, and blood from the last two weeks. Then Mr. Laz proceeded to tell us about the annotated bibliography which is due in one week. Huzzah!
Next we got right down to business and began our discussion of Great Gatsby, Death of a Salesman, and the the american dream.
Ian talked about how Willy's dream was to be wealthy, and even though Gatsby is rich both characters die in their pursuits. Both characters seem to have only one personality trait.
Allison mentioned how Willy imposes meaning of popularity, yet Gatsby is more concerned with being with his dream girl.
I talked about how it was surprising that Great Gatsby wasn't narrated by Gatsby and Mr. Laz asked us about the effects this had on the book.
Donna was also surprised and she talked about how we develop an attachment to a character that we don't know the name of for most of the book. Also she mentioned that by the end Nick's perception of people becomes distorted.
Mr. Laz mentioned about tragedies being not about the characters who die, but about the people left in the end who have to pick up the pieces.
Steph discussed how it was Nick's story because he is the one who finds out that the american dream isn't all that it is cracked up to be. She also talked about how both main characters in the books set their dreams too high and so they became disillusioned.
Cristy then branched off into Death of a Salesman and how we were shown that each individual had his/her flaws.
Ian mentioned how both Willy and Gatsby had what the other one wanted.
Erin talked about how Willy wanted to control his family and force his sons to be a certain way.
Steph then talked about how the two sons are different. Happy goes with the flow, but Bif was intellectually deeper. Which one was more sucessful?

All in all it was an instense discussion! I can only hope that tomorrow will be as profound.

The Night Before Notecards are Due!!

Today we talked about MLK’s speech. Ben kicked off the conversation by noting that Dr. King’s speech moved from broad and general ideas to more concrete ones (such as investing in ‘black’ institutions). We pretty much all agreed that this was a very effective way to structure his speech. Ian noticed that even though there had been many atrocities against African Americans, Dr. King’s speech contains no snarl words. Mr. Laz confirmed that it is extremely impressive that he was able to stay so far to the ‘peaceful’ side of the spectrum.

We drew parallels between the situation that is currently going on with Tibet, China, and the Olympics. Amy said that violent protests take away from the injustices that were originally committed against those who are protesting (an idea that MLK tried to address in his speech).

Mr. Laz also let us know that the New York Comic Convention is going on soon, and that Douglas Ruschkoff will be ‘among the crazy’. (I don’t know about you guys but I already started my crazy costume held together by safety pins…just kidding.)

After that lovely digression we addressed last minute research related questions (which I don’t feel the need to address since it is 12:25 on the day that they are due) and then we briefly began to discuss Gatsby and Death of a Salesman.

We were instructed by our fearless leader NOT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO FICTIONAL THINGS ON THE AP TEST! We are allowed to talk about the authors etc. Allison started talking about Salesman, and she said that it was the American nightmare because Biff had all of these opportunities in front of him, but he wasted them. Paige thought that the American nightmare was more prevalent than the American dream (a sad thought) but Arka ended the period by citing that he thought that in reality most people fall somewhere in-between the American nightmare and the American dream. (Should ‘nightmare’ and ‘dream’ capitalized? Time to sleep…)

Have a great evening everyone!

"I've Been on the Mountaintop"

Hey, it's Amy again!

I thought it was interesting in Martin Luther King's speech "I've been to the Mountaintop," King emphasized the responsibilities of both individuals and communities.
King built up the sense of unity between the advocates throughout the speech, using the you and we devices to illustrate that each individual has a certain responsibility , but that they belong to a greater, universal cause. In the speech, King stated “I’m delighted to see each of you here tonight…you reveal that you are determined to go on anyhow,” using the “you device” to draw upon the dedication of each individual in the congregation, but then unifies all of the individuals present at the church as he stated, “…something is happening in our world.” The idea that the cause would not be unified and would not be effective with wide support is evident in King’s combination of you and we devices. As Ben said in class, his speech gives directions, a measure to take after listening to the speach. King provided courses of action on multiple scales, from fighting and supporting individually, to protesting in groups and communities.

In terms of unification, King's references to previous struggle, such as slavery in Egypt, unites all victims of injustice to a common battle, the battle for freedom and equality, and gives the sense that African-Americans are not alone in the battle for civil rights, that this is only one of the steps in a journey that has spanned throughout the course of history with numerous triumphs. These references connect the cause to other successful measures taken in the name of justice.

Hey, it's Amy!
Death of a Salesman sharply contrasts the ideas we have been discussing in class of how America has been seen as the land of opportunity for immigrants as well as the people already here. In Death of a Salesman, the ideas that life is not always fair and that even though you work to the best of your abilities, you can still end up jobless are portrayed through the narration of the life of a father who loses his job due to competition in his old age. The importance of school (which we were discussing a while ago) is also illustrated in the novel, as Biff cannot have a successful life all because he failed out of math class and did not attent summer school. Because he didn't go to a university to continue his education, he was only a farmer "reduced" to manual labor rather that a job that paid well. Due to this lack of education, and therefore lack of a "respectable job," he was also lacking a wife.

However, education isn't the only ingredient for success described by the book. You had to be liked by the right people. Willy could not hold onto his job because the people who used to give him special treatment were retired and out of the business, bringing in young people who prefered to trade with younger salesmen. The reason why Biff was held in such high regard was because he was well-liked, athletic, and had some street smarts, compared to Bernard who is always depicted as the annoying bookworm whom nobody is very fond of. Towards the end the bookworm ends up better-off than Biff, showing the triumph of education in the real world.

And then for the Great Gatsby, Gatsby was great because he could make his dreams realities, by whatever means, the symbol of the American dream. However, Nick begins to dislike the competition in New York because the American dream becomes more of an American scam as the desire for wealth and personal gain drives all other dreams to the sides. The American dream of New York is no longer freedom and the ability to succeed, but a competition of who can become the richest. All virtues and morals are pushed to the back as desire drives the actions of both the new rich and the established rich. The Great Gatsby also shows contrast from the American dream and is more the American nightmare, but in a different way than the contrast with Death of a Salesman, which lacked hope in success of a family. In The Great Gatsby the story follows the diminishing of American ideals and virtues in the hope of succeeding to a higher position of wealth and personal desire with the multiple affairs between members of the established upper class and the new upper class.

Both novels show the other side to the opportunities in America, the nightmare to the American dream, and show that hard work and motivation cannot always get you what you want in the end.

Belief Persistance, the Declaration of Sentiments, and Hilary Clinton

Hey, it's Erin.

When we were discussing in class on Thursday, I remembered something I had read in William Lutz's "Doublespeak," the idea of belief persistance, when a person refuses to change their views no matter how much evidence or how many counterexamples he or she is shown. In Lutz's words, the person "places a disproportionate amount of credibility on the evidence that supports the established theory and tends to discredit the opposing evidence." The person might even make an exception for another individual ("well, so-and-so is okay"), but that individual is the rare exception, and the rule still holds. In a sense they hold opposite opinions at the same time.

In Euro, we talked about a double standard for women. They were to guide the morality of the family, but they were dangerous and more likely to be tempted, but then again they were also dumb and thus unable to be educated. There's still a double standard today. When we discussed Hilary Clinton in class, many pointed out that if she showed emotion, she would be labelled as too weak to run the country, but if she wasn't, she was labelled as cold and uncaring. Essentially, she will be criticized either way she acts. The writers of the Declaration of the Sentiments had the same problem. Whichever way they chose, someone would point out a fault (and of course that was because they were women). At the same time that some people might not vote for Hilary because she is a woman, there are those who will vote for her just because she is. I think that everyone should be able to vote for whomever they choose for whatever reason they see fit, but personally, I think that doing that defeats the whole purpose of voting. They are exactly like the person who won't vote for a woman because they are a woman - they don't care what they say and just choose based on something that no one has any control over, their gender.

People have the right to do what they want (as long as it's legal) and you can't make someone change their mind unless their open to change but I think that there are two sides to sexism. There are some people who go around thinking that men are just idiots and women are the best. Isn't that the same thing, simply in reverse? Isn't that just as bad?

April 4th

Hey guys, it's Allison.
On Friday, we had a substitute teacher and were given the "I've Been to the Mountaintop" assignment. Since April 4th was the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's assasination, we read his "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech. This speech was the last speech he made, and incredibly, he made it without any notes to help him! Our assignment was to read the speech, make notes, and write a rhetorical analysis of the speech, which will be due on Monday.
Don't forget to read The Great Gatsby and Death of a Salesman and to finish up your 100 notecards due Tuesday!

APRIL 3rd POST

Hey everyone- Stephanie here.
"How long till my soul gets it right?
Has any human being ever reached that kind of light?
I call on the resting soul of Galileo-
king of night vision, king of insight."
- Indigo Girls

Basically today we talked about the Declaration of Sentiments again. The following are some of the main points and discussion threads we went over:

Why the Declaration of Sentiments was not as effective:
• According to men, women didn’t really know any other life than that of submission to men
• Slavery puts the rights of women on the backburner
• People could only take so much change at one time
• Compared to the straightforward rebellious points of the Declaration of Independence, this did not provoke war on men but was rather a plea for help from men
• There was no direct ‘cause-effect’ relationship
• Women were not really in power
• Most women were stuck in their own glass ceilings: tending to family matters, like children, etc…

Then, we addressed a few questions Mr. Laz hurled at us, mainly 'would Stanton approve of the situation women are in today?' and 'what about the woman running for president presently?'
We thought these over, and about Hilary, we concluded that she is automatically discounted because of her sex. If she acts too emotional, people will think her incapable and too weak for public encounters. If she acts too distant and, well, manly, then she will be viewed as too cold and machine-like to lead our country. We also found that you really can't be a divorced woman from a politician and still hope to make your own way in politics. So, if she had divorced Clinton, it would have damaged her political career, although being the morally correct thing to do in such a situation.
There is also no such thing as full equality. Only under the law can it be regulated, but still, racism, sexism etc can still exist in the minds and hearts of people.
Over and out.

(Sorry) The REAL April 2nd Blog

Hey this is Ben. Sorry I was unable to post about Wednesday's class last night so I will now...and yes, that post yesterday was someone from one of the other classes.
During Wednesday's class we talked about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions. Allison mentioned that this document (which was directly modelled after the Declaration of Independence) was "chock full of Englightenment values" such as man's "natural laws". A large part of the discussion centered around who we thought the intended audience was. Some argued that it was intended for a female (or the equivalent of "nationalistic") audience. They argued that the tone was too accusatory for it to be aimed towards a male audience and it was merely intended to spark action among the women (who presumably already agreed with Stanton's point of views). Others argued that it could only be intended for a male audience because if the women really wanted to get anything done after all, it would have to go through the goverment, which, at the time was all or almost all male.
Besides for the format in which it was written, it is also similar to the Declaration of Independence because both documents "simplify" the person they are accusing for propagandistic purposes. The D.O.I simplifies many people in Britian into simply "the king" so the colonists would have someone easy to point to as the cause of their troubles. In the D.O.S.R., the all inclusive "he" is used to make it seem like all males are guilty of the injustices Stanton mentioned although really it was obviosuly not 100% of them. The all inclusive "he" is a less accurate statement but a more effective propaganda tool.
It was also mentioned how Women's Rights movements always seem to get pushed out of the limelight any time a "bigger" issue like slavery or a World War comes up. After the D.O.S.R. was written in 1848, it was still over 70 years until women even got the basic right to vote!
Also, just a housekeeping note: All 100 notecards complete with subject headings and cross references are due next Tuesday.

I couldn't think of a clever title, and then my original post deleted itself, so...

Today we handed in (for initial approval) the term paper notecards that we have completed thus far. The number of cards completed ranged (to my knowledge) from 5 to 55, and I couldn't help but to overhear some of the suggestions that Mr. Lazarow made today:

• Pages numbers are listed in the top-right corner of the card
• Do NOT write too much if you are using a quote
  
• Remember to cite page numbers when you are using an online source such as a periodical or journal
• 'Link cards' may be useful, but they should not comprise more than fifteen cards or so
  
• If you have twenty or more cards from a single source, it is prudent to either determine which cards are the most useful (and discard some) or reevaluate your other sources

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

• If you've got "it" ("it" being more than 50 notecards), flaunt "it!"