[Allison Fox]

I decided to revisit this question to point out something my first response overlooked. I still maintain that any quest for knowledge despite a disregard for the Classics can earn one the title of an “adventurous learner”. I wanted to propose that there are other subjects and fields that scholars can study that do not enter the realm of history, antiquity or Classicism at all. For example, English 340. Sure we discussed a variety of Thoreau’s endless mythological and ancient monarchial allusions e.g. pygmies and Croesus/ Achilles in the context of the ant battle, but a large portion of the course was strictly technologically based. Work with WordPress and R studio definitely doesn’t fall under Thoreau’s umbrella of Classicism. Nevertheless, students proved to be ardent learners.

[Allison Fox]

Within the last year, a social/political fire has been burning, fueled by racial profiling and police brutality. Becca’s thoughtful response brought to mind the pressing issues materializing in our country’s major cities. As of this moment I’m sure we’re all aware of the events taking place in Baltimore. For all of the protesting and rioting, social media has played an integral role in spreading information and awareness and it has served as a platform for individuals to voice their concerns. As I scroll through Facebook and Twitter, the usual pictures and mindless content have been replaced with passionate posts pertaining to the user’s opinion on topics like the deaths of Mike Brown or Eric Garner. Users have clearly devoted a large portion of their time to prepare their arguments, whether by providing statistics on black vs. white death rate by law enforcement or by building their own defense case for Darren Wilson.

Last night on Twitter I followed a pretty nasty back-and-forth between two people from my hometown. The debate was over whether or not the protesting/rioting is justified, and they each took opposing sides. I wanted to highlight one line that I strongly agreed with, and struck me as relevant to this forum post: “we should stop arguing with these privileged whites, who only understand oppression and racism from a privileged/dominant view. As long as they don’t admit their privilege, they’re perpetuating covert and aversive racism.”

Although criminal acts are being committed in Baltimore, it does not take away from the “legitimacy” behind the protests. When people are angry, frustrated and oppressed, they can lash out in violent ways. The white community tends to respond to this outcry by criminalizing and belittling it. For example, the fact that #BlackLivesMatter is refuted with #AllLivesMatter undermines the desire for the Black community to gain equality by replacing it with a larger commitment to egalitarianism. By denying the protesters credibility and by writing them off as criminals, we appear insensitive and unsympathetic to their struggle. Above all, we present our deep-rooted prejudices on full display by silencing those who express their dissent.

Racism undoubtedly hinders our ability to learn in how it renders us unreceptive to the feelings of other groups. To overcome racism in my own reading of the news and social media I think that it is imperative to acknowledge my own white privilege and keep in mind that any initial reaction I may have to discredit someone else’s beliefs/struggles may stem from my unfamiliarity with subjection.

[Allison Fox]

I agree with Melanie in that the vast majority of readings for students are authored by dead white men. I’m taking Hum I this summer and I can attest that out of 8+ authors we’re looking into, 8+ of them are dead white men. This unfortunate circumstance is linked to our culture’s white supremacy and the perpetuated sexism and racism. Our myopic view of the world and our distorted belief that the only lives/stories worth learning about are those linked to Caucasians completely limits any opportunity to combat our ingrained prejudices. Earlier today I was reading a post made by author John Green. In reference to his upcoming movie Papertowns, an anonymous user asked the author why he only wrote about white people. John Green responded with the fact that at no point in the novel did he specify the characters’ race. But of course when I read the novel, I perceived both main character as white-skinned teenagers. And which two actors will be portraying the character in the Hollywood film? Two pretty white-skinned teenagers.

I’ve never granted John Green books any merit, but I think this is a prime example of how readers believe that they approach texts with open-minds, but in actuality we’re all pretty discriminatory. The only way to overcome these prejudices is to become aware of them. Then, when we control the education system we may increase the emphasis on diversified works starting at younger ages and hopefully, the generations to come won’t read in color like we do.

[Allison Fox]

For one of my classes last semester we had to read the brief work, Get to Work and Get a Life Before it’s Too Late. The book called itself a “call to arms for women of the world” and urged women to shed the responsibility of child-rearing completely, and commit their life purpose towards work. Hirshman’s manifesto circulated tremendous debate and criticism. In my reading, I received Hirshman as a hard-hitting activist, unafraid to share her personal expectations for women. In our class discussion of Hirshman everyone collectively hated the woman, and I stood alone when I supported some of her arguments. Specifically, I found it strange that Hirshman’s desire for women to use their skills beyond changing diapers was so adamantly criticized. I defended Hirshman as an individual who wanted more for her fellow woman, what’s so wrong with that? A classmate explained, “Hirshman shouldn’t be defining a purposeful life, if I want to be a stay at home mom, then that’s what I’ll do”.

I think this received command is how writers like Hirshman and Thoreau are misunderstood. A majority of readers are offended by Hirshman and Thoreau denouncing a certain lifestyle. People too often forget that reading isn’t about obedience– it’s about interpretation and choice. It’s imperative not to read works as instructions, but rather suggestions. You can be a soccer-mom, or you could marry the job, or you can build a secluded cabin in the woods. But before you commit to anything, authors merely want readers to become educated on the possibilities. In response to this question, anyone and everyone can write, read and speak, but it is always up to the individual to decide.

[Allison Fox]

While Nicolay’s version uses the line , “This we may, in all propriety do,” Bliss’ version concludes the second paragraph with “It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this”. Nicolay is believed to be the original draft of the speech, and I believe that Lincoln made a good choice to reword it. Nicolay’s ending line is both brief and loaded with admiration for the fallen, and this succinctness packed with potency embodies the speech as a whole. However, Lincoln’s expansion of the sentence and inclusion of the deontic modality in “should”, as well as adjectives “altogether” “fitting” and “proper” truly convey his grief for the dead, but also his yearning for peace. Although brevity can be powerful, it is necessary, even comforting, to expound when speaking of the bloodiest battle in the continent’s history.

In Bliss’ version, the second line of the second paragraph reads “We have come to dedicate a portion of that field..” Hay’s version contemplated using “We are met” as opposed to “we have come”. Although Hay speaks in the present tense, he employs the passive voice rather than Bliss’s active voice. I feel that this disrupts the rhythm, because the passive voice emphasizes the action rather than the subject, thereby Hay takes away from the uniting “we” that Lincoln repeats throughout the speech with the intent to preserve the Union after such a domestic tragedy.

[Allison Fox]

I agree with Grace, and this question of defining technology has been the impetus of our discussion topics all along. While Thoreau may advertise his “simple” lifestyle with his cabin, his beans and his fishing pole, he often overlooks the technology that he himself utilizes. One could argue that his campfire or his axe are in fact technology, since they are inventions to ease the work of humans. These tools appear to pass Thoreau’s qualifications, yet the post office and the railroad are abominations? Furthermore, he attacks human superficiality within our quest for innovation, thereby discrediting a natural human condition of curiosity. How could a man so invested in self-awareness and soul-searching adamantly deny the dreams of others? This is just another example of Thoreau’s egocentricity and hypocritical standards.

[Allison Fox]

I have to disagree with Dillon. Of course interpretation of a text should always be subject to opinion and perspective, but in the face of blatant racism, I do not think this same indulgence applies. If you were to read To Kill a Mockingbird and try to argue that Bob Ewell targets Tom Robinson due to Robinson’s low social standing as opposed to his race, your case would collapse once Ewell referred to Robinson as a “black n*gger”– which he does an awful lot.  As for Walden, Thoreau’s derogatory, racist comments towards the Irish are just as evident. In a single chapter, Thoreau is quoted as saying that Field’s destitution is “inherited Irish poverty”. He includes the anecdote of the pair fishing and “modestly” admits that when Field insists on switching seats, “luck must have switched seats too,” in an effort to highlight Field’s lack of wit and skill. He pities “poor John Field” and says “yet he a poor man, born to be poor”. Thoreau’s omission of  the linking verb is a remark towards Field’s imperfect speech and grammar. One could opt to believe that Thoreau is only chastising the Fields’ conformity  and complacency, but I believe that that would be ignoring Thoreau’s racist undertones and direct insults.

[Allison Fox]

In class on Wednesday I made a comment in response to this discussion topic, and after mulling over it for a day, I realize that I would like to revoke what I said. My original reaction to the question was to discount it, because I felt that you could not compare the two works. I argued that Thoreau created Walden in order to persuade readers and rally a crowd to follow in his footsteps. Anne Frank on the other hand wrote for herself, without censor or the intention to reach an audience. I realize now that it is impossible to write without being conscious of public perception. If you had nothing to prove or justify, why write it down in the first place? Walden is a work of rhetoric, and the Diary can be read as one too. After all, Anne writes to Kitty, and offers reasons and rationalizations for her thoughts/behaviors. For example, Anne feels the need to provide evidence of her roommate, Albert Dussel’s, annoying tendencies in order to earn the agreement of Kitty. Like all writers, Thoreau and Anne Frank want to be heard and understood. Although audience reception is crucial to the comprehension of a work, authorial intention determines the actual implications behind someone’s words. Therefore, I would give authorial intention more literary merit.

[Allison Fox]

As a “Young American” I experience and partake in the evolving technological world more so than my grandparents, or anyone older than me. Due to the presence of technology in our upbringing, our generation is more accepting and savvier when dealing with technological advancements or updates, e.g. people’s eagerness to try Google Glass. When I criticize my grandmother’s refusal to use the Internet or own a cellphone, I fault her old-fashioned ways and stubbornness. Why would you ignore all of the world’s knowledge when it’s a simple click away, or refrain from easily accessing people via calls and messages? I assume such a superior role, yet I am no different from her, because I refuse to read off of a screen. Since I learned to read from a paper book and have been reading from paper books for most of my life, I cannot imagine reading any other way. The thought of buying a textbook as an eBook is terrifying. In response to the question, I am obviously not as in touch with the digital age as I thought I was–yet I do not see a downfall to digital reading. I do believe that online texts make information more reachable. My most frequented news source is BBC World News and without technology, it would be inaccessible. Even as someone who has not yet accepted online-reading I acknowledge that the digital age can only improve one’s reading ability. The digital age has offered more content, increased communication, and shared information more widely than bound pages ever will.

[Allison Fox]

Not only does Thoreau expect people to read the classics, he expects everyone to read the classics in their original language. Reading the Iliad or Odyssey in any language other than ancient Greek, would deserve the title of  “feeble intellect” in Thoreau’s eyes. I have not yet been able to understand exactly how Thoreau wants humanity to live and learn, but I see that his beliefs are far-fetched, and a little ridiculous. Our Harvard-educated author fails to see that not everyone has the ability, the time, the money or the means to learn ancient Greek. Yes, studying world history, religion and literature will heighten your intelligence. But, not everyone is destined for academia, and that does not deem them weak-minded. For those students destined for the scholarly world, classics are not a “required reading”. Adventurous can have countless definitions, and one’s intellectual status does not have to be determined by Thoreau’s standard. The quest for knowledge with any degree of effort is respectable. In this day and age, technology only enhances the opportunity for acquiring knowledge, since information is so easily attainable.

[Author]

Posts