[Daisy Anderson]

The racism that inhibits our ability to learn today goes far beyond the racism that exists in many individuals. In fact, an increasing number of individuals have recognized and grown out of personal prejudice, though not everybody. The racism that is most detrimental to our learning is more prevalent in the system itself. As Maya mentioned, there is more representation of minority authors coming about in the curriculum for older students, and yet at the same time, there was recently a huge debate about the changing of the AP US History curriculum to make it “more patriotic” (according to those trying to alter it). These “patriotic” changes would alter the accuracy of the history of the United States to make the country look more favorable, editing and eliminating the stories of what has been done to minority groups throughout its history, because apparently the current curriculum “emphasizes negative events like slavery and mistreatment of Native Americans” too much. That is racism, and that is denying all students access to the true history of their country. A systematic classism also can be seen in St. Louis where, for example, the poorest groups of people under the age of eighteen have the fewest libraries within a close distance, even though they are the ones who depend on libraries for learning resources the most.

[Daisy Anderson]

One change that Lincoln made which I believe had a major impact on the meaning of the text was the addition of the phrase “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here so nobly carried on.” in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, first appearing the Hay version. In the Nicolay version, instead of  “unfinished work,”  he had said, “the great task remaining before us.” I feel like this change really put the “work” into the context of the fallen soldiers, whereas before it didn’t sound more special than any other “great task.” Turning the work into a continuation of the fallen soldiers’ work made it sound much more as if he were carrying on their will, thus giving the statement more of an emotional impact.

In terms of rhythm, I think the changes Lincoln made in the Hay version in the second sentence of the second paragraph had a big impact. The sentence originally said, “…to dedicate a portion of it as the final resting-place of those who here gave…” which sounds somewhat jumbled, particularly I think because of the double use of the word “of”. Lincoln changed it to, “to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting-place for those who here gave…”, which flows much better. I think a big part was substituting “for” in place of the second “of”, and also by changing “the final” to “a final”, which flows better with “those who here…”.

[Daisy Anderson]

I think that human “war” and the “war” we see in nature are two totally different phenomenon. I would go so far as to say that what we think of as “war” is totally human, and the other “war” is more akin to just “fighting.” The scale contrast between human war and fighting nature is so vast that I find it hard to say that the two are the same. The fighting that occurs between non-human groups lasts for such a short time (within minutes), happens on such a small scale, and is fought over much more tangible prizes–space, food, and other necessities of physical survival. Also, the effects of a fight between animals tend to stay within the groups that are fighting. A battle between two lion prides doesn’t impact the hyenas that share their territory. On the human side, wars lasts for much longer (years), can move across national boundaries, and can be fought over ideals, political preferences, and pride. The impact of a human war goes far beyond the human species, too. Human wars completely destroy the environment that they pass through, and sometimes bring harm to places far away. With the use of nuclear weapons, the effects of a battle in Japan can cause harm to the people living across the Pacific Ocean. I guess in the end I would say that war is a human phenomenon, completely different from the battles that occur between non-human groups in nature.

[Daisy Anderson]

I think Thoreau’s prejudice against the Irish played a major role in his reading of the Field family, and I think this was combined with  another preconceived notion of his that what works for him will work for anybody else. I agree with Dillon in part that his frustration with the family also comes from the Fields’ rejection of his lifestyle advice. However, I think this advice was given based off of his own assumption that his advice was at all valuable to the family. Thoreau may not have forgotten that the Field family was different from him in that they were Irish, but he doesn’t take anything from the fact that they differ from him by being a family. He tells them that they could live better without tea, coffee, fresh meat, butter, and milk, because that’s what made his life easier. However, Thoreau is just one man living for himself and taking care of himself by choice. Living as simply as he does is much easier to do when you don’t have several children, as the Field family does. Somehow Thoreau decided that milk was a sort of luxury for a family with a malnourished baby. I think this is because he did not think about the Field family at all, and instead focused on his preconceived notion that a lifestyle that worked for him would work for anybody else who tried.

[Daisy Anderson]

I think that learning from nature and learning from reading should go hand-in-hand, as both mediums can teach things that the other cannot. Going out into nature and experiencing something that you’ve read about, or reading about something that you’ve experienced in nature, enhances the experience of learning in either form. For example, a student who has seen and memorized the constellations from textbook images will benefit immensely and learn even more if she goes out and sees those constellations in the sky, and will probably feel empowered because she knows the things she has read about the stars and can see those things in action. At the same time, a student who has only admired the stars in nature and then goes to the classroom and learns about them from a book will likely feel more devoted to the reading and classwork, as his learning has been put into context and given a sort of purpose beyond the classroom. I think that students should always be given a chance to experience the things they read about first hand, as nature can teach them things that books cannot, but I also think it is just as important for students to read about the things they see in nature so they can expand their knowledge. Especially in the modern day, there are things students need to know that cannot be taught by nature in order to succeed in today’s American society, and so I don’t think it’s right to say that nature is necessarily a better teacher, but it is certainly an important one.

[Daisy Anderson]

I want to add on to Melissa’s point that the debate has begun between two points of view which compare traditional reading to digital reading. I agree that this is the main debate, but I feel like this should not be the case. Winding all digital reading into one category does not represent the many ways that reading can be done digitally, most of which vary drastically from each other. Reading on a Nook or Kindle, for example, is a digital experience that is designed specifically to enhance the reading experience. These technologies help the reader get the same content as they would from a print book, but make it more accessible (it’s lighter, the reader can bring all of her books with her at once, save her page without damaging the book, etc.). These technologies clearly enhance the reader’s ability to read. At the same time, reading on a phone or laptop are more likely to hinder the process with distractions. Beyond books, however, technology gives the reader more opportunities to expand her knowledge through reading. Readers can access journal articles to do research quickly and efficiently, they can read short articles that otherwise would have been only available in a physical magazine, and can do research online through services exclusive to the web. Personally, I think that digital reading is a great advantage to the reader, even if it does not always help the reader commit to a text.

[Daisy Anderson]

I think that an author should be held responsible for the way he or she <i>intends</i> for the work to be interpreted, and for anyways that he or she should have seen coming. What I mean is that an author needs to be aware of the most obvious ways her work can be interpreted based on current events and possible controversies relevant to her text, and if her work is interpreted in a way that could have been predicted based on the intended audience, current events, or the basic attitudes of society during the time that the work is published, then she should be held responsible.  At the same time, no author is all-knowing, and there are so many ways that a work can be interpreted that an author shouldn’t be held responsible for the kind of interpretations that come from the reader’s specific or rare personal experiences.

In terms of Wake Up Now, they should definitely be held responsible for the interpretation of their program because it was intentionally misleading. The participants’ lack of close reading gives them some responsibility as well, but the Wake Up Now leaders are still just as guilty. The participants’ interpretation was guided by the Wake Up Now program to an inaccurate understanding of the program, which was exactly what was intended by the creators. Their blame in the misunderstanding is shared with the participants, but in no way lessened by the participants’ involvement.

[Daisy Anderson]

While the program is not “dishonest” in the sense that it is full of direct lies, it is dishonest in the way that it purposefully withholds information from its participants. In the podcast, the Wake Up Now representative jumped around the question of why they don’t tell their participants that they won’t necessarily make much income, if any at all, at their conferences, and basically settled for saying that it would somehow ruin the mood to bring that important fact up. To me, that was him clearly avoiding saying something like, “we don’t want them to know.” At the same time, the program can only be blamed to certain extent, because it’s true that the participants don’t look close enough into the fine print before joining. Once they join, they become part of the program and spread it to other people who are just as disadvantaged as they are. In a way, they new members of the program become just as guilty as the people who ran the program as they spread the false ideals to other disadvantaged people.

[Author]

Posts