"Nigger" Questions 2

Andy Rooney of “60 Minutes” said “the best way to get rid of a problem is to hold it up to the bright light and look at all sides, and that’s what Kennedy does in this book”. After reading the book, do you agree or disagree with him? Use specific information from the book, the Boston Public episode and the web site “abolishthenword.com. in defending your answer. Consider the following questions: Is there a benefit to examining how the word is used and if it should be used? Can you change the intent of the word? Do words have power?

I agree with Randall Kennedy that the word can never be completely abolished, but it needs to be addressed. It’s a part of our language now and I don’t think there’s anyone powerful enough to simply make it go away. At the end of the Boston Public episode the principal may still not like the N-word but now he was talking about it. I think he realized that it isn’t going to go away and there will be no easy answers, but being informed shouldn’t be labeled as negative. On the “abolishthenword.com”, they want to completely eradicate the word. But even they admit that there have been different meanings of the word throughout history. It started out as a French or Latin word that meant “black” but it gained the negative connotation with slavery. Words evolve and their meanings do to and, as the website showed, so does the N-word. I think there is great benefit in examining how the word is used because it allows examination of one’s feelings after they’ve heard every side. I don’t think there is a “right” side, but I do think there are the “informed” and the “uninformed”. Some people choose to stay uninformed and decide their position without even looking at opposing arguments. I think that’s selling oneself short.

Words do have power, but only because people give them it. Maybe I can’t change the intent of the word, but if everyone worked forward together then we might someday. I don’t think African Americans can change it alone. I don’t think whites can change it alone. There needs to be cooperation. We abolished slavery together so we can destroy the power of the N-word together.

Big Three Bailout

I know it sounds horrible, but maybe it’s best to let the “tsunami of job losses” happen if it comes to that. I agree with Mark J. Perry and say that Congress shouldn’t bail out the Big Three. It seems like the companies are functioning under an old policy that just doesn’t work in today’s economy. Maybe it’s best to scrap the old ones for the new. It might sound wrong in the short-term to let the companies take a fall (and hopefully learn from it) then to let them be carried out of danger. The “overly generous benefits for workers that GM management accepted have mounted to unsustainable levels” and I don’t think it is right to fund a system like that.

"Nigger" Questions

1) How should nigger be defined? Is there only one meaning of the word? How has the semantics of the word evolved over time? What does this term mean to you personally? What do you think it means to your parents' generation? What does it mean to those in other racial communities? Does its meaning vary depending upon age, race, community, class, and setting?

I don’t think any one person can define nigger because it means so many different things to many different people. It’s beyond the power of any group or person I think. Obviously there more than one meaning, otherwise there wouldn’t be controversy. The context or situation the word is used can alter the meaning of the word significantly to some people. The word has gone from a completely negative term to a term of endearment for some African Americans, but it remains off-limits for whites. To me the term is negative and I don’t think I could ever call someone a nigger even if they asked me to or said it was okay. For my parent’s generation, I think “nigger” was seen as entirely negative. “Nigger” has apparently moved beyond just reference to African Americans; it can now refer to other ethnicities, groups etc.

2) In the episode of "Boston Public" we watched, Marla Hendricks, a black teacher, wants Danny Hanson, who is white, to be fired for discussing the word nigger in his classroom. She says, "That word has always stood for hatred coming out of a white mouth. No teacher in any school is good enough to erase that in a sensitivity class." Do you agree with her? Would it have made a difference if Danny Hanson was black? Is a commercial television show an appropriate forum in which to explore this type of issue? What do you think the program hoped to achieve? Has it succeeded?

I don’t think it can “erase” the hatred in the word, but I think that an understanding of the word could be reached. It would have, for better or for worse, made a difference if Danny was black. If their intent was to have discussion stemming from the show then it’s better than if they just wanted to be controversial for ratings or such. I’m not really sure if it’s the “right” thing but I think that topics, like this one, need to be discussed. It’s not really to a conclusion but more to open minds to the idea. The show might have led to discussion and, in that way, it could have succeeded.

Republic: Plato

1) Plato is interested in the education of the guardians of his ideal republic (or his beautiful city, the kallipolis) and he recognizes that they must be both gentle and high-spirited. How does Plato propose to educate them in such a way that they embody both characteristics? What does he propose as his curriculum? Is such a blending of antithetical traits possible in the self-same person through an educational program?

He wants a balance in his education. Similar to what we do with education today, there are core subjects that are both right and left brained and also physical exercise. He wants that blend of those “arts” and “gymnastics” to make a more complete education. While some students might not like the combination, it’s important to have the diversity at the entry level at least so that they have a chance to try it.

2) Specifically, why did Socrates not want the major stories of Homer and Hesiod about the gods to be told? Is education primarily the process of looking for role models to imitate?

Role models are always important because it’s what drives students to become better themselves. I don’t think it’s exactly a process of looking for role models, but rather a time to look at role models and choose to develop oneself. Socrates never wanted the stories about the gods to be in the lessons because the gods didn’t learn how to deal with problems the “moral” way. They could just buy a way out of punishment and he was worried that if the students saw that influence they too would think themselves above the laws.

3) What is the sign of a bad and shameful education in a city? 405a-d Hint: it has to do with doctors and lawyers. What are the basic principles here? What kinds of people make the best doctors and the best lawyers or judges?

If there aren’t enough honest lawyers or good doctors in a city then it is a sign of a bad and shameful education in a city. If they can’t train their own doctors and lawyers well enough to service the city and the people have to leave to find that service, then the education is failing. They respect honest lawyers who will help the people without payment being the main focus and doctors should be able to treat patients with the best medicine available to them.

4) Out of these who have been so educated, who is to rule and who is to be ruled? What is the basis for the selection of rulers? How does the “myth of the metals” reinforce this? What is to be the lifestyle of these rulers? Is this a reasonable proposal?

It’s basically like ACT for the rulers. Anyone who passes a lovely test of intelligence then they have the aptitude to rule over people. Those who don’t should be in power. However, the people in power should, according to Socrates, live a simple life that focuses completely on their duty to serve the people. It doesn’t matter where they came from or what station they are, if they pass the test then they can. I like the idea that the rulers would obviously be tested but I’m not sure if it would truly prove their efficiency to rule. I’m not sure why they couldn’t live normal lives if they held positions of power; I don’t think it should be a mark of punishment. It’s an interesting idea that almost never happens though; having those in power with less than those who are not.

Pakistan

I’m torn because I wish it was just as easy as being allies with every country. But if I had to choose, I would say that Mr. Freedberg had the stronger argument. It’s not that we shouldn’t work with them, but it seems almost impossible and pointless to do that right now with Mr. Freedberg’s view. The country is so foreign to us and we couldn’t possibly chase out every single terrorist and “it would take limitless manpower to comb Pakistan’s mountainous badlands and sprawling cities”. We are so unfamiliar with their culture and terrain that it would be near impossible.

Also, maybe we need to take into account that most locals don’t want to be our allies. Like Mr. Freedberg said, “the locals developed a deep resentment of the United States”. Maybe it would be better to work through the United Nations than working country to country because we have to take into account that they might not want to work with us. It might be better to let it come with time, if it ever does, than forcing the issue now when it can lead to resentment.

Crito: Dialogues of Plato

Crito questions

1. Compare the setting of Plato's Apology to the setting of the Crito. Where does each dialogue take place, how many people are present, and what is the significance of these dramatic details?
The Apology takes place mostly in a courtroom where Socrates is defending himself from Meletus. Crito’s setting is in a jail cell where Socrates waits for his execution after the verdict and Crito is there trying to persuade him from accepting his fate. These details set the entire section’s mood and show more meaning to the words that Socrates speaks in each passage.

2. Some readers think Socrates went along with his execution because he was already old. Would things have been different if he were younger?
No one could ever know for sure, but I don’t think it would have had a huge impact on his decision. Then again, I’m still young and maybe outlooks on life change with age. Socrates stands by his opinion that age has no bearing on his decision.

3. What made Socrates so attached to Athens, but even more devoted to his way of life that he was willing to die rather than give it up? Is Socrates a martyr either for the Laws of Athens or the cause of philosophy?
Socrates believes that one enters a contract with the city. He believes there are three wrongs in “betraying” that city: the disobedience of parents, the authors of one’s education and that personal contract to obey the laws. He is both a martyr for the Laws of Athens and his philosophy because his philosophy blends to include the Laws of Athens. They are intertwined so he technically followed both.

4. Crito claims that by suffering an unjust punishment Socrates will play into the hands of his accusers. Why does Socrates counter that his escape would corroborate the jury’s verdict to convict him?
If Socrates gives up his beliefs then he feels it would be proving the council right. He feels it would only confirm what they are claiming about him.

5. Why does Socrates tell Crito that "whatever he suffers from others", one would still not be justified to escape the punishment of the laws and the community of the city Does Socrates' argument that it is wrong to harm even those who do one harm make sense?
It’s the same old “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” philosophy. I personally agree with it because the circle of violence has to end somewhere. As for not being justified to escape punishment, I think that really depends on the individual’s philosophy. They shouldn’t use violence to do so, but if they run or stay that is a choice one needs to make on their own.

Dialogues of Plato Apology

What are the charges against Socrates?
They charged Socrates with corrupting their youth and giving them dangerous ideas. They also said that he was denying that there was a god by teaching his philosophy.

What are Socrates' main arguments of defense in regard to each charge?
He said he was trying to enlighten the youth and help them see the truth. As for denying there was a god, he claimed that it was the opposite but they just saw it not believing in a god.

Why does he take such care to avoid securing his own acquittal?

He could have begged for clemency, used his wife and children to get a pity vote, offered a reasonable alternative sentencing, promised to behave differently. It would have gone against everything he stood for and he wasn’t going to give-up what he believed so quickly; he wouldn’t prove them right. Socrates thought it was important to stand firm by his beliefs so that they wouldn’t be seen as hypocritical.

Is he really an example of a man who lived and died by his own philosophy? Or is he a self-appointed martyr? Are they mutually exclusive?
He’s a bit of both. He did live and die by his own philosophy but he did end his life as a “self-appointed martyr”. Socrates saw only two choices: death or defeat. I hope there is only one kind of martyr: the one who has the choice.

Is there virtue in being a martyr?
I believe there is virtue when the person who will be the martyr finds virtue in it. We can only follow the existential philosophy and do what we believe is right by us. I don’t think anyone should be martyred against their will, without their knowledge or because they’ve been “brainwashed”. It should be a personal truth.

Do you believe that Socrates believes himself no wiser than any other man? What exactly does he mean by that?
Socrates did say he was wiser than other men because he recognized that he didn’t know anything. All the other men he met thought they were knowledgeable, but he claimed, because he saw how little he knew, he was wiser.

And finally, is retaining one's ethical dignity (living by one's principles) worth dying for? For Socrates? For you?
Yes. Yes. Yes. If one cannot be oneself, what is left to live for? There would be just a shell of a mechanical person left behind. There can be nothing of greater importance in life than being true to oneself because that is the start of a better society. “Imitation is suicide”. I should hope that I would have the personal strength to always be true to who I am. True, one might have to die for their ethical dignity, but surrendering oneself is another form of death; a death to live with.

Electoral College

Both sides have pros and cons so I find it hard to choose either way. As Matthew Spearman said the system is obviously flawed; as shown in the 2000 election. He was in favor of a direct democracy conversion but as Michael Hough said, the electoral system protects smaller states and safe-guards against the election of an extremist”. I can also see how the current system would discourage people from voting because it does feel as if one’s vote is unimportant. I also agree with Mr. Spearman when he said that the Supreme Court should “never be involved in electoral politics”. And while I don’t think the electoral system is “splendid’, I can see it acting as a buffer to prevent an “even more federalized” system.

Law and Justice

In “Law and Justice”, I believe that Zinn is talking about how, even though we learn to obey the law, not all laws are made to be followed morally and there has to be a balance between the law and the justice. As Zinn said, “Obligation to government, however, it not natural. It must be taught to every generation”. By using the words “Motherland”, “Founding Fathers” and “Uncle Sam” America establishes itself as one of the family and, when asked for service, “how can you say no”.

It’s interesting that, from the foreign perspective of Gertrude Scholtz-Klink, America is just like Germany in the sense that, simply because someone personally disagrees with a law, they still obey it. As Zinn said, people sometimes get the domino affect in their minds; believing if one law goes it’s down with democracy and into anarchy. He used a good example of the “mass demonstrations of the black movement in the American South” to show how America didn’t descend into “general lawlessness”. When Martin Luther King Jr. said that by breaking a law that a person’s “conscience tells him is unjust” is showing “the very highest respect for law”. Zinn inferred that this meant that it was an act of “respect for the higher law, the law of morality, of justice”.

It was interesting to read how Zinn believed that, while the human race has steadily developed in arts, sciences and medicine, the government still benefits the rich. Only this time the government has legal and efficient means to do so. Emma Goldman had an interesting take on what patriotism really means (to her), “Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate”. With complete obedience of every law, a country could be isolating themselves from the global pictures and therefore denying human or civil rights.

The packet raised numerous moral questions that Zinn, while giving his opinion, left the reader to also form their own opinion; that’s the point, I think.

Inherit the Wind title

I think the title Inherit the Wind is completely appropriate title. It refers to how, if one creates a problem, it will come back. The phrase “his own house” might mean how it was within their community and this trial started a hornet’s nest of controversy. For the second part, “and the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart”, I believe is trying to show how that person who started it all would be beneath the person who followed their heart and did not simply follow along. The passage comes from Proverbs 11:29; Proverbs were usually teachings. Brady used it once and then later Hornbeck said he wrote his own obituary with the line (pg. 126). Brady brought the focus on religion and, in the end, he won the trial but lost something more; a credible reason to prevent evolution from being taught in schools. In that sense, the title is very fitting.

The ID Debate

I believe that ID should be allowed to be taught as a theory in schools. If it is taught without religious advertisement, then it has some relevance and benefit for students. The worst thing that could happen is the discontinuation of teaching either evolution or ID. As Julie Sturgeon said, “…administrators can’t avoid the conflict by declaring they’ll teach neither.” Schools and communities should have a say, but I don’t think, just because some parents object, other students, or even their own children, should be denied the whole picture. Neither theory has to stand as the truth, but, rather, the students should be allowed to believe which ever theory they choose. I think it would be a lazy form of education if the students were not able to receive multiple view points. It’s as if, because it’s “science” there has to be only one answer, which, when one thinks about it, science rarely has just one answer or theory. Why can’t it be like English, where it is widely acknowledge that there are numerous solutions or possibilities?

“The problem comes when school boards or teachers want to push their own religious agenda and include it in the regular curriculum, experts say” (Angela Pascopella). As long as there isn’t that push or, in the other extreme, making religion a touchy subject, I think the balance would benefit students. It’s important too that students are taught that evolution doesn’t “disprove God” and ID doesn’t promote a religion. I liked Wheeler’s idea that ID could be classified as “a social studies or philosophy class”. Whatever the ultimate decision is, I hope it allows students to think and decide for themselves.

"America has powerful carrots to offer"

I agree with Tamara Cofman Wittes with the opinion that the United States shouldn’t consider promoting democracy a top priority. There are so many other priorities we, as a nation, could be focusing on. Plus “for liberalization to have real meaning, the regimes themselves must change”. America simply can’t step into another country and that alone will create a democracy. One problem Wittes saw was challenging “autocratic regimes from below by supporting local activists, the administration…is failing to challenge the regimes from above”. Also, as harsh as it could sound, some countries just need to learn to stand on their own. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government". What is right and fitting for one country might not work for another. The world is diverse so it is only logical to have more than one type of country or government. As Akbar Ganji said, "You cannot bring democracy to a country by attacking it." I believe that everyone deserves human rights and democracy can help define those rights, but America can't expect to simply impose it on another country and have it work flawlessly. We should focus instead on human rights and democracy, hopefully, will follow.

Survey Results

For the first two surveys, I was categorized as a Barak Obama supporter. The third had me agreeing the most with Dennis Kucinich and Barak was fifth and McCain was nineteenth. The fourth was Ralph Nader. The fifth had me as a Left Libertarian and the sixth was just Libertarian. I wasn’t overly surprised by the results, but I feel like these surveys can’t truly group a person into a certain political view because that just how I feel now about these particular issues. The last two tests were more informative, I think, because they didn’t just say which candidate you match up with; they were more about your moral beliefs, opinions etc.

Dead Teen Walking

The death penalty has always been a controversial topic. The issues behind it are so complex that some people find it’s hard to choose a side. However, in the case of teen death penalties, the U.S. is severely out of date. If we are in the company of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria and Yemen, countries “known for human rights violations”, then it’s time for a change. The fact that “two-thirds of their group are minorities” only shows how skewed the system is. It isn’t just the fact that these kids usually have low IQs, have been physically/mentally/sexually abused or suffered serious psychiatric problems, it’s also the fact that many convicted youths are not the “career criminals” that death row is used for a “last resort of justice”.

Like in the novel White Fang, nature vs. nurture needs to be taken into account. A character named Beauty Smith “was a monstrosity, and the blame of it lay elsewhere. He was not responsible. The clay of him had been so molded in the making” (London 213). The juveniles on death row have been proven to have some form of abuse. As Victor Streib said, these teens are living at home; they’re living the abuse whereas an adult criminal has “had time to form a new life”. I don’t believe that reading White Fang greatly influenced my opinion on this matter, but I suppose it developed more support for it. Because while one might argue that White Fang changed from what nature taught him so it proves these death row juveniles could too, we have to remember that it took a long time for White Fang to suppress that nature after the “nurture” he’d received.

While I can’t assume to fully understand why a victim’s family or loved one’s would want the death penalty or what I would do in a similar situation, I still believe that the death penalty is wrong. It costs less to keep a person in jail for life than to execute them. There needs to be that reverence for life. Revenge or “an eye for an eye” won’t solve anything. Again, though I don’t know how I’d react in a victim’s shoes, I have hope that I’d have the strength to let go of revenge. I think a lot of people confuse revenge with forgiveness; they are not one and the same. If taking away the death penalty completely is too big a leap for people right now, at least the U.S. should start by taking away the teen death penalty.

Should We Torture?

I agree with Andrew Sullivan who was against torture. Personally, it’s a moral issue with me but his argument included numerous positions that I’d never even considered. It is a complicated issue and more than a simple answer is required. When Sullivan stated that “torture is the polar opposite of freedom” he was condensing “a large part of the idea that is America”. It’s maintaining our position on the ‘higher’ ground; something Sullivan notes has worked before in World War II. Also, he addresses the fact that once any type or degree of torture is allowed it has the tendency to spread. Charles Krauthammer claims it is our “moral duty” to collect vital information from terrorists but as Sullivan mentions, the information is usually inaccurate when extracted by torture. Torture can even have the opposite reaction to the desired effect; prisoners might go on hunger strikes or give false information to stop the immediate torture. Torture isn’t “civilized” as Krauthammer claims our country is; it can only be a “weapon-to use against us”.

Good vs. Evil

This piece was certainly interesting. I’ve always wondered why there’s such wide spread apathy towards the suffering in other countries. The explanation that it might be because these people don’t exist in our “tribe” isn’t an excuse but it definitely sheds light. Detachment and “brainwashing” has been a theory for genocide before, but with this study the exact reason for it is explained. I found it ironic that everything (well almost everything) we, as humans, pride ourselves as the only animals capable (such as tools or communication) is mostly untrue. There is also mention of how someday we might be “civilized” which is odd because the majority of humans already believe that, as a species, we are civilized. The author left he article with a positive tone saying that, while there was pain ahead, hopefully most of it was behind us.

Senior Social

I was in fifth grade at the time in Mrs. Larson's class. At Cathedral there wasn't very large class sizes so I was with almost all of my friends. I remember the principal at the time coming into the class room and whispering to my teacher. She had just told us that during lunch planes had crashed into the World Trade Center. The principal was there to stop her from telling us because it would upset us. I remember just sitting with my friends and not fully comprehending what was going on. A few girls were worried about their fathers having to go off to war because of what happened. Others were nervous because they had relatives in New York and weren't quite sure where they were now.

School ended that day and my mom came to pick me up. She drove my sister and I straight home and then the whole family sat on the couch and watching the footage and news come live onto the television. We didn't say a word the whole time; we just watched in a mixture of disbelieve and horror. I'd never seen my dad cry before and it was incredibly unnerving to see. That day will be forever burned into my memory as it will for the millions who saw and experienced it.