"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.