Me Talk Pretty One Day

We've talked a lot about language in class, and we've also talked a lot about learning. But we haven't really talked much about learning a language, which is a whole subject on it's own. Today in class we read Me Talk Pretty One Day, which presented an interesting take on learning.
My mom personally teaches languages, so I couldn't help but compare her to the teacher described in the story. The teacher is harsh and downright verbally abusive, but she makes her students determined to impress her.

So, eventually they learn to understand French. My mom is honestly really chill-she thinks learning a language should be fun. We learn how to speak phrases and how to understand conversations. Maybe, because she's so nice, people don't always take the class as seriously, but they don't cry to themselves at night.
Clearly there is more than one way to learn a language, but no matter how you learn it, what language you learn, or when you study it, there will be one thing in common with students: self doubt.
I find that teens especially already doubt their actions and are anxious about always being perfect. Switching to a new language, making mistakes, and sounding dumb make students reluctant to actually take on a foreign language. I don't think the teacher in the essay was particularly good at her job. Though the author figured out what she was saying, maybe the Polish Annas didn't. And for such a strict disciplinarian on proper verb tense, her students had awful grammar when they were speaking. But I do think a message can be taken from this.
The author felt dumb and anxious about speaking in public, because "I was convinced everything I was saying was wrong." He thought because his speaking wasn't perfect, he wasn't learning. Though his teacher certainly treated him as if he had to be perfect, her main goal was for him to understand. That is learning.

We Aren't Flawed-It's the System

I'll be the first one to say that the American school system is deeply flawed. There are some things I enjoy about it-I like being able to join clubs, and to be able to go back to college if I wanted to. But that doesn't mean I like it. I don't think anyone does.
People are surprised when I say I don't like school. They usually ask why. I think I'm wasting my time, and then they ask what I think I should be doing.
I'm not sure, exactly. But I think sitting in school for eight hours a day isn't that. And I don't think for eight hours are helping me figure out what I should be doing. The American school system doesn't work for it's students. And while I think the article we read in class today addressed that, I also think it was really pretentious-for all the ideas, it promoted no way to transform those ideas into reality.
Leon Botstein, author of Let Teenagers Try Adulthood probably has no kids or grand kids in school at the moment. He proposes that because high school focuses so much on social development, not mental growth, teenagers are left feeling empty when high school ends (What now?) or unsure of what to do with the future (How am I supposed to be an adult?)
Truth is, I don't think that anybody really knows how to be an adult. Some people go to the best schools around and get into the best universities, and they still forget to pay a bill every once in a while, or accidentally spill coffee on their shirt, or are late to meetings. The tasks we see as adult jobs can really only be learned through trial and error, not through school.
Does that mean that schools shouldn't prepare teens and children for the future? Of course not. I think that there should be more of an emphasis on finding a career and college planning. But I don't think the focus should be to become a perfect adult, because to be honest, I'm sure most "adults" honestly have no clue what's going on.

People think that teenagers can't handle the adult world, and they're right. But that's because we're teenagers! I can barely remember to make breakfast in the morning. And that's okay.
Botstein suggests that "By the time those who graduate from high school go on to college and realize what really is at stake in becoming an adult, too many opportunities have been lost and too much time has been wasted." But isn't having children graduate at 16 and enter college or the workforce already forcing them to give up opportunities? Honestly, Botstein has good intentions, he does. But don't get mad at teenagers for surviving the adult world, because newsflash, nobody really gets it.

Slang in America

Today in class Twin wasn't there, so she assigned us some classwork. We had to read an essay by Walt Whitman, then answer the twelve questions. I personally didn't like the essay that much, but that's because I'm tired and processing words in my head isn't really working right now. So yeah, these answers might be a little rough.
1. Walt Whitman believes that slang is particularly American because so many people are sharing and mixing cultures and languages, that new words (slang) are being created to portray new meaning. I think this is still true in the 21st century. People will mix Spanish and English words to create something just their own, for example.
2. The beginning of Whitman's essay is a discussion about the English language. This forms the basis for his argument, that slang comes from languages to make words that portray feelings. When he writes his first paragraph, he talks about the vastness of language and how much of the world a language absorbs, then passes on.
3. Slang is "the lawless germinal element, below all words and sentences, and behind all poetry, and proves a certain perennial rankness and protestantism in speech."

• Slang is lawless because it follows no rules, it is created and used freely
• Slang is germinal because it gives way to the use of new words based on old ones (the google definition of germinal is to provide material for further development)
• Slang is below all words and sentences because it does not have a clear meaning and can't really be defined
• Slang is behind all poetry because slang is the voice of the people and poetry is that written voice
• Slang has perennial rankness because it lives on through the years and develops new meanings
• Slang is protestantism in speech because it is simple and rejects the "proper" language of the people

4. Whitman's two metaphors in paragraph two are:

a. "Considering Language then as some might potentate, into the majestic audience-hall of the monarch ever enters a personage like one of Shakespeare's clowns, and takes position there, and plays a part even in the stateliest ceremonies. Such is Slang..."
b. "Slant, too, is the wholesome fermentation or eructation of those processes eternally active in language, by which froth and specks are thrown up, mostly to pass away; though occasionally to settle and permanently chystallize."
Both of these metaphors are fitting to explain slang-in the first metaphor, it shows that slang is the more easygoing, ridiculous use of language. In the second, it shows that it is the mix and combination to prior languages. Personally I think that the second metaphor is more effective at explaining slang, because slang comes from the mix of languages.
5. In the third paragraph, Whitman makes his perspective of slang "plainer" by explaining in simple terms that the words we use today, were once the slang of older languages and generations. He lists clear examples of how words may mean something else: "Spirit meant breath, or flame."
6. According to Whitman, there is a connection between slang and mythology. He compares the creation and use of slang to the creation of gods, because it is not fully understood, and where it comes from is not really known for each individual slang word. "Yet we are utterly ignorant of their embryology; the true science of Origins is yet in its cradle."
7. Whitman lists several examples of slang. They illustrate two points, in my opinion-that slang is used to make conversation simpler, and that slang is made up of old words to make new ones.
8. In paragraph 11, Whitman implies that the opinion of humorists towards slang isn't very positive. They seem to think that slang is improper because it is fun. I think this weakens Whitman's argument. Though he puts the viewpoint of the opposite side, he doesn't really use his point to prove why slang is good. He says that slang is more fun that listening to the humorists speak, but that's an opinion, not an argument.
9. I think the tone of this essay is very positive towards slang. Whitman feels very enthusiastic from the topic, because of all the positive words and metaphors he uses, like comparing slang to mythology and as the fun clowns of Shakespeare. His last paragraph even compares slang to the breath of life-he obviously feels that use of slang creates something new.
10. Whitman's poetry wasn't very traditional. It had free verse and he wrote in the sounds of geese or people yelling as they worked. He included everyday slang to make his poetry both more accessible and more entertaining for his readers. The essay reflected his positive attitude and use of slang.
11. "An attempt of common humanity to escape from bald literalism, and express itself illuminable, which in highest walks reduces poets and poem..." Some slang does not have a definition, it defines a feeling. For example, the word lit. Everyone uses it, but there's really no clear meaning. There's obviously the literal meaning, but people use it to describe a feeling, not an action (of something actually being lit).
12. Slang truly is the way youth rebel. Parents and authority can control the way you dress, the way you look, the food you eat, how you dress, etc. However, they can't stop kids from thinking a certain way, and they can't stop the inevitable clash between old words and new words. As parents try to control their children, the kids come up with new words to express themselves and show how they feel.
Finally I'm done!!!!

Mother Tongue

So there's this theory that if a child was never spoken to, and the only words they heard in their developmental years came from a TV, everything would be opposite for them. Yes would mean no, hot would mean cold, etc, etc. Obviously this theory was scrapped-it's more science fiction than science, but it did connect a child's parents to their development of language.
Children learn to speak from their parents and friends. Immigrant families, who sometimes come to America only knowing their mother language, pass it on to their children. It was somewhat like this for the author of "Mother Tongue", Amy Tan. Her mother spoke in fragmented English to her as a child, and though that influenced the way Tan saw language and English, it did not harm her. Some would say it helped her.
To those who's first language is English, it can be hard to imagine thinking in anything else. Those who are bilingual or multilingual are even more confusing. My mom, who speaks four languages fluently and three languages well enough to get by in everyday life, sometimes mixes up phrases. She'll slip into Portuguese when she's talking to her mother, even though my Vavo has lived here for fifty years. Though I do not consider myself bilingual, I can read easily in French and understand my mom when she speaks in French and Portuguese. We were out one day and I was trying to talk to her (she's really big on speaking French at home) and I couldn't think of the right word in French, so I said the word that represented what I wanted to say. In Portuguese.
Though these are examples of how speaking more than one language affects daily life, they life that Tan describes is very different. Because my mother speaks European languages (which I find that people consider white languages) her being multilingual is seen as cool. But people like Tan's mother were looked down upon for not being able to grasp the nitpicky details of English.
Honestly, English is hard. And while oversimplifying a language isn't a good idea, neither is considering someone an English speaker if they can conjugate and come up with tenses. Language is used to communicate and that is what Tan and her mother did. Just in a different way than we might do.
For example, in paragraph six, she wrote down what her mother said to her once. It isn't edited and shows the true way her mother speaks English. She is showing that while maybe we don't completely understand what she might be saying, that she is communicating in English, while still being unique. She wanted to show that she was still communicating, even if native English speakers might not have considered her English proper.

Laughter is the Best Medicine

Imagine having to live two lives. Now some people would say that they'd love to do it. It would mean being able to be yourself but be a completely different person in another situation-you could gain acceptance from being a new person if you led two lives. 

Well, according to the people who actually do that, it kinda sucks. In Firoozeh Dumas's essay, "The F Word", an Iranian immigrant who moved to America, trying to be "American" and trying to assimilate was pretty hard. Especially since "With eight letters, including a z, and four syllables, my last name is as difficult and as foreign as my first." So Dumas decides she's going to be called Julie. A nice, Anglo name. Dumas writes this experience in a comical way-her writing style isn't very serious and she writes as if she's speaking. But when you really think about it, what she went through was actually pretty awful. Imagine having to give up part of who you are-because if you accept you who you are, you'll be excluded for the rest of your life. People will look at you differently, they will treat you as if you're an alien. They won't even do something as simple as learning a name!

And yet-Dumas writes about this and actually makes the reader laugh. In my opinion, she's furthering her argument by using humor to show that despite her name, she's just like every other person. She doesn't need to be Julie to be considered human. For example, she talks about a time she was in a waiting room and was called in by the nurse with the name Fritzy Dumbass. It's put into the writing to be funny, but it also shows that hey-this is a real thing that is actually happening. We need to start actually making an attempt to be culturally aware. 

The Power of Privacy

I’ve dealt with many things in my life, just like everyone around me. I have been altered by these events and I often define myself by things that have happened to me. Though it is cliché, I am more than what I’ve gone through, and I really do not want people to create an idea of what kind of person I am solely based on these moments. It is often easier not to share memories, because it allows me to be my own person, instead of a person who is stereotyped by what has happened to them. I believe in using privacy to be my own person. 

My first day at Saints, I was extremely nervous. It sounds pretty typical, but middle school really had not been easy for me. I think it’s like that for a lot of people. Going to a new school allowed me to break out of the shell I had made for myself-an awkward, shy, and unconfident person. Anyway, during my first days, people often shared their eighth grade memories, and I found myself keeping my mouth shut. Everyone was making friends, and connecting with people because of things that had happened in their life, like playing the same sport, or seeing the same band in concert. I remember all the getting to know you games we played. I was so uncomfortable, going around to random strangers and telling about them myself. Why would I share my memories, which sometimes weren’t very positive, with people I barely knew? For once, I wasn’t being shy; instead, I was choosing to keep quiet about the past me so I could actually be the new me.  

I realized that being private wasn’t really a bad thing. Instead, it gave me the chance to decide who I really wanted to share intimate information with. Why would I want to share personal stuff with people I’m not really personal with? I think this has affected me in both a positive and negative way. Because I was private about my memories, nobody made judgements on who I was as a freshman based on who I was as an eighth grader, and I was able to make relationships based on new experiences, not old ones. So in a positive way, I met the friends that I am really close to now. In a negative way, I probably missed out on some relationships because of my privacy towards myself. But I don’t really regret this-I value my privacy and will not give it up in the future easily for a person I may or may not end up trusting.  

I think a lot of people can find value in privacy. It gave me confidence, because if so few people were privy to my personal memories, then the majority of people could not judge me on who I used to be. I think privacy made me more confident, which sounds ironic. Private people are seen as closed off and quiet, but I think privacy allowed me to open up. I didn’t have to share my thoughts and feelings like everyone around me seemed to do growing up. I was able to talk, without having to sacrifice my privacy.  

Home

As corny as it sounds, home is a feeling, not always a place. Today in class we read an article by a young man who was technically born in Ethiopia but has no memory of the country, since he moved to the United States a few months later. He had no memories of Ethiopia and was not able to speak the language. He never felt Ethiopian or even American; he didn't fit in to the native born American or the American immigrant category in his eyes.
He ended up moving to Brooklyn, as a way to choose his home and choose where he really wanted to make a life for himself. In the end he realized that Brooklyn didn't become his home because it was pretty or a wealthy area or had lots of things to do. Brooklyn became his home because of the feeling it provided him.
When I think of my home, I obviously think of the physical space my house takes up. But it's more than just a house. Being home means being relaxed, being safe. For an introvert like me, it gives me the chance to just chill for a bit before I have to go back into the world. So my home isn't exactly a house, it's more of the safety and security that the house represents. Home is also in other people. When I am having a bad day, it really does help to be with my close friends. They're more like family.
So I think home is about family, too, which is why being with my friends can feel a bit like being at home-I feel calm, I feel happy, I feel relaxed. And, there's my actual blood family, not just my friends that make my house feel like a home. Home is about being welcomed no matter how bad a situation is or how awful you feel.
Which is why I think the author was having such a hard time. He didn't have the memory of Ethiopia, so he wasn't exactly welcomed into the Ethiopian immigrant community. And because he wasn't part of SCWAMP, he wasn't really welcome in America either. Just because he had a house and a family doesn't mean he had a home. He didn't have a shelter or a group of people that made him feel like he belonged. A home is like a network that is full of the things that make us happy. He didn't really have that. When he moved to Brooklyn, he was able to create that feeling for himself.
As a child, he was isolated by trying to be part of a home that just didn't exist. When he got older, he built a community-like with the person who always gave him extra rice or vegetables with his take out. He had a sense of self in Brooklyn. That feeling is what made it feel like a home and is what really makes a home a home at all.

Activism is Sacrifice

To be an activist, you actually have to act.
Today in class, we read an argument by Malcom Gladwell that discussed modern activism. Or more accurately, the complete lack of it. In today's age, there is a kind of communication that has been unseen before now. Twitter causes, like #istandwithkesha, #istandwithahmed, and the likes. Some would say that online activism is the new means of making change.
However, I have to disagree. While I think that online activism can help causes by spreading information, that's all it really does. Though this is important, this is just spreading information-this is not activism.
In a country like America, where we have the right to free speech, tweeting a post, sharing emails, or liking posts helps alert people to problems in the world. But how much change is actually being made? People aren't actually changing the situation. It's important to let people know the problems going on in the world, but what's the point of talking about a problem if nothing is done to solve it? For example, everyone knows how disturbing the dictatorship of North Korea is. But what's being done to fix the situation? Nothing. For all of our American resources, we simply lack the privilege to call ourselves "activists".
Our minimal efforts of activism are often problematic. Like Gladwell said in his article, American activists often lack the ability to spread accurate information. "The cadre of prominent bloggers...misunderstood the situation." It seems like we can't even spread information correctly.
American activists are full of privilege. Though everyone is needed to cause change, those who are not directly affected by the problems of society should have less impact on activism. (A white male's opinion should not be equal to a black woman's on racism and sexism.) Truth is, while there are still huge problems in our society like racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc, we often do not face problems like other countries, where people are killed for voicing their opinion. That does not mean our problems aren't important, but Americans seem to ignore issues at home to basically ignore problems in other parts of the world. When people do speak out for important causes like Black Lives Matter, the activists are seen as radical and dramatic.
For a society that claims to love activism, we do a pretty bad job of fixing today's modern problems.

Paper Airplanes

Today in class Twin asked us to find something in the New Yorker that spoke to us and discuss it. I had the October 5, 2015 edition.


I flipped through, looking for an article or a cartoon to write about. I couldn't really find anything until I opened up to a page full of pictures of paper airplanes.

"Between 1961 and 1983, the artist Harry Smith picked up two hundred and fifty-one paper airplanes off the streets of New York. He annotated most of them with handwritten details of when and where they were found."
What first attracted me to the paper airplanes was the paper they were made out of. They were all colorful and full of variety. I decided to pick this to analyze because I'm a pretty visual person. I also decided to pick this because despite how cynical I can be I really like people. And I really like the relationships that people have one another. I think it's cool to see how people interact.
I really like seeing examples of simple everyday interactions. Like when people pay it forward at Dunkin, or when they knit scarves and leave them on statues for people who need them to take.
The thing that all these acts have in common, as well as the paper airplanes, is that it shows how the actions of one person affect other people. Not necessarily in a giving way (like paying for someone's coffee). I like seeing the actions of people that don't affect someone in a negative or a positive way.
I just like seeing the way our everyday lives can mean so much more to someone than they do to us.
The paper airplanes are one example of this.
The kids who made these paper airplanes weren't making them to evoke emotion from any of the people who would eventually see them. But that's exactly what happened. It's cool to see that these little bits of paper would eventually make their way to a New York artist, and that people for years would be seeing those bits of paper.
I like seeing the way that our actions affect people years after. Those kids probably don't remember even making those airplanes, but the point is people will remember the airplanes. I think it shows a deeper meaning-even after we do things, we will still mean something to someone else. Even if we are forgotten, the stuff we makes an impact. Even if we are not connected to that impact, we are still influencing it and affecting someone else's life. But I don't know. Maybe it's just bits of paper.

Roxane Gay: Feminine vs Feminism

A true feminist is someone who embraces all women.
A feminist accepts and welcomes masculine women, feminine women, strong women, weak women, happy women, passionate women, small women, large women, straight women, LGBT+ women, black women, white women, American women, African women, Jewish women, Muslim women, celibate women, sexual women, sexually repulsed women, military women, artistic women, athletic women, beautiful women, smart women, disabled women, conservative women, young women, old women, trans-women, cis-women.
Feminists embrace all kinds of women because they embrace all kinds of womanhood.
There is no wrong way to be a feminist, except to believe that there can only be one kind of woman.
"At some point, I got it into my head that a feminist was a certain kind of woman." Women are as varied, different, complicated, and difficult as any man. But for some reason, women are expected to be one way and one way only. In conservative society, there is the belief that women need to be quiet, obedient, submissive, patient, and motherly. In radical feminism, people believe that feminists need to be man haters, angry, unattractive, and loud.
That's simply not the truth.
Feminism, to put it simply, is to fight for the equality that women lack.
That's it. It is so hard to explain feminism, but women lack the social, political, and economic power that men have. That is a fact.
Feminism is not about having one type of perfect woman. It's not about not caring for feminine things.
It's about the realization that women are more than whether or not they want to be a mother, or if they have sex, or if they dress a certain way. Feminism is about women protecting other women. Feminism is about addressing privileges that white women have over women of color and looking for solutions to fix that. Feminism is about a women being able to wear a bikini or a hijab, and not facing harassment.
Feminism is not looking past the female label and pretending it doesn't exist. Feminism is embracing that label, and also about embracing the fact that women are as varied, different, and complicated as any human being on this planet.
When we embrace the fact that there is no wrong way to be a woman, we will be able to take a monumental step. There is no wrong way to be a woman, because women define themselves-things like sexuality, religion, or love of makeup do not.
Women are forced into stereotypes from the minute they are born. They have to be beautiful, thin, and quiet to be the perfect woman, yet they must also be loud, sporty, and curvy at the same time. It's not just one set of stereotypes women must fulfill, they must fulfill another! Women are expected to be thin, beautiful, dainty, girly, athletic, smart, have a career, be a mother, and take care of everyone without one thought to themselves: "My success, such as it is, is supposed to be enough if I'm a good feminist."
Women are made fun of if they are either a more "masculine", outgoing person, a more "feminine," quiet person, neither, or a mix of both. (Girls are made fun of for being weak, which is crazy because that's what society tells them they have to be! And if they are not weak or delicate, they're made fun of for being strong!)
"'I'd been the one telling young women at my lectures that you can have it all and do it all, regardless'..." Women are expected to give all they have to get nothing in return. They can have it all-a career, a husband, a child-but they're not allowed to want it all. They can't want a child AND a husband; but at the same time, if a woman does not have both, she is looked down upon.
Why are women forced to live up to such difficult, unachievable standards? Why do women have to live one type of womanhood, career vs. mother, smart and unattractive vs dumb and beautiful, quiet and patient vs loud and emotional?
Feminism questions why society tells women they have to live like that-miserable, stressed, and trying to be perfect. Feminism faces the hard questions. Feminism is making people realize that things kind of suck for women all over the world, and that that's not fair.
There are problems within the movement, not doubt. But with feminism I have seen girls supporting girls; girls reaching new opportunities; girls fighting privilege; girls speaking out against racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and classism.
Without feminism, I would not be watching a community forming up from the half of the world that has been routinely and repeatedly silenced, finally embracing and loving who they are.

Disney, We Have to Breakup

I'm sad to say, Disney, that the time has come. We have to breakup.

Okay. Not really. I love Disney and I love Disney movies. But I'm breaking up with the idea that Disney is a special snowflake that can't do any wrong. Disney is problematic, and the company's refusal to change certain aspects of the media they produce makes it inherently worse. When a wealthy, powerful company refuses to change negative and offensive aspects of their output, they don't deserve excuses. They have the resources to take risks and put feminism, people of color, and LGBT + relationships in their movies. But they don't.

Disney, I love you. But something that is aimed at young children should not make them feel like they only have one path.
The article we read in class, by Deborah Ross, was cynical and hard to read. It sucks reading something so negative about something so key to your childhood. But Ross makes some good points-despite the messages Disney movies may try to make, abandoning those ideas and having their hero or heroine take a cliche path by the end of the movie is lazy. It's problematic. There is no room for creativity, no room for ideas in the Disney scenario:
Girl hates boy, girl is saved by boy, girl falls in love with boy, girl and boy get married, they have their happily ever after.

The ideas Disney have are great! Snow White is kind and fair, Belle is smart and strong, Ariel is a dreamer and very independent, Rapunzel is brave, Tiana is hardworking, Mulan is a leader, and Anna and Elsa embrace who they are.
But Snow White's only brought back to life by her prince. Belle ends up married, so does Ariel. Rapunzel spends very little time by herself, because she goes from living with Gothel to living with Eugene. See the dilemma?
It's one thing to come up with revolutionary (and true) ideas-that women can have dreams: Ariel wants to be able to live on land. That men can have mental illness: the Beast has depression, self confidence issues, and anger problems. That women can be leaders: One word. Mulan.
But instead of coming up with creative stories, Disney takes the easy way out and marries off their characters. If there is no marriage, the characters are forced into relationships. (Anna does not marry Kristoph, but they do have a relationship.)
Disney-follow your own advice. Use your imagination and create stories about diverse men, women and people. Break up with your cookie cutter, heteronormative, white washed romances that punch us with gender roles.

Competitive Education

Tomorrow I take PSATS. I'd rather not take them, but I don't have a choice. You can read my opinions on standardized testing in my previous post. This post isn't about standardized testing, it's more to do with what I like to consider competitive education.
I'm sure everyone has had a teacher who announces the best test score, or who praises one student. This is toxic for all students. It convinces the kids who don't get praise that they're stupid and either causes extreme vanity or self-confidence issues in those who do receive it.
Learning is about understanding a concept, not about learning it the fastest. When kids think they have to be the first to learn something, they take in the subject for a test, then forget it as soon as possible. There's no real understanding. For the students who receive praise, they think they need to keep up this "standard". It becomes stressful and puts pressure on the student.
I feel that this comes from teachers. Not all teachers do this, however, those who do are creating an uncomfortable atmosphere for their students. Competition does not really need to be in education, just a want to learn.

Standardized Tests

For the first eight years of my life, I went to public school. I have a lot of stories about public school-my bus driver who brought her grand kids on the bus and made us take care of them; my homeroom teacher (who insisted we couldn't bring a plastic butter knife to cut up our lunch as it was a safety hazard) cutting a meter stick with a hunting knife; the kid who proudly told our English class that he ate road kill. My list goes on and on. One story I have is about standardized testing.
I was nine years old and in fourth grade. We were taking NECAPS, and as I was turning the page, I got a paper cut.
But this wasn't just any paper cut, no. It sliced my entire finger and was gushing blood. Nasty, right? Well, I wasn't allowed to go to the nurse because testing was in session. And because our teacher didn't have any band-aids with her I had to wrap the cut in a paper towel. I was told not to get any blood on the test or all my answers would be void.

Okay. I've been taking standardized tests since I was in third grade. So since I was eight. HALF OF MY LIFE I've been taking standardized tests. And I've learned nothing from them.

The thing about the American school system is that it is so deeply flawed, so harmful and toxic to students, that standardized tests are only one part of the problem.
The point of school is not just to learn-it is to open your mind, see ideas in new ways, entertain new prospects. Up until the higher grades of elementary school, I feel that many children enjoy school and love learning new things. The difference is that when kids hit about third, fourth, or fifth grade, they start hating school. But that doesn't mean they hate learning. But today, it seems like school is simply about earning a grade. It's not about ideas or thoughts. It's about numbers and status quo.

It doesn't matter if one individual student can't grasp a concept, what matters is that he's a failure and he isn't taking school seriously!
Obviously, I'm joking. But from a young age, American students are taught that if they aren't the best, they might as well not try. America is used to thinking it's the best. So, when in John Oliver's video about standardized testing, he brought up statistics from the 90s showing America's low math scores, it must have been a shock.
People call Americans vain and narcissistic and you know what? They're right. Because in response to those test scores, the American government set up a system which would destroy future students' mental and emotional health.
Standardized tests were encouraged by President Bush in his No Child Left Behind video. If a student was struggling in a subject, the tests he took would indicate this and he could theoretically get extra help. But the tests did not work in this intended manner. They became a way for businesses like Preston to increase value by producing thousands of standardized tests.
Standardized tests, instead of being ways to help struggling students, ended up being money makers which influenced placement and future academic opportunities. This puts such pressure on students. Maybe I sound like I'm overreacting, but the fact is, that doing poorly on these tests doesn't mean you get extra help. It means you will be treated like a failure for not increasing America's national scores.
If the American school system spent money on economic reforms and funded public schools, maybe more teenagers would actually enjoy going in. It's hard to stay in school or want to entertain the thought of going to college when your test scores are telling you that you're stupid.

Difficult, absurd tests are making students feel like they are failures. What child would want to go to school if they feel like a failure, especially if the point I made earlier (being the best vs not trying at all) is true?
I didn't go into too much detail talking about the rhetorical strategies John Oliver used. However, his use of logic fueled his power of persuasion. He made clear points about the problems standardized testing cause and the effects of these problems on American students. Hopefully, I've done the same.

What is the Purpose of Writing?

Today in class we watched a speech made by an introvert. She talked about how society, as a whole, tries to squash the traits of introverts-being quiet, enjoying solitude, working best alone, etc. She then claimed that though extroverts are important and needed in society, they are not necessarily the best leaders. Being loud does not mean you should be in charge. I completely agree with her.
See, the thing that's so cool about introverts, extroverts, and ambiverts is that personality is 100% needed and 100% important in society. Fact is, having different personalities is great! It's awesome having all kinds of people, who love different things and enjoy different hobbies. No one personality is better than the other, and no one personality should be enforced and seen as the norm.
It seems like a silly thing to be annoyed that the personality of an introvert is boring and dull. But what's really wrong with being boring and dull? That's not the point, however; the point is that when a large percent of the world has one general set of traits, and those traits are seen as negative, it makes a person not want to be themselves. Yes, it's not an issue like racism or sexism, but many people feel badly because they were born with a certain personality. And that is an issue.
Maybe if introverts were allowed to be alone and they weren't discouraged, systems and ways to combat serious problems like racism and sexism would have been created. But no use wondering about what something could have been.
Anyway, Ms. Amodie then asked us if people write to argue, or to persuade. What was the purpose of the video? In this case, I would say that the purpose was to argue on the side of introverts. She didn't try to persuade people that introverts were better, she argued that being an introvert is natural and shouldn't be something people look down upon. She argued that introverts often are natural problem solvers and that many people we look up to-Rosa Parks and Gandhi, for example-identified as introverts. She also provided a counter argument: extroverts are needed because they help with teamwork and the spreading of ideas. But she did not persuade her audience to see extroverts as less helpful, she simply argued that introverts and extroverts are both needed in society and in the workplace.
But what about other writing? Is it's purpose solely to argue, or to persuade? I don't think any piece of writing has one sole purpose, even the speech we watched in class. All writers who argue use persuasion to prove a point, and people are better persuaded when presented with clear, concise arguments. And then there's fiction. Fiction doesn't necessarily argue or persuade readers. Some work does-it encourages readers to look at different ideas and analyze their beliefs. For example, Harry Potter is very anti-racism and Animal Farm clearly is used to show the problems of communism.
However, some writing is simply made to entertain. All writing has a purpose, but the purpose is not always to argue or persuade.

SCWAMP: What Is It and How Does it Affect Our Media?

Well I'm doing this now, hopefully I'll still get credit because I wasn't in yesterday. Anyway.
SCWAMP.
It's a funny looking word, isn't it? SCWAMP is basically a power system. If you have all the qualities of SCWAMP, you have power. These qualitites are STRAIGHT, CHRISTIAN, WHITE, ABLE-BODIED, MALE, and PROPERTY HOLDER. Having these qualities mean's having privilege.
Because the people with this power have the ability to control and create the media we experience every day, these qualities are almost always written into the text as something good and something to pursue. This is wrong simply because the color of someone's skin, or their gender, or their religion has no emphasis on the quality of the content they may produce. It may influence it, but SCWAMP influences media too.
The example of media I chose to analyze was Disney's Snow White.


STRAIGHT-The movie is centered on the romantic relationship between Snow White and the Prince. However, certain unhealthy aspects of the movie come from the heteronormativity of the content. For example, Snow White is only fourteen. Um, hello? Why is it that pretty much the only personality trait of a FOURTEEN YEAR OLD is to get married to a man? It's horrifying.

How does anyone let that happen? There's also the fact that she is kissed while she is sleeping.
She did not give consent to being kissed.

These troubling facts don't come from heterosexuality of course, it instead comes from the strict heteronormativity which enforces gender roles and stereotypes: the male is dominant and takes what he wants, while the woman's only thought and dream is of marriage.

CHRISTIAN: There is never a direct connection to Christianity as the movie is technically fantasy. However, the name Snow White brings to mind purity. To me, this connects to the Church's demand for the pure, perfect woman. Snow also wakes up after being kissed by the Prince, which could connect to the Resurrection.

WHITE: Every person in this movie is white. Even the Magic Mirror. I get this was made years ago but to my understanding black people have always existed? Problem is that white people assume that a character is white because that's how media is presented. This is white superiority.

ABLE-BODIED: Alright, this one is tricky. While there are people in this movie who aren't exactly able-bodied, they aren't portrayed positively. In my opinion this is worse than not being included in media at all, because it creates and enforces negative stereotypes.

The dwarfs are dwarfs. Now just because someone is a dwarf doesn't mean they're not able-bodied! However this deviates from society's version of the perfect healthy body. The dwarfs are treated like children and are given jobs underground. They live in the woods. Why are they so far away from everyone? It's like they are being hidden from "normal" people.
The other character is the Evil Queen after she transforms herself. She uses a cane and has a humpback. The sheer fact that she is portrayed as murderous, jealous, and evil in the movie proves that being portrayed in content does not mean accurate representation.


MALE: I have a lot to say on this topic. It is important to point out how masculinity means power in society and in media and femininity means weakness.
Let's look at the Prince. He falls in love with a girl (without getting to know her-hello manic pixie dream girl fantasy) and then kisses her without her consent. He then gets the girl without really having to do anything, taking her away to his castle. In my opinion he sounds like a shifty piece of work but let's move on.
Then there are the dwarfs. While they are not able-bodied, they still have the privilege of being male. They don't have to cook or clean, they are shown as self-sufficient, and work in a diamond mine. I know they live in a cottage but I didn't see them trading any diamonds. I'm going to assume they keep them all for themselves, so they have wealth. (Seriously though, what do they do with all those diamonds? And now that I think about it, where does Snow get the food she cooks for them? Do they pay in diamonds? What kind of crazy inflation is going on in this fictional world?)
Some people would say that the stressing of wealth and power that these men are given puts too much of a stereotype on men-be strong, be a provider. However, these stereotypes are seen as positive personality traits.
Now onto women.

Let's talk about the fact that this was the first princess movie made and that there are only two women in it. (There are far more male characters, yet princess movies are only for girls?) And that to get an image of the movie poster cover, I had to google 'seven dwarves'. Not Snow White. 'Seven dwarfs.' Last time I checked the main character was Snow White, but whatever.
Okay, so there are two female characters-Snow White and the Evil Queen. I personally am a fan of how two women portray two opposite personalities, which creates the idea that there are only two types of women. Women aren't given personalities in media, they are given standards that they must live up to. They must be pure, and young, and beautiful, or else they are an evil, wicked woman.
There's also the idea that women are constantly fighting over trivial things. Like the Evil Queen is jealous of Snow White's beauty. Why is this such a common thing in media? I see so many girls supporting girls today. (I know this movie was made a long time ago, but I doubt that the "boy-crazy" stereotype that surrounded all girls has ever been true.) It's just being lazy. It creates this idea that you have to be the best woman, the most beautiful, to get your prince. If not, you get pushed down a ravine and crushed by a rock.

The traits the two have overall aren't very positive. Snow White is wimpy, naive, and scared by everything. The Queen is manipulative, selfish, and proud. It's normal for anyone to have these traits. I don't hate Snow or the Queen, I just hate the fact that these women were created out of stereotypes for women (docile vs bossy/mean/domineering) instead of fleshed out as real characters.
I'm fine having a female character who's afraid, but how are you afraid of a tree but absolutely fine living with seven random men and marrying a guy who took advantage of you?

PROPERTY HOLDER: This is obvious-the Prince is a catch because he owns property-a huge castle. And the dwarfs are successful because they have their own cottage (which they don't even take care of-Snow does. Real adult guys.), jobs, and tons of diamonds probably hoarded all over the place.

(Why else would they be afraid of an intruder? There are seven dwarfs; they could take someone on. Trust me, that cottage looks as lame as my pre-calc grade, so it wasn't the house they were worried about. It had to be the diamonds.) The possessions of these men are seen as attractive to Snow, who just can't wait to go to live in the castle with her Prince.

Keep in mind that I really love Disney movies, and I do like Snow White. I like Disney in general. However, I think that the most important thing about analyzing media is recognizing the problems of content. Just because something is good doesn't mean it's "good", is what I'm trying to say. And trust me, this movie had a lot of problems.

Who Am I?

I'm Em and I'm doing this blog for AP Lang. I'm 16, a junior, and I really like pugs and cats. I really like art.