“Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.”
After reading both Part I of 1984 and the “Thin Gruel” articles, I must say that I do see a connection between the Newspeak of 1984 and the actual censorship that has and still is taking place in our literature and language. The main principle of Newspeak is that if all the words that describe controversial topics are removed, then so are the controversial topics themselves, since no one has the words to describe them anymore. With today’s world of censorship, controversial topics are removed, and in a sense, also disappear from the minds of the children. If certain controversial topics are dropped from textbooks, and the students don’t learn them, then perhaps they will never learn them.
The article, on page 6, defines censorship as “the deliberate removal of language, ideas, and books from the classroom or library because they are deemed offensive or controversial.” In fact, certain textbook publishers, such as Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, deliberately censored their own material in order to try to please angry parents before they had a chance to complain. In 1984, Big Brother eliminated certain words (most of them, actually) to eliminate the chance of a revolt, and in a sense, created stability. This was also what the textbook publishers were trying to achieve—stability. However, even after many, many rounds of censors and re-writes, people were still upset and unsatisfied. You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. The publishers learned this the hard way, and had many textbook sets fail because they appeared too feminist, sexist, racist, or contained vulgar or inappropriate material.
Both 1984 and “Thin Gruel” deal with censorship enacted to create stability and peace. While 1984’s was more successful (at the beginning), both have weaknesses that deal with the inability to please everyone, everytime.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Blog #25: “1984: Blog 1”
The concept of “Newspeak” is present in George Orwell’s 1984. Defined as the official language of Oceania, it has eliminated the majority of controversial words and topics. The main goal behind it is that if the people can’t say it, then they can’t think it. In this way, The Party controls what everyone does and thinks, by what they can say.
The expressions of thought throughout Part One of 1984 are altered as a result of newspeak. Because this is the official language of the area, everyone has to use it to communicate with each other. All words referencing freedom and democracy have been removed to eliminate the chance of a revolt. The people all behave like robots—each assigned to certain jobs and forced to do them and live the same life everyone else lives. Everything is uniform, and through ignorance, strength and stability are achieved.
With newspeak, The Party, which is the government that controls everything and everyone, is able to force the people into doing and speaking without actually thinking. With the shortened and abbreviated words, there is no time for people to think about what they are actually saying, and as a result, enter into a state where they are unable to contemplate the real meanings behind the words and sentences they speak.
Certain leaders of our world today have used this same type of concept—limiting what the people are allowed to know and essentially think. A prime example is in North Korea. Dictator Kim Jong-Il has restricted the media flow into and out of the country. The country has one of the most tightly controlled media systems in the world. This has impacted certainly the citizens of North Korea, as well as everyone throughout the world. No one really knows what the real North Korea is like, and the majority of the population of North Korea have no idea what the rest of the world is like.
Another example of the concept of newspeak in our world today is a little closer to home. The internet and text messaging “lingo” that has exploded in the past couple years has pushed closer and closer to Orwell’s newspeak. Expressions such as “laughing out loud” and “by the way” can be simplified into LOL and BTW. Along with that, is the immense number of abbreviations and acronyms that exist in our world. From watching television and seeing “CSI,” “NCIS,” and “Law and Order: SVU” to attending a high-school class and seeing “SAT,” “ACT,” and “APUSH,” acronyms and abbreviations are just one step away from newspeak. The problem is that when an acronym is used, like newspeak, the original meaning is lost. Soon people start to think only of a useless sting of letters instead of the words behind the letters that stand for what the thing actually is. Whatever the case, newspeak is present in today’s world, as well as the world George Orwell imagined when he wrote 1984.
The expressions of thought throughout Part One of 1984 are altered as a result of newspeak. Because this is the official language of the area, everyone has to use it to communicate with each other. All words referencing freedom and democracy have been removed to eliminate the chance of a revolt. The people all behave like robots—each assigned to certain jobs and forced to do them and live the same life everyone else lives. Everything is uniform, and through ignorance, strength and stability are achieved.
With newspeak, The Party, which is the government that controls everything and everyone, is able to force the people into doing and speaking without actually thinking. With the shortened and abbreviated words, there is no time for people to think about what they are actually saying, and as a result, enter into a state where they are unable to contemplate the real meanings behind the words and sentences they speak.
Certain leaders of our world today have used this same type of concept—limiting what the people are allowed to know and essentially think. A prime example is in North Korea. Dictator Kim Jong-Il has restricted the media flow into and out of the country. The country has one of the most tightly controlled media systems in the world. This has impacted certainly the citizens of North Korea, as well as everyone throughout the world. No one really knows what the real North Korea is like, and the majority of the population of North Korea have no idea what the rest of the world is like.
Another example of the concept of newspeak in our world today is a little closer to home. The internet and text messaging “lingo” that has exploded in the past couple years has pushed closer and closer to Orwell’s newspeak. Expressions such as “laughing out loud” and “by the way” can be simplified into LOL and BTW. Along with that, is the immense number of abbreviations and acronyms that exist in our world. From watching television and seeing “CSI,” “NCIS,” and “Law and Order: SVU” to attending a high-school class and seeing “SAT,” “ACT,” and “APUSH,” acronyms and abbreviations are just one step away from newspeak. The problem is that when an acronym is used, like newspeak, the original meaning is lost. Soon people start to think only of a useless sting of letters instead of the words behind the letters that stand for what the thing actually is. Whatever the case, newspeak is present in today’s world, as well as the world George Orwell imagined when he wrote 1984.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Blog #23: “Brave New World and Karl Marx”
Question #1: “Why did Karl Marx think class conflict was inevitable in a capitalist society?”
Karl Marx believed in the idea of communism, which is basically the abolishment of private property. He believed that in a capitalist society or one of “free trade,” that capitalists work to protect capitalism, while workers work to destroy it. This is in essence, the foundation for the inevitable class conflict that Marx described. What he means, is that the business owners and CEOs of large companies (in today’s world) are only concerned with making a profit, and will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they do, indeed, profit. While at the same exact time, the workers that make it possible for the CEOs to make large profits want as much compensation for their work as possible. They try to destroy the system that pays large business professionals in order to increase their own personal wealth. This battle over money and power is the root of all class conflict, and has been throughout history.
Question #2: “Do you agree or disagree with Marx?”
Being the American citizen that I am, I have to say that I disagree with Marx because I believe in the free-enterprise system that we currently have in place. Sure, it is flawed, but so is every other kind of system in our world. I also believe in the freedoms that communism takes away. The concept of private property is at the foundation of what our country stands for, and I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to be the best that they can be, and therefore make the amount of money that they so desire. With a free enterprise system, it may not be easy to make a reasonable fortune, but at least it is not impossible.
Question #3: “How does his theory on class conflict connect to the World State’s view of class in Brave New World? What similarities do you see between the two?”
Marx’s system is designed to eliminate all class conflict by taking away the initial cause that stems from selfishness. However, in Brave New World, the elimination of class conflict is also evident. In the book, new babies are assigned to classes and taught to like nothing but whatever class they happen to end up in. The people have no say in what happens, which is a lot like communism and Marx’s theory relating to class conflict. Without any choice, people have nothing to argue over and in essence, conflict is avoided.
Karl Marx believed in the idea of communism, which is basically the abolishment of private property. He believed that in a capitalist society or one of “free trade,” that capitalists work to protect capitalism, while workers work to destroy it. This is in essence, the foundation for the inevitable class conflict that Marx described. What he means, is that the business owners and CEOs of large companies (in today’s world) are only concerned with making a profit, and will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they do, indeed, profit. While at the same exact time, the workers that make it possible for the CEOs to make large profits want as much compensation for their work as possible. They try to destroy the system that pays large business professionals in order to increase their own personal wealth. This battle over money and power is the root of all class conflict, and has been throughout history.
Question #2: “Do you agree or disagree with Marx?”
Being the American citizen that I am, I have to say that I disagree with Marx because I believe in the free-enterprise system that we currently have in place. Sure, it is flawed, but so is every other kind of system in our world. I also believe in the freedoms that communism takes away. The concept of private property is at the foundation of what our country stands for, and I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to be the best that they can be, and therefore make the amount of money that they so desire. With a free enterprise system, it may not be easy to make a reasonable fortune, but at least it is not impossible.
Question #3: “How does his theory on class conflict connect to the World State’s view of class in Brave New World? What similarities do you see between the two?”
Marx’s system is designed to eliminate all class conflict by taking away the initial cause that stems from selfishness. However, in Brave New World, the elimination of class conflict is also evident. In the book, new babies are assigned to classes and taught to like nothing but whatever class they happen to end up in. The people have no say in what happens, which is a lot like communism and Marx’s theory relating to class conflict. Without any choice, people have nothing to argue over and in essence, conflict is avoided.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Blog #22: “Brave New World and the Happiness of World State Members”
It is true that most World State Members are happy. They are engineered from birth, told what and when to think, and given drugs to constantly be high and happy. This is a prime example of brainwashing, yet for the “benefit” of the people. Most seem content with the way things are, yet a few do not. These people, such as Bernard, John, and Helmholtz, see that their lives are not really worth living because they are not “their” lives.” Bernard found it difficult to understand how Lenina could just accept things the way they were, without thinking and without wanting to challenge and question “why?” Bernard could see past the brainwashing, and is on his way to discovering who he really is.
It is one thing to be “happy,” but another to be satisfied at the quality of your life. All three (Bernard, John, and Helmholtz) are certainly not content with the quality of their lives, even though they live in a theoretically “perfect” world, where all decisions are made for you. Part of this is the fact that people don’t want to know the truth. They would rather simply be lazy and happy all the time, than use their brains for good use. They accept what the cards are that they are given and don’t think twice about them. Most people are like this, except for the select few mentioned above. They are certainly “pioneers” of this time, but are seen as odd and weird in their communities. Bernard is even moved to Iceland, because he appears different than everyone else.
Soma is the same kind of drug as ecstasy is in the real world. Both are viewed as relatively harmless (when compared to much worse drugs, such as crack or heroin—nonetheless, ecstasy is still very dangerous), and create almost instant happiness for the user. This is a way to escape the difficulties of real life, but certainly has risks. People, both in the book and in our world today, become too dependent on the drugs to make them happy. Soon they don’t care about reality anymore, and only care about the high they receive as a result of the drugs. Whatever the case, drugs are never the answer, and the truth cannot be avoided forever.
It is one thing to be “happy,” but another to be satisfied at the quality of your life. All three (Bernard, John, and Helmholtz) are certainly not content with the quality of their lives, even though they live in a theoretically “perfect” world, where all decisions are made for you. Part of this is the fact that people don’t want to know the truth. They would rather simply be lazy and happy all the time, than use their brains for good use. They accept what the cards are that they are given and don’t think twice about them. Most people are like this, except for the select few mentioned above. They are certainly “pioneers” of this time, but are seen as odd and weird in their communities. Bernard is even moved to Iceland, because he appears different than everyone else.
Soma is the same kind of drug as ecstasy is in the real world. Both are viewed as relatively harmless (when compared to much worse drugs, such as crack or heroin—nonetheless, ecstasy is still very dangerous), and create almost instant happiness for the user. This is a way to escape the difficulties of real life, but certainly has risks. People, both in the book and in our world today, become too dependent on the drugs to make them happy. Soon they don’t care about reality anymore, and only care about the high they receive as a result of the drugs. Whatever the case, drugs are never the answer, and the truth cannot be avoided forever.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Blog #21: “Healthcare in the United States”
After viewing Michael Moore’s “Sicko” documentary, I immediately wanted what he recommended—Universal Healthcare for everyone in the United States. By comparing the US to countries such as the UK, Canada, France, and even Cuba—all of which had “better” systems in place then us, he initially won me over. But as all of Michael Moore’s documentaries are, they only present one side of the situation. After viewing the supplementary documentary, “Dead Meat,” and reading the Slate article, “Michael Moore and the Beige Bomber,” it is clear to see that this situation is one of immense complications.
While Moore presented the positives to Universal Healthcare, such as everyone receiving coverage and free to very low priced prescriptions, he failed to mention the disadvantages that the Beige Bomber article is quick to point out. This article mentions that “giving free health care to everyone costs a lot of money.” Perhaps most relevant in today’s terms, money is at an endangered state and spending that kind of it would be impossible to overcome.
As with most industries in this country, the healthcare industry is way over complicated. As the “Beige Bomber” article mentions, “[To implement a national health care system], you would need to do more than just overcome the insurance industry. You would need to cut the salaries of doctors, reform the legal system, enrage our allies by causing their prescription drug cost to escalate, and accustom patients to a central decision-maker authorized to determine what procedures they are and are not allowed to get.” All of this seems preposterous, but in today’s world, very true. I’m sorry to say that I wish it wasn’t this complicated, but it is. To fix the problem, it’s going to take more than overhauling just one related industry such as the healthcare industry. While it would be a good first step, the amount of work that would lay ahead would be enough to frighten even the toughest fighters. It is certainly a corrupt system—wealthy HMO CEOs making money off of the people most in need and forcing them to sell their homes, cars, and dignities to save their loved ones’ lives. I’m not saying that other countries are perfect either, however we have a long way to go before I’ll be satisfied with ours.
To recommend a system for the United States that would a) work, b) not cost a tremendous amount of money, c) provide care to everyone in need of it, and d) make everyone happy seems like the impossible task. In fact, it is. It is impossible to please everyone and implement a system that would benefit everyone and make them 100% happy with what they are receiving. While total approval might seem like a fairy tale, major steps must be taken to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. First, as the “Beige Bomber” tells, “we should start fixing the most glaring problems of our system without junking it and starting over.” While starting over might seem like a better solution, in the end it would provide a bigger headache and an emptier national savings account. “We could use pooling to move away from the dump-and-deny insurance we have now. We could reward doctors for doing a good job. We could focus more on preventing sickness.” All of these tips make sense to me, and wouldn’t cost a large amount of money. They seem like a solid step in the right direction.
After taking in all the information, I can say that I agree with Michael Moore when he says that the American healthcare system needs to be changed. I, however differ with him when he proposes that the entire system be thrown away and a clean slate used to start again. As the “Beige Bomber” and “Dead Meat” sources say, fixing what we already have is the best way to move foreword. I think major changes need to take place in the next couple of years. Listening to President Obama, I believe that he has the capacity to take this issue on and change it so it fulfills the needs of all Americans. Hopefully, someday soon, the American healthcare industry will be one that other countries look upon with jealously, instead of the other way around.
While Moore presented the positives to Universal Healthcare, such as everyone receiving coverage and free to very low priced prescriptions, he failed to mention the disadvantages that the Beige Bomber article is quick to point out. This article mentions that “giving free health care to everyone costs a lot of money.” Perhaps most relevant in today’s terms, money is at an endangered state and spending that kind of it would be impossible to overcome.
As with most industries in this country, the healthcare industry is way over complicated. As the “Beige Bomber” article mentions, “[To implement a national health care system], you would need to do more than just overcome the insurance industry. You would need to cut the salaries of doctors, reform the legal system, enrage our allies by causing their prescription drug cost to escalate, and accustom patients to a central decision-maker authorized to determine what procedures they are and are not allowed to get.” All of this seems preposterous, but in today’s world, very true. I’m sorry to say that I wish it wasn’t this complicated, but it is. To fix the problem, it’s going to take more than overhauling just one related industry such as the healthcare industry. While it would be a good first step, the amount of work that would lay ahead would be enough to frighten even the toughest fighters. It is certainly a corrupt system—wealthy HMO CEOs making money off of the people most in need and forcing them to sell their homes, cars, and dignities to save their loved ones’ lives. I’m not saying that other countries are perfect either, however we have a long way to go before I’ll be satisfied with ours.
To recommend a system for the United States that would a) work, b) not cost a tremendous amount of money, c) provide care to everyone in need of it, and d) make everyone happy seems like the impossible task. In fact, it is. It is impossible to please everyone and implement a system that would benefit everyone and make them 100% happy with what they are receiving. While total approval might seem like a fairy tale, major steps must be taken to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. First, as the “Beige Bomber” tells, “we should start fixing the most glaring problems of our system without junking it and starting over.” While starting over might seem like a better solution, in the end it would provide a bigger headache and an emptier national savings account. “We could use pooling to move away from the dump-and-deny insurance we have now. We could reward doctors for doing a good job. We could focus more on preventing sickness.” All of these tips make sense to me, and wouldn’t cost a large amount of money. They seem like a solid step in the right direction.
After taking in all the information, I can say that I agree with Michael Moore when he says that the American healthcare system needs to be changed. I, however differ with him when he proposes that the entire system be thrown away and a clean slate used to start again. As the “Beige Bomber” and “Dead Meat” sources say, fixing what we already have is the best way to move foreword. I think major changes need to take place in the next couple of years. Listening to President Obama, I believe that he has the capacity to take this issue on and change it so it fulfills the needs of all Americans. Hopefully, someday soon, the American healthcare industry will be one that other countries look upon with jealously, instead of the other way around.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Blog #20: “Machiavellian Advisor to the New President of the United States of America”
With the recent election, there has been much talk about change. With Barack Obama as our new president, many things are going to be changed, hopefully for the better. After reading Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, if I were to imagine myself as an advisor to President Obama about the concepts and tactics entailed in the book, I would choose three teachings that I felt he should either employ or continue to use for the betterment of the United States of America and all of its citizens.
The first lesson is from Chapter VI (6) and deals with how princes form new princedoms. The United States has been around for well over 200 years, so I don’t think we have to worry about being seized by another “prince,” however, I believe this can apply in our efforts to end our recession and bounce back into prosperity. The specific part was that princes should follow in the footsteps of others, especially great leaders, in order to be successful on their own part. I see this happening already, in the fact the President Obama has researched President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Programs, and implemented a few of his own, with more sure to come. The two newest, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), show that using FDR’s type of programs have worked in the past, and will continue to work today. I chose this lesson because I feel it is important to be successful, and especially in these hard times, to be successful in the smallest amount of time to avoid other complications. By using something that worked in the past, will eliminate much time that would otherwise be spent developing some type of program to meet this need.
The second lesson is from Chapter VII (7) and addresses those princes who use their power and money to buy their way into positions of power. Princes of merit are far better leaders, and in the end, ultimately achieve a better overall satisfaction rating from the people. This is important when selecting cabinet members and appointing other public officials, because if they are selected because of their wealth, nothing good can come of it. Corruption is something that haunts American politics, and is something that needs to stop. By eliminating this form of leaders, eliminates a major source of the problem. I selected this lesson because I feel that the leaders we elect should serve the American people, not themselves. They are in a public office, and as a result, must act accordingly.
The final lesson is from Chapter X (10) and deals with when princedoms are attacked and/or seized. It goes on to say that if a princedom is attacked, it is best if the prince is prepared ahead of time to react to the attack. I believe that in our world today, war is inevitable, and we must ensure that we have the ability to protect ourselves and our allies. Currently the military of the United States is the largest in the world, by a wide margin. I believe this needs to continue, and I would urge the President to ensure that this happens. It is unnerving to think like this, but one must expect the worst, and in today’s world, that is pretty bad. Our military needs to ensure that no harm comes to the American people and our allies around the world.
While Machiavelli’s teachings and lessons are certainly controversial in democracies around the world, there are certain aspects that take hold in our form of government. The three lessons above reflect, in my opinion, those that we need to be concerned about most in today’s world.
The first lesson is from Chapter VI (6) and deals with how princes form new princedoms. The United States has been around for well over 200 years, so I don’t think we have to worry about being seized by another “prince,” however, I believe this can apply in our efforts to end our recession and bounce back into prosperity. The specific part was that princes should follow in the footsteps of others, especially great leaders, in order to be successful on their own part. I see this happening already, in the fact the President Obama has researched President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Programs, and implemented a few of his own, with more sure to come. The two newest, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), show that using FDR’s type of programs have worked in the past, and will continue to work today. I chose this lesson because I feel it is important to be successful, and especially in these hard times, to be successful in the smallest amount of time to avoid other complications. By using something that worked in the past, will eliminate much time that would otherwise be spent developing some type of program to meet this need.
The second lesson is from Chapter VII (7) and addresses those princes who use their power and money to buy their way into positions of power. Princes of merit are far better leaders, and in the end, ultimately achieve a better overall satisfaction rating from the people. This is important when selecting cabinet members and appointing other public officials, because if they are selected because of their wealth, nothing good can come of it. Corruption is something that haunts American politics, and is something that needs to stop. By eliminating this form of leaders, eliminates a major source of the problem. I selected this lesson because I feel that the leaders we elect should serve the American people, not themselves. They are in a public office, and as a result, must act accordingly.
The final lesson is from Chapter X (10) and deals with when princedoms are attacked and/or seized. It goes on to say that if a princedom is attacked, it is best if the prince is prepared ahead of time to react to the attack. I believe that in our world today, war is inevitable, and we must ensure that we have the ability to protect ourselves and our allies. Currently the military of the United States is the largest in the world, by a wide margin. I believe this needs to continue, and I would urge the President to ensure that this happens. It is unnerving to think like this, but one must expect the worst, and in today’s world, that is pretty bad. Our military needs to ensure that no harm comes to the American people and our allies around the world.
While Machiavelli’s teachings and lessons are certainly controversial in democracies around the world, there are certain aspects that take hold in our form of government. The three lessons above reflect, in my opinion, those that we need to be concerned about most in today’s world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
