Blog #14: N-Word Blog Two

“The best way to get rid of a problem is to hold it up to the bright light and look at all sides…” Andy Rooney of “60 Minutes” said this about Mr. Randall Kennedy’s book. I believe that after reading this book, I do agree with this statement. This certainly is a sensitive subject to many Americans, and is perhaps the largest of its type. While examining the issue brings up protests and debates, I believe it to be necessary in resolving this issue. As the quote goes, “Anything worth doing takes time and effort,” and along with that goes opening up a severely sensitive issue. I believe that this book does more than its fair share of doing just that. Countless stories of harassed employees, students, and teachers show that while it may be hard, the discussion of this topic is vital to the advancement of abolishing the evil nature behind the N-word.

In 1990, Stanford University passed a school rule that “prohibited harassment by personal vilification.” This was passed as a result of an increased number of incidents around the country dealing with whites using the N-word against blacks. While Stanford’s rule didn’t have the effect they had hoped for, due to odd wording of the rule, nevertheless it provided an example for others in the form of action against those who use the N-word violently. However, there are many debates about this topic, stemming from the violation of our freedom of speech to the classification of the N-word as a “fighting word.” Also included in the debates is perhaps the most debated question: who is allowed to use the N-word, and under what circumstances? This also asks that if blacks can use it with other blacks, how is that all that different from whites using it, in terms of social acceptance. If whites see that blacks are “ok” with using the word within their own social groups, then it gives a false reading to the whites as to what is really acceptable. In the television episode of “Boston Public” that we viewed, they addressed this debate. The white teacher wanted to explore this book and adjoining discussions with his class, but the administration told him he could not. The administrator was black, and the teacher was white, and due to racial tension issues, the white teacher was told to forget about this topic. The class was going to discuss who was able to use the word, after a confrontation between a white and black student erupted from the use of the N-word, used affectionately.

There is one thing certain in all of this confusion, and it is that the N-word sparks controversy and protest when used, no matter what the context. “The word is simply too important to ignore.”

The webpage abolishthenword.com contradicts this when it states that the use of the N-word should be limited to only historical references, and that it should be removed from everyday language. I believe that eliminating the word will not solve anything, as too many people already know and possess the knowledge to use it against others. Plus, the concept of controlling the removal of the word would be impossible.

The N-word certainly has power. It is the people who give it its power though. Just mentioning the word brings discussions and petitions from both blacks and whites, and that certainly is power. The N-word is unquestionably one of the most demeaning terms in the English language, and to most, it is taken in that context.

In closing, I believe that there is a benefit to examining the N-word, even though it brings debate whenever mentioned. Sadly, I do not believe that the intent of the word can be changed without the immense amount of work that would be educating people about the origins of the N-word and proper replacements for it. However, with the acceptance of this by my generation, I believe that slowly, over time, the violent side will diminish until the word becomes obsolete, both because people don’t care about the word itself, and because people don’t care what you are, but rather who you are. I believe that as time continues, this will happen, and that the N-word will no longer have the power that it does now.

Blog #13: "N-Word Book - Chapter One"

After reading chapter one of the N-Word book, I found the perspectives that Mr. Randall Kennedy offered to be of the same nature of my own for the most part. One in particular that I especially agreed with is found on page 41, and directly deals with this quote from Ice-Cube. “When we call each other [the N-Word] it means no harm. But if a white person uses it, it’s something different, it’s a racist word.” Kennedy then proceeds to question why it is that African-Americans are okay when they use the N-Word with each other, but not when a white person uses it. My question is if the African-American people who use the N-Word towards one another are offended when white people use it, why don’t they stop using it within themselves? All that accomplishes is spreading the wild fire that eventually reaches the whites, and says “we are okay if you use it, because we use it.” This gives whites who don’t have a lot of interaction the wrong message, that the N-Word is acceptable is society, when in reality, it is the complete opposite. I absolutely agree with Kennedy’s thinking on this argument. The whole “Be the change you want to see in the world” quote could take hold here. If the African-American population (the ones who use the N-Word with each other in a warm, comfort-type way) were to stop using the word in that way, then soon the white population would as well. It’s just that the whites are getting reinforcement for their actions from the African-Americans who use the N-Word towards one another.

Part of the confusion or chaos of the word, comes from the fact that because two different ethnic groups are using it for two different uses, it takes on two different meanings. The N-Word has been put into a variety of situations and can mean a variety of definitions. Some African-Americans use it as a comfort word, to reassure others, yet some white use it as a demeaning, ugly, evil word that it ultimately is. To eliminate it would solve all the problems associated with it, yet a practical solution cannot contain this step. Perhaps America will find a way to deal with this, but for now, it remains a certainly touchy subject.

Blog #12: "Bowling for Columbine and the Socratic Method"

After watching “Bowling For Columbine” and viewing Michael Moore’s style of creating documentaries, I do see a connection between that and the Socratic Method. Both used styles unique to themselves to prove their respected points. Socrates used long dialogues to persuade both his fellow philosophers and readers of the book now, while Moore used “creative” editing techniques to prove his point on the silver screen. Both men truly believed in their opinions, and it is evident in their work. When someone is passionate about something, the reader or viewer knows it. While some may not agree with the opinions of these two, they both were able to take the opposing view and defend their own. In Socrates’ case, he was defending his choice to remain in prison and be sentenced to death to that of Crito, who wanted him to escape and avoid his death. Socrates answered with many points that made Crito think, and as a result convinced Crito that he was making the right decision for the circumstance. In the case of Michael Moore, he was accused of changing and editing out certain parts of his video footage, in an effort to make it smoother, and convince others of his view better. Since those accusations, Moore has publicly defended his ideas and techniques, saying that everything seen in his documentaries that is presented as the truth, is the truth. His views, however, remain his views. While he doesn’t present the other side in his documentaries, he acknowledges them and defends his opinions against them. His website also explains more of what he was trying to say in his documentaries. Both men use the method of getting people to think in order to force them to come to their own conclusions. The quote “the unexamined life is not worth living” comes from Socrates, and summarizes this entire topic. Those who use their power to question and think are the ones who make a difference in this world.

Blog #11: "Crito vs. Socrates"

To be plain and simple, I agree with Socrates. While Crito started with a few good arguments, Socrates answered them with many more, and to a greater extent. When looking at the dialogue, it's clear that Socrates had much more to say, as he had probably one hundred words to Crito's one. Also, when Socrates convinced Crito that he should remain in his cell, awaiting his death sentence, he also convinces the reader. Crito wanted to break out Socrates because he wanted Socrates to think that his friends and followers actually cared about him, and that it would make the public's view of them bad if they did nothing to try to save him. Socrates answered with the “Don't care what others think of you” response, but took it one step further to say that the only opinions worth anything are those from officials, because they have the power to change things. Everyone else will merely hold you back from your true potential.

Finally, Socrates stated that if it was just and “legal” for him to escape, he would follow Crito, but because it was not, he was bound by the Laws of Athens. These were the foundations of their society, and breaking one of the laws, would be the same as breaking all of the laws, which Socrates couldn't do because he would be exiled from the society.

The amount and certainly the depth of Socrates' arguments forces me to choose his point of view over that of Crito's. I'm not saying that Crito didn't try, he just wasn't a fair match for Socrates.

The Law and Justice packet relates closely to this situation. On one hand, the law, or the death sentence that Socrates has received, is the concrete ruling. It is uniform for all people, and is generally formed in the best interest of the citizens as a whole. On the other hand is justice. Even though it seems unfair, Socrates would be breaking his personal morals, and for him, this would be unjust. However, to us, it seems as though justice would prevent Socrates' death, because when fire is fought with more fire, the only thing that happens is a bigger fire that soon spirals out of control.

Blog #10: “‘The Apology’ from ‘The Dialogues of Plato’”

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

I believe this quote best relates to me. When I think about my life and life in general, I believe that it is always best to ask questions. When someone is forced to ask “Why?” they are also forced to discover the answer for themselves. This is much more rewarding than simply being force-fed the answer. This leads to many more questions and many more answers that are truly rewarding.

I also like the approach when someone asks “Why?” to ask “Why Not?” I believe this forces people to look on the other side of the debate, and take in both views. In doing this, people become more well-rounded, and they understand the reasons behind their opinions, other than one or two major reasons. It is this thought process that leads to many new discoveries in our world.

When someone does not ask questions, and merely accepts the decisions of others, nothing good can come from it. The basis of our country rests on this basic principle, and it is an inspiration to people all around the world. Without thinking for yourself, and questioning those in charge, you’re just setting yourself up for disaster.

I believe this is a great motto for the rest of my life. With college and a future career literally, right around the corner, I truly believe that this is the right direction that I need to take. In order to be successful, I need to implement this method of thinking.

Blog #9: "Flock of Dodos and the Evolution versus Intelligent Design Debate"

To begin with, the debate between teaching evolution and intelligent design in our public schools is one of many complications. When evolution is taught as part of the required curriculum, it can lead to people who question their faith. When intelligent design is taught, all sorts of red flags spring up because while intelligent design doesn’t necessarily involve God, it still involves a “higher being” and this violates the separation of church and state. And to teach both and the controversy between them brings still more problems with it. Usually it is best to present both sides to an argument, and let the people decide for themselves what they feel is the best answer for themselves, but this case is different. When the concept of “Where did we come from?” comes into play, the stakes are raised ten-fold. The teachers involved could intentionally or subconsciously teach biased lessons either for or against intelligent design, based on their own religious beliefs. Because of this, most educators and officials are against the concept of “teaching the controversy.”

Personally, I believe that there is no simple answer to a problem such as this. To begin with, it’s kind of like achieving world peace. Sure, it’d be nice, but who are we kidding? There are too many strong supporters on either side willing to fight at all costs. That being said, there are four possible solutions, none of which promise a satisfactory nod from all the people involved.

First, there is the “teach only evolution” option. This raises conflicts because as stated above, it can force students to question their own faith. The Evolution versus Intelligent Design article however, states that “evolution does not imply atheism” and that “evolution doesn't disprove God, it tries to prove how he did it.” If others could understand this, perhaps the debate wouldn't be as heated. It then continues with “We think students should learn [evolution]. It's a very influential theory in modern biology, and students need to understand what it is. What hurts them is if you teach them to just absorb and swallow evolution as uncritical fact.” This is a problem, because with many different teaching style, there is no absolute way to enforce a uniform teaching standard.

The next option is the “teach only intelligent design” option. This requires introducing an aspect of a “higher being,” though not necessarily God, still a god-like being is involved, and this poses a problem for public schools. Religion cannot be a part of required curriculum in public schools, because it violates the separation of church and state. Again, the Evolution versus Intelligent Design article mentions that “the Constitution prohibits the states from endorsing or promoting a religious view.”

The third option is the “teach the controversy” option. This would include teaching both sides, and the reasons for the disagreements between the two. However, with this brings more problems, because as the article mentions “the problem comes when school boards or teachers want to push their own religious agenda and include it in regular curriculum.” This is not allowed in public schools, as stated above in the separation of church and state concept. The Flock of Dodos talked about the fact that teaching both has problems that leads into a never-ending cycle. Teaching intelligent design violates the separation of church and state, and teaching evolution causes people to doubt their beliefs and question what they believe in. This cycle continues, and forces the debate on and on.

The last option may make the most sense, now that we've covered all the problems that the previous three, but in reality, it comes with the most. This option is the “don't teach either.” However, we learn from the article that “administrators can't avoid the conflict by declaring they'll teach neither. If the state science standards include evolution, you have to teach it to qualify for the No Child Left Behind standards. Removing evolution is most likely an unconstitutional move...”

Whatever the best choice is, I'm not sure. I agree with most of the facts the article presented, even though they don't provide a clear-cut answer. My opinion is that to ensure proper funding results from the No Child Left Behind, and to ensure religion doesn't play a role in public education, my vote is to continue teaching evolution only in the classroom. Extreme care must be given to ensure that it is only presented, and not forced upon the students involved. If this can be achieved, then perhaps we are on the right track to solving this great argument.

In class, we discussed the debate that evolutionists use against intelligent design supporters. It is the “rabbit example,” and the hypothetical question is “If there was an intelligent designer, why didn't rabbits get designed better?” This is as a result of the rabbit's poor digestion system. A rabbit has to eat food, poop it out, and re-eat it to gain the necessary nutrients from the food. This is one of the questions evolutionists propose to intelligent design supporters.

Blog #8: "Most Valuable / Worthwhile / Interesting Topic This Year"

The topic or issue that I have found to be most interesting and valuable to me later in life, is that of law and justice.

To being with, I particularly enjoyed the movie, A Few Good Men. I’m not sure what it was about the movie, but I really liked watching it. In this resource, the concept of law versus justice was presented, and to me at least, was very easy to see. Throughout life, to this point, I had never realized the difference between the law and justice, but through a combination of my own experiences and this unit, especially this movie, I now have a better understanding of this debate.

Recently I was involved in a minor car accident. I was stopped at a red light and was rear-ended. The person who hit me had apparently looked away and didn’t react in time to safely stop in time. However, because the damage was only to my bumper and looks as though it is under $1,000, chances are, nothing will be done about it. What I mean, is that, even though she hit me and she has insurance, if I want it fixed, I’m on my own. Either I or my insurance would have to pay for it, thus making my rates skyrocket. Is this fair? Absolutely not, she rear-ended me at a RED LIGHT! I was not at fault what-so-ever. However, the law in the state of Wisconsin stands that if the damage is under $1,000, no official report has to be filed. Because of this, I would have to pay for her mistake, even though I am the victim. The law says one thing, but in my mind, justice is a complete opposite. This is because the law must provide for everyone, as if they are all the same, robot-like person. Under the law, we are all the same, but justice is not the same way. Because justice is based on morals, and everyone has a different set of them, there is no cookie-cutter for what justice can bring. Sure it’s unfair, but I understand the way our government has to work to provide for the country as a whole.

I take from this unit many things. First, my belief that the world is not fair was strengthened. But I must move on, and “get used to it.” Secondly, and by far more importantly, is the fact that the government does all it can to satisfy the needs of its people. Laws are in place to protect and provide for the citizens, and even though one incident feels unfair, the overall picture of what happens and what is in place for us is a pretty good deal. As I advance in my life, I can only learn more. This foundation is a good base for all that is what we consider government and politics. Being that the newest presidential election is today (November 4, 2008), provides a good example of this point. The more a person knows about how their government works, the more apt they are to make informed decisions on important matters, like an election. Even though I am too young to vote today, I will use this knowledge in four years when I can vote for the next presidential election.

Blog #7: "Law and Justice"

To begin with, the difference between law and justice is simple. Law is what the government requires us to do, and justice is what our personal set of morals tell us to do. However, the simplicity ends at that. One passage that I took to a higher meaning from the selected reading, Law and Justice, reads “Law is only a means. Government is only a means. ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ - these are the ends. And ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.’” This statement definitely favors the justice side more so, stating that when the people don’t agree with the laws the government has enacted, then it is the people’s right to change to a government that better suits their needs. Above all else, it says that the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness stand, and that the law and related government are only a way to ensure that those rights are met.

I believe that both law and justice are necessary. First justice is required, and then the law is a means to make sure the justice is achieved. They are dependent on each other for success. However, when the law says one thing, but your moral code says another, the question comes up “What should I do?” Many people struggle with this question. Are you loyal to your country, or to yourself? While most of us are both, sometimes that answer can only be one or the other, and it is up to the individual to decide. However, when choosing morals over the law, one must be prepared to face the consequences that go hand in hand with breaking the law.

I thought it was interesting how the article discussed the different ways the law is handled according to the accused. The passage reads “…a CIA official commits perjury and gets off with a fine (Alger Hiss spent four years in jail for perjury), a president is pardoned in advance of prosecution for acts against the law, … and others are found guilty of violating the law in the Iran-Contra affair, but none go to prison.” It also mentions the impact people with power because of their money have on the political process. While I was aware of most of this already, it just seemed different in print. The law is supposed to be uniform for everyone to ensure fairness for everyone. However, when powerful and wealthy individuals get involved, it seems as if they can buy their way out of their problems. This is not right, and my morals say something must be done about it. With the upcoming presidential election approaching closer and closer every day, we will just have to wait to see if Barack Obama or John McCain stay true to their words in dealing with the many problems they would face if elected president on November 4th.

Over time, law and justice haven’t really changed in a sense of sometimes the law says one thing, but your morals say another. However the individual incidents have changed, as history changes. As wars occur, peoples’ opinions about them change, and drafts are protested. Yet during peace times, this doesn’t occur, because it is irreverent.

In closing, law and justice are different, and when the time comes to choose between the two, only you can decide for yourself.

Blog #6: "Inherit the Wind"

In the note preceding the play, Inherit the Wind, the authors Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee state that “…The issues of their conflict have acquired new dimension and meaning in the thirty years since they clashed at the Rhea County Courthouse…The stage directions set the time as ‘Not too long ago.’ It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow.” This states that they believe the themes contained in Inherit the Wind are both universal and timeless.

Two themes present in this book are that of society versus the individual and a limited perspective. The first relates to the book because Cates stood up against everyone else in the town, and taught what he believed. Not that he believed, necessarily, in evolution, but that the kids should have a choice in what they believed. Not only did he teach it, but he had to stand up in court and state his views. As an individual, he stood up to society and in the end, won. Second, that of a limited perspective also ties into the trial itself. Everyone in the town was concerned with the Bible’s teachings, that they didn’t have time to listen to any other theories. Towards the end of the trial, Drummond convinced some of them that there is always more than one point of view, but for the majority of the story, they remained limited in their perspective.

I believe that playwrights imply that the themes are universal and timeless at the beginning of their plays because it states that the content of the play can be taken away from its original context, and applied to any other situation throughout history that requires it. No matter what time period, or along with it, what rules of society apply, the theme will still exist. Also, it applies to everyone, everywhere, at every time.

Today, these themes teach us. They show us the same things that are wrong with society today, as what were wrong with society 30 years ago. Hopefully we can learn from these, but as history shows itself, it tends to repeat itself. An example of the theme “Limited Perspective” that has occurred in today’s age is the war in Iraq. Most people, due to a limited perspective, believe that it is a bad idea, and that we never should have gone there in the first place. I’m not saying my opinion is either for this or against this, I’m just saying there is always more than one point of view. Perhaps if we knew what it was, we’d be able to make better decisions later in history.

Blog #5: "Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority? "

After reading the Taking Sides article about promoting democracy around the world, I felt strongly about the side that favored it. In the introduction, the fact was mentioned that “democracies tend not to fight with one another and instead are generally highly integrated economically and politically with one another.” This is the cornerstone of my opinion, because I believe that the world needs less fighting and more getting along. I think that if the governments of the world could agree to not disagree to the point of fighting in a war, then we’d all be in a better global situation. In this way, democracies seem to offer the best solution to the problem.

Along with the fact that democracies don’t fight as much with one another, comes the fact that “when we consider indicators such as life expectancy, illiteracy, and access to clean drinking water…democratizers enjoy better living conditions than autocracies.” This means that the quality of life for democratic citizens is considerably better than non-democratic citizens. Everyone, regardless of nationality, should be entitled to these things because they are human-beings. These natural rights are given in democracies, and if the rest of the world realized the good they can do, maybe they would change for the better. “What is government but a mechanism by which a society orders its priorities? The more representative, transparent, and accountable this process, the more balanced the outcomes will be compared to a system that is narrowly based and lacking incentives for responsiveness to citizen interests.” A government should act in the best interest of its citizens, and in order to fully understand those interests, a government needs to listen to its people. A democracy is the only way that this will happen.

I believe that the world needs more democracies. Democracies give the power to the people, as it should be. A government is a representation of the people under it, and what better way to represent them, than to give them a say in what happens? Being that the United States is a leader in the world, and a prime example of the prosperity that can result from democratic rule, I believe we are more than qualified to show others this effect. In this case, I say yes, promoting democracy abroad should be a top U.S. priority.

Along with my opinion of the argument as it is, I also believe that the author of the pro-democracy gave his opinion is a stronger fashion, as well as addressing the opposition better. Joseph Siegle, the author, gives more reference to the better world that can be had, if the US helps promote democracy, as well as the effects if this is not done. He gives a more convincing argument, while the author of the “no” side, Tamara Cofman Wittes, is more confusing. While reading the opposition, it seemed as if she was confused as well. She says that “America must make [Iraq’s] success our first priority…It might provide a powerful demonstration effect to the neighborhood.” To me, this seems as if she favors spreading democracy around the world, which agrees with Siegle. That being said, I favor the argument that supports promoting democracy abroad.

Blog #4: “Is it Justified to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress?”

Torture: A little bit tends to spread like wildfire. As evident in the Abu Ghraib incident and following investigations, the tactic of using torture to gain information is a highly controversial and sensitive issue, as it should be. While reading this Taking Sides article, I was confused as to how I really felt. On one hand, there is the idea that in order to save the lives and safeguard the freedom of millions, it must be withheld from a few. However, on the other side, the argument stands that this is America, and we stand for freedom, not just for us, but for everyone.

Personally, I found this debate intriguing, due to the complicity of the issue at hand. During the reading, I could have picked either side for multiple reasons, but in the end, I side with the pro-torture (only in certain circumstances) side of the debate. Allow me to explain: from the reading, there are three types of war prisoners. The first is the ordinary soldier caught on the battlefield. No form of torture should ever come to him at anytime. Second is the captured terrorist, and third is the terrorist with information. Definitely number three should be subject to methods of torture in order to gain information that could lead to the saving of many other lives. However the complication comes in when determining number two from number three. Unless one is absolutely, without-a-doubt, for certain that the detainee in question holds information that could potentially save other lives, torture should not be an option. We, as America, cannot falsely torture innocent prisoners if we don’t know for certain that these prisoners hold coveted information that could save many other lives. As the opposition to this debate argues, and as it applies in this area of my opinion, “[Torture] is anti-ethical to the most basic principles for which the United States stands for.” However, as applied to the President of the United States’ standpoint, if the situation came up where information was needed, and there was a possible suspect that held that information, then “elected leaders, responsible above all for the protection of their citizens, have to do what is necessary to get information that could prevent mass murder…” and in some cases, that includes torture. Sure it is immoral, but in order to save and protect the freedom of millions, unfortunately we have to forget about a few.

The issue of September 11th came up in the article with this passage: “Have we learned nothing from 9/11?” Because September 11, 2001 was one of the darkest days in our history, and certainly in my lifetime, it is important to do whatever is necessary (again from the standpoint of the President) to prevent it from happening again. If we have learned anything from history, it is that it repeats itself. We cannot allow it to happen to us again, and as a country, we must do what is necessary to prevent that.

More debate comes from the fact that this is a very complicated issue. As the United States, freedom is our central foundation. Important documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution focus on freedom, not just for us in America, but for everyone in the world, because we are all human. However, I argue that when someone acts in a way that is sub-human, such as plotting and carrying out an event like 9/11, then they lose their so-called title of being human. Torture is seen around the world as the “anti-freedom,” and association with the United States is an oxymoron of sorts. Except that, like most countries, we have our own best interests at heart. I believe that torture should be allowed when it is used to keep the millions of Americans in this country safe and free. The old “kill one to save a million” comes back into play, and the people who threaten our freedom will have theirs stripped.

Once again, the complication comes when the absolute certainty comes along. Unless we are for-certain, we cannot torture someone who may be innocent. This is not only illegal, but highly immoral. However, in the situation of the confirmed terrorist with information, all bets are off, and the information must be learned for the good of the United States of America.

In closing, the issue of using torture to get information that could save the lives of many is both complicated and controversial. I believe that only when absolutely certain that a suspected terrorist has information, should torture be allowed. Only then, with that information, can other 9/11-plotters be stopped, and our great country kept safe. Freedom is our foundation, and we must make sure others have the same rights to it as we do, as long as they follow the “rules” and stay humane. When terrorists enter the picture, everything is distorted, and torture helps sort it out. However, as stated in the beginning, caution must be used, for a little bit of torture tends to spread like wildfire.

Blog #3: "Dead Teen Walking"

As I read “Dead Teen Walking,” I was amazed at how my opinion changed. As I read into this story, I both favored the death penalty and was against it in regards to juveniles. Being underage myself, I would find it pretty hard to contain my anger with our judicial system, if I were convicted wrongly, and sentenced to death as a result. That being said, I’m not saying that Shareef Cousin was innocent or guilty of the crime he was punished for, only that if he was wrongly accused and sentenced, this incident is more than just unfair, it’s immoral. I’ll start at the beginning and with my initial thoughts:

The first sentence of the article, “Dead Teen Walking” astounded me. “The U.S. is one of the few nations that put juveniles on death row” (1). My immediate response was “WHAT?” Never in my wildest dreams would I have guessed that we, as the “free world” and the leader in so many things, would be capable of legally killing kids. The article later mentions that only “Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Yemen—and the U.S. have executed juveniles” (3). Compared to the rest of the list, the U.S. stands out above the rest of being more humane, except in this circumstance. It just amazes me that this occurs here. As Cousin’s story unfolds, I initially take his side, partly because I feel sorry for him (the article mentions being locked up 23 hours of the day), and partly because he was a victim of child abuse. Growing up, the article mentions many things that I can’t imagine having to live through day after day. Such things as “being thrashed with wooden sticks and electric cords, hit in the head with bricks, breaking a baseball bat over his head, and smashing a dinner plate, also on his head” were common and never once treated. Being that most of this abuse was primarily done to the head, both the aspect of abuse as well as brain damage come up as issues. Being that he was a kid taught that violence was part of the “norm,” and that he had substantial brain damage, perhaps could have contributed to the potential violent action for which he was sentenced and imprisoned.

As the story continued, I began to turn away from Cousin. It was pretty interesting to find myself changing “sides” as more evidence was presented and different sides of the same story were told. At this point, I stated to view Cousin as a criminal, just because the prosecutors made it seem that he was one. Yet as time marched on, certain things were omitted or “lost” that favored the prosecutors. At this point, I started to favor Cousin again, especially after the listing of evidence that could prove his innocence was shown, but not used in court.

Whether or not Cousin was actually guilty, I do not know. I do know, however, that I believe that we, as a nation, should not “put teens, guilty or not, in a situation where they are forced to fight for their lives” (4). There are many more possibilities, especially for teens, than simply killing them.

Connecting this article to Jack London’s White Fang proved to be challenging. The differences between the two writings significantly outweigh the similarities, but nonetheless, there are a few. First, both articles deal with survival. The “main characters” were forced to adapt to what was happening around them in order to stay alive. White Fang had to change into a “pet” in order to earn his keep with Weedon Scott, while Shareef Cousin had to fend for himself after his dad left and his mom gave up on him. (On a side note, I can’t imagine being in this situation. I feel as though every kid deserves a good childhood. Sadly, this isn’t the case, as shown by Shareef Cousin’s childhood.) Both characters adapted to their surroundings, which would lean to the “nurture” side of the debate of whether people (or beings) are evil by birth or by choice. They were able to change to survive, and that could’ve been good or bad.

Looking back at my final opinion of teens on death row, I would say that White Fang only strengthened my choice. I believe now that teens should not be placed on death row. This is mainly due to the fact that I believe that people are influenced by their surroundings or the environment into being the person they eventually become. This is the “nurture” side again, and both White Fang and “Dead Teen Walking” show this. First, in “Dead Teen Walking,” Shareef was the subject of harsh child abuse that influenced both his character and brain. This was an outside force that changed the way he thought of the world. Next, in White Fang, White Fang changed many times throughout the book, from violent and savage, to calm and mellow because of the situations he found himself in. Both the story and the article reflect my view on the debate between nature and nurture, and that is nurture.

(Blog #2) TIME Magazine Blog: "What Makes Us Moral"

Since elementary school, we have been taught that first impressions are lasting impressions. With the first two paragraphs of Jeffrey Kluger’s “What Makes Us Moral,” I was at a loss of words. To put it better, I had never thought of the human species as “diverse” (if you want to use that word) before.

“…We nurse one another, romance one another, weep for one another…At the same time, we slaughter one another…[People are] the highest, wisest, most principled species the planet has ever produced…[But also] the lowest, cruelest, most blood-drenched species…” (1).

Like I said before, I’d never sat down and thought of how far humans reached into both ends of the spectrum. While it’s really interesting, it’s really quite depressing. Looking at how far we’ve come in the world is great, but how far we have to go is a hurdle we will be trying to clear for many years to come.

The theme we’ve been discussing this year so far is the one of “Nature versus Nurture.” I take this to mean that we as human beings and being of human nature, have two options. We can either be bad from the get-go, or we can turn bad because of our surroundings, whether it be peer-pressure, harsh living conditions, childhood abuse, etc. “What Makes Us Moral” mentions that “psychologists believe kids feel a sense of morality innately,” meaning they can tell right from wrong based on some sort of inherited instinct or prior teaching, or in other words, the nature part of the debate. However, later on, the article mentions that those around us create the “moral grammar” that we have to apply in order to be effective.

“Something still has to boot up that software [to determine the right’s and wrong’s] …and that something is the community…It’s the people around us who do that teaching…” (3).

This suggests that the community, meaning outsiders, have a dominant role in shaping one’s morality. This is the other side of the argument, meaning the "Nurture" path.

I thought it was interesting how the author presented the idea that “moral judgment” is something that most humans have and are pretty consistent with each other, but “moral behavior” is not uniform with all humans. This means that we all know what is right and what is wrong, even though we sometimes act contrary to it.

My view on the theme of “Nature versus Nurture” is that humans are influenced by outside forces, meaning I agree more with the “Nurture” side. I’m not saying I’m completely one-hundred percent there, but it’s close. I think it’s pretty hard to say that no matter what happens, humans are going to turn bad. I believe that the environment they are placed in (or forced in) determine how they will react and act to it. This article expressed both sides briefly, and I think that the “Nurture” side is more accurate of human behavior.

William Golding’s The Lord of the Flies expressed the “Nature” side of the debate. Golding suggests that man is inherently evil, and nothing can be done to change it. While, I enjoyed reading The Lord of the Flies more that Jack London’s White Fang, I agree with White Fang’s view of the theme more. In White Fang, White Fang was influenced and “shaped” by his environment. He had to adjust his behavior to stay alive. From the beginning of the story, he was a fighter, who hunted and learned aggression early in life. This transferred with him when he lived under Gray Beaver, and later Beauty Smith. Especially because of Smith’s abuse, White Fang continues to be a savage killer. However, when the kindness of Weedon Scott engulfs him, White Fang can’t help but transform his nature to that of a loyal pet. This just shows how the environment of one (whether that one be of human or animal nature - in this aspect, it no longer matters) directly changes one’s nature.

In closing, the article, “What Makes Us Moral” addressed both sides of the debate of “Nature versus Nurture,” but more importantly gave perspective to human nature, and how far to each end of reality we stretch. We are givers and takers, literally, and I believe we need to find a common balance somewhere closer to the middle. This could be perhaps the largest challenge man-kind will ever face. This article shed light on both sides, but it did not change my opinion. I truly believe that human nature is influenced by the environment in which they find themselves in. The debate is “Nature versus Nurture” and as for me, I choose “Nurture.”

Blog #1: My Summer Reading Favorite

I enjoyed reading The Lord of the Flies by William Golding more than White Fang by Jack London for several reasons.

First, the character types in both books were completely different, at least in my eye. In The Lord of the Flies, the characters were people who talked. In White Fang, most of them were either dogs or wolves, and they used actions as speech. It was a little harder to figure out what conversations between two or more characters were about. While that is not my main reason for liking The Lord of the Flies better, part of it comes from the fact that I found the style of White Fang kind of annoying after a time.

Second, the conflict in The Lord of the Flies was clearly defined. The intensity between Ralph (the good) and Jack (the bad) was so interesting, I couldn’t put the book down. This is perhaps the largest factor in my determination. Reading The Lord of the Flies, I couldn’t help but feel Ralph’s frustration with the others, especially about keeping the fire going. I can relate to his frustration, because I too have experienced the feeling of being the only one who thinks a certain way, and all efforts to persuade others had failed. Back to the book, it was this “stirred emotion” that made reading The Lord of the Flies more enjoyable than White Fang. Also, as mentioned earlier, I couldn’t put it down – it had my attention.

Lastly, the whole topic of the summer assignment was the focused around the question, “Is man inherently evil?” I found that White Fang was more complicated to relate to this theme than The Lord of the Flies. Perhaps because The Lord of the Flies was so easy to figure out, it made White Fang all the more difficult. That aside, both books related to the theme, The Lord of the Flies was just clearer.

In closing, while White Fang was somewhat enjoyable to read, I enjoyed reading The Lord of the Flies more. As stated above, the characters were actual people and they actually talked. The conflict was easy to see and easy to understand. And, the main theme was more relatable to The Lord of the Flies. All in all, they were both good books, The Lord of the Flies just came out on top for me.