THE OTHER WES MOORE: PRE- READING

2. Humans often "do what others expect of them."  Write a blog post that explains what others around you expect of you.  In your blog post also discuss the impact that others expectations have on you.  (I.E.) Do you meet their expectations, do you exceed them?  Do you try to do what others expect?  Should you?    

We live in a society where expectations are inevitable. Life runs on expectations, the good parts and the bad. We all respond differently to the expectations that society forces as on us. Our parents expectations or lack of expectations, our teachers expectations, and the expectations of the people around us. Are they good, bad, needed, or essential to life?

In my opinion I think that the expectations that society presents us with can sometimes be harmful to us and can have the potential to change our minds and who we really are. Stereo types are a great example of bad expectations. We are told we have to be a certain way otherwise we don't fit in or act as we should. Women in the past were expected to never speak up and submit to their husbands and fathers. This still takes place today, but for the most part we know that this was bad and that if women hadn't been stuck in these stereotypes history would have been a lot different. 

Our parents have expectations for us that are unique and specific to certain situations. I think that the expectations that our parents have for us can make us strive to become better people. Or they can make us want to rebel. Personally, I make it a point to follow what my mom expects of me. Getting good grades, being a leader, being kind and accepting to everyone are all things that I try to do. I partly listen to her because I am a people pleaser. And that's another reason why you need to be careful when dealing with expectations. If you know that you feel the need to please others all the time it's important that you not take every expectation to heart. I also listen to my mom because many of her expectations are the same as my personal ones and in the end those are the expectations that really matter.


It doesn't really matter what others think or even what your parents think because in the end your character, actions, and personality are based on your own expectations for yourself. How you carry yourself and how you act as a person. Expectations are something that can make us better people or can stifle who we are. The only thing we can do is hope that we can spot the difference between the two.

TRIANGULATION ESSAY

Dystopian forms of media such as "Harrison Bergernon," Anthem, and Antz all show us how dangerous the world can be when we let others control our future, thoughts, and actions. But in each media, we are inspired by the protagonist's rejection of their oppressive governments and social norm. Each media manages to present us with a similar message, but in a unique way.

In each media, we can see there's a higher power that makes all the decisions. But the decisions they make don't benefit the citizens but the government itself. Everything is selfishly controlled by them without even the consideration of how it could detrimentally affect the people. They rule violently in order to ensure that their people will never think that they have a choice or should think independently. In "Harrison Bergernon," it's the Handicap Generals. In Anthem, there is the council. And in Antz, there is General Mandible. In "Harrison Bergernon," the government stifles people's talents in order to keep them all equal. Whereas the main mission of "Harrison Bergernon's" government is to make everyone equal, in Antz and Anthem the mission is to brainwash their people into believing that their very existence is for the "Brotherhood" or the "Colony".  Anthem and Antz both promote their mission through fear and propaganda, but in "Harrison Bergernon" they achieve their mission through handicaps and ignorance. "Harrison Bergernon" and Anthem's governments are unique in the way they incorporate fear. Fear of the past (Unmentionable Times) (Dark Ages). They make it sound like everything in the past was bad and wrong. They used fear of violence, as well as fines. Although all three governments used different methods to achieve their mission, their results were the same... complete control and no individualism.

We are now familiar with how the three governments work, but how do the people in the society react to it? They basically allow their governments to control them in every aspect of their lives. The ironic thing is that they all think they are happy and content, because that's what they are told and far be it for anyone to ever question what their government tells them. And even if there is the off chance that someone questions what they are told, the thoughts are soon expelled, due to guilt and fear, derived from brainwashing. The people in "Harrison Bergernon" aren't even able to think due to all their handicaps. The people in Anthem listen because they believe that they are nothing and the only way to find meaning is in working for the Brotherhood. In Antz, the ants are so focused on the good of the colony they don't have the time nor energy to consider the possibility of a new and better society. None of the three societies believe that there could ever be another way of life until 1 person in each community revolted against the oppression. Equality 7- 2521's  private thinking started to show on the outside and ended up catching the eye of Liberty 5-3000. Equality made Liberty doubt what the Brotherhood told her. Z's rebellion made the whole colony second guess their leaders. When Harrison cursed society and claimed that he was king, the people, even if it was for just a second, found hope. All three protagonists made their societies believe that freedom could after all be possible.

The government is oppressive towards their people, and the people accept it, but they occasionally have doubts about whether or not how they are living is really the best way. There is obviously a need for change in all three medias, but how? The key is someone who doesn't fit in because they are above everyone else. They are not content for others tell them they are. Just like everyone else, they have doubts, but it's not enough to dismiss it like everyone else. Harrison, Equality, and Z are the protagonists that have the potential of making a utopia possible. Harrison and Equality are big and strong, but even though Z is smaller, he and Equality are smart and knowledgeable. Harrison was also smart, but he didn't use his intelligence to revolt like Z and Equality. He used violence to get what he wanted, but the consequence to his brutality was death, unlike Z and Equality who lived. Z was able to start a new colony, while Equality escaped his society. All the protagonists refused to accept what they were told and therefore posed a threat to their governments. They were a threat because they reassured the people’s doubts, and consequently they became the spark for more doubts and a possible, much needed, revolution.

Ants, Anthem, and " Harrison Bergernon"  show us how grateful we should be that we don’t live in a world that the protagonists in all these medias had to experience. A place where everyone is controlled in every way and they accept it. Harrison, Equality, and Z inspire and show us that it only takes one person to speak out in order for things to truly change for the better.

Dystopic Novels: Post- Reading

1. Write a blog post that answers the following question: Which "Utopian" world should be more feared; one in which government's control is so oppressive that people have no choice for themselves, or one in which people are so falsely happy that they do NOT realize the oppression of their government's control? Be sure to explain your answer with specific examples.

In class we have been presented with novels that address how dangerous the world can be when we allow others view of perfection cloud our own. Medias such as Anthem, "Harrison Bergernon", Antz, and 1984 are all perfect examples of dystopic medias. Three out of these four medias showcase the dystopic theme through an oppressive government that allows no choice for their citizens. But in one novel (Harrison Bergernon) we are shown how people are falsely happy and don't even realize their government's oppression. So which "utopia" is worst?

In my opinion I think that false happiness is much worse than a government's oppression impacting the people's choice. Although the three medias I mentioned earlier have a society where the people aren't happy they at least have a window of opportunity to realize how broken their system is and potentially change it. The people in Anthem  and Antz are told that they are happy but the protagonists disagree and reassure the society's doubts. But in "Harrison Bergernon" the people are so handicapped and brainwashed that they actually believe that they are truly happy. Ultimately, in a world with false happiness there is no possibility of change. When Harrison revolted it meant nothing to the people because they were to stupid to understand what was happening or think through and process what he had done, and why he did it. If the people truly believe that there is nothing wrong with their way of life then there is nothing to fix or correct. This differs in the other novel where the people deep down know that not everything is right. This gives them the ability to find and address fault. 

Another thing that is better for the other three medias is that even though the governments brainwash the people, if they aren't happy then the governments have a problem. The people's unhappiness keeps them in check at least to some degree. In 1984 the unhappiness of the people is definitely evident as we can see when Julia tells Winston that she has had previous relationships with others. This shows the need for individual expression among the society. Something the government hates and doesn't allow. But the unhappiness at least makes everyone long for more, but when the society actually thinks that they are happy, then what else is there to want? 

Both forms of dystopic societies are bad and dangerous, but false happiness is much worse. This means that the government can do whatever they want with out consequences, but at least the unhappiness of the other societies keeps the government in check. Ultimately, when a government is oppressive there is at least a little hope of freedom and individualism. But when when there is false happiness there is no hope. And that is the most dangerous thing that any society could embrace.

 

PRE-READING FOR DYSTOPIC NOVELS

1. We have been looking at and reading short stories and novels about worlds that are seen as Utopian (to at least someone in the novel).  Write a blog post about your perfect Utopian society.

It's sometimes hard to imagine a perfect world where everything that we ever wanted in life exists. A place where we never find ourselves dissatisfied with where or who we are. A world where life is truly perfect and we can never feel pain or sadness. It's hard because the world we live in is so far away from our perfect utopia. But even though it's tough to imagine it can still sometimes be a little fun to flirt the idea that such a perfect world exists even if it is truly impossible. 

So the question is "What is my perfect utopia?".  

I think my idea of a perfect world would be a society where everyone had a small town mentality. A small town where everyone knows everyone else's name and business. But it would all be fine because when it came down to it you knew that if you ever needed anything there would a swarm of people there in a matter of seconds. You never have to wonder whether you are loved or accepted.  You all have your part and you do it for each other not because you need to, but because you want to.  The people in the town would not be exactly the same, but they would have the same morals and principles to guide themselves and each other.  You wouldn't have to have the traditional law enforcement or rules because everyone knew the right thing to do on their own. 

Now I know it may seem like I'm describing The Amish, but I promise I'm not. I believe in more of the Mayberry scene. The idea of leading a simple life and still being completely satisfied. Just having a great family value not just within your home, but with everyone. I think this would be the key to my happiness. Happiness in it's simple and beautiful form. I think I must have been born in the wrong time period. I think that maybe what I described was how life used to be. Before all the new technology and ideas. And those new things in and of themselves aren't bad, but like everything else have been perverted. I think my perfect utopia is a place where everyone could just press the pause button and be able to experience the new and great things without having the time to taint them. 

Even though our perfect world can never really come true I think that we all deserve at least a taste of our own utopia at some point in our lives.

Post- Reading My Sister's Keeper

1. "The safety of the rescuer is of a higher priority than the safety of the victim.  Always."

This quote is shown through out the book and is even sometimes violated. Sometimes when we see a problem without knowing any of the emotional background of it, the answer is almost always lucid. But when we add in the emotional side of a problem it's hard to make a decision because we know that choice can truly hurt people even if it is the "right" thing to do. We see in My Sister's Keeper that this is the main struggle that stumps everyone.

Kate was diagnosed with a rare leukemia when she was two years old. In this equation she is the victim. It's not fair obviously, but it was the cards she was dealt. Anna is the rescuer for Kate in this equation. She was specifically made for Kate and all her life Anna has been the rescuer when Kate needed platelets, cord blood, bone marrow and a friend. So, what happens when the rescuer (Anna) is put in danger? Well, according to Brian, the fire fighter, when he goes into a burning building to save someone if he is about to die he has to leave the person in the fire because he is the highest priority. Most likely the person in the burning building didn't cause the fire, and it's not fair that they are there, but it is not Brian's job to save them if he is about to die. Should Brian save the victim or leave them? Should Anna help Kate and give her a kidney,even if it could cause detrimental effects for the rest of her life,but possibly prolong Kate's life? Or should Anna put her foot down after 13 years of being the rescuer because she is in danger? If you don't know the emotional side of this problem the answer is that Anna should put her foot down. 

What you don't know about this problem is that there is a mother in the mix that has fought 14 years to keep her daughter alive  at the cost of failing the rest of her immediate family. She has been in too deep for so long to not have any good consequences to pay for all the bad repercussions of her decisions. There is a father that has always been expected to be the rock and supporter through out all the doctor bills and emotional breakdowns. There are so many emotional variables that make the decision not so cut and dry. As much as we would like to believe and live by "The safety of the rescuer is of a higher priority than the safety of the victim.  Always." it doesn't always work out that way. 

Socratic Question: My Sister's Keeper

Socratic Questions

1. Campbell continued to deny the reason he had a service dog through out the entire book. Why would this have been something that he kept a secret, and/or have been something he was ashamed of?
2. Why would Kate feel like her existence continued to damage her other siblings emotionally, mentally, and physically? 
3. Why do you think Jessie continued to break the law (arson, drug abuse,etc.)?
4. Sara was making the decision to choose between her kids. If you were a parent what would be some thoughts or considerations that crossed through your mind if you were put in Sara's shoes?
5. How would it feel if you knew that your worth was based upon another person? Is it good because at least you have worth? Or bad because you can never have the option of finding your worth on your own?

Pre-Reading: My Sister's Keeper

2. Read the article attached below about stem-cell research and cloning.  Write a blog post the explains how you feel about "creating humans."  Then go one step further and discuss the emotion you would feel knowing you were created for the betterment of another human being. 

After reading the article on stem-cell research, I have to say that I disagree with it. I think the power to clone humans will bring detrimental effects. The positive side of cloning does not outweigh the negative consequences.

Just like abortion, the question is: “Are embryos living things?”  If you consider embryos to be a living thing, then your answer to that question is very lucid. No, we shouldn't allow embryonic stem-cell research. But the other side of that answer is that, by not allowing stem-cell research, possible solutions to genetic diseases and illnesses may not be found. I think that, once you fertilize a human egg, it is a living thing that is on its way to becoming a newborn baby. In believing that, I don't think that it is right to kill another human life to preserve another human life. Just like I shouldn't be killed to save my friend’s life, embryos shouldn't be killed to save another's life.

Human cloning is also something that I disagree with, even though the process does not involve killing embryos. After the baby is born, that is the really worrisome and scary thing. So, hypothetically, if we achieve the process of human cloning then we can decide what we want in a baby and what we don't want. People could have the ability to create a superior race. Essentially we could have the power to create "perfect" people that would all be the same. No longer would humans be considered valuable, unique, one-of-a-kind, or irreplaceable. Humans would be disposable and replaceable. Human cloning could be a positive thing that we could swear not to abuse, but the truth is there will always be someone that could and would take advantage of the new discovery.

If the embryos could know that they were being used for the betterment of another human being, you can imagine the emotional distress. It would be incredibly hurtful and make you question your own self worth. Was I just created to help someone else? Do people love me for me, or what I do for someone else? You can imagine that, if this living embryo was able to understand what was happening to it and express how it felt, almost all of us would rethink our decision to continue stem-cell research.

In my eyes, there is a big caution sign with both human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research. Humans shouldn't tamper with human life. There could be positive effects to Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem-Cell research, but at what cost?

Post Reading: Eleanor and Park

2. “She didn't know there were things worse than selfish.”

     Eleanor experienced  a lot of hardship at home. Her drunk step dad that had a nasty temper. Her weak mom who put her own needs over her kids, and a dad that didn't care what happened to her or her siblings. All around Eleanor their were people that were incredibly selfish and because of these selfish acts Eleanor was constantly getting hurt.The question is are there people or things that can be worse than selfish?
     When the reader first reads this quote from the book Eleanor is recalling when she was twelve and heard her mom was seeing her future step dad. She didn't know who Richie was, but she knew that there was no way that he could possibly be worse then her real dad. How could anyone be more selfish than her dad was to his wife and children? At this time in the book I think that Eleanor is still holding on to a shred of her innocence. She doesn't know anything worse than what her dad did to her, and unfortunately Eleanor is in for a rude awakening. She soon finds out that their is such a thing that's worse than being selfish. Not only does her step dad hurt her mom, spend all the money he makes on booze, and treat everyone in the house poorly. He turns her mom and siblings into totally different people. Richie (Eleanor's Step Dad) controls everything everyone does. He is the alpha male and if anyone should say other wise he puts them in their place. Her mom waits on him hand and foot with kindness and with the hope that maybe the man she first met is buried somewhere underneath his rough exterior. Eleanor's mom excuses all of his actions. When he hits her she thinks she deserved it. When Richie kicked Eleanor out of the house her mom takes Richie's side over her own daughters. He caused her mother and her siblings to be brainwashed. They all think what Richie is doing is their fault, and that's just what Richie wants them to think. He has turned Eleanor's family into his own little puppets and Eleanor can't seem to think of the time where they weren't his loyal followers.  
   Richie is the cause of her awful life on a material level, but also on an emotional level. He goes as far as to write incredibly rude and inappropriate comments on her notebook. He does almost absolutely nothing, but when he does actually do something it is to hurt Eleanor, plot against her and try to make her miserable. He destroys any sunlight that may come into Eleanor's life just because he hates her so much. 
    Eleanor is forced to stay strong and not become the thing her step dad wants her to become. She has to fight everyday against Richie not on a physical level, but in her head. Eleanor fights a mental battle with her step dad everyday. Eleanor does find out what's worse than selfish and that is Richie and all he has done to her.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST ESSAY

The books To Kill a MockingBird and The Help are wonderful books that capture both sides of segregation in the 1900’s. When we see the character’s mistakes and victories we can also see the moral struggles inside everyone. We learn from the characters that doing the right thing is not always easy and that doing what is wrong is a whole lot easier.

These two books have more in common then you might first think. It’s obvious that both books deal with issue of segregation in small towns in the south, but the character’s similarities go much deeper than that. Scout and Skeeter are the two main characters in To Kill a Mockingbird and The Help. Both characters are tomboys that aren’t socially accepted due to their unladylike appearance, outspokenness, and their modern way of thinking. Scout and Skeeter both struggle with morally accepting that blacks should not be equal to whites. Unfortunately, when they speak out against unequal rights they are persecuted for their objections. When Scout stands up for her dad, who was defending an African American, she ends up fighting with a boy at her school and gets reprimanded at home. When Skeeter stands up for the black maids her boyfriend breaks up with her and her friends turn their backs on her. Another similarity between these two characters is that in a sense they both don’t have mothers and the black maids end up assuming that motherly role. Calpurnia being Scout’s mother figure and Constantine being Skeeter’s mother figure due to the fact her biological mom didn’t act like a mother at all to Skeeter. We see another set of characters that have some of the same traits as well. HIlly Holbrook and Bob Ewell  are the antagonists in the books. They constantly blame their mistakes on blacks, who are not allowed the right to defend themselves, in hopes to protect their reputation. Whether it's Bob blaming Tom Robinson for raping his daughter when really he was trying to cover up the fact his daughter tried to seduce a black man. Or Hilly claiming that the book The Help was not about their town and was probably just written by a black all because Hilly didn’t want people to know that she ate Minny’s pie. They struggle between doing what’s morally correct and protecting their reputation.

Although these books were similar they both have differences that make them one-of-a-kind. The Help takes place in the 1960’s where To Kill a Mockingbird takes place in the 1930’s. Another big difference between the two novels is that although they both give characters that speak out against segregation the way they do it is different. In The Help the characters stand up against segregation through the writing of the book, but in To Kill A Mockingbird Atticus stands up through defending a black man in a court case. Also, in The Help many people like the dozen housekeepers are involved in speaking up for African Americans, but in To Kill A Mockingbird  Atticus is in a way by himself. There may have been people who secretly supported Atticus, but they didn't publicly speak up like he did. The tone of the books were very different. In The Help you find yourself laughing about the "terrible awful" and the funny jokes the house keepers make, whereas to Kill A Mockingbird the tone is very serious just like a court case should be. The Help  definitely has serious topics, but it lacks the more solemn manner To Kill a Mockingbird has.

These two books To Kill a Mockingbird and The Help are written in a way that inspires us and truly show us how far we have come on the issue of segregation. They have their differences and their similarities, but they both give us the clear message that the color of your skin shouldn't matter, but rather what you're morals are and who you are as a person.

Pre-Reading for Eleanor and Park

3. Thinking about all areas of your life, write a thorough explanation of the difference between "like" and "love." 

We meet new people everyday, and, whether we mean to or not, we automatically decide whether we like or dislike them. One can like someone within minutes of meeting them, or maybe even before meeting them, but (contrary to some people's beliefs) love at first sight doesn't really happen.  

  Real love takes time and requires effort, but when you like someone, it is possible to not see them for years and still pick up where you last left off.  We are able to leave the ones we only like because we don't really need them.  When we love someone, we do need them in our lives.

  For example, a daughter loves her mom. The daughter can't and shouldn't live without her mom. That same daughter has a friend at school that she likes. If the daughter and the friend get into a fight and stop liking each other, (whether it seems possible or not) life will still go on and the daughter's life won't be seriously affected.

   Loving someone is harder than liking someone. It's easy to say you like someone when you don't know who they truly are. When you love someone, you have to learn to love every part of them, even their flaws. Saying you love someone (in my mind) is like saying that you are committed to them now and forever, through good and bad. When you say you like someone, it just means you have a connection. So when you finally tell someone that you love them, you can't leave them. When you say that you only like someone, you have the option to leave.

 Far too often people get confused as to what love is. They think they love that special someone at school, and they think they love instant mashed potatoes. Being loved is essential to life, so everyone is always looking for love and putting the label of love on everything because deep down we are all desperately searching for it in every possible way. The words "I Love you" are thrown around and misused way too much. We don't need be liked, we need to be loved. Sure we all want to be liked, but "like" is temporary and “love” should be forever.