The Bias of Language

This article brought up points that we discussed at the very outset of AP English. Chief among these points was the idea that language is an extremely individual thing. One person may utilize certain words to mean something, but another person may use the same words in a different context. Specifically we looked at the "blue" chair; but what is blue exactly? What one person defines as blue may appear as more of a teal to another person. It is entirely subjective. The article brings up this point with the example of the three people who go to dinner. If the three of them were to write two paragraphs about their experience, it is highly unlikely that you would see the same words and phrases or the same impressions. What they wrote would be very different, despite the fact that they had all been attending the same dinner. These are all discussions that fit in nicely with our original discussions at the beginning of the year - however, The Bias of Language ventures into largely uncharted territory for us when it begins to discuss the bias of pictures. The article challenges the common assertion that while a picture may be worth a thousand words, a word can easily be worth a thousand pictures as well. Without words to ground a picture, there is absolutely no context. It is impossible to display abstract ideas with a picture, you can only create a sampling of the whole. That is why it is vital to use both pictures and words to communicate ones meaning, for pictures alone are unable to communicate ideas that words are.

Progress 12/8

Worked on the paper some more today. I did some research into the opposing views in terms of Separation of Church and State, so that I could make my paper better balanced. It's interesting reading - one side has got a clear constitutional advantage, while the other main support comes from other sources. I'm learning plenty of new stuff - I must admit I didn't know as much as I would have thought I did going into the project. The issue seems quite simple on the exterior, but once you really get into it, it become extremely complex. There are a lot of legal issues that have yet to be resolved. Every time I come across some new info, I'm simply pulling back another layer to this extremely complicated issue. Hopefully I will be able to shed some light on this in my paper, I am already feeling more knowledgeable about it considering my most current research.

Contract Progress 12/3

Finished up working on my proposition this evening, and did some research into the opposing side of the Separation of Church and State argument. It is really quite baffling that there is such confusion around this topic. It seems that a great deal of the confusion emanates from the fact that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is never found in the constitution. The idea of freedom of privacy is not specifically addressed either, but I certainly contend that it is a freedom we all possess, whether or not it is guaranteed in the constitution.

Just because the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not found within the Constitution, the idea certainly is. Turn your attention to the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

This clearly states that Congress will not endorse one religion over another as the state religion. It also states that no person will be denied the ability to exercise their own religion. Try to reconcile these two notions in a public school - it can't be done. You can't hold prayer in school without violating the Establishment Clause, unless you're willing to allow every single religion the ability to pursue their religion in school with impunity. This is simply an impossibility.

If one has any doubt that the Founding Fathers intended our nation to be a secular one, take a look at The Treaty of Tripoli dating from 1797, with was unanimously supported by the Senate.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Contract Progress 12/2

I did additional research tonight in regards to Separation of Church and State. A common myth that was quickly dispelled upon research of the topic was that our founding fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation and that the United States was founded upon Christian ideals with Christian values in mind. I've recently come across a fair amount of evidence that contradicts several of these points. Be you Christian or otherwise, it is certainly something to take a look at and think about.

The first person to coin the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in its current context was Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and an avid supporter of keeping the government secular. I'll post some of my sources when I get around to it. For now, sleep.

Progress on Contract 12/1

I settled on the topic for my contract, one I feel very strongly about: the issue of separation of Church and State. Anyone who knows me has a fairly good idea of where I stand on this issue. I've spent the evening researching, and there are a fair number of websites supporting both sides of this issue.

Also, something only loosely related, but very interesting I found tonight. This website contains a bunch of information which breaks down religious denominations and where they fall geographically and ethnically within the country. Worth taking a look at for anyone who has interest.

Mainstream and the Norm

In this article, the point is made that the concept of mainstream is inherently a flawed concept, because there is no single over-arching norm that encompasses everyone. This is due to the fact that no single person adheres to every characteristic which makes up what is considered "normal" by any length of the imagination. This piece resonates with all of us, because this is a struggle we all face at certain intervals. We are all attempting to balance who we feel the real us is, and what we feel is the socially acceptable version of ourselves. We are constantly compromising who we really are (although, how can we say with definitive certainty that one of our sides is more real than any other, even if it does emerge under coercion. How are we to say that this is any less real?) This the point made in the article, and it ties in with a theme we has revisited constantly throughout the class. What exactly is normal, and can anyone really subscribe to the notion that any of us conform to this notion?

Incidents in the Life of Slave Girl Pt. 2

My children grew finely; and Dr. Flint would often say to me, with an exulting smile, "These brats will bring me a handsome sum of money one of these days."
I thought to myself that, God being my helper, they should never pass into his hands. It seemed to me I would rather see them killed than have them given up to his power.

This passage underlines the overall hopelessness Jacobs felt at her predicament. What should have given her great joy - the birth of her children - is instead just one more thing for Dr. Flint to use to exercise his control over her. I found this passage particularly unsettling for it does a good job of succinctly illustrating the kind of person that Dr. Flint is. It is obvious that he considers the children, and all slaves in general, as no better than livestock. In fact, less than livestock, for no one in their right mind would flog some of their livestock for whom they had paid a hefty price. Flint's overall attitude, and the pleasure he takes in it, is evidence of how slavery has degraded him morally. I think it quite likely that even if the institution of slavery had never existed, Flint would have still been extremely unpleasant person but the circumstances in which he lived helped to make him much more than unpleasant, instead he became a monster. This is the point that Jacobs is making when she speaks of the degrading effect slavery has on whites as well as blacks. It scarred everyone involved, be those scars emotional or physical.