Huckleberry Finn- BANNED!

New Trier banned the great American novel, "The Great Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" back in the 70s. Parents wrote a letter to the board making claims stating that the book is racially offensive and destructive to the self-image and self-esteem of black students who are required to participate in the classroom discussions. My American studies teacher asked us if we thought that it made more of a difference if the parents who wrote that letter were black. I think that it makes the argument much stronger. If the people that are being affected by that novel wrote it than its proof that people are actually being affected. If it were white families that wrote it, I don't think it would have been banned. This book uses the 'N' word a lot, which I find to be racially offensive, but that is how history is told. They made claims to many things in the letter that I didn't find to be that true. I wonder if the 'N' word wasn't used as much, if they would have still wanted to ban the book. They say that they portray "Jim" the black runaway slave as foolish and childlike. I believe that the book makes him look foolish, but also he is fatherly to Huck, they make him improve. I believe that is because the author doesn't look at race the same way that American did back when this book was written.

What Defines Race?

Racial differences you could argue are that people of African descend and Caucasians are fundamentally different and separated by their cultures. However, biologically there are no real differences between the two races; the most different thing about both is where they are brought up. Race isn't something used for biological purposes, it's almost always used for social purposes. Race is a man made thing, it exists in the mind. It is not biological, because the genes that give you certain traits are independent, if they controlled skin color, then it would be race as biological. We haven't had enough time to evolve and customize through evolution. Clearly that's all that race and skin color is though. Race is an evolution. People in Asia have slanted eyes because they live in the snowy regions or the bright sun, it helps them to see, this is a biological adaptation. Europeans could be shorter depending on where they come from because they lived in the mountains. People from Africa have darker skin, that's to protect themselves from the sun. Race shouldn't be judged as a bad thing, it should exists as it is a achievement that man changed itself to be able to live in all climates all over the world.

Take A Walk In Your Own Shoes!

When people see something unusual or different, they think it is weird and odd. I want to know if you think that it is okay for people to judge other people's culture. If an underdeveloped country does things out of the norm, are we really supposed to allow ourselves to think less of them? Even if what they do causes pain to their own people for amusement - they have probably been doing it for thousands of years and if we weren't so selfish, and we didn't push everyone to get what we wanted, we might have still been the tribe that acts what we call 'savage-like'. Relativism is the belief that all beliefs are relative and therefore equally valid. Can you really judge someone else without being in their shoes? Even if you spend time with someone else for a while, you are never going to feel how they feel because you were born and raised with a completely different perception of life and the world, you were born with different ethics.

Try Again.

In my AIS class, we have been taking pictures from the Internet and we have been taking them apart to try and see what the artist's view on it was. This picture I thought was interesting because the older man of African descendant is dressed very well. His hands and face are proportionate. I don't know what to think about the young boy that is talking to the older man, the older man is paying no attention to the young white boy. The old man seems to be looking dead on straight and it almost looks like the young white boy is lecturing him due to the way that his finger is pointed at him. The young black boy isn't as well dressed and has a funny hat on. Both the white girl and the white boy are pointing their finger at him, as if he had done something wrong as well. The little black boy's face looks a little exaggerated and animal like. The women in the picture has an apron on and is caring for the children. She is starring at the white children that are pointing at the other child. I don't know if this symbolizes that they are no good, unless they are doing what is told, or if they did something wrong.

The Joy Of Giving

Now that Adopt-A-Family is over I was just thinking about how great it is that our school can do so much for people on Christmas. But then I was wondering how my advisory and so many others in my school got all of that money to pay for those numerous families to have a good Christmas. I remember how our school sold puppy chow like crazy and had bake sales everyday outside of the cafeteria. The thing that I mostly had a problem with was, why people devoted so much time and money to this cause. Is it because they felt good after they were done? Because they got something out of it? or is it our school trying to cover up because we don't want to look like rich and wealthy people that don't help anyone else? I do believe all of these reasons to exist. I think that it's such a huge thing at our school because we don't want to look selfish and because our school is so big, we can get a lot done, and help a lot of people. People wouldn't just give you money if you said you needed it for Adopt-A-Family, that's why you need to sell them something, and then you have more of a chance, and they can walk away happy and proud that they contributed. Meanwhile you can be proud because you made some one's holiday that more enjoyable. 

Is Monopolization Good Or Bad?

Everyone likes to have the best and no one likes to have to pick from too many things, so why wouldn't monopolization be a good thing? Having one company buy out a competing company is a bad idea, because the company that bought it wouldn't have anything to compete against anymore. The bought out company could have made a fortune, but that doesn't mean that this is a good thing for the people. If the companies aren't competing then technology might not improve. If eventually only one company rules all then they have the right to adjust the prices to whatever they see fit. So Monopolization really isn't the way to go. 

Wow! That's Something You Don't See Everyday!

When tragedies and epidemics start, television shows are created to give their audience a time in the day to get the stressful times out of their minds. Sounds about right, don't you think? While everyone was running around not knowing what to do during the AIDS epidemic that's when vampire movies started to spring up. Since many people today are worrying about the war on terror, They have many television shows about the government and trying to bring them down, as in 24. So if people are trying to get their minds off of what's happening in the world around them, why are directors making so many of the same shows?