1.“The Sound” Switchfoot
This song is protesting against violence and hatred and supporting the John Perkins movement (protesting through non-violent ways and love). Switchfoot uses this song to talk about how there are so many problems in our world but that the only way to make a difference is to show people that you care about them and to love them, whether they are the victims or the oppressors. Just like with most of this group’s songs, it is not blatantly obvious what they are talking about, unlike so many songs today, you actually really have to listen to the lyrics. I picked this song because Switchfoot is one of my favorite bands and I really support the ideas of creating change through love.
2. “Change” Sean Kingston
Sean Kingston grew up in the slums of Jamaica, and needless to say, he experienced a lot of horrible things as a result. He wrote the song “Change” to talk about how he wants to make the world a better place so that kids don’t have to grow up in the same environment that he did but that he needs help. One man can’t change the world, but when people start working together, they can. One main strategy that he uses is to talk about a variety of topics; not everyone feels the urge to create change about the same thing so talking about different things affects more people.
3.“(Don’t) Give Hate a Chance” Jamiroquai
This song is about how, throughout history, we have fought wars, discriminated against minorities, and allowed hatred to rule our lives. Jamiroquai is protesting these actions, and is instead suggesting that we allow love to rule our lives, societies, and worlds. Although Jamiroquai never directly asks this question, they ask the listener why can’t we give in to love if we could give in to hate. This question really engages the listener and makes them answer questions about themselves. The reason that I picked this song is that it does not give you a specific call to action. Jamiroquai asks people to turn to love but they never say to what extent, their audience could show their love in any way.
4.“I Dare You to Move” Switchfoot
Switchfoot’s song “I Dare You to Move” is certainly a song calling for action. The group seems to have purposefully not clearly defined what they are taking a stand against, but it seems to me that they are protesting giving in to one’s fears. This song is all about “daring someone to move” getting them to take a stand against whatever it is they are afraid of and not letting it rule their lives. I think that this makes the song very powerful and it is the main reason that I love this song.
5.“If you’re out there” John Legend
In John Legend’s “If you’re out there”, he is protesting two major things. The first is war, this song is asking people to stand up and take action against it. The second thing that John Legend is protesting is ignoring the need to make a change. Like Sean Kingston, he is asking people to unite with him against war and against the horrors of the world, but unlike any of my other artists, John Legend is very direct in his asking all people to take a stand. This is what really makes his piece so powerful, he is not just saying that something needs to be done, he’s telling you over and over again to do it.
6.“Perfect” Pink
7.“One” Creed
8.“One Day” Matisyahu
9.“Shout” Tears for Fears
10.“Change” Carrie Underwood
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Grammar
COMMA WITH COORDINATING CONJUNCTION
When you have two independent clauses joined by a conjunction, (and, or, but, because...) you put a comma before the conjuction.
Ex. Bobby eats cheese everyday, but Joe eats chocolate everyday.
COMMA WITH AN INTRO CLAUSE
When you use an intro clause in a sentence with an independent clause, you must use a comma directly after the intro clause.
Ex. After school, I walked to Papa Nicks to get a creemee.
I LOVE YOU COMMA
When you write speech that is directly pointed at a person and uses their name, you must offset the name with a comma.
Ex. Go take out the trash, Claire.
COMMA SPLICE
Comma splice is used when you connect two independent clauses with a comma. Two easy ways to solve this problem is to change the comma to a semi-colon or to a period and capitalize the beginning of the new sentence.
AFFECT/EFFECT
Affect generally means to influence or change (verb) while effect generally means the outcome (noun) or to bring about (verb).
FEWER/LESS
Less is used with things that cannot be measured and with adjectives and adverbs while fewer is used with measurable things.
Ex. She is less happy than she was last year.
She has fewer marbles than he has.
THAN/THEN
Than is used when you are comparing two things and then is used to describe an order of events.
Ex. My dog is bigger than yours.
Then, the house burned down.
PRONOUN AGREEMENT
The pronoun that you use must agree with the noun it is replacing
Ex. The boys went to the store. They bought two apples.
Someone has forgotten to pick up their shoes.
George jumps very high. He is an Olympic jumper.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Final Exam Poem
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Once I looked up at the sky,
It was a beautiful night,
Dark as a raven
Dark as a raven
And all I could think was “life is like a box of chocolates”
The only thing that could have ever made it better,
Would have been if I were on a boat
Or an island
With the Old Spice guy
But I wasn’t
Just like I wasn’t playing volleyball on the last day of ME10
But what can you do?
Final Reflection
My strengths as a writer are in purpose and voice/tone. I excel in purpose because I have a very concise writing style that is very to the point and therefore easy to read and clearly understand. I think that I displayed this a lot in my Editorial, with my thesis and topic sentences. I consider my voice and tone a strength because I have the ability to change and fit my tone based on audience. An example of this would be the difference between formality in my persuasive letter to Mr. McMannon and the fun british slang that I incorporated into my dialogue. My major weakness as a writer is in analysis. Because I have a consice writing style, I often tend to be to concise in my analysis and leave that area of my essays lacking. An example of this would be in my letter to Mr. McMannon; I gave the fact “According to a study done in Baltimore in 2004, 68% of students said that school was one of their top 5 stressors” and provided little to no evidence after it.
My two writing goals for second semester were to eliminate all passive voice from my pieces and to incorporate rhetorical strategies into my persuasive writing. I accomplished both of these goals. Even though I believe I only had one persuasive piece this semester, my editorial, I still found myself improving in these categories.
Dialogue
Setting: Machiavelli, Locke, and Hobbes are sitting on a cloud in heaven. All three are dressed in white tunics, belted with gold straps. As each one gets excited, his wings start to flutter. Below the three angles, Jack and his fellow savages have set the island ablaze in fierce, glowing flames.
Smoke drifts up into the cloud.
Hobbes: What is this? This smog is clogging up my nose; they’re going to burn the whole bloody island down!
Locke: My dear man, do you honestly think someone would burn down a whole island?
Machiavelli: They are burning the whole island down? Who are these heathens?
All three lean down to evaluate the island.
Locke: Ah, it is my good friend, Ralph, and his little friends…I checked on them a few weeks ago and those are some jolly good British boys. They have a nice little democracy and are all getting along just fine!
Hobbes: Blimey, they aren't just fine; they're burning down the whole blasted island! That chap Jack is going to destroy all their food and means of survival.
Machiavelli: I say, right on my boy! Show ‘em who’s boss.
Locke: (leans over the cloud) What is this? They are totally going against their human nature!
Hobbes: Against their human nature? My dear man, it is simply the opposite! Jack’s attempt at killing Ralph is directly linked with his human nature. He is doing everything in his power to advance himself in their society. How would you expect the young chaps to act?
Machiavelli: Rightly so, rightly so, and he is doing exactly what he should to keep his powerful position. The only way to ensure that Ralph never gets power back, is to kill him. And, it goes without saying that Ralph should never regain that power. Showing fear, ridiculous! Refusing to threaten his people, absurd! He is a right nancy boy, I’ll say!
Locke: This is all too much, you are both off your trolleys! These boys are humans; they have the right to life! For heaven’s sake they have been with those pigs too long; they are beginning to act like pigs themselves! This is not the way most humans would act, I assure you!
Hobbes: Off my trolley? I beg your pardon; you are off your trolley! If it is confusing you, forget this bloody island and instead refer back to history. Look to the past! How many times have people reverted to evil to save themselves? Open your eyes, you nancy! The world is not all lollipops and butterflies, accept it, humans are evil.
Machiavelli: Would you two shut your mouths? What if those boys hear you? What will they think? Who will they look up to? Respect your appearances my friends! Quarrel as much as you like, but I must have you keep it down!
Locke: (to Hobbes) Well, your theory doesn't work either, my man! You have said people will fight and kill each other when there is a shortage. But there is no shortage! These lads have pigs coming out of their ears! There is no reason, no acceptable reason, for them to be fighting. It is illogical! Absurd!
(Hobbes' wings start fluttering and lifting him off of the air)
Hobbes: An abundance of food? Blast it, Locke, don't you see, while they may not have reached their bloody limit yet, they will soon! Not only do just a few of the boys have access to the animals, but there is not enough pig to go around. It is not even logical that there would be enough pigs, not at the rate that they are killing them anyway. And because of this blasted shortage the damned boys have to fight each other! Don't you see?
Locke: I most certainly do not see that, you are fabricating! (Locke starts fluttering too until he his level with Hobbes) This is absurd, simply absurd! How can you say that there is a shortage of pigs? The boys have had absolutely no trouble getting meat after they finally learned the trade... (Machiavelli interupts)
Machiavelli:Look! Over there! It's a ship! Why, that's convenient!
Locke: I knew how it would be, I knew it simply could not be! See those boys will be fine as soon as they see another human they will be back to normal! The world is not going to hell! Praise to high heaven, the world is not crumbling beneath our feet!
Lock and Hobbes flutter back down and all three lie on their stomaches and watch as the ship docks and the boys meet with the naval officers. Ralph breaks down into tears in front of the one of the officers.
Locke: My, do those men look sharp, I tell you those boys will be humans again in no time (Machiavelli interrupts in response to Ralph bursting into tears in front of the naval officer.)
Machiavelli: Ralph! Do NOT show emotion! (Machiavelli starts to flutter up and hover)What the bloody hell does that boy think he is doing? Appearance I tell you! Appearance! Where is this boy’s sense?
Hobbes: Locke, I do not know how to speak more plainly! Whether or not these boys start acting civilized now is not important! Human nature comes to play when the boys are stuck in the wild, that is when their instincts kick in!
Machiavelli: Look, they are all getting into the ship, hopefully that officer knows something about leadership, I dare say he must have some knowledge to be an officer in these times.
Locke: (ignoring Machiavelli) Fine Hobbes, I will admit that when the boys are on the island without any civilization that that is when their human nature comes out. But you also cannot deny the fact that not all of the boys reverted to evil to save themselves. Look at Ralph!
Hobbes: Sucks to Ralph! He's what, one boy out of twenty? Come to your senses!
Machiavelli: That does not mean that all who reverted to evil necessarily have an evil human nature. Look at Sam n' Eric. They did not have evil in their hearts, but because Jack is such a fine leader, he was able to scare the boys into doing what he wanted.
Locke: Exactly. You see, Hobbes, you cannot judge all human nature based on one society because the results will vary based on the leadership expressed.
Machiavelli: Right on, my dear man! Right on, the reason that the evil side of human nature took over on this island was because the one boy with an evil nature also happened to be an adequette leader.
Ship drives away from the island
Locke: Shall we go have our tea?
Hobbes: No, I will not have my tea with you! Confounded man! I shall sit here until it pleases me to leave.
Locke and Machiavelli jump off of the cloud and fly away, leaving Machiavelli alone in the middle of the darkening sky.
Smoke drifts up into the cloud.
Hobbes: What is this? This smog is clogging up my nose; they’re going to burn the whole bloody island down!
Locke: My dear man, do you honestly think someone would burn down a whole island?
Machiavelli: They are burning the whole island down? Who are these heathens?
All three lean down to evaluate the island.
Locke: Ah, it is my good friend, Ralph, and his little friends…I checked on them a few weeks ago and those are some jolly good British boys. They have a nice little democracy and are all getting along just fine!
Hobbes: Blimey, they aren't just fine; they're burning down the whole blasted island! That chap Jack is going to destroy all their food and means of survival.
Machiavelli: I say, right on my boy! Show ‘em who’s boss.
Locke: (leans over the cloud) What is this? They are totally going against their human nature!
Hobbes: Against their human nature? My dear man, it is simply the opposite! Jack’s attempt at killing Ralph is directly linked with his human nature. He is doing everything in his power to advance himself in their society. How would you expect the young chaps to act?
Machiavelli: Rightly so, rightly so, and he is doing exactly what he should to keep his powerful position. The only way to ensure that Ralph never gets power back, is to kill him. And, it goes without saying that Ralph should never regain that power. Showing fear, ridiculous! Refusing to threaten his people, absurd! He is a right nancy boy, I’ll say!
Locke: This is all too much, you are both off your trolleys! These boys are humans; they have the right to life! For heaven’s sake they have been with those pigs too long; they are beginning to act like pigs themselves! This is not the way most humans would act, I assure you!
Hobbes: Off my trolley? I beg your pardon; you are off your trolley! If it is confusing you, forget this bloody island and instead refer back to history. Look to the past! How many times have people reverted to evil to save themselves? Open your eyes, you nancy! The world is not all lollipops and butterflies, accept it, humans are evil.
Machiavelli: Would you two shut your mouths? What if those boys hear you? What will they think? Who will they look up to? Respect your appearances my friends! Quarrel as much as you like, but I must have you keep it down!
Locke: (to Hobbes) Well, your theory doesn't work either, my man! You have said people will fight and kill each other when there is a shortage. But there is no shortage! These lads have pigs coming out of their ears! There is no reason, no acceptable reason, for them to be fighting. It is illogical! Absurd!
(Hobbes' wings start fluttering and lifting him off of the air)
Hobbes: An abundance of food? Blast it, Locke, don't you see, while they may not have reached their bloody limit yet, they will soon! Not only do just a few of the boys have access to the animals, but there is not enough pig to go around. It is not even logical that there would be enough pigs, not at the rate that they are killing them anyway. And because of this blasted shortage the damned boys have to fight each other! Don't you see?
Locke: I most certainly do not see that, you are fabricating! (Locke starts fluttering too until he his level with Hobbes) This is absurd, simply absurd! How can you say that there is a shortage of pigs? The boys have had absolutely no trouble getting meat after they finally learned the trade... (Machiavelli interupts)
Machiavelli:Look! Over there! It's a ship! Why, that's convenient!
Locke: I knew how it would be, I knew it simply could not be! See those boys will be fine as soon as they see another human they will be back to normal! The world is not going to hell! Praise to high heaven, the world is not crumbling beneath our feet!
Lock and Hobbes flutter back down and all three lie on their stomaches and watch as the ship docks and the boys meet with the naval officers. Ralph breaks down into tears in front of the one of the officers.
Locke: My, do those men look sharp, I tell you those boys will be humans again in no time (Machiavelli interrupts in response to Ralph bursting into tears in front of the naval officer.)
Machiavelli: Ralph! Do NOT show emotion! (Machiavelli starts to flutter up and hover)What the bloody hell does that boy think he is doing? Appearance I tell you! Appearance! Where is this boy’s sense?
Hobbes: Locke, I do not know how to speak more plainly! Whether or not these boys start acting civilized now is not important! Human nature comes to play when the boys are stuck in the wild, that is when their instincts kick in!
Machiavelli: Look, they are all getting into the ship, hopefully that officer knows something about leadership, I dare say he must have some knowledge to be an officer in these times.
Locke: (ignoring Machiavelli) Fine Hobbes, I will admit that when the boys are on the island without any civilization that that is when their human nature comes out. But you also cannot deny the fact that not all of the boys reverted to evil to save themselves. Look at Ralph!
Hobbes: Sucks to Ralph! He's what, one boy out of twenty? Come to your senses!
Machiavelli: That does not mean that all who reverted to evil necessarily have an evil human nature. Look at Sam n' Eric. They did not have evil in their hearts, but because Jack is such a fine leader, he was able to scare the boys into doing what he wanted.
Locke: Exactly. You see, Hobbes, you cannot judge all human nature based on one society because the results will vary based on the leadership expressed.
Machiavelli: Right on, my dear man! Right on, the reason that the evil side of human nature took over on this island was because the one boy with an evil nature also happened to be an adequette leader.
Ship drives away from the island
Locke: Shall we go have our tea?
Hobbes: No, I will not have my tea with you! Confounded man! I shall sit here until it pleases me to leave.
Locke and Machiavelli jump off of the cloud and fly away, leaving Machiavelli alone in the middle of the darkening sky.
African American Paintings Outline
African American Paintings
INTRO
1. Have you ever looked at a two pieces of art… why are they different?
2. All art has distinctive roots…African American roots
3. I studied…
a. Harriet Powers “Bible Quilt”
b. Hale Woodruff “Poor Man’s Cotton”
c. Rene Dickerson “The Jazz Club”
4. Let’s start at the beginning…
BIBLE QUILT Harriet Powers 1886
1. Not very many painters
2. May wonder why important?
3. Bible stories… national museum of American history
a. Cain and Able
b. Adam and Eve…Garden of Eden
c. Last Supper
4. First quilt to have living creatures
5. African influence
6. Color Scheme
7. Proportions of people
8. This point forward art grew popular...
POOR MAN’S COTTON Hale woodruff 1937
1. more advanced
2. Abstract in...
a. proportion
b. depth
c. faces in background
3. Color choice
4. Obviously art spreads as time goes on so more...
THE JAZZ CLUB Rene Dickerson 50s
1. Abstract again in...
a. porportion
b. depth
c. line quality and value
2. Color choice
3. during jazz movement
CONCLUSION
1. As you can see art progresses overtime
2. Slavery
3. Jim Crow
4. Current
5. After hearing about how much goes into a painting next time you see one you won't just say good or bad but think about what time effort and thought went into the piece.
INTRO
1. Have you ever looked at a two pieces of art… why are they different?
2. All art has distinctive roots…African American roots
3. I studied…
a. Harriet Powers “Bible Quilt”
b. Hale Woodruff “Poor Man’s Cotton”
c. Rene Dickerson “The Jazz Club”
4. Let’s start at the beginning…
BIBLE QUILT Harriet Powers 1886
1. Not very many painters
2. May wonder why important?
3. Bible stories… national museum of American history
a. Cain and Able
b. Adam and Eve…Garden of Eden
c. Last Supper
4. First quilt to have living creatures
5. African influence
6. Color Scheme
7. Proportions of people
8. This point forward art grew popular...
POOR MAN’S COTTON Hale woodruff 1937
1. more advanced
2. Abstract in...
a. proportion
b. depth
c. faces in background
3. Color choice
4. Obviously art spreads as time goes on so more...
THE JAZZ CLUB Rene Dickerson 50s
1. Abstract again in...
a. porportion
b. depth
c. line quality and value
2. Color choice
3. during jazz movement
CONCLUSION
1. As you can see art progresses overtime
2. Slavery
3. Jim Crow
4. Current
5. After hearing about how much goes into a painting next time you see one you won't just say good or bad but think about what time effort and thought went into the piece.
Vocabulary Paragrah
Mr. Ginovachi
Recently, Mr. Ginovachi has not been having fiscal issues in his life. His gnomic wife recently decreased her spending because she left him to co-opt someone else’s life. This, if you ask me, was a profligate way to act! Anyway, Restiveness seems to have overtaken him lately, he seems to be noticing many nuances between the way that the government actually is and the way that he thinks it should be. Mr. Ginovachi thinks that he should have the right to veto, and that suffrage should only be given to those who have committed treason. He has created his own charter outlining the way he thinks the Constitution should be written. This fine man has decided to become a missionary in Africa and Australia so that he can eventually become a conquistador and control the whole world. But, as he started his journey, he came across some interrelated difficulties. They seemed to transpire without him doing anything. These elemental issues involved the fact that the government would not let him out of the country without a passport. As you can see, if you have studied any humanism, Mr. Ginovachi is a very brilliant man, so he decided to take a circuitous route to getting to Australia. Eventually he ended up in Australia and, due to his indulgence to his greedy desires, did not end up granting anyone salvation. This may be also due the fact that he was doing mercenary work.
Recently, Mr. Ginovachi has not been having fiscal issues in his life. His gnomic wife recently decreased her spending because she left him to co-opt someone else’s life. This, if you ask me, was a profligate way to act! Anyway, Restiveness seems to have overtaken him lately, he seems to be noticing many nuances between the way that the government actually is and the way that he thinks it should be. Mr. Ginovachi thinks that he should have the right to veto, and that suffrage should only be given to those who have committed treason. He has created his own charter outlining the way he thinks the Constitution should be written. This fine man has decided to become a missionary in Africa and Australia so that he can eventually become a conquistador and control the whole world. But, as he started his journey, he came across some interrelated difficulties. They seemed to transpire without him doing anything. These elemental issues involved the fact that the government would not let him out of the country without a passport. As you can see, if you have studied any humanism, Mr. Ginovachi is a very brilliant man, so he decided to take a circuitous route to getting to Australia. Eventually he ended up in Australia and, due to his indulgence to his greedy desires, did not end up granting anyone salvation. This may be also due the fact that he was doing mercenary work.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Macbeth... A story as intense as a dagger
The characters in Macbeth are constantly changing the course of their society's history. Macbeth's killing King Duncan and taking the thrown of Scotland is a dramatic example of this idea of altering history. Macbeth’s one move had an impact on, at the least, every citizen of Scotland. It also appears that the witches are altering the history of society. While both Macbeth and the witches have similar impacts, it seems important to note that the witches alter history through fate while Macbeth’s changes are based on freewill. This idea of the alteration of history can be expanded to say that in a way, everyone is always changing the course of history with every decision that they face. A specific example of another character in Macbeth is Lady Macbeth. If Lady Macbeth had not persuaded and pushed Macbeth to take matters into his own hands and to "be a man", Macbeth may never have actually murdered Duncan.
A few of Machiavelli's principals are shown throughout Macbeth, specifically regarding the appearance of a leader and the honesty of a leader. When Shakespeare uses the quote "Your hand your tongue; look like the innocent flower/but be the serpent under't"(1.6.63-64) he was depicting Machiavelli's principle that a leader must always keep up a front and never appear to have faults. While Lady Macbeth and Macbeth are aware that this is necessary, they do not always follow this rule. An example of this would be when Macbeth showed his partial insanity at the banquet. When Macbeth began screaming at a person no one else could see, it caused his people to see a weakness in him that lessened their respect for him as a leader. Machiavelli’s principle regarding honesty in a leader is that the leader need not always be truthful. This concept is portrayed extensively in the rise of Macbeth. Macbeth has lied his way through the journey of becoming king; none of his accomplishments could have been met without the act of deceiving all of his followers and companions.
Major leaders in a society almost always impact the history of a society, whether for better or for worse. Joseph Stalin was incredibly evil and had a tremendously negative impact on our world today. His acts of violently murdering and starving millions of innocent civilians were devastating to our world; he, along with other leaders of his time, created distrust, turmoil, and extreme sadness to poison our society and did terrible things that can never be undone. On a happier note, Rosa Parks was a woman with minimal power who took a stand against the discrimination of black people and created a degree of hope. She first began her rebellion through refusing to give up a seat on a public bus to a white person. Parks is now a role model who is considered to be one the key people who created equality in the United States. These two leaders are people that almost every person in the United States is familiar with, and that is a result of their major impact on society.
Society plays a key role in the amount of power an individual can obtain. While this does not necessarily affect me directly, I have seen this played out in the laws of the United States that require, for certain political positions, that a person only maintain power for a set time period. It seems to me that this law is extremely necessary; one of the reasons that the United States has never had a dictatorship or other all powering government is that people can't maintain office long enough to gain that power. In ways such as these I would say that society has more power than individuals. This concept makes perfect sense to me; a person should never have more power than that of all the people they rule over or the power of the individual becomes almost limitless. It is when power becomes limitless like this, that tragedies and disasters occur.
A few of Machiavelli's principals are shown throughout Macbeth, specifically regarding the appearance of a leader and the honesty of a leader. When Shakespeare uses the quote "Your hand your tongue; look like the innocent flower/but be the serpent under't"(1.6.63-64) he was depicting Machiavelli's principle that a leader must always keep up a front and never appear to have faults. While Lady Macbeth and Macbeth are aware that this is necessary, they do not always follow this rule. An example of this would be when Macbeth showed his partial insanity at the banquet. When Macbeth began screaming at a person no one else could see, it caused his people to see a weakness in him that lessened their respect for him as a leader. Machiavelli’s principle regarding honesty in a leader is that the leader need not always be truthful. This concept is portrayed extensively in the rise of Macbeth. Macbeth has lied his way through the journey of becoming king; none of his accomplishments could have been met without the act of deceiving all of his followers and companions.
Major leaders in a society almost always impact the history of a society, whether for better or for worse. Joseph Stalin was incredibly evil and had a tremendously negative impact on our world today. His acts of violently murdering and starving millions of innocent civilians were devastating to our world; he, along with other leaders of his time, created distrust, turmoil, and extreme sadness to poison our society and did terrible things that can never be undone. On a happier note, Rosa Parks was a woman with minimal power who took a stand against the discrimination of black people and created a degree of hope. She first began her rebellion through refusing to give up a seat on a public bus to a white person. Parks is now a role model who is considered to be one the key people who created equality in the United States. These two leaders are people that almost every person in the United States is familiar with, and that is a result of their major impact on society.
Society plays a key role in the amount of power an individual can obtain. While this does not necessarily affect me directly, I have seen this played out in the laws of the United States that require, for certain political positions, that a person only maintain power for a set time period. It seems to me that this law is extremely necessary; one of the reasons that the United States has never had a dictatorship or other all powering government is that people can't maintain office long enough to gain that power. In ways such as these I would say that society has more power than individuals. This concept makes perfect sense to me; a person should never have more power than that of all the people they rule over or the power of the individual becomes almost limitless. It is when power becomes limitless like this, that tragedies and disasters occur.
Lord of the Flies Lab Report
Procedure:
- Crash a plane that holds 20-25 British boys (none above the age of 12) and a pilot over a deserted island, making sure all but the pilot survive.
- Have two boys find each other. One boy is called Ralph, is 12 years of age, and is a very attractive boy. The second boy is called Piggy, and is characterized by his circular glasses and pudgy appearance.
- Drop a conch shell onto the Island, near where Ralph is swimming and give Piggy the knowledge on what it is and how to use it to bring all of the boys together. Have Ralph blow the conch to call a meeting.
- Have all of the boys meet and give one of the boys, Roger, the idea to have a vote to decide a chief of their little “tribe.” Have the boys be engaged by Ralph's appearance of the strong older leader so that they will vote for him. One of the other boys, Jack, will be disappointed that he did not get the role, so have Ralph decide that Jack and his friends can be the hunters.
- Put pigs on the island.
- Have Ralph, Jack and Simon (one of the boys) climb the mountain and discover that there are no adults, that the island is actually an island, and that there are pigs that can be hunted.
- Give the thought of a “beastie” to one of the younger boys and have him scare everyone with the idea of a monster. Give Ralph the idea to use a fire as a signal for rescue and have the boy's use Piggy's glasses to start the fire. Have one of the young boys disappear.
- Give the boys the idea to build shelters to protect them but have only Piggy, Simon, and Ralph actually work on them. At the same time, make it so that Jack cannot kill a pig, and as a result Jack and Ralph will have an argument about the importance of the shelters, the fire, and the hunting.
- Have Simon wander off on his own and find a beautiful sheltered place.
- Have Jack find the clay and charcoal to make a hunting mask and give him so much desire to hunt that he decides to let the fire go out so that he can have more people hunting. At the same time send a ship by the Island that will not stop for the boys because they let the fire go out.
- Have Ralph call an assembly with the boys and tell them everything that is going wrong. In the midst of this assembly, have one of the littl'uns say that they have actually seen the beastie. This thought will create more fear in the group but have Jack provide reassurance that if there were a beastie, he would have already found and killed it. Have all of the boys leave Ralph, Piggy, and Simon at the assembly place with feelings of turmoil and distrust in the air.
- Drop a dead man attached to a parachute on the island and have two of the boys, Sam 'n' Eric, find the man and think he is the beastie. When Ralph finds out about this, he will go with Jack and his hunters to see if they can find the beastie.
- On the hunt for the beastie, have the boys decide to hunt a pig. Although they will not get the pig, all of the boys, including Ralph, will get hung up in the excitement of killing and end up playing that one of the boys is a pig and will end up actually hurting him. After this, have Ralph, Jack and Roger find the beastie; they wont realize what it actually is and will run down the mountain to tell the others what they found.
- When the boys reach the bottom of the mountain, have Jack call an assembly and tell everyone what happened and then call a re-vote for who should be chief. Have the boys be unwilling to vote for Jack instead of Ralph, and then Jack will storm off to form is own tribe.
- Have Jack and the few boys who followed him kill a beast and offer a dinner to all of the boys from both tribes. Soon after this, have Simon find the head of the pig killed for the feast, fall faint, and start having a conversation with the hog's head.
- Have Simon wake up and wander away only to find and discover what the beastie really is. After his discovery, have Simon bring the parachuted man down to Jack's feast where everyone is eating. At the same time, have the boys at the feast do a killing dance when Simon stumbles into their camp. Since Simon is their the boys will attack and kill him.
- At this point, all of the boys will have joined Jack except Ralph, Simon, Piggy, and Sam 'n' Eric who meet the day after Simon was killed. All five of the boys will act like they had no part in the killing. Later that day, have Jack and his followers go down to Ralph's camp and attack the boys and take Piggy's glasses so that they can start their own fires.
- Since Ralph needs fire, have him, Simon, Piggy, and Sam 'n' Eric decide to go to Jack's camp to get piggy's glasses back. At Jack's camp, a fight will start between Jack and Ralph. Jack will win, and Roger will kill piggy and torture Sam 'n' Eric into following Jack.
- Have Ralph, who is now on his own, go to Jack's camp in search of Sam 'n' Eric. When he gets there, have Sam 'n' Eric give him food and tell him that the hunters are going to hunt him and to try and hide.
- Have Jack set the island on fire so that he can kill Ralph.
- Have a naval ship drive by as the fire is ablaze and come to rescue the boys. When this happens, have Jack back off and allow Ralph to assume responsibility for the boys.
Materials:
- Ralph-12 years of age, fair haired, appears as a leader, democratic views, not power hungry
- Jack- leader of the choir boys, runs a dictatorship, power hungry, Machiavellian, savage, blood thirsty
- Piggy- fatter boy, less book smart than the others but has more intellectual understanding, has asthma, loyal, low self-esteem, frightened by the other boys
- Simon-originally a choir boy, loyal to Ralph, hard working, kind, shy, has some kind of disease that causes him to have illusions, loving toward littluns
- Roger-choir boy, savage, evil, second in command to Jack, extremely blood thirsty
- Sam n' Eric- two twins who basically become one character, loyal to Ralph
- Littluns- group of younger boys, don't do much work, they play on the beach all day, always being picked on by bigguns.
- Conch- order and stability (provides structure at meetings, is a civil way of organizing meetings, assures the boys that they can have their say in matters,)
- Fire- hope (provides an avenue for rescue which sustains civility for a little while, gives the boys a reason to continue working, is necessary to maintain life because it cooks their food)
- Blood-Religion (spills each time a pig is killed showing their loss of good or religion in their lives, is seen often when boys are reflecting on human nature)
- Beastie- savagery (at the beginning, when the boys were civil, they were afraid of the beast but it didn't come up very often. As the book progressed, it came up more and more until the savages were worshiping it)
- Piggy's Glasses- wisdom (when you have it, you can survive, but without it you struggle greatly)
- Pigs- civilization (each time the boys kill one, they become more like savages, and towards the end of the book, they even shove a spear up it's butt symbolizing the total death of the boys civilized manner)
- Lord of the Flies-evil human nature (tells Simon that it always lives inside us and that we can never escape it, just like Golding believes of our human nature)
- Hunting Mask- appearance for power (gives Jack respect from the other boys, makes jack feel powerful, is feared and respected)
- Hobbes- He believed that there is scarcity in all things and that it governs human nature; therefore, human nature is evil because it is based on selfish desires. Hobbes also believed that humans have only one natural right, to survive- These concepts play out in The Lord of the Flies in the scarcity of fire (piggy's glasses) and in the nature of many of the boys, most of the boys end up turning to savages and only caring about themselves.
- Montesquieu- Montesquieu believed that power should be distributed to 3 branches to keep up checks and balances- When Ralph first starts his “government” he allows Jack to have some of the power. He allows him to manage the fire, hunting, and his choir boys, this division of power helped to keep Ralph from getting to much power and helped him to remember that the other boys had voices and opinions.
- Rousseau- He believed that man is generally good, but that his nature could turn him bad. Rousseau also believed that man needed society- Rousseau's views come to play in the overall actions of the boys. When they were first dropped on the island, the boys were not necessarily good, but they were behaved. Towards the end of the novel though, the boys felt the loss of their society and some of the boy's natures turned them evil.
- Machiavelli- Believed that a good leader should be feared, do everything in his power to remain in power and to always maintain an appearance that he is greater than his people- Machiavelli's principals are shown in The Lord of the Flies in Jack. Jack was certainly feared by the boys, he would string up random ones and torture them. He also maintained his appearance symbolically through his hunting mask; when he wore it, everyone saw him as extraordinary.
- Wollstonecraft- She believed that women deserved the same rights as men- Her ideas were not followed in the society of the boys if you compare the littluns to women. The littluns never had a say in what was going on about the island, and they were treated as if they had no potential and were useless. This treatment is exactly what Wollstonecraft was trying to stop.
Data
“They knew very well why he hadn't: because of the enormity of the knife descending and cutting into living flesh; because of the unbearable blood” (31, Golding).
At this point in The Lord of the Flies, Jack still has the influence of society on him. His morals and judgment told him that it wasn't okay to kill the pig. Golding was using this quote to show how our society influences our actions and can overpower our human nature. Since Jack grew up in civilized British culture, he knew that it wasn't okay for him to kill the pig.
“I agree with Ralph. We've got to have rules and obey them. After all, we're not savages. We're English, and the English are best at everything. So we've got to do the right things”(42, Golding).
This quote, spoken by Jack, shows the impact that society has had on who Jack is and the decisions that he makes. He has grown up English, and he knows that the English society would approve of setting up a civilized government. He hasn't thought yet about how his decision will effect him when his need to simply survive becomes apparent.
“He tried to convey the compulsion to track down and kill that was swallowing him up” (51, Golding).
This quote happens after the first quote, and though it is spoken by Jack, it is quite the opposite in nature than the previous quote. At this point in time, Jack's societal influences are starting to wear off; he is no longer governed by his morals and his human nature is now free to take over his actions. Golding uses this quote to give a glimpse into Jack's human nature.
“What are we? Humans? Or animals? Or savages? What's grownups going to think? Going off- hunting pigs- letting fires go out- and now?” (91, Golding).
When Ralph says this quote, it is just after Jack killed his first pig, and let the fire run out. This quote shows the turning point in the society. This is the point at which Jack determines that he no longer needs to be civilized, he just needs to survive by hunting. At the same time, Ralph is becoming more stuck in his ways and his opinion that the boys should not allow their societal ways to degrade and that they needed to remain civilized.
“Bollocks to the rules! We're strong- we'll hunt! If there's a beast, we'll hunt it down! We'll close in and beat and beat and beat-!” (91, Golding).
Jack's quote here occurs just after Ralph's quote above. Looking back to the beginning of the novel, Jack was the major supporter of rules, he thought that they would help the boys to do the right thing. Now though, since he no longer follows his morals and his conscience, rules have no place in his world, so he instead decides that the thrill of killing is more important than maintaining a civilized society.
“Don't you understand, Piggy? The things we did-” (157, Golding).
Golding uses Ralph's quote here to show how even the people who appear to do good and not to conform to evil ways occasionally falter and let their evil side take over. This quote is spoken just after all of the boys killed and attacked Simon. The fact that they could commit murder was hanging over the boys' heads and they realized that they too had let their darker side take over.
Conclusion:
Based on Golding's novel, I would come to the conclusion that Hobbes was correct in saying that human nature is selfish and based on scarcity. Throughout the novel, almost every character allowed evil to take over their decisions and ended up doing something horrible. The story shows us that when people are taken away from their society, they allow their human nature to take over their actions, and they do evil things. Taking these ideas into consideration, my hypothesis was correct; most of what the boys did in the story was based on selfish desires. They each wanted to get more power and enjoy themselves more while they were on the island. Taking into consideration the mood in which he wrote The Lord of the Flies I would come to the conclusion that William Golding supported Thomas Hobbes's ideas surrounding human nature; that it is selfish and evil. I disagree with Golding. I cannot force myself to believe that everyone is selfish and evil. I am a religious person, and I believe that God created man to do good and to help one another. I believe that human nature is good but that our environments, and events in our lives can turn us evil. I know that some people, maybe even many, are evil, but not all. When I look at people like Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr, I don't know how people can call them evil and selfish, they risked their lives and gave up so much for the good of others. William Golding may have believed that human nature was evil, but I will never be able to come to that conclusion.
Persuasive Piece
Dear Mr. McMannon,
Should our school continue using our current midterms and finals? I would like to share my opinion with you on this subject. CVU should stop using memorization-based midterms and finals to test students’ knowledge and learning. Many would say that it is difficult to assess student learning without these tests, but I would beg to differ. There are other forms of assessments that would be a more accurate representation of student learning such as prompted essays that take the information of the class to another level, projects that demonstrate the learning of the student, a graded Socratic discussion, as well as other open-ended assignments that allow students to accurately display their knowledge. Since most current midterms and finals are biased toward students with advanced memorization skills, create and add stress, and are often unrepresentative of student knowledge, they should be done away with as soon as possible.
One of the most important parts of the school’s mission is to provide all students with the ability to pursue their desires. With our current standard midterms and finals, we are not achieving this aspect of the mission statement. Some students have impeccable test-taking skills whereas others may “freeze up” and be unable to access information that they had spent hours memorizing days before. According to Gale’s health and wellness resource center, many children suffer from test anxiety which causes students to be unable to recall information previously studied, and therefore the tests do not represent the students’ knowledge or level of memorization. If we continue using these types of tests to assess overall knowledge of students that represent 20% of their yearly grade, we are being prejudiced against people who suffer from test anxiety.
While equality is one major thing to consider when formatting major assessments, the level of stress being placed upon students is also important. When one walks through the halls of our school in January and June, she can tell that the stress level among the students is very high. According to a study done in Baltimore in 2004, 68% of students said that school was one of their top 5 stressors. It has also been found that when adolescents are overly stressed, they perform poorly in school, often have increased blood pressure, and have an increased tendency to show aggressive behavior. We cannot allow students to continue feeling the stress that is triggered by large tests; it has been proven unhealthy and should not be continued.
Lastly, the major reason that we as a school need to move away from fact-based midterms and finals is that it does not seem to be an adequate representation of student knowledge. Knowledge comes from understanding not memorization. Most standard midterms and finals test mainly students’ abilities to memorize not their levels of understanding. Knowledge is like a flower; the intricate facts, like the petals, will quickly fade away but the basic understanding of the concepts, like the stem will always be there. For this reason, I believe that it is important that we test the root of knowledge by using assessments that focus less on factual information and more on intellectual understanding.
Although many would say that the traditional midterms and finals are the easiest solution to testing overall knowledge, I disagree. These tests are not easy to conduct or prepare for, and they do not accurately test the knowledge of most learners. It is wrong to continue testing students in ways that unequally favor one style of learning, cause unnecessary stress, and are inadequate representations of knowledge. Why should we continue to use these tests when we have more options for assessments that would decrease the problems that these factors create? As a school, CVU needs to take a step forward and abolish the use of fact-based midterms and finals for the betterment of our student body.
Sincerely,
Elly Colwell
Revolution Piece
The Diary of Adèle Moreau
December 16, 1787
Dear Diary,
Mama and I went to the market today. My dry lips longed to taste the thick, creamy inside of the éclairs that have been foreign to me for so long. Each day when we enter the market, the delicious smells engulf me, and I dare not say how many nights I have gone to bed longing for a bite of chocolate or a steamy croissant. I know that these daydreams will never be fulfilled; Mama and Papa can barely afford the 10 sous for our bread! I scarcely know what we will do if the prices continue to rise. Lord knows we could barely afford it before, but now? I cannot imagine.
Alexendre was at the market again today. I could barely breathe at the sight of him; I swear I saw him writhe in agony. If only I had been alone, then we could have spoken together like last Tuesday. Oh! What would Mama say if she knew of us? I dare say she’d cry for a week straight. Since the day I was born, she has had her sights set on me marrying a rich man. Lord knows that will never happen. Ha! Me, marry a rich man? As likely as someone calling me a beauty! What chance does a girl like me have of marrying well? I was born poorer than the peasants, I have no trace of delicacy in my face or features, and I have absolutely no connections in higher circles anywhere! It is absurd. Perhaps Mama will come around after Papa has told her of Alexendre’s proposal. I must end now, dear Diary. The sun is setting, and I need to get closer to the fire; my fingers are threatening frostbite. So long; I know not when I shall have the chance to write again.
March 11, 1789
Dear Diary,
How long it has been since I have written! So much has happened in the past year and a half; I know not where to begin. Our situation became much more dire after last winter, the temperatures have been so cold that I fear for Alexendre and the baby. That I believe is new, Alexendre and I were married last February, and we are now expecting our first child. What a wretched time to be expecting! Into what kind of a world am I bringing this child?
The bread prices have increased so much more than I ever could have imagined two years ago. 15 sous! I know not how we will afford it much longer.
Alexendre has gotten so thin; his clothes hang off of his shoulders and his strong firm chest seems as weak as a child’s. I fear for him, but he refuses to eat more than a few bites each day, insisting that all of the bread go to me. If I were only feeding myself, I would be obstinate that he took more, but I cannot bear the idea of depriving my poor, innocent child of food. The idea of this new being, this new soul that is growing within me, is the only thing that allows my heart to thrive in this wretched time.
Deep in my soul I resent the Queen. I would never tell a soul besides you my dear diary, not even my loving Alexendre, of my hatred for her. She and the King rolled through the streets yesterday barely looking at our starving bellies and depressed souls. How I longed to simply have been able to touch her gown. It was so extravagant; there must have been a hundred buttons sown down the side, and the delicate roses must have taken years to stitch! The price of that mere piece of clothing alone could have fed me, my love, and our new child for months. Her expenditure sickens me! Does she not care about the lives of her people? How many have died this past year of starvation and of cold? Can she simply turn away her eyes? Ah! This is enough! Who am I, a mere beggar woman, to speak so of the Queen? What do I know of her affairs? She must be a kind woman, she must! I cannot allow my spite to be directed toward my country. I am ashamed of myself.
Alas! Here comes my love, I must leave you now, dear diary, for other matters need to be met.
June 18, 1789
Dear Diary,
How the times have changed since I last wrote to you my dear diary! There has been such uproar! Yesterday, there was an assembly of the Estates General. Our representatives were locked out of the building, and needless to say, the people were furious. The men and women assembled instead in a tennis court. The people are speaking of declaring revolution through what they call the Tennis Court Oath. As if King Louis’s rule hasn’t been bad enough. I have no idea what will come of this! I fear for my country; I fear for society. The horrors of this time have caused people to become irrational! Indeed, I myself am not happy with our government, but is it worth it to revolt as the people are speaking of doing? I am not sure, if this turns into something similar to the American’s revolt, I do not know if we should precede. Lord help us! Where is this nation headed?
August 23, 1789
Dear Diary,
I am disgusted by the lack of courage with which I last wrote to you. A revolution has indeed begun, and I spit on the vulgarity of King Louis and Marie Antionette’s names! I never thought that my dear land of France would come into such hands as these despicable royals!
When my long anticipated child was born dead last month, I did not know how I would go on. The tragedy struck my dear husband’s and my deepest heartstrings in ways we did not know were possible. The ability to fight alongside the revolutionaries for a better future has allowed us to gather our strength and hope for a new prosperous life.
In the midst of this tragedy, my dearest Mama passed away a few days before the birth of my child. I cried for weeks, it is so hard to go through my life without my dearest companion and friend at my side. Her death was unexpected; even Papa has no idea of the cause. She simply did not wake up one morning. The only good that has come of this is that she did not have to see the tragedy of the birth of her dead grandson. I fear that if she had, she may have died of a broken heart. She awaited the birth of her first grandchild as if it were the coming of the Messiah; I am glad that at least she was spared this shock.
October 16, 1793
Dear Diary,
I write to you now, after nearly four years. It is strange to imagine the anger with which I last wrote to you. Today instead of anger, I write to you in sorrow. The tears that I have shed this past year have been innumerable. I am now completely alone in the world. My most honored father passed on several months ago, and the loss of my final parent was a shock to my heart, the only reminder of my childhood was ripped away from me, and I shall never meet it again. After mourning for the loss of my father, the name of my beloved Alexendre appeared on one of the lists of traitors posted by Robespierre. Last Thursday the love of my life was beheaded in front of a crowd hateful people. To think that I was once among the crowds of jeering people screeching for the death traitors! My support of this movement has long since died. It is unjust to kill so many innocent people and my soul feels dead; the only emotion it is capable of feeling is sorrow.
Today the last queen of France was shoved into a prisoner cart and killed mercilessly without a single loving face near her. I cannot imagine how the poor woman must have felt. The shame! The disrespect! The hatred! How she bore it with composure, I do not know. I must admit, I am now ashamed to call myself French. My heart yearns for my motherland, my soul burns for the lost innocence of my people. I cannot imagine how good could possibly come from all of this evil; I fear my country has fallen to its doom. I must leave you now, my dear diary. You are the only possession I have left in this world, yet if you were found? I shudder at the idea of my fate. So long then, I have determined to bury you in this soil. This soil that I call my homeland and my country. May this land soon prosper, and may a flower grow out of the ash and dust of what used to be France.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Editorial
MAKE SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGAL AND EQUAL
Imagine that you finally found the love of your life and you decide that you want to get married. Now imagine that you have to go in front of your colleagues and friends to beg them to allow you the right to that marriage. This is what happened to Jason Lorber, an openly gay member of the Vermont House of Representatives, and similar struggles are put before thousands of other same-sex couples every year. Since the Goodridge v. Department of Health case, taking place in Massachusetts in 2003, same sex couples in many states are taking a stand against marriage inequality by filing law suits against their states for denying them equal marriage rights. The main question that is debated in these courts is whether it is constitutionally acceptable to deny equal marriage rights to all. Most of the juries have ruled for equal marriage rights. These justices were correct; denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights is unconstitutional and therefore we, as the people of the United States, can no longer tolerate this injustice.
Our country creates and maintains laws based on our constitution. All laws must abide by the constitution. The laws that are currently in place regarding same-sex marriages do not full-fill this requirement. The constitution clearly states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States …without due process of law.” (US Const. Amend. XIV) Currently, our government is not abiding by this amendment, because DOMA restricts the privileges of a portion of our society by limiting marriage to a union between a male and a female. These restrictions are without good reason and therefore, we cannot continue to support DOMA and other laws restricting homosexual’s rights.
In our society, minorities have always had a difficult time being accepted by others. Our government does not need to add to homosexual’s extra difficulties by making them go through unnecessary regulations. Many states allow same-sex couples to be joined by what they call “equal” civil unions. The civil unions however, are not equal to marriages. They do not allow the partners the same rights financially, nor are the partners able to make decisions for each other in dire situations. These restrictions may seem small to those of us who do not have to deal directly with them, but in actuality, it makes the lives of same-sex couples harder than opposite-sex couples. It is restrictions such as these that makes it critical that we fight not for civil unions, but instead for legal marriages. (Lorber)
People who are against same-sex marriage often use popular sovereignty as a reason for why marriage rights should not be extended to all. This argument has been raised throughout history in many civil rights issues, but there is a reason that this argument is not credible. We are dealing with the rights of a minority, and that minority, of whom the issue directly affects, is not able to have their voice be properly heard in a majority ruled vote. This idea was seen very clearly in the mid-1900s when the issue of inter-racial marriages was being debated. Many states had laws forbidding these marriages because popular vote was against them, but when a couple took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, through the Loving v. Virginia case, banning these marriages was determined to be unconstitutional. (Loving) In our culture today, many of us would not even consider banning these marriages, however in the mid-1900s, this issue was as large and difficult as same-sex marriage is today. For this reason, popular sovereignty cannot be used as an argument against same-sex marriage.
As with any issue that involves something considered “different” from the social norm, same-sex relationships have been looked down upon for centuries. It is not until now that we as a society are considering releasing the oppressed and allowing equal rights to same-sex couples. When one views this issue in light of the U.S. Constitution, he must come to the conclusion that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. We must set aside our personal prejudices and beliefs and support what is good for society: equal rights to all. We must take this knowledge and push our government to cease banning same-sex marriages.
Imagine that you finally found the love of your life and you decide that you want to get married. Now imagine that you have to go in front of your colleagues and friends to beg them to allow you the right to that marriage. This is what happened to Jason Lorber, an openly gay member of the Vermont House of Representatives, and similar struggles are put before thousands of other same-sex couples every year. Since the Goodridge v. Department of Health case, taking place in Massachusetts in 2003, same sex couples in many states are taking a stand against marriage inequality by filing law suits against their states for denying them equal marriage rights. The main question that is debated in these courts is whether it is constitutionally acceptable to deny equal marriage rights to all. Most of the juries have ruled for equal marriage rights. These justices were correct; denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights is unconstitutional and therefore we, as the people of the United States, can no longer tolerate this injustice.
Our country creates and maintains laws based on our constitution. All laws must abide by the constitution. The laws that are currently in place regarding same-sex marriages do not full-fill this requirement. The constitution clearly states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States …without due process of law.” (US Const. Amend. XIV) Currently, our government is not abiding by this amendment, because DOMA restricts the privileges of a portion of our society by limiting marriage to a union between a male and a female. These restrictions are without good reason and therefore, we cannot continue to support DOMA and other laws restricting homosexual’s rights.
In our society, minorities have always had a difficult time being accepted by others. Our government does not need to add to homosexual’s extra difficulties by making them go through unnecessary regulations. Many states allow same-sex couples to be joined by what they call “equal” civil unions. The civil unions however, are not equal to marriages. They do not allow the partners the same rights financially, nor are the partners able to make decisions for each other in dire situations. These restrictions may seem small to those of us who do not have to deal directly with them, but in actuality, it makes the lives of same-sex couples harder than opposite-sex couples. It is restrictions such as these that makes it critical that we fight not for civil unions, but instead for legal marriages. (Lorber)
People who are against same-sex marriage often use popular sovereignty as a reason for why marriage rights should not be extended to all. This argument has been raised throughout history in many civil rights issues, but there is a reason that this argument is not credible. We are dealing with the rights of a minority, and that minority, of whom the issue directly affects, is not able to have their voice be properly heard in a majority ruled vote. This idea was seen very clearly in the mid-1900s when the issue of inter-racial marriages was being debated. Many states had laws forbidding these marriages because popular vote was against them, but when a couple took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, through the Loving v. Virginia case, banning these marriages was determined to be unconstitutional. (Loving) In our culture today, many of us would not even consider banning these marriages, however in the mid-1900s, this issue was as large and difficult as same-sex marriage is today. For this reason, popular sovereignty cannot be used as an argument against same-sex marriage.
As with any issue that involves something considered “different” from the social norm, same-sex relationships have been looked down upon for centuries. It is not until now that we as a society are considering releasing the oppressed and allowing equal rights to same-sex couples. When one views this issue in light of the U.S. Constitution, he must come to the conclusion that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. We must set aside our personal prejudices and beliefs and support what is good for society: equal rights to all. We must take this knowledge and push our government to cease banning same-sex marriages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)