The Importance of Getting History Right

         From a young age, our parents teach us that we must always tell the truth. As children, we take this in without question, but as we grow older, we start to wonder why. Why must we always tell the truth? Why is it even more important to tell the truth about history? People have a lot more influence than they realize, and often times they don't understand that retelling history inaccurately actually has the power to change the future. As the saying goes, we must tell the truth about the past so that "history doesn't repeat itself." In order to learn from its mistakes, the world must first understand what its mistakes were.
         Holocaust deniers are some of the most despicable people living in this world. They don't realize what kind of influence they have. Of course at this point in time, we have the capacity to prove that these deniers are undoubtedly wrong, what with the availability of stories from survivors, but what happens after all of the Holocaust survivors pass away? Who will be left with first-hand knowledge to prove deniers wrong? Years and years from now, people living may become more uncertain as to whether or not the Holocaust existed. This is extremely dangerous, because the Holocaust, as well as the entirety of World War II, taught the world a crucial lesson- that man is capable of abominable and abhorrent things. Eventually, will people start to wonder "how could anyone do something so terrible"? If they no longer believe that the Holocaust could have existed, that gives the world a chance to make the same mistakes once again. Telling the truth about the past is crucial to preventing this from happening.
         We see a similar idea in the book 1984, written by George Orwell. In his dystopian future, the society of Oceania lives in a world where history is constantly changing. Lies become truth and everyday the past is altered to serve the government's needs. The consequences of such actions are seen throughout the book; people are uneducated, living in terrible conditions with the government controlling every aspect of their lives. History is taught incorrectly, and the people no longer understand the world they live in. They become mindless drones, accepting everything the government tells them because they don't know any better. The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, finds it difficult to do his job of altering the past because he understands that by doing so, he is giving the government a way to do whatever they want without worrying about the people rioting against them. They don't have the capacity to learn that what the government is doing is wrong because they don't know any other way of life.
         I'm not necessarily worried that in present day, something like this could occur. I think that now, especially in America, we hold truth on a pedestal too high to allow someone to come around and change it. People still try to lie about the past of course, like Holocaust deniers or people who tell lies about Israel, but they are constantly fought against by people determined to tell the truth. Everyday I see friends on Facebook responding to articles that tell lies about Israel or sharing videos that show the truth of the situation in the Middle East. And I don't think the people telling lies will ever win, because even if there's only one person who goes against it, that creates uncertainty, which starts to lead people down the road to truth. However, I don't think the people telling the truth will ever win either, for the same reasons. I think the battle between truth and lies is constant, and that there will always be two opinions about history. It's important for us, however, as educated, young adults, to understand which opinion is the truth and which one is the lie. If we want a better future, one where we don't repeat our mistakes, we first have to look to the past and ensure that we're getting history right.

Maya Lin "Vietnam Veterans Memorial"

         Using her work Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Maya Lin makes a statement about veterans and the armed forces, perhaps suggesting that we as citizens don't think about or thank them enough for their service, and that we often disregard and take for granted their efforts. She gets her message across by creating a memorial out of a clear, black, reflective stone that allows passerby to see their reflections along with the names of the fallen, causing them to think more deeply about themselves and their views of soldiers. Her purpose is to make viewers aware of how many people die trying to fight for our country's safety and freedom and thus to make viewers feel indebted to them as well as grateful. Though her architectural work doesn't necessarily have a distinct tone, the mere magnitude of it as well as how many names are engraved in it inspires an awestruck reaction from her audience.

         Questions:

         1. I think the way she designed this memorial is ingenious. The mere vastness of it as well as the extensive list of names is enough to take people's breath away. By listing every single person, Lin points to the importance of each and every soldier, not just those who are deemed "honorable" or "heroic." By using a dark reflective stone, Lin allows viewers to themselves within the list of names, creating a connection between the living and the dead. I think it's a beautiful piece of art.

         2. Again, I think the fact that she included every single soldier's name is supposed to send the message that every soldier is important no matter what they do. Lin labels all soldiers and veterans as heroes. She attempts to create a connection between viewers and veterans in order to create an understanding and appreciation between them. She wants the viewers to appreciate the sacrifices that veterans make and to have more respect for soldiers and the armed forces in general. Perhaps she also lists every soldier's name to show her disapproval for war- the cost of war is much too great if that many people have to die. 

Annie Dillard "Living Like Weasels"

         In her essay "Living Like Weasels," Annie Dillard suggests that the nature and lifestyle of a weasel represents true freedom, comparing it to the seemingly free lifestyle of humans, stipulating that humans are actually caught up in a world of restrictions and captivity. She begins by describing the entrancing behavior of weasels, then connecting it to her own encounter with a weasel, afterwards explaining how the encounter affected her, and finally giving her opinion upon the entire subject as a whole. Her purpose appears to be to convince readers that the weasel lives the optimal life- never bound by choices or decisions, always acting based on instinct and necessity- and that humans should follow suite instead of getting caught up in their own world. Seemingly addressing the entire human population, Dillard creates an awestruck and detached tone by writing a journal-entry-esque essay, describing her thoughts as if she were the only one hearing them. 

         Questions:

         1. The division of this essay is interesting- I think in some ways the numbered paragraphs follow her thought patterns. They go through first the details of simply what a weasel is, introducing the topic both to us and to her mind. Then she goes on to connect it to a memory, when she encountered a weasel herself. She first describes the setting of where it occurred, going into great detail about the landscape and various species living there. Continuing on, she goes through her thoughts while actually looking at the weasel, recounting exactly what it looked like and how it felt when their eyes locked. The next paragraph describes the aftermath- her thoughts after she sat back and mulled over what had just happened. Then, regret. She describes her metaphorical regret for not latching onto the weasel's throat, symbolizing her regret for not living as mindlessly as the weasel does. The final paragraph describes the general idea that she takes from the whole situation, living her with more food for thought. 

         2. This line is powerful because it's really the heart of her message- she wishes she could live as mindlessly as the weasel does, "noticing everything, remembering nothing." Those two actions symbolize the lifestyle of animals or of nature. Simply taking everything in as it is, not caring about it or placing in it any more significance. I think her thoughts about this come from a place of hurt or fear. Obviously something in the world scares her if she wishes to live like an animal does (or thinking like an animal, to be more accurate). She doesn't want attachments and choices and everything else that makes life hard for humans. She would rather live like an animal because it's more peaceful and creates less of a chance of being hurt or feeling any bad emotions at all. 

         5. I don't think Dillard means "wild" like having no control over oneself. I think she means more like returning to natural instincts, relying on emotions and needs rather than want. When one returns to such instincts, human thoughts and patterns of behavior slowly slip away. She seems to suggest that being "wild" is being free- having the freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want simply because you feel the urge or need to do it. Obviously she isn't suggesting murder or anything of the sort. To her, having a little bit of the wild in life would mean simply doing something because it feels right or it feels good, not being bogged down by the choices of everyday life. 

Blog 8- Oregon Militia

         In his satirical article, "Making Tennessee Great Again," Bruce VanWyngarden pokes fun at the current situation with the Oregon Militia, claiming that he has followed suite by "taking over" a restroom facility at Big Hill Pond State Park to protest the Tennessee government. He makes it clear that he really thinks the Oregon Militia situation is laughable through exaggeration: first when explaining his step by step process of takeover, comparing it to the Militia, then when detailing all of the weapons and sustenance he brought with him, and finally, when he tries to defend the Oregon Militia and what they stand for. His purpose is clear- to show how ridiculous the Oregon Militia is and the flaws in what they're doing. By using exaggeration, VanWyngarden creates a satirical tone, which establishes a sort of "us vs. them" situation, where he gets the reader to side with him by showing them blatantly how absurd the Militia's mindset is. 

         Personally, I also happen to think that the Oregon Militia situation is absurd, but I don't think we should laugh it away. It could be evidence of deeper problems in America that are just now bubbling to the surface. For years people have been complaining about government, about how Congress and the President don't really know what we want. The difference between those protests and this one is that in this case, federal property was taken over. And that's scary. People think that America is so high and mighty and that we're the best country in the world, but when American citizens themselves start to take over federal buildings, it could be a sign of a weakening infrastructure. Of course the American people have the right to assemble and protest, but how far does that go? Stories of take overs are always the scariest- how a group manages to overthrow a nation, how a single man manages to overthrow a monarch. I don't believe we're anywhere near a situation where the American government would be overthrown, nor do I think we'll ever get to that situation, but I'm just saying that these types of situations are important to take into account. Yes, the Militia only took over a wildlife refuge, and yes, they're probably only doing it to get attention for their own problems, but the fact that people are getting this upset about "little" things is something to keep an eye on. 

Blog 7- The Profound Emptiness of 'Resilience'

In her article, Parul Sehgal writes about the resilience and how the word’s meaning has been changing in accordance with events taking place in colleges and schools. She begins with a mere description of what resilience has been taken to mean in the past by the media, various organizations, and parents. For instance, Sehgal explains how parents believe their children need to be “resilient” and learn how to push past difficulties they encounter. She especially emphasizes people’s reactions to college students and how they deal with sensitive subjects on campus. Sehgal brings in both sides- one displaying contempt for students’ sensitivity, claiming they need to be more resilient and “tough,” and the other displaying an understanding for the students’ sensitivity, validating their hurt feelings and their attempts to speak out against injustice. In describing both opinions, Sehgal makes it difficult for the reader to understand her opinion, but at the very end of the article, Sehgal subtly agrees with the people who validate students’ pain, explaining that their sensitivity is actually changing what resilience means.

Personally, I agree with Sehgal's opinion, and I think the way she brought it up was genius. Instead of making a hotheaded argument that clearly blasts any counterarguments, Sehgal writes a clever piece that seems to be merely factual, stating both sides of the story. However, she slips in her opinion at the last minute, subtly agreeing with one side. By doing this, she had opened up her article to all readers. Those who would have disagreed with her don’t even realize her opinion until the end, and those would agree with her find surprising pleasure in finding her opinion at the very end. In my opinion, this is the best way to write an article.

In regards to her actual message, I think Sehgal happens to be correct. People talk about resilience as if it means silence. To them, being resilient means not voicing your fears or concerns, not being “too sensitive.” I happen to think there is nothing wrong with being sensitive. Being resilient means you should be able to stand up for what you believe in and voice all the concerns you want without fear of being pushed down or ignored. You should be able to be sensitive about subjects like racial prejudice without having people call you out for it. I think that is the message Sehgal is trying to get across in her article, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

Sehgal, Parul. “The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience’.” The New York Times Magazine. N.p., 1

Dec. 2015. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.

The Last Lincoln

President Abraham Lincoln, in his “Second Inaugural Address” (1865), declares the Civil War to be at the fault of the South, and that as such, they can no longer do anything to stop it. Lincoln makes this declaration by subtly indicating that the Southern states willed the war as a result of their desire to destroy the Union, by stating outright that the cause of the war lay in the issues of slavery in the South, and finally, by stating that if the war is G-d’s will, they can do nothing but fight for what they believe in. Lincoln’s purpose is to make his people aware of the fact that the South is to blame for the war and to indicate to them that it is their duty to finish the war in order to be able to rebuild the country. His tone is calm, yet also almost regretful, as if he wishes they didn't have to fight anymore.

I think Lincoln’s Address is kind of funny, in a very morose sort of way. Lincoln is sick and tired of the South yelling and fighting with him all the time, so he just accepts the war as a fact and then piles all of the blame onto them. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with this, but I think what he said was appropriate for the occasion. The people didn’t want to hear anything more about friendly ties and country roots, they wanted to fight for their beliefs. Lincoln is basically sitting back and saying “Have at it, I’m done with this.” Accepting the war was the first step to finishing it. In regards to the actual meaning behind his words, I don’t think all of the blame should have been put on the South. Sure, they were acting like a rebellious teenager (“I don’t want to follow your dumb laws! I can do anything I want! So there!), but the North also had a part in starting the war. When the country was just beginning in the late 1700s, the North was the center of the country. It was where all government decisions were made. The South felt left out right from the beginning, which led to tensions that eventually turned into the Civil War. So, in my opinion, the blame should be split, maybe not equally, but split, between the North and the South.

"How to Live a Lie" is a Lie!

William Irwin, in his New York Times article “How to Live a Lie” (2015), asserts that our beliefs in G-d, objective morality, and free will are based on a philosophy called fictionalism. Irwin supports this assertion by using ideas from famous philosophers and specific examples to explain how we accept morality, G-d, and free will as being true, even though we inherently believe them to be untrue. Irwin intends to convince his readers that their beliefs are based on a system of accepting what they believe to be untrue, and thus teach them to believe that their faith in G-d, morality, and free will is ill-founded, though understandable, and should be challenged. The tone of the article is formal and educational, as well as a little pompous and forceful, as though Irwin expects his ideas to be accepted by everyone.  

While I certainly respect the work and research that was put into this article, I find that I wholeheartedly disagree with much of what Irwin says. His first suggestion, that morality is based on “moral fictionalism,” seems utterly ridiculous to me. He wants us to believe that though we accept statements like “stealing is wrong” to be true, we actually don’t believe it to be true at all. He claims that if we were pushed to give a theoretical answer to whether stealing is wrong, we would say no. But who on earth would say no?!?!? Of course we all believe inherently that stealing is wrong! Stealing is wrong! We are taught from a young age that taking something from someone else is not the right thing to do. Why? There are oodles of answers! It would make them upset, it isn’t polite, the list goes on and on. Is Irwin suggesting that people inherently don’t care about others’ feelings? How else could he say that we don’t actually think stealing is wrong???

Another major issue I have with his philosophy is his idea of free will. He seems to feel that no one feels that free will is actually possible. We only accept it as a possibility because it makes the world an easier place to live in. He gives the classic example that many use to prove free will doesn’t exist- “If God foresaw that I would order pasta, then was I really free to do otherwise, to order steak?” This question has irked me for SO LONG. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other! Just because G-d knows something is going to happen, that doesn’t mean that we didn’t make it happen. It’s like saying I went to the grocery store and bought some eggs, and my mom knew that I would buy eggs, and therefore, because she knew I would buy eggs, I didn’t have free will. What kind of crazy argument is that?? It has nothing to do with anything! Once I saw that argument, I couldn’t accept any more of what Irwin was saying, because it all seemed absurd to me. Aside from these two major flaws in his argument, I do agree with him about belief in G-d because I think many people accept the reality of G-d without actually believing in Him. But, for the rest of the article, I have to respectfully disagree with his claims.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/how-to-live-a-lie/?ref=opinion