On Keynote (May 23, 2012)

     I'm starting to realize just how useful Mac applications can be when fully utilized.  At first I thought, ehh its just Rab using some of his admittedly convincing advertising/argumentative skills to present Mac computers in a way that seems far more superior than Microsoft computers.  It's not like I'm a Microsoft fan, but seeing as how I do own a Microsoft computer, I may have an ounce of loyalty for it lol.  But over the past few weeks as Rab has introduced the class to many different ways on using Mac computer accessories, the scales (for me at least) have indeed begun to tip in favor of Mac.  The aspect I find most favorable for Mac computers is the compatibility it has with several academic tools, like Evernote, Keynote, Dropbox, the take-a-photo-of-any-page-and-clip-it-however-you-like tool, among others.  Plus, the Mac keyboard/monitor looks more futuristic than those of standard Microsoft computers :P  Yess, looks are more important than they're given credit for lol.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" - Ch.6 (...Lies?)

     When I first read the subtitle to this chapter, "The Invisibility of Antiracism in American History Textbooks", I thought, why in the world would there be any need to hide Antiracism??  This chapter told me of Abraham Lincoln's difficult struggle in choosing between the unity of the American people or the moral defense of the colored.  At first I was shocked to read about two things:  1) that Abraham Lincoln had in fact stated in one of his speeches his support for the white supremacists, and 2) that Loewen would provide such incriminating evidence against one of America's best-known antislavery figures.  However, as could be predicted, Loewen goes on to defend Lincoln and his actions/words, and points out first that these words were necessary in uniting the country, to keep the white supremacist South and the abolitionist North together.  A question is brought to attention at this point(Rab mentioned it in class perhaps?):  Is it right to lie, for any reason?  We discussed this in class I think, and the general answer that we came up with was "Yes, because sometimes lies are necessary".  Or something like that. lol.  This is true I believe; it is a realist's point of view.  Of course ideally no one should lie; lying is bad, it can lead to misinterpretations, confusion, doubt, and all that other bad stuff.  However, how many people can say that they have never lied in their whole lives?  I don't think one should be proud of themselves for not ever having lied to anyone about anything, if such a person were to exist; rather, I would think them to be rather dull, not socially capable.  Why?  Lying is, in a way, a form of strategy.  Yes, I sound like a jerk saying this LOL but I think this is true.  Humans use lies to maneuver themselves out of trouble and/or harm's way; if a person were not capable of, or has ever, lied, then that simply means that they are that much incapable socially.  So, I believe that true, lies are bad, and they will lead to misinterpretations, confusion, doubt, and all that other bad stuff.  However, they are an important social tool for human communications; I believe Abraham Lincoln's use of lies in his speech in order to rally people to his cause is simply a technique, a tactic, played well.  However, it is how one copes with the side-effects of lies that determine how things will play out in the future:  either take the easy path, the path of lie after lie after lie, or take the just path, and work hard to make up for the negative effects liying can cause.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" - Ch.5 (Slavery, racism)

     I don't mean to make a big deal of it, but right at the beginning Loewen mentions the three race relations as "Indian-African-European"; I learned in my American middle school that calling Native Americans "Indians" was incorrect, of course, and therefore could be offensive.  I'm sure Loewen could do a better job of arguing his point if he could correctly label them.
     I agree that racism supercedes slavery; the origin of the idea of enslavement has to have come from the thinking of another people as inferior.  As Loewen says, this way of thinking is probably what started the concept of enslavement.  It is an unfortunate thing that humans look down on and disrespect other same humans.
     On pg.147, Patrick Henry is mentioned for his hypocritical views; that is also another point that I believe we must all be careful of.  It's easy to denounce another's views when one doesn't have anything to do with it.  For me, the best example of a hypocritical, yet disturbingly understandable, situation is in the movie "Saving Private Ryan"(completely off topic I know but bear with me lol):  there is a scene in which two soldiers are fighting hand to hand with one another in a duel to the death.  The American calls for his partner to come help him, but he is too afraid to intervene, and the German kills his opponent.  There is a little more depth to this scene and its connection to other scenes later in the movie but this is the gist of it.  The problem is, it is easy to, say, criticize this soldier for not helping when he could have, but when one tries to stand in his shoes instead, it's not so easy to do otherwise.  I believe this is relatable to Patrick Henry's case, as with many others; racism spreads because one's own biases, when unaware of them, will unconsciously mold one's way of thinking before you even know it.
     The information Loewen provides here concerning racism in America is appalling!  The amount of violence done towards blacks in this time period is not all too different from the very genocides, riots, and protests that America opposes today.  I mean, driving out blacks until towns were all-white?  That's not too far from the infamous genocide that took place in Rwanda, where one faction slaughtered the other to the point where they had to flee their own country!  However, I don't think these acts of violence were conducted merely from white feelings of superiority; I believe there must have been a tinge of fear in these actions.  Fear, that if blacks were allowed the same equality as whites, they would one day exact a vicious revenge upon them.  This may have led to a spiral of death, where whites were assaulting blacks so they themselves would not be assaulted in turn for the damage they had been causing.  Just a thought.
     Loewen wraps up the chapter with the same message that I came up with for last chapter:  the truth should ever be present for all to know, for academics' sake if anything.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" - Ch.4 (Native Americans, POV)

      A little thought.  Upon reading the first sentence on page 94 of Ch.4 of this book("most of these pictures focused on the themes of primitive life and savage warfare.") the first thing that popped into my mind:  there is no "savage" warfare; War itself is savage.  Not exactly trying to counter-argue with Loewen here, just a thought.  Whether it be an honorable duel, a skirmish between armies on an open plain, a guerilla ambush in the woods, or a Predator sending rockets screeching through the air, War is supposed to be vicious; after all, someone has to die for it to end.
     Anyways, back on topic.  Ah, another little thought:  the contrast between "primitive" and "civilized".  I don't believe that those who consider themselves to be part of a civilized culture should look down on those they would consider "primitive". After all, we are all the same species and we were all apes at one time.  Er, you know what I mean.  However, looking at this little thought of mine from a different view, I suppose that racism, though denounced as immoral in modern society, was an inevitable aspect of society back then.  I mean, I suppose it would be natural if you lived in a land where the neighbors to your east and west and north and south were all the same color as you!  And when you encounter these new peoples across the ocean and they're wearing clothes/equipment that is completely, from your view, outdated, it would be natural to consider them inferior.  But this is only acceptable in this age, an age without global communications and relationships.  Now, people should realize that they live in a world with billions of people who think very differently from themselves, and should be considerate of each other; it is now an age in which Ignorance is outdated.
     Wealth does not equal civilization; this is merely a single POV or way of looking at what should determine "civilization".  From the POV of the Europeans, who were lustful for gold, the Central American civilizations were indeed not civilized.  But of course!  It would only be natural for two different cultures to have two different ways of thinking, respectively.  One, the "advanced" Europeans whose only material concern was the search for gold, and the other, the "unprogressive" Central American cultures who were more spiritually oriented; no doubt each thought the other to be strange.
     The passage on the multicultural interactions that took place in certain parts of colonized North America was interesting to read, particularly the 200-man army instructed in German lol.  It's strange to hear that the a few whites prefered Native American life so much as to risk punishment; strange, but amusing.  It was also a first for me to hear that European colonies had to watch their own people and prevent them from escaping out, which in many cases the situation is quite the opposite.

     Edit:  I was reading through this section again and came up with more thoughts on this chapter and will add a few more lines.

      I was reading this chapter, and perhaps I was trying to think critically, or perhaps I was just starting to get annoyed by Loewen saying the same thing over and over, but maybe all this criticizing of settlers and Spanish invaders is unnecessary.  Loewen started out pointing out how abstract and biased history textbooks are, but he is starting to denounce the actions of the settlers/pioneers/Whites.  Unfortunately, I think that being human means being violent; even animals fight each other for territory, mates, and whatnot.  I say "even" because I think people have this strange thought that as an "intelligent race" we should grow out of the violent nature that is natural to animals, and become peaceful beings.  This is ideal, but sadly unrealistic, I believe.  Therefore, it is inevitable for humans to have killed each other all throughout history, and the conquering and slaughtering of the Native Americans was therefore, in a sense, inevitable, that one day someone would end up conquering someone else; otherwise, I'm sure the human race would not have been able to come to the present stage as we have.  I don't believe Loewen is being fair when he criticizes figures of the past and their actions.  Society probably accepted slavery as naturally as we embrace capitalism in society today.  The human race can be related to a toddler; we were immature, "innocent", naive; people today should criticize people back then only as they would criticize themselves when they were immature children.
     On a last note, I would like to point out that on pg.101, it is suggested/hinted at that "civilized" cultures should know better than to wage war and commit to violent acts.  I don't believe being a "civilized" or "primitive" culture has anything to do with being belligerent or peaceful; this is only an ideal aspect of human culture, an aspect that would be a good to have in being part of an advanced society.  Violence is one with animal nature, and when an animal gets as intelligent and sophisticated as a human, violence can only increase in level.

     I think that should be enough blogging for one chapter lol.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" - Ch.3 (Native Americans&settlers/pilgrims, Thanksgiving)

     I agree with Loewen at the beginning of the second page in this chapter.  The word "settlers" has an extremely powerful image of white men in colonial uniforms, venturing into the wilderness, with a brave look on their faces and deadly rifles in their hands.  I can't imagine an American Indian as a "settler"; in fact, I can't imagine any non-caucasian race "settling" any area.  The word seems to be there only to refer to Colonial white pioneers.  Caucasians just seem to be the standard for anything; I suppose this is eurocentricity?  I don't know, probably because I lived in the States for 10 years, but I really do have this image of heroes and entrepreneurs(illustration unprovided) in any situation being a white person.  I think I have been biased by this.  Many movies, animations, stories, and the like have white characters at the core of their story, and I, as someone who has seen many such medium(mediae? lol) am probably heavily influenced by such stories.

     The "plague" that devastated the Native Americans was a little bit of a wake-up call for me; I, being a fan of the Middle Ages, believed that the most terrible epidemic to ever assault Mankind was the Bubonic Plague; again, I now realize how eurocentralized(?) I am.  This disease, although it did wipe out an incredible 2/3 of the European population, was probably nothing compared to the number of dead Native Americans.  It's also very sad to read that they were intentionally infected and killed off by settlers and pilgrims as a sort of biological warfare tactic.  It's also a little irritating(albeit understandable*) when the pilgrims, who had despaired so much when the Plague struck them and their family and friends, that God was punishing them, suddenly become arrogant and full of confidence when "God" started "smiting" the Native Americans.  I know that without modern technology there could have been no other way of desribing the horrendous turn of events, but looking back on history, one can often see alot of the dumb mistakes Man has made.

     ...Which reminds me of how much I agreed with Loewen when he mentions somewhere that "colonization" would probably have been impossible if not for the mass outbreaks among the Native American population, clearing numbers and space for the new arrivals from Europe to fill.  Of course it would be easier to control the masses when they were your kind!

     Lastly, I believe that what Loewen has to say about history textbooks also applies to media coverage:  the "truth should be held sacred, at whatever cost'.  I believe that the truth should be apparent to all in any situation.

Priorities meh.

So, another ELA class today; just starting to realize how much harder i have to work to get my assignments in on time←今更ww
Hating the LLA quiz system; or rather, i should hate myself for not getting to class on time lol.  thats one thing i have to work on.
Another is READING.  READING READING READING.  omg.  Reading for the blog chapters, reading for the book review, reading.  Im gonna need some more stamina if im to read these books; i just about sleep the moment i come back home.. which, for the most part of this week, has been at around the time of 11.30-12.00.  I wonder why im so sleepy.  lol.  Anyways, gotta work on prioritizing my assignments.
Yep.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" - Ch.2 (Columbus, heroification)

     This is my second blog for my ELA class, on the book "Lies My Teacher Told Me".
     To start off, I must say I was really surprised and interested to hear Columbus' true story.  Having been a part of the American educational system, I know that Loewen is dead-on when he says that textbooks tend to leave out much of history's details, which, coincidentally, tend to include some of the more important facts.  I can just imagine some of the excerpts Loewen uses in this book  to have been in the history textbook that I used too!  Now that the author mentions it, the stories of Columbus' journey do tend to be fantastical, with a sort of "the going was hard in the beginning, but perseverance and willpower won out" theme going on.  Though this may easily have been the situation then, according to Loewen's sources, it simply was not!  I believe this is where bias comes in, the textbook authors unconsciously altering the hard facts with assumptions and ideals of their own.  Of course Columbus would seem more heroic after a tiring, dangerous journey; but it seems apparent, according to Loewen, that this was just not the case!  To tell the truth, as someone who received an American education glorifying Columbus and other "heroes", I am a little dissapointed.  As Rab said, only by looking at something from "outside" of it, can you criticize it.  I suppose I can consider myself lucky because I have taken a look at American education from within and without(?).
     Naturally, if one were to "heroify" Columbus and other historical figures who have two sides to their story, one would only write about and accentuate the points generally thought to be good.  However, I believe that in doing so, much of history is stashed in the shadows, which can only lead to misconceptions and untruths in the future.  If Columbus was indeed the man responsible for the vanquishing of numerous tribes and their enslavement, so be it!  This is history, and what took place should be taught properly to all.  How else can we humans learn from our past mistakes?

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" - Ch.1 (Heroification, questioning authority)

     This is Blog 1 for "Lies My Teacher Told Me", the book we're reading in Rab Paterson's Stream 1 ELA class.
     As soon as the book mentioned the word "Heroification" towards the beginning of the first chapter, I felt like I knew what the author, James W. Loewen, was trying to say about American History textbooks.  I lived in the States for 10 years, and have read my fair share of boring, back-breaking heavy textbooks.  So when the author brought out the word "Heroification", I could understand what he was trying to say, to some extent.  I remember four or five years ago, when I was a middle school student in the States, being taught about Helen Keller, Woodrow Wilson, and other such iconic American figures.
     What I don't remember are the stories of Helen Keller going on to become a socialist radical, or Woodrow Wilson turning out to be an extreme white supremacist.  These facts just might have been worth mentioning.  Just might.←
     Unfortunately, when I hear that American textbooks tend to glorify their historical figures, I'm not so surprised; America has always loved its heroes.  Now that this book mentions it, there might have been quite a lot of things that I read back then that could have used a little more clarification/correction.  Of course, that's not to say that America doesn't have any real heroes; the country has been mother to many many admirable people throughout history.  However, its textbooks' tendency to glorify certain people's certain actions, and on the other hand leave out certain "unnecessary" details, is a shame; it's also impossible to tell if the facts are hidden at times.
     On a final note. "Fish cannot possibly understand the water around them, because they are constantly in it, always swimming around in it.  Only by being outside of the water for the first time is it possible to understand what water is."  This is a rough translation of prof. Kobayashi of Environmental Studies talking about fish and critical thinking, and how to think outside the box, so to speak haha.  I thought it insightful.