The author of this essay, Nicholas Carr, while he was published in The Atlantic Online and I respect his knowledge, he seemed to whine throughout this publication. While there are flaws with the technology in this era and technology is being used quite ruthlessly, the good that it is doing is being overlooked. The article itself states many positives; "research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes," and "the advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many." I am very skeptical of his skepticism of the current technologies. Yet I find a lot of truths in what he is trying to say.
I am very skeptical, mainly because this was written six years ago. Our mind is more adapted to this usage of technology and it isn't as new as it used to be. When things like time, maps, printing press, telephone, and calculator were invented we adapted and benefited, with some flaws, but now the internet has taken all of these inventions and made them accessible in one place. They talk about 'artificial intelligence' and 'the human brain is just...' It is mentioned how an un-natural brain would leave you better off than what you currently have. That the brain is just and outdated computer. The human brain is not JUST anything. It is an amazing tool that is benefiting and adapting to the tool we have created and been given in this lifetime. With the skepticism that I am bringing up with this essay there are some obscure things that I agree with.
The fact that Literature majors and professors can't engage in a book or long article or blog post concerns me. I, being part of the technology hungry generation, do not have that problem. I believe that it is because I am so used to technology and the way the Internet is run that I didn't have to adapt, because I don't know anything different. We are most definitely doing more reading than the average person in the 1970's, that is a given. It is also clear that reading is a learned skill that is not natural at first. All of the major inventions in the past centuries were accepted, but people were worried. But one fact about the human nature remains very true, change scares people. It always has, and always will. So until something that will never change goes away the skepticism will always remain and it will be a part of this life. I am curious about what the next big area of questioning will be; robots?
Monday, July 28, 2014
Friday, July 11, 2014
Do the Wrong Thing for What Is Right
While many African Americans headlined the fight for equality in the 1960's, many more were contempt to take the blows and get by. They just wanted to live; they didn't want to make the news, they didn't want to be outspoken, and they most definitely didn't want to be lynched. The first lesson in the "Jim Crow education" ended with him complaining to his mother because of what some white men did to him. One of the first things his mother said was that he shouldn't always be fighting and the he should hide from them. And most importantly, that he should be thankful that the just cut his head open and didn't kill him. To get by as a minority, at any time is to let everyone know that you are in and will stay in your place, which is something that is very hard to swallow for anyone facing oppression.
Slowly the lessons he learned continued to put him in his face very firmly. Those lessons kept him from seeking equality, which is why, as the old saying goes, "Well behaving people seldom make history." As the short sketches go on, the pattern becomes clear, he will be a victim, then complain, then be called a foll for not acting like he isn't there. I can't help but wonder what the pattern, if there was one, was for someone like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr, two people that made history for not following the rules of that day, but still doing what is right in the eyes of people today. Everyone, at any time, is scared of stepping out of line and breaking the status-quo. Stepping out of line brings change, and while the whites that did the horrific things to innocent African Americans, it was very few that controlled the oppression, and no one realized that.
As mentioned in the essay, "The plight of the Negro in America is graphically symbolized." this is more true than any other line in the essay, the struggle that all African Americans faced in America is such a pinnacle part of our history that it isn't looked into as much as it should be. It is an event that is made out to be so complicated. The only change that was brought about was by people that didn't do what they were supposed to do. The refused to give up a seat, they spoke out, they gave themselves a status that was equal, not below. The author of this essay learned a valuable thing for someone that wishes to stay in line and continue on the life that he was given, he learned what they wanted to see and hear.
Slowly the lessons he learned continued to put him in his face very firmly. Those lessons kept him from seeking equality, which is why, as the old saying goes, "Well behaving people seldom make history." As the short sketches go on, the pattern becomes clear, he will be a victim, then complain, then be called a foll for not acting like he isn't there. I can't help but wonder what the pattern, if there was one, was for someone like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr, two people that made history for not following the rules of that day, but still doing what is right in the eyes of people today. Everyone, at any time, is scared of stepping out of line and breaking the status-quo. Stepping out of line brings change, and while the whites that did the horrific things to innocent African Americans, it was very few that controlled the oppression, and no one realized that.
As mentioned in the essay, "The plight of the Negro in America is graphically symbolized." this is more true than any other line in the essay, the struggle that all African Americans faced in America is such a pinnacle part of our history that it isn't looked into as much as it should be. It is an event that is made out to be so complicated. The only change that was brought about was by people that didn't do what they were supposed to do. The refused to give up a seat, they spoke out, they gave themselves a status that was equal, not below. The author of this essay learned a valuable thing for someone that wishes to stay in line and continue on the life that he was given, he learned what they wanted to see and hear.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Vulnerablity in the Town, Country, and World
The tragedy of the 9/11 terrorist attack marked a type of vulnerability that America hadn't faced and likely will never face again. Both of the essays highlight vulnerabilities that possess different qualities and how they struck various people throughout the country. The essay by John Updike takes on the task of trying to explain what it was like in New York and not what was on the news. On the other hand, Susan Sontag attempts to explain what is wrong with the public figures and news anchors and how they are (poorly) approaching the events and the healing.
John Updike highlights the "false intimacy" that surrounded the news coverage of these events. He is one of the millions of New York City residents that was forced to witness the collision and collapse of the World Trade Center. He talked about the notion that television brought about, that it was an unreal event that could be fixed, and essentially was fixed when you turned off the TV. I agree with that idea, and that, myself, being only 16, thankfully haven't lived with or witnessed something as horrific as this crisis. Outside of the premises where a tragic event take place, the idea that time heals all wounds is prevalent. But to this day New York's people look into the iconic skyline and are forced to look into the empty space where two towers disappeared on that afternoon. To the people in the greater New York City area, the nightmare lived on for weeks and continues to live on. He powerfully mentions the other side of the abstraction of war, as quoted in the essay, "We have only the mundane duties of survivors--to pick up the pieces, to bury the dead, to take more precautions, to go on living." The most powerful element is that risk is the price of the freedom and that we all live in a country worth fighting for.
Susan Sontag describes the events as a reality of how the world works and how the United States plays a part in the global world. She also very powerfully, in a very convincing manner, describes the way that public figures are "joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public." She makes a case that the attack was not cowardly, but "an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower." The 9/11 attacks are attacks that will forever live in infamy and that the public needs to be asked to bear a burden of reality, and that it is a effective way to heal. She justifies that the way the politics of democracy is run has changed too much and that the event is unworthy of democracy. We can grieve, but we have to be smart and not turn the politics into therapy and do something to keep these event from never happening again. Sontag hints that the ways to change are internal, not forcing change on other countries. The essay states that the saying that, "Our country is strong" is not consoling. While no one doubts that America is strong, that's not all that America can be and has to be to move on and change.
The 9/11 attacks are surrounded by one word that is common in these two articles that were published by The New Yorker: vulnerability. Both have their beliefs, which everyone can agree with, and all hold what the authors find is the underlying problem about the attacks that rocked America to it's core. The essays have different themes, but all come together to explain and teach people the deeper take on the events that took so many lives and shattered the innocence of so many more people across the country.
John Updike highlights the "false intimacy" that surrounded the news coverage of these events. He is one of the millions of New York City residents that was forced to witness the collision and collapse of the World Trade Center. He talked about the notion that television brought about, that it was an unreal event that could be fixed, and essentially was fixed when you turned off the TV. I agree with that idea, and that, myself, being only 16, thankfully haven't lived with or witnessed something as horrific as this crisis. Outside of the premises where a tragic event take place, the idea that time heals all wounds is prevalent. But to this day New York's people look into the iconic skyline and are forced to look into the empty space where two towers disappeared on that afternoon. To the people in the greater New York City area, the nightmare lived on for weeks and continues to live on. He powerfully mentions the other side of the abstraction of war, as quoted in the essay, "We have only the mundane duties of survivors--to pick up the pieces, to bury the dead, to take more precautions, to go on living." The most powerful element is that risk is the price of the freedom and that we all live in a country worth fighting for.
Susan Sontag describes the events as a reality of how the world works and how the United States plays a part in the global world. She also very powerfully, in a very convincing manner, describes the way that public figures are "joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public." She makes a case that the attack was not cowardly, but "an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower." The 9/11 attacks are attacks that will forever live in infamy and that the public needs to be asked to bear a burden of reality, and that it is a effective way to heal. She justifies that the way the politics of democracy is run has changed too much and that the event is unworthy of democracy. We can grieve, but we have to be smart and not turn the politics into therapy and do something to keep these event from never happening again. Sontag hints that the ways to change are internal, not forcing change on other countries. The essay states that the saying that, "Our country is strong" is not consoling. While no one doubts that America is strong, that's not all that America can be and has to be to move on and change.
The 9/11 attacks are surrounded by one word that is common in these two articles that were published by The New Yorker: vulnerability. Both have their beliefs, which everyone can agree with, and all hold what the authors find is the underlying problem about the attacks that rocked America to it's core. The essays have different themes, but all come together to explain and teach people the deeper take on the events that took so many lives and shattered the innocence of so many more people across the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)