Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Definint Moments
Whether you are comparing and contrasting Naylor's and Leong's reactions to derogatory labels, considering how language defines us, challenging George Will's assumption in "Equity," defining an addiction, OR determining the effect of euphemisms, post your initial, thoughtful responses for the AP Language Community "sagesblogspots."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Living in a world full of diversity, racial stereotypes are evidently apparent within all societies. Although the essays "Meanings of a Word" and "Being a Chink" possess their own stereotypes due to different ethnicities, both works depict the immense and influential power of language, which is given by people. Both authors incorporate their own personal experiences to portray the great effects of certain words. However, Naylor points out the insignifance of words without the people's consensus of the word; with no agreements of what a certain word is intended to mean, a word lacks a definition and sounds like a group of alphabets. Within the two different essays, Naylor and Leong both share similar reactions to the use of racial slang; they are both surprised and hurt. In Naylor's instance, the word "nigger" is very familiar among the black people in her community, but Naylor became shocked at the differing meaning of the word the little "mean" boy used. A word that has always been spoken with a positive name among her community was now considered a "bad" word in her classroom. The sudden change throws the young author into a state of confusion and pain. Although the author learns of the negative connotation of the word, she continues to view the word with under a positive light. On the other hand, Leong becomes offended and infuriated when she first encounters the word upon the envelope, for she knew its "true" meaning used by the non- Asian people. As time progresses, Leong's interpretation and view of the word "chink" change as she begins to use the word frequently. The word that she always viewed as an insult transforms into a word of love and unification. The consensus of the positive meaning of the "simle word [that was created] to paralyze, belittle, or control" makes the word to becoming one of the most vital words for the Asian author. Therefore, the negative connotation of the derogatory label loses its power to degrade the Asians, and instead, the word evokes relief and harmony. Overall, if not noticed, langyage plays a huge role among us, for it is what allows to talk and laugh about. Without language, how can it be possible to communicate with another?
ReplyDeleteIn "Being a Chink," Leong says that "language is the tool used to define us." She later says that she and her friends refuse to be defined by racist language. While this may appear to be a contradiction, it actually strengthens her essay. I believe that the purpose of this essay is to describe how Leong and her friends have adapted the word "chink" to serve as a means of identification rather than a racist term. By using the term among her Asian friends, Leong fights back against stereotypes. I believe that it is a way of showing that they do not care what people stereotype them as. They are saying that these stereotypes do not bother them because they know that a single term cannot describe all of them. By showing how they have broken the stereotypes, Leong gives greater support for her general argument. This argument, while somewhat contradictory to her opening statement, is that language cannot define a group of individuals because know two individuals are similar enough to be described by one term. Similar to Gloria Naylor's "The Meaning of a Word," Leong shows how the use of a word with a negative connotation for a positive purpose diminishes the strength of the word's negative effect.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBoth Leong and Naylor write about the lasting effect that a certain word has had on certain ethnicities. The two words are meant as deragotory slurs towards the races. They are meant as insults and to emotionally hurt the person they are directed towards. Naylor writes about how the generations have learned to use "nigger" in a positive way as well as a negative. The word has just become a way to identify certain types of people no matter the race. Leong discusses the effect of the word "chink" on her friends and family. She explains how they too have embraced the word as a joke between friends. They do not let the word define them or hurt them. Both writers are examples of how language can be used to harm others. However, it is also how we choose to look at words. Both groups have words that discriminate, but they choose to take a positive outlook and grow stronger from it. The authors make the point that one word can not define an entire race nor can it diminish their value as people.
ReplyDeleteThese days, a lot of people are "addicted" to many different things. These addictions can be serious in terms of substance abuse, but they can also be more commonplace. Addictions are essentially things that you psychologically can't live without, even though biologically, you can. Obviously, Facebook and other social networking sites are not biologically required, yet many people can't seem to shake them. The draw of many of these networking sites is that they provide constant streams of new information and allow people to feel as though they are socializing. They are websites laced with opportunities for engagement; friends, pictures, videos, anecdotes, games, and event planning all provide opportunities to hook the users. In addition, they play into a major part of human nature: people are nosy. People, in general, want to know gossip, even if they don't partake in the sharing of it. Social networking sites provide the opportunities to give into nosiness indirectly. Overall, they let people live vicariously through the actions and lives of others, fulfill their own curiosity, and engage in social activity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like with all addictions, there is a dark side of social networking. Entertaining as it may be, it provides little real opportunity for growth, challenge, and maturation of one's character. People may have trouble concentrating on important tasks when there are other, more easily obtained means of satisfaction. While social networking is not seen as a major problem in moderation, there are extreme cases.
I personally cannot think of the number of times I have felt myself distracted from other things because of sites like Facebook and AIM. Many of my peers would agree with me in that social networking often delays the completion of assignments, as well. While social networking may not always be an issue, I believe that, as is such with most forms of technology, that people could benefit from cutting back.
As "The Equity of Inequality" explains, in America equal freedom of self-improvement is more important than equal monetary income or social status. I have always believed this to be true; it is hard for me to grasp why some people think that large social gaps and wide income ranges are bad. Sure, I sometimes envy those rich West Lake kids who get everything they want (I apologize for stereotyping you who do not). However, I do not think this way very often; it is not my nature to want great material wealth. That is why I think that a want of equal monetary income is silly. I do not find much value in possessions and money, and I know that there are others who feel the same way I do. All I want is the ability to control my life when I am an adult. America offers this, for the most part. If I work to get good grades in high school, for example, then I can choose which college I go to and pursue the career that I want to have. I will not detail the many opportunities that American offers to its citizens (these were addressed about a month ago in my group's American Dream argument), so suffice it to say that they are present. As an American citizen I can vote, own land, and do what I wan to do as long as it does not hurt other people. What more could I really want? What more to I really need in order to pursue my life goals?
ReplyDeleteOften, humanity likes to distance itself from tragedies and horrors. One of the ways in which humanity distances itself from these horrors is through euphemisms. Bettelheim brings to light a huge example of humanities use of euphemisms in his essay "Holocaust." Whoever defined the massacre of millions of people as the Holocaust either saw this devastation as holy offering to a Nazi deity, or, and more likely, it was used to instill a sense of distance and estrangement. We often do this today, although not necessarily for just tragedies. We see the use of this in stereotypes. When we use a stereotype we don't have to think and feel about a human being, but we now have turned that human into a thing, into a category that can be analyzed and criticized. This sense of labeling has followed humanity through the times, whether it be accurate or aggrandized. Propaganda is a major source of where a situation has been made bigger than it actually is.
ReplyDeleteLeong's contradiction can be taken in, depending on how far deep one may read into the essay, two ways: one can weaken her argument and the other can strengthen it. From first glance, it is obvious that the contradiction weakens her point. While she says language, a very broad word, defines people she refuses the racist language to define. Basically, she is saying that racist language is something that should omitted from the language she is talking about. However, if one looks deeper into what she is trying to say, it can also strengthen her argument by showing that she refuses the racist language to define her. While other people may think that about her, she will not let the word "chink" define who she really is and basically she says she will rise above that derogatory meaning. This can enhance her purpose because it shows how people can rise above the racist language and ignore or even change the word from the derogatory meaning to a more affable meaning.
ReplyDelete-Dorothy Li
I whole-heartedly agree that "language is the tool used to define us". We all, whether consciously or subconsciously, judge others by how they talk. Most educated people seem to distance themselves from those who use poor grammar, an elementary vocabulary at all times, and numerous, unnecessary explicit words because they don't know what else to say. Toward the beginning of her essay, she explains and recounts of how the word "chink" made her feel and react while a youth. However, she goes on later in the essay to tell us of how this word was transformed and different while she was amongst her fellow asian school friends. This word was not derogatory between her friends; it was a common greeting name that they used between each other. This transformation of the word seemed to show her triumph over society's preset stereotypes and other things of that nature. You may think that this becomes a contradiction, but, on the contrary, it greatly strengthens the essay and the point that Leong was trying to portray. It showed how she morphed from a person dramatically affected by the word "chink" and the definition that society put on it into a person that is able to overcome what others may think of her and actually use it in a positive way for herself. She shows her triumph over the negative effect given by the world by turning it into something that is neither positive nor negative: neutral.
ReplyDeleteA common addiction amongst people is to tiny finger foods or snacks. For me, my weakness is M&Ms and pistachios. For both foods, if they are placed in front of me, its impossible for me to stop. I will keep absentmindedly pop both of them in my mouth until someone has the good sense to take them away from my grasp. I would always say to myself, "I can have a little bit more," or "a couple more wouldn't hurt." Before I know it, the entire bowl is gone. These foods are so tiny that eating them is effortless. It takes a lot before someone actually feels full, and by that time the effects of eating so much kick in. Usually I suffer the consequences over the next week. Both pistachios and M&Ms give me skin problems, and I would start to see their affects within two days. My nails would hurt from breaking pistachio shells, and the dentists have said more than once to me that if I keep eating my chocolate, I am bound to get a cavity. They say I possibly have one now. Chocolate can also cause sensitivity in the teeth if eaten too much as well. Also, a little bit of weight is usually gained. Everybody has one of these finger foods that is their weakness. It is okay to indulge once in a while, but it is important to have somebody near by without the addiction to help over consumption. Otherwise, consequences more serious than M&Ms and pistachios can result.
ReplyDeleteEuphemisms are often used in everyday talk. One such euphemism is the reference of death as one “passing away” or “moving on.” People often use these phrases in place of terms like death and died and deceased. When looking at the definitions of these words, they all mean practically the same thing: a person is no longer living. However, when thinking about the connotations, these words and phrases have very different meanings. Death, died, deceased all have cruel, harsh, cold connotations. They are not considered very nice terms. However, passed away or moved on have lighter, less offensive connotations and are viewed as more acceptable terms to use. By using these euphemisms, a person distances herself from the actual event. She puts of dealing with emotional and personal feelings and tries to cope by separating herself from the death that has occurred. This euphemism only accomplishes delaying the time of confirmation of a person’s death. It only delays a person from coming to terms with the reality and actuality of the event. It conceals the pain and hurt felt behind lighter, inoffensive words that do nothing to portray what really occurred. It only hurts the person who uses the phrase or term because all they do is hinder the time when she accepts the death as what it really is—death. The person who actually died may also feel a little upset at the delay of the confirmation of feelings, wherever he or she may be, but of course, we cannot know that. What we do know is that we are being unfair to the person that has died because we are only delaying our pain and agony. This is just as in “The Holocaust” where less offensive words are used to describe a very offensive event. It is the mere use of a misnomer, but it makes a world of a difference.
ReplyDeleteToday's newspapers use several different euphemisms to describe events to the people in a manner that makes it seem much less painful and traumatizing than the event really is. The term "disaster" is a good example. It comes off as a pretty harsh, negative word yet it doesn't really represent the full problem in certain situations. The "Disaster" in Japan is incredibly devastating but it isn't called "The thousands of dead floating, irradiated body massacre that Earth did," it's just called a "disaster." If you spill a glass of milk and it gets all over the table... watch out, we got a disaster on our hands. Disaster is so over-used that it has become less powerful and less representative. Another example of a poorly placed euphemism is the way the news builds certain things. If someone gives a speech, the news won't say, "Barack Obama said:" they would say, "Barack Obama, standing with a deep glaze over his eyes, began his strong, argumentative speech:" Both say the same thing, but one makes it sound much better. What if he was talking about an ant infestation in the White House. The news would still talk about his "mahogany lips brushing the microphone with his harsh whisper: We have a problem." The news can blow anything up by just certain word choice and can drag certain things down so nobody is unhappy or too concerned about other people or places, just themselves.
ReplyDeleteToday in society there are many types of racial slurs that are used among us. In the essays "The Meanings of a Word" and "Being a Chink" the two authors explore the definition of such slurs and how they can be depicted when used in a specific context. To introduce the word, both of the authors incorporate a personal experience when either veiwing or hearing the word at a younger age. Naylor and Leong both show instances how the slur, when used among their own race, is not considered harmful. However, Naylor shows how the word, when used among her family, can show ignorance also. Both essays show how the context and meaning of a word can have a lot to do with how it is interpreted. Naylor shows many stories explaining uses of the words, while Leong explains how the use of the word "chink" can not control, belittle, or paralyze her race despite some of society trying to make them feel small or insignificant.
ReplyDelete-Erin Payne
Racial comments are always made. It is obvious that racists will forever be in our lives because it is impossible to get rid of every one of them such as the KKK, who continue to make its odd appearances and racial slurs about everyone that is not the white race. Leong and Naylor both describe this predicament. Both authors explain how certain racial words have been transformed into words with bad connotations. Naylor explains how the word nigger, in her family, doubles as both a term of endearment and as an adjective to express the good about a group of people. Leong seemingly does the same with the word chink, showing that her and her friends use it to show how comfortable they are with themselves. One connection that both authors touch on is how overcoming the tone and humiliation that people cast when they use these words to describe and hurt other ethnicities is a large part of why they, themselves, continue to refer to each other with these words. Leong mentions that language is what defines us and she later contradicts herself when she says that her and her friends refused to let language define them. However, I think that what she is saying, just as Naylor is saying, is that there will always be people casting down negativity on others. We have the choice to let it bother us or rise above. When Leong elaborates on this particular thought, I got the impression that it’s not always what the language is saying, but rather how we react to the childish people criticizing that sculpts who we are.
ReplyDeleteNaylor and Leong's essays are very similar, in that they define their personal ideas on certain words and the effects they can(or cannot) have on a person. When reading both I felt they both talked about the challenges and stress initially dealing with the words. They were words that they knew were derogatory and could be hurtful when said by certain people in a certain way, but in their own ways they defined these words. Naylor goes into the controversy of the word "nigger." She said she knew it was bad when a young boy said it to her, but she didn't realize it until that event, because she always heard the word being said by people in her grandmother's living room. Because it was said by those all alike, to each other, it made the word okay. By the end of the essay, she states that the people in her grandmother's living room "met the word head-on proving it had absolutely nothing to do with the way they determined to live their lives." It seems that her family stood up to the word and turned it into a positive and basically used it in a way that voided the once harsh connotation associated with the word "nigger."
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, Leong takes pretty much the same stance on the subject, except she being Asian, is talking about the word "chink." She talks about how her and her friends use the word with each other in a "harmless manner." They use the word as a term of endearment, to show they have overcome its meaning and the stereotypes faced with it.
In Naylor's essay she "considers the written word inferior to the spoken..." This is interesting to me because the first time Leong comes to know the word "chink," it is written and it hurts her just as much as the spoken word hurt Naylor. With this being said, I feel the written and spoken word equally powerful. Whether written or said, words can be just as uplifting and inspirational or biting and hurtful. Personally, both of these essays really opened my eyes to the justification of certain racial groups using racial slurs against themselves. I never agreed with the use of these words and honestly never thought that the reason they use the words were to kind of build themselves up, so it's nice for me to see this different view. Though using the racial terms with one another is a way for certain people to cope with the hurt, I still feel like it would be much better if the words were just not used. Yeah, using the words to "fight back" can bring satisfaction in a way, but they still have the history behind them, that deep down still hurt people, no matter how hard they try to change what it was once used for.
The claim made by Will that America hosts "broad if imperfect equal opportunity for striving" is correct. Egalitarianism has never been largely present within American society; most people have been aware of their situation and how they have been limited. However, even if someone is limited in what he can do, he still has the opportunity to do it. Lack of growth does not limit the opportunity to grow. Just because someone is limited in education or monetary status does not mean that he cannot improve himself in any form. America never promised to be completely equal, just to be equal in the fact that everyone receives an opportunity to make something of themselves. Each person is automatically limited by their innate capabilities. Added onto this is the social limitations imposed by the "upper class" and commonplace stereotypical expectations of workers. Monetary aspects of life are often weighted as being a greater value than opportunity levels. However, if measured with a same unit of value, opportunity would no doubt weigh more.
ReplyDeleteI think the contradiction Leong makes by saying that "language is the tool used to define us" and then continuing that she and her friends refuse to be defined by racist language strengthens her essay. Instead of being defined by the racist language that's directed towards the people of her ethnicity, she alters its meaning so that it still defines her, but in a positive way. She says she and her friends "intentionally misuse the word as a symbol of overcoming the stereotypes that American society has imposed upon us" - so yes, the word still defines her, but her adjusting its meaning shows her strength and determination in refusing to let a "simple word" hold her back.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading The Equity of Inequality, I was overall very confused to be honest. The examples used were convoluted and a bit over my head to the point where I wasn't exactly sure what point the author was trying to make. I had hoped that by choosing this story to work on in the group, I would actually get to discuss it more so that I would feel better about what the author was trying to say. At the moment, I feel a bit at a loss about the story and will try reading it over a couple more times to see if it makes any more sense then, so I can figure out these questions. Here's hoping.
ReplyDeleteOne “brand” of euphemisms used today that I cannot stand is that which is encased by political correctness. Almost all forms of political correctness in my opinion are lame excuses to appease to those dang liberals who are too squeamish to accept reality. Things are what they are, and labeling them with a word or phrase that lies about the truth only makes these situations worse, along with creating ignorance within society. In “Holocaust” Bruno Bettelheim uses no euphemisms in referring to what happened to those “most wretched victims of a murderous delusion.” He describes The Holocaust as a “vile mass murder”, “systematic slaughter”, and “utter brutalization” of the Jewish people in Germany during WWII. In this essay Bettelheim uses the word “we” multiple times. He is referring to society and its unjust use of euphemisms. He claims that in order for the memories of these people to be done justice that the uniqueness of their deaths should be truthfully and fully explained.
ReplyDeleteWhat is highly amusing to me, is how the authors turn derogatory comments into a joke between friends. I know these stories are not meant to amuse and we should feel the discrimination and triumph, however it is amusing to me because this entire concept is part of daily life for everyone! The entire point of a euphemism is to "replace a harsh, brusque term with a milder one." Is that not what the author of "Chink" and the Naylor do, simply in a different sense? These two people and their friends alter the entire meaning of a word to make it less harsh. I feel when a group does this, they make anyone who uses the term feel incredibly stupid. It's like the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." That is what these people are doing. They overcome any hurt they feel by changing words sent at them below the belt into something funny and a pleasant greeting to a close fried making the offensive language a jest and completely and totally pointless. This ability to alter a word and its connotation is one of great importance. The pen is more powerful than the sword.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Will's assumption about Equity is actually quite accurate. He is basically telling us that America is a country that is hypocritical to its original purpose. We wanted to be egalitarian, however, the rich kept getting richer and the poor kept getting poorer. To me, this concept is fair, but it is not necessarily moral. Why should people be suffering? Why should the rich not donate a lot of their money to the rest of the people so everyone can be happy? It is a matter of survival of the fittest, referring to the scientist Charles Darwin. He talks about this as well by targeting the fact that most people who do not have money cannot afford an education or do not even try to get an education. He is absolutely right, as this is what happens to most people. However, people who already have money (middle class) tend to try harder in school and end up going further with their education and also further in life with their jobs. Of course there are always the few stand outs, which take their money for granted and the few people who are poor yet still make it through their education because they know it will get them a better job and hence out of poverty. The extremely rich are the category that defies this concept since they usually do not care about school, yet have tons of money. Since are always occupied with possessions or their young careers they focus a lot less on school. We can see this everywhere in America. In Asia it is sort of the opposite situation. The poor and most of the rich kids pursue education because they know a better job will get them out of poverty or will earn them recognition from people. The other extremely rich niche of people basically sits back and relaxes throughout their school years. This is not an easy subject to explain for me. From what I have seen, it depends all on a person’s will power and choice. Poverty becomes a hindrance only at a certain level. All of this raises one important question. How much do we need to be happy? So what if the poor remain poor? Most of them are probably pretty happy with where they are in life and do not need/want a bunch of money to be happy. For example, I am not rich and I do not live in West Lake or Jones Creek as many people assumed when I moved here. In fact I went to a house about half the size of my previous house when I came to Georgia. It has not affected my life in any way. All it has done is, decrease the space I have to move around which is not really a big deal and it has helped save my parents a bunch of money.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that George Will did not also target the social aspect of this as well. America has always been striving for freedom and equality but it has not happened easily or quickly. It is quite obvious that America was absolutely stupid in the past concerning
equality of rights of women and African Americans.
~ Pratik Gangwani
When people are first exposed to the word "addiction", most likely their first thoughts jump to heroin or sex addicts as the media as so publicly depicted lately. While some of these extremes may hit closer to home than we expect, I just don't think that anyone in fifth period is going through hard core cocaine withdrawals. I think one of the most common misconceptions about the term "addictions" is that they must all be very large and public. Social networking is a huge addiction facing our generation today and it affects me too. Our constant need to feel connected and updated just encourages our need for technology and wanes our people to people skills. It is tiny addictions like these that are so small that we can't always see when they are hurting us and since everyone else is addicted too, we can't always see the harm. In these actions, perhaps it'd be best if we just stepped back and saw our lives without them for a bit. Better? Most likely. However, while I was thinking this, the definition provided for "addiction" also caught my eye. An action that we cannot help but perform that impacts our lives and makes us feel better while or after doing it. I can't help but think of how spending time with God classifies perfectly as an addiction in this sense for me. I can't help but study the Word because of the way it makes me feel (a spiritual high, feel me?). I know not everyone is religious, but I think everyone has some similar action they can't help that makes them feel better (reading? drawing? making music?). We can't help these and we won't stop because we shouldn't have to. Another misconception is that all addictions are bad. Some are good and we are all "addicts" in a sense. Some addictions are huge and detrimental, some are small and slowly chipping away at our health, and some are doing us a lot more good than anything else. "Addiction" is a broad term that has been twisted to immediately be associated with bad behavior. As long as we keep our focus towards improvement and keep them under control, I think we could all use some addiction.
ReplyDeleteThese days, the term addiction has lost its true meaning and original connotation. People nowadays say that they are addicted to tanning or Facebook, ignoring the true meaning of the term reserved for devastating addictions to drugs or alcohol. Nevertheless, addictions to social networking, food, and recreational activities can still be harmful to the addict. I myself could say that I am addicted to sugar. Though not in the conventional sense of the word addiction, I still crave and love to eat sugary foods whenever I can. I have consumed bags of cotton candy in a sitting and eaten numerous bars of Hershey's Chocolate in addition to countless other sugary achievements. For example, today after coming home, the first thing I did (besides homework) was eat a couple of slices of cake and a bowl of some very sugary Frosted Flakes. I am well aware at the negative consequences that eating excess amounts of sugar can have on your body but luckily my "addiction" is not severe enough to where I would develop severe health problems such as obesity. However, the fact that there are no short term or easily visible side effects to eating lots of sugar makes it much harder to change my dietary ways. Unfortunately, sugary foods are my vice and I will regrettably continue to eat them until something major happens and causes me to stop.
ReplyDeleteWhen Naylor introduced her story by explaining the impact of spoken words versus written words, it really made me think about the differences between the two and the goals of a writer. Naylor as a writer strives to make the written word as prominent as the real spoken word. The two also have similarities both written and spoken words are "nonsensical arrangement[s] of sounds or letters without a consensus that assigns 'meaning'." With the words such as "nigger" and "chink" the writers Naylor and Leong recognize analytically that these combination of letters only have a meaning that someone gives to it. The scholars (recounting) are not ignorant to the original intention of the negative remarks, yet they incorporate it into their vocabulary as a prideful, complex, and contradictory word. It is a retaliation to the discrimination, and Naylor and Leong being the writers they are explain just how not only them, but others like them handle oppressive words like "nigger" and "chink". Although they both change the original meaning of the words, in Naylor's family they use "nigger" in a variety of contexts. Leong and her friends on the other hand treat it almost like an "inside joke" amongst them. They have been treated the same because of their race, and that itself strengthens their relationship as friends.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through "The Meanings of a Word" and "Being a Chink," I gained a perspective of the power of a single word. In “Meanings of a Word”, Naylor stated , “Words themselves are innocuous; it is the consensus that gives them true power.” She explains that words derive their connotation from the interpretation of people. A word can mean one thing on paper, but without a specific context, the proper meaning of the word can be skewed. Both of these essays discuss a certain type of stereotype, referring to the respective race of each author. One trait I found interesting about both of these essays is that the structure was extremely similar. Both introduced the essay with a comprehensive analysis of language and how it is interpreted. I believe they did this because it allows readers to understand that the word which may seem vulgar and inappropriate in writing may actually be quite different when taken into context.
ReplyDeleteWhen the authors of each book first hear or read the "derogatory" term, their reactions are quite different. Naylor hears the word from a young boy who says it out of disgust for her grade. Her reaction was perplexity as she did not know what the word actually meant. The response of her teacher further amplified her confusion and caused her to ask her mother about the meaning of the word "nigger." As she reflects back on the experience, she realizes that she had heard the term many times before in her household. Naylor explains that the word could be "set within contexts and inflections that caused it to register in y mind as something else." Essentially, the interaction with this boy was the first time she had heard the word being used offensively.
Leong, on the other hand, first came across the word on an envelope she found while cleaning the restaurant. She was innocently searching for some cash when she saw the word written in her fathers handwriting. The context is entirely different because she explains how her and her friends use the word as slang, but she did not expect her father to know or understand the word. Leong does not use as many examples of how the word has been morphed into different meanings.
Both of these essays are similar in that they explain how the word has been morphed and transformed by their communities to become a word that means something else entirely. Instead of the mean, belittling word each word was meant to represent, the word has become a sort of identity of each race. Leong says "it has helped us find a certain comfort…each of us knowing what each other has gone through” and “a strange union born from the word chink that was used against us,” This shows that the Chinese find solace in each other by knowing that each has suffered the same racism. I think that is where the true difference between these two essays is. Naylor's essay focuses on how the word "nigger" transformed into something positive. While Leong explains how the word has bonded the Chinese people, she focuses on how the connection is based on the negative aspects of the word.
I really enjoyed both of these essays as they established that language is such a powerful concept which can be interpreted in a plethora of different ways.
Again, I've tried posting like 5 times now.
While discussing "TV Addiction" in class today, I was surprised by how so many people equated escapism with addiction. These are two completely different things, as the essay clearly defines. Escapism is pure pleasure; for example, I use thick fantasy tomes to escape this world and immerse myself in another. I am not addicted to books-- sometimes I do not even feel like reading-- but I enjoy the respite that they give me from life on Earth. Just because I grow weary with the world does not mean that I am withdrawing from it like an addict does. Someone who is addicted to something, whether it be television, drugs, or something else, feels as if the cannot stop doing what it is they are addicted to. They might desperately want to, but they find that their body craves the substance or action. This is not escapism. They WANT to escape. Herein lies the difference between me and an addict: I want to escape reality, and they want to escape into reality.
ReplyDeleteOn Friday, I was placed in the group for "Holocaust". While discussing this story in class last week, I realized that everyone has a different view on the euphemism that has been coined to describe a terrible tragedy. However, while we all have our different views, we all agreed that it was a horrific tragedy and the name that has been used to trigger its remembrance is far inappropriate. We talked about the true meaning of the term “holocaust”, a burnt offering as for religious purposes, and how not just one word could ever be used to describe something as scary and horrifying as this mass murder was. In the passage, Bettelheim says, “Thus while these millions were slaughtered for an idea, they did not die for one.” I love this quote from her essay because it proves exactly what the Holocaust was. It doesn’t deceive and try to make us forget of how sickening this mass murder was. It proves that even if the Jews would have renounced their faith, they would not have been saved. They still would have been murdered. As we talked about this in class, it became apparent that almost everyone was at a loss for words. In today’s society, we use euphemisms so often, that we sometimes don’t see the harm. For example, when we say someone pass’s away versus dying. However, when in reference to the Holocaust tragedy, what is one word that could make you remember every bit of horror that occurred? No one had an answer.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading several posts, it is funny to see how everyone has an "addiction" to something such as sugar, chocolate, and even social networks. It's really scary to see how these lifeless objects can take control or become a vital necessity within our lives. In Niyathi's case, she could not control her hunger for M&M's/ pistachios, which unfortunately led to severe consequences. It's bizarre to see how we know of our cravings/addictions, but do not put a halt to it. Instead, we continually feed the "fire" (addictions) and become dependent upon the heat. Therefore, it will lead to a more devastating effect upon our lives. I, too, was a victim to social networking, like Abby and Erin mentioned about previously. I wouldn't exactly call myself a stalker, but I sometimes would find myself looking at the profile of someone that I don't even care for. It's ironic, I know. However, I was able to identify this retarded pastime of mine and noticed the power that Facebook had upon my daily activities. This little website would distract me from my doings and my quiet times with the Lord. With determination and faith, I deactivated Facebook and went on a 2 month fast, which seemed IMPOSSIBLE. In the end, I was able to succeed my goal and lessen my desire to be on Facebook. (I'm probably on like 2 minutes the max, unless I am talking to someone on chat. (: ) We all know that we have some kind of "addiction" to something; something that we think we possibly cannot live without. Thus, I proved that statement false and so can you.
ReplyDeleteOn Friday, I was a host for "Holocaust." I agree with what Tecie said. We all had differing ideas with what euphemisms meant and how they could be harmful, but we all did agree about the significance and horror of the reality of the Holocaust, and how the name was a misnomer because it was inaccurate. I remember in the discussion, 9-11 was brought up. There was a kind of tangent discussion about how when we do something to another country, we view it positively, but when another country does it, it is viewed negatively. Like, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were natural solutions to reduce the number of lives lost overall, but when terrorists attacked us on 9-11, it was a heinous crime and those who committed it must be punished. It was interesting to talk about that, because we use euphemisms to cover up for our actions that we aren’t so proud of. However, when those actions were done to us, another name was given that reflected our negative views.
ReplyDeleteWe also talked about how often times, euphemisms are misnomers and definitely do not carry the true meaning and emotions that go along with the actual event, etc. We talked about how we probably should replace these euphemisms with a name that actually reflects the event. However, we failed to find replacement names. When we use a word to name something, we often replace the true meaning of that name with the new one, just like in the Holocaust. I believe Joshua said that the only way we could give a name to events like these without having to describe what we really mean by it, we would have to invent a new word so as not to change the original meaning. As Tecie said, no one had an answer, not even Bettelheim, to the question of renaming the Holocaust for what it really was: a disillusioned heinous, vile mass murder of six million innocent Jews who could do nothing to save themselves from what awaited them.
When my group talked about "Meanings of a Word" on Thursday, I thought it was interesting how we related the racist term used in the story with other contemporary terms used "endearingly" today - words like "bitch," "slut," and "hoe." Were these words, too, words that had been redefined to be impotent? No, we didn't think so. Rather, we were not sure what purpose was served in using them.
ReplyDeleteIn these postings, I thought Marley made a good present-day relation to the holocaust - the earthquake in Japan. It is a "disaster," but it's also "the thousands of dead floating, irradiated body massacre that Earth did." I also like how Luke connected euphemisms to being politically correct. Some things today are just obnoxious in the length people go to to make them "correct." To me, it almost seems like, "let's ignore this straightforward definition and instead beat around the bush to avoid directly applying to anyone." It just doesn't make sense.
I also liked what Abby said about not all addictions being harmful, something we didn't discuss very much. We talked a lot about the ways in which addiction harms, but I personally find myself "addicted" to getting good grades, running daily, and drinking obscene amounts of green tea, none of which I think could be considered dangerous.
Overall, I think the discussions for this mode were my favorite so far, possibly because we all focused on different stories.
After reading through the post and participating in group discussions, I now have a better understanding on how the use and context of langauge can be powerful. I like how Sam mentioned the impact of spoken words versus written words. In the beginning of her essay, Naylor describes how the written form of a word will fall short of actually experiencing the word firsthand. Although, she does do a good job of giving the reader many instances to experience the word. While discussing the use of langauge on Thursday within a group, we agreed that in both stories neither of the races let the use of an offensive word define them, they both have come to change the meaning of a word and use it in a way to ridicule the way it was once used before. We also came to a conclusion that using the word does show a type of ignorance or disrespect.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the definition essays, I have gained a better understanding of how language is used and how big of an impact it can have. I don't think we realized how much our words effect others. What we say can either have a negative or a positive influence on people. Both Naylor and Leong discuss how such specific words have had such and major impact on their races for many years. However, both have overcome the stereotypical words and made them into influencial words. I also like how Sam brings up the difference between the written and spoken word. They are both very powerful and we all have to pay attention to how use our words.
ReplyDeleteAlright, now that my brother has returned from college and fixed my internet (returning me to my "addiction"), I can finally post!
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed on Friday, I was surprised to see how in touch with their addictions most people were. There were very few denials, statements of "that's not an addiction." We know that we spend too much time on the internet, eating junk food, etc. But at the same time, I think we all just kind of accept these "addictions" as parts of ourselves. Do we really try and stop going on Facebook all the time? Yet, as Abby pointed out in her post, not all of the things we are addicted to are "harmful;" perhaps this is why we tend not to address the more mundane things
Another fact I found interesting that, despite having not truly discussed things before hand, our hosting group still agreed on most points. In fact, most of the group shared an opinion on the aspects of the essay. I'm sure we could have found something to disagree on if we'd had more time, but alas, we are confined to the time limits imposed on us by the school system.
-Anneliese H.
The discussion on Friday seemed just perfect to me. There was enough people to where there were always fresh ideas and new perspectives, but few enough to where each person could participate and get all their ideas out. One thing I found intriguing was how many people seem to have the same habits and be "addicted" to the same things. For example, many people said that they need to have distractions on such as TV and music, while doing homework and other activities. Before this, I thought I was the only one as my parents constantly pointed my mindlessness to me. I also found frightening how many people are "hooked" on TV and other forms of entertainment. It has pretty much become another facet in our lives for many people constantly watch it as part of their daily routines. Pratik's and Erin's stories about their mothers behavior brought me to this realization. When Anna said that she is pretty much addicted to books it made me realize that not all addictions can be bad. Most people think of reading many books as a very positive sign and signifying a erudite person; many of the same people also think of excessive TV watching as a sign of stupidity and laziness, among them me. However, Anna's account of how similar the two are made me reconsider my views. Overall, the discussion on Friday was very productive and I would like to continue it sometime later.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the definition essays, I've learned quite a lot on how language, if misused, can affect people around us, such as negative connotations of words or euphemisms. In one of our group discussions on Thursday, Rebecca hosted the "Equity of Inequality" essay. I learned how people could be persuaded on how one words a certain statement. It didn't matter if the two assertions had the same meaning. On Friday, our group discussion focused on the "Holocaust" essay. Our group, as a whole, all agreed that "Holocaust" was a misnomer and didn't accurately describe what had really happened. We also discussed other euphemisms many people misused, such as "gay", "legit", and "retarded." Many euphemisms also consist of curse words. Whether it be euphemisms or negative connotations of words, language as a whole impacts those around us, so we should all think of what we are about to say before actually saying it.
ReplyDelete-Amanda Cheung
After discussing with my group on Friday, I got a better sense of the use and effects of euphemisms. Though I am not as strongly opposed to them as some of the other people in my group, I do see where the aggravation with using them comes in. Like with the Holocaust, I feel that while it is not fully capable of capturing all that the Holocaust was, it is an appropriate enough term to name the event.
ReplyDeleteThen with the other post dealing with the use of the racial slurs and insults, I find it interesting how most agree with the terms being uplifting or okay when they are said amongst the group of people using them. I mentioned earlier how this idea was new to me because I never looked at the situation in the ways described in Naylor and Leong's essays. Most people justified their use of the word "nigger" with "Well I'm a nigger, so I can say it." While it is still an idea I strongly disagree with and find foolish,I like that I know that at least there is a "better" excuse out there. I still believe that there are better ways to stand up or fight against words you don't agree with.
I was grouped with the Holocaust on Friday, and had a realization. There can be a lot hidden behind one word; this word could be "Holocaust", "chink", or "nigger". When many people use the word Holocaust, they attempt to encompass all the horrors and brutalities that came with it. I know that this word in itself makes no sense to use, but in my opinion, they had to use some word. Like Tecie said earlier, when the question was posed of what on word could be used to adequately describe the mass murder, nobody had an answer. Often times, when society uses the words “chink” and “nigger”, they try to use these words to degrade whole ethnic groups. People who are targeted to be hurt by these words are occasionally hurt even though they are simple words. If people would think about what they say before they say it and the effects their words are going to have, a lot of people would be less talkative and quieter. Also, Erin made me rethink about how society has twisted words so that they are now “bad”. For instance, many people use the word gay when talking about something they may not agree with when the word used to mean jolly, merry, and happy and was used often in conversations. And in the Bible, the word “ass” is used to mean donkey, but now when people say “ass”, they are looked at like they are weird while they may have been referring to a donkey. It’s just odd to think about how things change, and many people don’t even realize or think about it.
ReplyDeleteI would like to extend Rachel's post on euphemism's for death. I agree with Rachel's point that euphemisms like "passed away" and "moved on" are incredibly pointless and are simply delaying the time that a person comes to terms with a loved ones death. The first stage of grieving is denial. By using a euphemism for death, the person is still in the denial stage. Only when a person begins using the words death and died, have they moved passed this stage and move on to the last four. The final stage is acceptance. When a person reaches this stage, they have finally come to terms with the death of their loved one. As Rachel said, I'm sure that the person who died would not want their loved ones to be in pain for so long. They would just want their family to come to terms with the death as soon as possible and continue living happy lives.
ReplyDeleteI was hosting for "TV Addiction." One thing that really shocked me during our discussion was Pratik and Erin's moms. I have always heard of those people who are so hooked on to TV that they cannot or will not do anything else, but I have never actually known anybody who witnesses it everyday. With my family, we watch TV together as sort of a bonding experience. Usually the TV shows consist of Jeopardy and Survivor. But if someone needs to study or needs the peace and quiet, we will all gladly turn it off. Dependence on the TV to the degree of Erin and Pratik's moms is something that is completely foreign to me.
(I liked those circles where we can choose where we go. It seemed like the discussion went smoothly that way.)
These essays have helped me understand the importance of word choice. For example, in "Holocaust" the author talks about how the word "holocaust" is not an accurate description for the events that occurred during WWII. This brought up the discussion of euphemisms on Friday in our group. The general consensus was that we use euphemisms because it softens the harsh reality that really is. This then led to the discussion of what an alternative name would be for the Holocaust. We decided that there was no name that could effectively describe the events. There is no one word that can describe the events effectively. The only way to do the events justice is to describe them in detail. While this is not pleasant, it is the only effective way.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read the book, I associated addictions with things like Heroin or Caffeine; after reading "TV Addiction" I thought I understood what addictions meant, but I only knew a small portion of it. The discussion on Friday really opened my eyes to what is an actual addiction and what can be good and what can be bad. Like the essay said, an addiction can be from TV to cookies but what drew the line between an addiction and just liking something? I believe it was rather Anneliese or Brandt who mentioned that an addiction is when one feels like one must what one’s compulsion is or one cannot move on. That definition really clarified what an addiction really meant. Even after I read the essay, the line between a good and bad addiction was still blurry to me. Anna's book habit really got me. I knew that Anna loved books, but I never thought of it as an addiction. This was probably because I usually do not associate an addiction was something good because all examples of an addiction are usually negative, like TV or drugs, and since I connected Anna’s reading to good things to do, I never thought of it as an addiction. Also, when Erin mentioned her mother being addicted to the TV, it made me think back to my family and our addictions. I realized that during most of the day, when everyone is home, one could usually find my mother on the computer downstairs, my father on his laptop upstairs, and me on my laptop in the office. Again, I never noticed that this was an addiction, but if someone took away all computers in the house, we, me and my family, would probably be out buying three more laptops.
ReplyDelete-Dorothy Li
Like Schafer, these essays depicted the extreme importance of word choice to me. However in response to Pratik. The last part of your post really struck me. I don't agree in the "America is stupid" description in response to rights. Politics get me very agitated, so sorry Pratik. Why would America let women vote when they couldn't own property or let them vote until they actually took an interest in world affairs? If a person has no true interest why should they vote? It is clearly evident that portions of the country do not vote given the right. A women usually follows her husband in political views, or votes blindly for his. African Americans were not given the right to vote until later, this is undeniable. However, (this is speculation) a newly freed African American probably has no education, or actual interest in voting, just the need to establish a home and job. African Americans have no doubt been through a lot in America to gain their rights, but it is the same as women. People should not vote on things they do not know. This past election with Obama, I understand that some people who voted for him new his presidential campaign and were "educated." However, the majority of people I know who were in favor of him voted for him because of his color, not his ideas. And now those same people complain about him saying he isn't do what he said he would, he did, or tried, to do exactly what he said. Political ignorance is infuriating. Rights, are very important and are given to every American, however every single American needs to live up to the responsibility of having them. This is why America was so "stupid." They gave rights to the educated.
ReplyDeleteAt first, when I was assigned to TV Addiction, I was pretty disappointed being I thought I wanted Holocaust but I was definitely wrong. I truly enjoyed the group discussion we had on Friday and it brought to light many points that I hadn't thought of on my own and allowed me to, yet again, know my classmates further. By talking with the others in my group, I realized how alike we all are in that we each struggle with "addictions", no matter how different they are. The discussion let me see not only what these addictions were, but also the deeper reasons for them (we are intrigued by others lives, the ability to manipulate reality in books, personal relief or escape, etc). It also made me realize that sometimes we may see our addictions as harmless, but in fact it may be hurting someone else more than we know, such as in Erin's case. Someone we deeply care about even. I didn't know what to expect to get out of this assignment, but I really enjoyed it in the end and hope that we can finish out a similar discussion in the future. Gosh I love our class period.
ReplyDeleteI never got a chance to discuss with the Holocaust hosts and I'm a little disappointed by this, cause reading the posts, I think I would have really enjoyed participating in that discussion. For a long time I've wondered about the "meaning" of words and what kind of connotations they develop over time through their use. Like the word "bitch" - it's a perfectly normal word that originally meant simply a female dog, just as you would call a female horse a mare, and a female pig a sow. However, now when someone says this word, they're usually referring to a woman who is being unusually angry and unreasonable. What's interesting is that I was raised to never EVER say "bad words" like this, no matter how much I was provoked. But as I heard these words used more and more in regular conversation, and became more accustomed to them, my strict morals started easing up. I've made different allowances over time about what words I was "allowed" to use, but now I've gotten to the point where I'll just about all of them. The reason being that because of the new meanings for all of these words, they're really the only ones I can use and have people readily know what I mean. To continue my example of the word bitch, when I refer to someone as "being a bitch" they immediately understand what I mean. Rachel pointed out in her post that sometimes you have to use words that may not be completely accurate in their "true meaning" in order to explain something that there isn't really another word for. And while sometimes I will use foul language out of anger or frustration, as I'm sure most people do in this day and age, the majority of the time I only use it as a way of stating a fact. James, basically echoing Rachel and Tecie, said that they had to use some word to define the events of the Holocaust, and I think the same applies here. There has to be some word to describe, and while many might take offense to it, some people may also take offense if I actually defined what the Holocaust was, behind the euphemism. I just think that when it comes to language, there are certain ways you can say something that would make it hurtful to people, but people can't blame the words themselves; instead, we should blame the people and the way they use them.
ReplyDeleteIn my class disscussions over "The Meanings of a Word" the people in my group concluded that the word "nigger" could also symbolize other numerous words of similar effect;for example, we could substitute Naylor's embracing of "nigger" for something less hurtful like "freak." People can take hurtful words and change them into playful banter like "Man, your such a freak." I feel like after all the discussions of true definition, it is subjective and that it is truly whatever you make of it. So this is why we should exercise caution when talking to someone, because they may not take something the same way as you do.
ReplyDelete"Being a Chink" really followed up on that with a similar message to the reader. Leong and her friends did identical actions to the word "chink" as Naylor and her family did "nigger." Although most of the people in my group felt that "Being a Chink" was a weaker essay, and that if they had not read "The Meanings of a Word first" Leongs message would have faltered. I believe they felt this way because Leong was less analytical when explaining her choice to turn "chink" into a different meaning among her friends. I agree that Leong's essay was a little dependent on the explanations of Naylor's essay. Overall, I agree with Alex that words are powerful and that words do hurt people not just sticks and stones.
I thought we had a really interesting discussion on Friday about addiction. Everyone seemed to be addicted to something whether it was the internet or simply books. I agree with the fact that Abby says not all addictions have to be bad. I mean, what is wrong with being addicted to books? I think we did not talk a lot about this on Friday but an addiction only becomes “bad” if you let it. If you let an activity you enjoy doing take control of how you live your life or changes your way of life dramatically it has gotten to the level of being a “bad” addiction. It is like there are levels of addictions a person could have and it is only if the addiction gets to a really bad point that you should do something about it. Drugs are often associated with this kind of situation but I am addicted to the internet. Mainly because I have realized that you can get television on the internet along with games, face book, and all the news I will ever need. It did get to a pretty bad point for me where it started to affect my grades a little, as I spent hours a day simply looking at articles and heavily interacting on facebook and watching lots of old t/v shows. However, I was able to pull myself out of that situation before I let my grades slip too far.
ReplyDelete~Pratik Gangwani
While dissecting "Equity of Inequality" we concluded that data will always be skewed by those who took it and that the statistics presented in the story cannot be compared with earlier eras. Also, as much as we say that egalitarianism in income is what we strive for, in our capitalistic society, that will never happen because of our type of society's inherent characteristics; there will always be those that are richer than others and those that will always be "average" regarding income.
ReplyDeleteWhile talking on Friday about "The Holocaust" story, it was interesting for me to see how often in life we use euphemisms and how they have either been helpful or detrimental to society. Talking opened my eyes to the fact that many things that are euphemisms don't necessarily have to do with what they replace, so to speak, such as when people say that so and so is "gay." The word gay originally meant to be happy or merry, but today it is used as a euphemism for someone who is homosexual. Also the holocaust which originally meant "burnt offering" has become known as the Nazi's extermination of about six million Jews during WWII. Our society has taken innocent words and applied them to, in these cases, negative meanings and they will most likely never lose the meanings they take from their euphemism forms.
-Rebecca Pakradooni