Prompt #6

Prompt: In his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language", Orwell describes the English language by saying: "It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts". Using at least three sources from this Conversation, explain whether you believe Orwell's statement is true today.

Language itself grows in complexity with the person; infants speak with slobbering gobbledygook whereas an educated elder generally has a more refined lexicon. However, even with urbane vocabulary, it seems that most of the time, speakers of the English language fail to properly assert their thoughts and emotions accurately. According to Orwell, the issue does not necessarily lie within the man's capability to conjoin the individual jigsaw pieces that form the sentence, but rather is rooted within slipshod nature of the English language itself, saying: "It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

But before creating bias towards this statement's validity, it's imperative that the reader deconstructs the line to understand Orwell's true claim. Orwell's quotation easily can broken into two independent clauses: "[the English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish", and "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

The first bit, "[the English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish", states that the "ugl[iness]" and inaccura[cies}" of English are derived from the foolish thoughts that a man creates. An example of this would be "name calling"--"giving 'bad names' to those individuals, groups...that [the propagandist] would have [his audience] condemn and reject" (Name Calling 757). In essence, the propagandist can manipulate language to ostracize a certain individual or group by painting them as a inaccurate negative stereotype. And why does he do this then? What does he even accomplish? Well, there is no real reason beyond emotional impulsive action; as Orwell stated, the propagandists' "thoughts" when boiled down to the core are "foolish". However, the improper usage of English is not only limited to negativity, but it can also be used as a show of politeness and civility. Pinker, explores this in his essay, Words Don't Mean What They Mean", by posing a candid epiphany: "Why don't people just say what they mean?" (Pinker 746). He expands of this single thought, explaining that at the dinner table, although you just want the damn salt, you use a "whimperative" and ask if your kind dinner-neighbor if he "could pass the salt" (746). The answer to the question is obvious (yes, your neighbor can pass the damn salt), so it--blatantly--is "foolish". Asking the question is also "inaccurate"; you know very well he can pass the salt.

 The second constituent, "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." On the surface of the language, it is understandable as to why Orwell made such a bold claim. Yes, the English language appears biased toward the male population--words such as "mankind", "hu-man", "wo-man" (The Word Police), and that can be considered "slovenliness" (the creators of the language were too lazy to draw up female counterparts--oh but wait, even fe-male is biased towards males). However, this male dominated language, does properly reflect the nature of society both presently and historically. Masculinity itself is associated with Power, and Strength, and Capibility, whereas delicate, beautiful and docile are traits tied to femininity. 'But Author, isn't it because the English language reflected Men governing that Men fell into power?' Sadly, no, my dear reader. The general public believes that people created communication. So if people created communication as a tool, there isn't any real logical possibility that the language came before Man.

FEELING SAFE YET? LET'S BUILD A WALL, BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T KEEP THEM OUT, AT LEAST WE CAN KEEP US IN.

PROMPT:
American essayist and social critic H. L. Mencken (1880–1956) wrote, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” In a well-written essay, examine the extent to which Mencken’s observation applies to contemporary society, supporting your position with appropriate evidence.


To even begin examining Mencken claim, first two words must be defined: "free", "safe." To be "free" is to be capable of living without obligation towards another existence. On the other hand, to be "safe" is to be capable of living without fear towards another existence. Being "safe" can be in regards towards nature, other nations, social groups or even other individuals. It is for this "want" of safety that man had originally built houses. Those personal shelters that protected him from the calamities of mother earth eventually progressed to groups of homes--entire civilizations--which kept the hims safe from Them. But even within the nation, man didn't feel "safe". So he erected barriers (or fences) to keep his neighbor out.

From the lips of the future president of 2016, "The fact is, since then, many killings, murders, crime, drugs pouring across the border, are money going out and the drugs coming in. And I said we need to build a wall and it has to be built quickly." In this quote President Trump is clearly addressing the safety of the American People. Clearly Trump realizes that Mencken's principle is correct about man naturally "wanting to be safe" instead of "free." Understanding this concept, the candidate embellishes this fear of poisons entering and wealth exiting the U.S. system ( a [h]uge** portion of the candidate's campaign) which effectively gains him multitudes of votes despite his incompetence, immaturity and lack of experiences in any sort of politics.
Jokes aside, realistically speaking, feeling "safe" is ephemeral. It will never last. Now note, "safe" is a feeling, which interestingly enough, is a noun but appears as a gerund. As students of the English language we can all agree that the suffix "-ing" provides motion, existentialism in the moment. Fear will always exist, because no matter how many walls you throw up to divide yourself from the external world, internally your sub-conscience will create paranoia. Because if there were no reason for growth or development, well then, there would be no reason to exist in the first place. Therefore the feeling of comfort and safety contradicts life as a whole.
In retrospect, the inner soul must present these fears in order to live. 


Human is really two existences, symbiotically co-existing as one physical form--

the Soul and the Man.


So yes, the average man chooses this false sense of security, because even though the feeling is momentary, at least he still experiences something aside from the perpetual fear that flows through life. The average man cannot want freedom, because he will always be indebted to the demons inside that breathe out his fears just so he can continue living (which like feeling, is short-lived [oh snap its a pun within a pun {and an aside, within an aside, within another aside #PARATHETICAL-CEPTION}]).






























 At the end of the day (or at the end of my life), no matter how much life I live or how hard I try to break away, I really could never be "free", can I? I will always indebted to the monster inside me, 








and I think I'd known that from the start.





Footnote:
**I'm mocking Donald Trump's accent or style of speech, he tends to say "yuuge" instead of huge

Education vs. Me: What's more important?

This past week in class, we have been examining education and conflicts that arise from it. The first synthesis prompt we were exposed to questioned whether or not religious attire could/should be worn during school hours. The controversy centralized about Aishah Azmi-a muslim teaching assistant-who refused to remove her hijab at the primary school she worked when British officials confronted her due to complaints from her colleagues and the parents of her students.

 In source A of the prompt, the present Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, stated that Azmi's failure to remove her hijab denied the "right of the children to a full education." However, the hijab originally served as a symbol of chastity sacrilege, a self-choice regarding personal identity.

 Now, most of the world follows a christian faith, the majority falling in the continent of Europe. In Luke 6:31, Jesus states: "as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them." In simpler terms, give others the respect for who they are so they may return you the respect you deserve. This moral code is part of the "one true moral law" as an absolutist would claim (Walter T. Stace, The concept of morals). 

That being so, it seems ridiculous that by denying Azmi her identity--albeit Muslim, a gentile so to speak--somehow the children are receiving a 'fuller education.' I mean, the purpose of the hijab is to prevent promiscuity, so by enforcing martial law for woman not to cover up, isn't the government insinuating the ideal that women should strip down--possibly as far as nude--for students to learn better? Doesn't that sound like objectifying? Americans want less women in the street as prostitutes, yet somehow we want to have the role models of the nation's youth be skin-clad? I'm confused. 

Referring back to Stace's, The Concept of Morals, absolutism establishes that there is "one moral code," so both of the contradicting sides cannot be correct, right? Being me is already hard enough in America as is. But I'm not going to lie, we've moved pretty far since we started as the thirteen colonies. Just take a look at the 13th, 14th and 19th amendments in the U.S. Constitution, which the supremacy clause deems the Law of the Land. We've done some great things in the past, but we can't settle for less. America's got to strive for more. I hate to say it, but Trump is right, She needs to be great again. And that greatness starts from fixing the small issues. If you hit an oak tree a thousand times in the same spot, it is bound to fall.

The above political cartoon is a parody of Donald Trump's reality TV show, "Celebrity Apprentice." The only difference is that in this instance it seems that Trump is the employee and Hitler is the Nazi. It's fairly easy to identify the two, as the man on the left has Trump's iconic bleached blonde comb-over and black suit and red tie, while the man on the right sports the classic comb-over and toothbrush mustache combined with the obvious swastika armband. The cartoonist here is quite clearly suggesting that Donald Trump is taking over the position of spreading Adolf Hitler's racist and fascist philosophies, similarly to how an employee would take over a position in a business. It's evident that the seat Hitler is in is larger than the one Trump sits in, also the paperwork is under Hitler, and not to mention the fact that Hitler says, "you're hired"--all of which support a sense of succession or rite of passage. The cartoonist also uses shadowing in her background to foreshadow possible results of Trump becoming president. There are two shadows in the picture, one that falls behind Hitler and one that hangs over Trump. The placement of shadows suggest that the destructive era of Hitler is behind us, but if we allow Trump to become a world leader, we can only expect a re-submergence into chaos and segregation.

Newton's Cradle

I thought it'd be a fun idea to do the other puzzle paragraph for this week's blogpost, while still attempting to incorporate what we talked about in class this week.

1.  others might say 

2.    ; 

3.    casino 

4.    Lone Ranger 

5.    however 

6.    profiling 

7.    memoir 

8.    Jeannette Walls 

9.    fire

--------------------------
NEWTON'S CRADLE

Knowledge is a perception, examination and transcription, then reanimation within one's memoir of life around him. Knowledge is that slot machine at the casino where it offers a grand prize that covers all the rest of your expenses for life, the slot machine where the chances of winning are slimmer than none--ultimately, taking the little you had left and leaving you better off dead. Since the earliest of days, man has been in search of "knowledge"--the harborer of advancement and destruction. Man can make subjective observations of the life around him, "primitive" and "diverse"(Okefenokee); he can develop intricate and emotional depictions as well--"vast...primeval" and "hellish" (Okefenokee). By the words of Jeannette Walls, "[We] live in a world that at any moment could erupt in fire" (the Glass Castle). Because of this, man seeks knowledge out of fear. However, that knowledge has always been downfall of the greatest minds the world has to offer. Knowledge is man's "liquid sunshine"--a failed and inaccurate replica of the world's generator by the hands of man. The Sun is a public benefactor. It provides energy for nature to operate continuously, however get too close and it will incinerate. In retrospect, knowledge and wisdom play along the same relationship as "liquid sunshine" and the Sun. Wisdom is a complete and accurate profiling of the world, while knowledge is just a cheap knockoff suggestion as to why things happen--and usually knowledge is incorrect. The world isn't flat, radium has no health benefits, and humans are in fact born with proclivities (sorry, Aristotle). So what's the point? Am I telling you to live like the Long Ranger, ignorant of everything that gives you purpose? 

To be honest, I'm not even sure. 

If knowledge is a man's perception of life, and if knowledge  is generally incorrect, and if everyone has a different perspective on knowledge, and if...I don't even know anymore. I mean beyond it being the sole reason for my existence, should I really bother searching for an answer I'll never find? Eh, whatever. I'm just going to leave this here, and live life instead. Not really worth, fussing about--or dying early for. 

Is life to live understanding ephemerally or is it to exist in a perpetual state of falsehood and unknown? Leave a comment below and let me know what you think.

1. ;
2. hot for humility 
3. everyone
4. today
5. haiku
6. hereafter
7. :
8. rhetoric
9. Gandhi
   
   Non-violent acts
   Create peace in the now and
   In the hereafter.
   
   

   -A Haiku by Daniel Qin

   
   
   Today, everyone who advocates non-violence as activism against oppression reference the rhetoric of Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Likewise, Martin Luther King Jr. shared similar ideals; Chavez brings up such studies on combating the violence with opened fists throughout his piece time and time again--a belief that he begs that his audience follows. However, the pleas Chavez places at the feet of his readers, seem slightly shallow. In retrospect, acting in non-violence is simple. Nothing is done; only words are exchanged. So if defiance with weapons set aside is such a simple concept, why do nations aim its futuristic artillery and nuclear weaponry at another? Heck--why do children, which Jesus established as the bodies of innocence, still throw stones and pick fights? If those little demons that Jesus deemed as the purest of our race can't even solve conflicts through non-violence, how can Chavez expect the brotherhood to drop its weapons? Instead of asking his audience to engage in the "farmers' movement," Chavez should advocate what nourishes nonviolence--what sort of soil the succulent philosophy must be sowed in. Open fists alone will not shake the hands of enemies, it needs to be accompanied with unfurrowed brows. A man must be hot for humility and without anger for any sort of non-violent actions to truly have effect.
   
   

NEEDS CRITICISM

Here's an email I wrote to a college coach earlier today. I just wanted some criticism on it, anything I really could've done better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Coach McMenemy:

My name is Daniel Qin. I am a student-athlete from the class of 2017, playing CM/DCM/ACM (in no particular order); number 79 at the UMich ID camp earlier today. I was wearing a black long-sleeve shirt, white shorts, and white socks. My hair was in a topknot (if you still have trouble matching the name and the face: stereotypical Asian, talked about grades at the end of the camp).

I just wanted to shoot you a friendly email letting you know I am extremely interested in not only studying at the University of Michigan, but--if possible--playing under its amazing coaching staff as well. Beyond winning the Big Bear Trophy against cross-state rival MSU for two years (and running), multiple UMich soccer alumni have been called into not only national team camps, but MLS combines as well. Knowing this--its an undeniable fact that the staff supervising the University of Michigan Men's Soccer Program is among the top in the nation (if not the best). However, the best coaches in the nation--need to bring in players of equal or even greater quality to maintain its greatness, right? Realistically speaking I am not quite up to par with your boys--at this moment. However, I am confident in the near future, I will have what it takes to wear the maize and blue uniform on the pitch with Pride.  

I have big dreams, Coach McMenemy.

Now onto the important "stuff."

I know you just love questions, so here are a few.

1. When we talked, you said that you had wanted to see me play outside of the "ID Camp Environment" and see me active in a more realistic setting. Beyond guest playing for another team, what other possibilities would you suggest?

2. Would attending another one of UMich's soccer camps (I'm talking summer), also help the staff get a better grasp of my personality as a human, ethics as a student, and abilities as a player?

3. I mentioned to you that I was with "Next Level Training" by Aaron Byrd. One of your players, Yamman (also trained with Aaron Byrd), stated that he would likely be back at "Next Level" during this summer. If you get a chance, do you think it'd be possible for you to come to one of the training sessions in that time period, or maybe even one earlier? 

We train at 799 Denison Ct. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. 

Current Spring Schedule for the next eight weeks (3/3 to 5/1) is:

Thursdays @ 8:00 pm; Saturdays @ 1:00 pm; Sundays @ 1:30 pm

4. Let's assume I decided to play my freshman year at another college solely for college-level in-game experience, a college where I'd play a majority of the games. How would the transfer process look, and could I still stay in touch with you, and how?

Obviously, I still have more questions to ask, however, like most human beings, I don't particularly enjoy answering seven pages of questions on a daily basis, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks again for having me at the ID Camp earlier today. Hope to hear back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Daniel Qin

Troy, Mi (2017)

Next Level Training

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO MS. VALENTINO: 

Sorry again that this post isn't directed related to anything we did in class this past week. However, I tried to create some comic relief to the serious nature of the email by injecting sarcasm and irony. I also tried to create "voice" in this email, using some colloquial terms like "stuff." 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION OF THE PERSONNEL RELATED TO THIS CLOSED DISCUSSION IS WITHHELD DUE TO LACK OF PERMISSION TO SPEAK OF OR ON BEHALF OF THESE INDIVIDUALS