JLC Quickwrite #1: The ever-changing story...

“Over the years, she told me the same story, except for the ending, which grew darker, casting long shadows into her life, and eventually into mine” (pg. 21).

In Kweilin, Jing-mei's mother created the Joy Luck Club, composed of four female members whose husbands/brothers/male companions were involved in the war. Each time her mother told the story, it would usually stop at the point when the Joy Luck Club would cook feasts, play mahjong, and trade stories into the night to escape the fear and uncertainty of the war. Her mother would tag on some fantastic ending that made the story seem like a “Chinese fairy tale”, according to Jing-mei. She never went on to tell the real ending of the story until one evening. I'm not sure why she always changed the ending – maybe she wanted to keep her daughter guessing, or maybe she just wasn't comfortable with telling the story so soon.

One day an army officer suggested to Jing-mei's mother that she travel to Chungking to be with her husband. She knew the message meant that the Japanese would soon arrive in her town, and that the families of men like her husband would be the first to die. She packed her children and some belongings into a wheelbarrow walked Chungking, since there were no running trains. Her hands began to bleed from carrying her bags for so long. She was eventually forced to begin lightening her load by leaving items behind. By the time she arrived in Chungking, she had only three silk dresses. She told Jing-mei that she was not one of those babies, not being her first daughter.

Jing-mei never really knew why her mother told her about Kweilin until one evening at a game of mahjong. Her aunts revealed to her that her mother wanted to get back in touch with her daughters, but she died before she did so.

I think Jing-mei's mother eventually told her the real ending to the story, so that when this came up, it would not come up as a surprise. Maybe she knew she would waste a lifetime trying to reach her two daughters in Hong-Kong, and hoped that Jing-mei would do the duty for her. 

My mom would be dead.

This is the second time I have read this article and I am still shocked and upset about everything this woman says.

"Western parents try to respect their children's individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they're capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away."

     
Amy Chua's methods are unbelievable. To start off, what I don't understand is why she finds it necessary to group her own methods in withh every other Chinese home. Just from asking close friends, I know that not every Chinese parent is like her; they may have similar traits/methods of discipline, but all in all I don't think they are this extreme. Also, not every Western household is as soft and caring as she believes - in fact, some households (like my own) are just as strict and angry as she is. Now, there is a limit to HOW strict they are. My parents don't force my to go without eating or using the bathroom for hours at a time, and they don't threaten to take things of mine away. All in all, I think this lady is crazy.

      A child owes love and respect to their parent. We did not make the decision to come into this world, but our parents brought us here so I believe they owe us love, care, and all essentials of living until we are capable of caring for ourselves.Chua does not believe she owes her children anything, which sucks. It isn't fair not to let her children ruin their lives for her satisfaction.

      I don't know what else to say. Amy Chua should go screw a donkey.

Animal Farm - Chapter 11

A generation passed – even now, very few animals whom participated in the revolution were still around. What had once been a great cause, had fallen into pieces. Clover, though her eyesight had gone, never forgot the words that had replaced the original Seven Commandments of Animal Farm:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL

BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

She walked past it everyday, whispering the words to herself over and over so that no animals would overhear. When her vision went, she lied in her lonesome, trying to understand what it meant. She vaguely remembered how Napoleon had defined equal, but eventually came the conclusion that it meant same.When the younger animals asked what was written on the post, Clover would whisper, “We are all not the same. All animals are not the same.”

Napoleon had taken down the post when he left the farm; all the animals were old and decrepit, and the new animals were too young to work as hard as he wanted. Food and supplies were low, barely enough to sufficiently feed each animal. Napoleon had grown weary of raising the young and running the farm. He made the decision late fall,to take all the farm's earnings and go off on vacation to another home he had secretly established months before. One Sunday morning, the animals awoke to The absence of Napoleon and his dogs. Clover walked up the hill and looked over the farm, puzzled on how the animals would care for themselves from then on. She made it a point to tell the newest animals of Animal Farm's past, hoping they would carry on the farm's original traditions. Clover told honest stories of Mr. Jones and his mistreatment of the animals, the very first fight between animals and humans, Battle of the Cowshed, Sunday meetings and the song Beasts of England, and of Snowball's disappearance and Napoleon's rule over the farm. Most importantly, she told them of Major's speech that started the whole revolution. “No animal in England is free. No animal knows the meaning of leisure after he is a year old. The life of an animal is misery and slavery. This is truth. Nearly the whole of our produce of our labor is stolen from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our problems, summed up in a single word: Man. Man is the only creature that consumes without producing.”' The animals whom were still alive along with Clover would occasionally interrupt and add detail, but overall let her tell the story. The young animals just listened – no interruptions, no questions.

As another winter rolled around, all of the animals whom participated in the revolution had passed away. Important facts of the revolution had been misremembered, distorted and skewed by the young animals. Values were lost, and they all eventually forgot the reason they were told the stories in the first place. When humans began to linger around the farm again, they mingled.

The tiniest essay one could possibly write.

In his famous 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell criticizes the contemporary English language for its disgusting and inaccurate use by individuals. He argues that language is not shaped by us for our own use like it should be, but rather that it is ugly because the way we think is actually inaccurate. Instead of "foolish thoughts" being a result of language, language has become a result of "foolish thoughts."

“Our civilization is decadent and our language...must inevitably share in the general collapse.” Orwell begins by asserting the belief that the English language has been disfigured by the human race, and is on a lingering decline as a result. “Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for own own process.” Orwell is basically stating that people tend to abuse the English language in its current form by misapplying vocabulary.

“Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take necessary trouble.” Orwell suggests that writing often becomes meaningless as a result of improper language and gibberish – most often language people mimic from others. The use of “meaningless” words allows them to be openly interpreted and often abused in political writing.

I agree with Orwell's points. Slang, bad grammar/spelling, incorrect use of a thesaurus, it all irritates me. I notice sometimes common people tend to use small words, then replace them with larger words that aren't necessarily correct. For example:

“The tasty peach on the tree is really small.”

turns into

“The ambrosial fruit resting on the tree is immensely miniature.”, or something like that; the words in the second sentence sound awkward and make no sense, though they are synonyms of the words in the first sentence.

At one time, Webster's Dictionary was the number one resource. At one time, people preferred to be clever and perceptive, but it seems like people are beginning to embrace idiocy and silliness. Today, we are provided with sources like Urban Dictionary, where anybody and everybody can place in a definition to a word and it goes. Yes – sometimes the stuff on there is humorous, but at the same time very threatening to the English language because not only is it changing the words we use, but the way we use them and how we define them. A simple word, like car, for example:

In the real dictionary:

Car - a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.

In Urban Dictionary:

Car – a people shell with four wheels; a place where you can have sex; something that goes, vrooooooom vroooooooooom.

If one were to look back into Shakespearean times – maybe even further – the language was much more sophisticated and innovative. We look at it today as inexplicable and complex, but I think that is because our language has downgraded since then.

“If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.” Orwell spits some gold in this sentence right here. People – not just writers or speakers or people who work with vocabulary as a profession – must relinquish the use of foolish words, and rather work to reverse political decay.

Opening Statement - Over Population in the United States

      The biggest concerns the country has with overpopulation is that there are not enough resources for every individual to obtain necessary resources. To live free of hunger and disease, to have the energy to manufacture goods and keep warm, to have places to live, water to drink, and to have social amenities like schools and hospitals. There are simply too many people to accommodate.


      According to The Demographic Facts of Life in the United States, the US is the third most populous country in the world following China and India. The U.S. population, currently more than 265 million, is growing by about 2.5 million people each year, making the United States one of the world's fastest-growing industrialized nations.
There are several impacts to this conclusion, such as:

• Because Americans eat a diet heavy in beef and other animal products, U.S. per capita grain consumption is four times higher than that of developing countries.
• Americans constitute five percent of the world's population but consume 25 percent of the world's energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, or 370 Ethiopians.
• The United States is responsible for 22 percent of the world's industrial carbon dioxide emissions, a leading cause of global warming.
• In the last 200 years, the United States has lost 50 percent of its wetlands, 90 percent of its northwestern old-growth forests, and 99 percent of its tall grass prairie.
• Every day, an estimated nine square miles of U.S. rural land is lost to development.

      America and its population make a big impression on the world - but not a good one. The best way to control overpopulation, and possibly save our Earth, is

Promote condoms/birth control.

One common factor of unintended birth in the US is lack of condom use, or broken condoms and lack of birth control. If we promote condoms and birth control and people actually use them, the only babies being born won't be accidents and won't contribute to the death of the world as we know it.

What is the perfect government?

Don't expect this to be good, I'm tired.


      Does political power corrupt the people who attain it? Well...in my opinion:
If the system allows corruption, then yes. My theory is that if one person comes into complete power, with no foreseen chance of being removed, then at some point of their reign will turn to arrogance and they will eventually become corrupt. Hitler, for example (Mr. Sutherland loves when I talk about Hitler) had complete power. Some people liked him, others didn't, but nobody was successful at taking him down. He made his personal beliefs law, and if he had not committed suicide because of his nervous breakdown by losing the war LOL then he may have succeeded in his plans. Hitler was corrupt.


      On the other hand, a government like America's makes it so that one person isn't in complete power. Our president has the power of a president, but he can't do everything he wants without consulting everyone else in office. Every president has their own beliefs, but they can't just say, "this is going to happen because I want it to" and it happens.


      In Animal Farm, the pigs are the ones in charge. All of the animals are agree that the pigs are smartest, and deserve the right to be in power of the farm. I think the pigs will gain the animals complete trust, start off everything good and slow, then slowly become greedy and take over the farm. 


     When you have people backign you up, it's easy to get into power and stay there. I think it's when leaders start to do things their followers don't agree with that they eventually will be overthrown. 


Egotistical decisions = corruption in a government. So, yeah...

Response Post: What's Emo/Scene

I have a huge problem with just about everything said in this post. Yes, everyone has a right to say what they believe and yadda yadda yadda, but I need to say something about this post. Lhadze, I hope you read this.

First off, I disagree with placing labels on people. Someone can put a "definition" on the fashion style itself (whomever does it in the first place and why), but who says that if I wear saggy pants and a black hoodie everyday, I'm automatically a gangster? What if I wear preppy clothes one day, then hipster the next? Do I have multiple personalities? I wouldn't think so.

Lhadze says,

Most real scene kids wear Gloomy Bear, Hello Kitty, Invader Grim, Metal band shirts. They wear anything from skirts, shorts and fishnets to skinnes or just leggings ripped. Scene kids love listening to heavily stylized music like crunk core. They tend to try out the newest fashion, and add their own style to it to own what they wear.

Okay, so this is Lhadze's generalized definition of the Scene style, or how she dresses herself. Fine. But then she says,

I guess I have more of a right to say I'm scene. Cause all you people who say "I'm Scene" your all posers...next time you think your scene and you try to ruin your hair and look kinda weird take it from someone who knows, if you know your not comfortable wearing a style you think is cute, but highly competitive, rethink it.

What I find most infelicitous about what she says, is the contradiction between her statements. She claims that people who have the scene style add their own flare, but controverts it by saying anyone who doesn't meet the “requirements” of being scene, is a poser. If at all, she shouldn't criticize someone who has adopted the scene style in any way – she should in fact, praise it, because if what she said in her blog is true, those two should have much in common.

I can rant on forever, and not nicely, plus I passed the word limit but my point is that style can relate to one's personality, but it does not define it. Each person has a distinctive character, most often one that no other person has. If one person is different from another, why denigrate them?