My Opinion on Postman's argument (and the Sample Essay)

The prompt about whether Huxley's vision is more relevant today than Orwell's asks students to "write a carefully argued essay that agrees or disagrees with Postman's assertion."  Unfortunately for me personally, I feel the need to be in partial agreement with Neil Postman rather than complete agreement or disagreement.  The reason why is that there are examples of societies in the current world that can fit either Orwell's vision or Huxley's vision.  For example, China and North Korea are Orwellian because the government "[deprives] people of their autonomy, maturity, and history" (Postman).  (I should mention that Orwell actually based 1984 and Animal Farm on the Soviet Union, which I assume you already knew as a communist country like China and North Korea).  As for Huxley's vision, the contemporary nation that I know that is closest to the vision is Russia.  Indeed, Vladimir Putin may be an authoritarian criticized by other countries, but he is popular in Russia because he created a relatively strong economy while in power.*  As for the United States, I think is is undeniable that Orwell's vision is less relevant than Huxley's (just like what the sample essay said).  After all, I doubt that the current American administration is trying to impose authoritarianism (even though I am tempted to say it is doing so).  I will rather argue that Trump's supporters sort of fulfill Huxley's vision because they praise Trump so much, that they wouldn't mind giving up their rights to give him power.  In fact, many Trump supporters may be identified as being "reduced to passivity and egotism" because many of them seem to reject the science behind global warming all because Trump doesn't quite believe in it (Postman).  (Please note that I am not saying Trump is an totalitarian dictator yet, our country is still very well a democracy and a majority of Americans dislike him).  However, I do extremely disagree with the sample essay (I assume you remember what it discusses) about the degree of Huxley's relevance in America.  While it is true that there are some programs that "[inflict] too much pleasure" (I would describe more as an addiction to pleasure rather than an excess), it is definitely not true that all "informative stations" provide documentaries that are meant to feed the "fascination" of "the bad guys."  Not all documentaries are created equal.  I personally saw documentaries of Nazi Germany, such as The Third Reich, that does not try to feed pleasure, but instead understanding and depression.  Also, there are scientific documentaries, such as Cosmos, that actually try to help us understand the "modern world," not falsify it.  Also, the sample essay seems to imply that "too much information" is inherently unhealthy, which I found a bit ironic.  There is nothing wrong trying to know a lot of information.  In fact, I think the more information one knows, the better off he or she is.  After all, ignorant people can be susceptible to manipulation and treachery simply because they know too little, not "too much."  I also want to point out that we can't really escape information in the modern world.  For instance, Postman would have not written his passage without any knowledge of Huxley and Orwell.  Similarly, the sample essay used examples from his or her prior knowledge, which is information in itself.  We cannot even write any sort of essay without any information of how to write!  Even the way College Board creates its prompts and find its sources (especially for the synthesis essay) involves information!  Even the computers and technology used today was created from information of science.  The fact that we learn English, science, history, and other subjects in school is information.  I had even written this post using information I know.  There are countless other examples of information that I can name.  And it is the prevalence of information in our current society that makes me want to poke holes in the sample essay's argument since it needs and uses information of Huxley, Orwell, Postman, Amazon (which the writer uses an example from the knowledge the Internet provides), and PBS to even exist in the first place.

*I may be outdated with this information.

Political correctness vs. the Bradley effect.

While looking at the results of the 2016 election on TV, I was horrified that Donald Trump won.  I was quite puzzled for several months about Trump's victory.  How can such a rude man who constantly uses fallacies, hatred, and political incorrectness (he did say that all Mexican immigrants were "rapists") get elected as president?  Even the polls were saying Hillary Clinton, who is more rational in my opinion, should've won.   It wasn't until I listened to a political scientist on NPR that I understood why.  According to this scientist, Trump won not because of ignorant Americans being concerned of the "bad" economy, but because of racism and nativism.  To prove his claim, the political scientist provided an anecdote about a person he knew.  This person was an environmentalist, and he supposedly advocated for people to save the environment.  It is reasonable to assume that the environmentalist is a Clinton or Green Party supporter, but ironically, he voted for Trump.  Apparently, this "environmentalist" revealed himself to be more concerned with immigrants than the environment.  In fact, he wanted both legal and illegal immigrants to be deported from America.  So he could have been lying when he expressed his support for the environment.  He wasn't alone of course, there were plenty of Clinton "supporters" who had proudly denounced racism, sexism, and irrationality in the polls, yet they voted for Trump.  Since Trump won, there were news stories of these very same fake Clinton supporters were engaging in racist activities, such as vandalizing Jewish synagogues.  According to the political scientist, this paradoxical phenomenon (known as the Bradley effect) resulted from how racists (and other bigots) engaged in political correctness out of fear of being bullied by liberals.  Yet while that claim to be not racist, they are lying; they still think like racists even if their language and actions imply the opposite.  This not only explains why the polls were wrong about the election, but it shows how strong hatred, racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice can be.  These forces can be so strong that not even political correctness can completely eliminate them.

However, P.C. did provide the benefit of keeping these prejudices from insulting people in language; but since the politically incorrect Trump became president, the his supporters seem to be moving away from the P.C. movement.  In fact, they are moving so far away, that I am becoming more concerned about the language anarchists than the "word police" (Kakutani 764).

Bland Analysis of Williams' piece

In "The Clan of One-Breasted Women," our class had discussed about how Williams advocated for civil disobedience to pressure the government into solving certain issues (that is, if the government isn't doing anything).  In this post, I would like to elaborate on some textual evidence on how Terry Tempest Williams conveys her attitude of obedience.

When Williams describes the case of Irene Allen as "God-fearing people," she is referring to how Allen said "I am not blaming the government" (930).  Basically, Williams is saying that trying to solve the issue of nuclear radiation by using the government (which Williams claims to have the authority of "God") has proved fruitless because the U.S. government hasn't done much about nuclear radiation.  She emphasizes this point by saying "our government is immune;" it is "immune" to any issues where the government is supposedly responsible (Williams 930).  Williams also says that Mrs. Allen is not the only person to stay obedient to the government by stating "This is just one story in anthology of thousands" (Williams 930).  In fact, Williams clearly includes how her own family practiced "obedience" to the government, and it never solved the danger of nuclear radiation.  Because her mother died from cancer and was obedient, Williams was motivated to "question everything" (931).  In other words, Williams wants to practice civil disobedience because "blind obedience...ultimately takes our lives" (931).  This perhaps explains why Terry Tempest Williams "crossed the line at the Nevada Test Site" because she believes her act of civil disobedience is a step forward in solving the issue of nuclear radiation.

A Mock Letter from a Peacock to Tannen

Dear Deborah Tannen,

I have recently read your essay about how "there is no unmarked women" (Tannen 556).  I was quite intrigued by your your argument; but I also found it mind-boggling to think about.  Perhaps it is because I am a peacock that I fail to grasp how humans view gender.  In fact, instead of having no "unmarked" females, as you suggest with humans, we have no "unmarked" males.  We peacocks are expected by the peahens to bear many eye-spotted feathers on our tail.  If one lacks such feathers, he is considered to be noticeably unattractive among peafowl.  If one has plenty of these feathers, he is considered to be one of the most beautiful peacocks.  Regardless of the number of tail feathers, peafowl almost always gab about how some peacocks are pretty while others are ugly.  My wife, for instance, brags about the enormous amount of feathers I possess to her friends.  (Both of us are pictured below).  I also happened to see feather-lacking peacocks try to use branches and leaves to make fake quills*; they probably hope that other peafowl would not notice their disguised ugliness.  Meanwhile, peahens "have the option of being unmarked" (Tannen 553).  They do not have fancy feathers like mine, yet they are "unmarked."  No one ever gossips about peahens' physical qualities.  Even my wife never gets bashed or complimented for her looks.  Peahens can make themselves "marked" if they dress up in any strange clothing, but males do not have the choice to make themselves "unmarked."  My point is, that the gender roles in peafowl society are pretty reversed when compared to human society.  So that is why I have trouble understanding your kind's mindset; it is almost as if our societies belong to different worlds

Sincerely,

Fictional Peacock

*Author's note: This does not happen in real life.  Also, there are some other false facts about peacocks in this post.

"About Men" paragraph

In "About Men" Gretel Ehrlich states that "young cowboys are often evasive with women... they don't know how to bring their tenderness into the house" (572)  She is obviously saying that cowboys can be shy around women.  Yet, this statement does make the slight implication that cowboys are shy around women simply because they have different genders; however, others might argue, in a different interpretation of Ehrlich's statement, that it is the job that makes cowboys gentle like Ghandi.*  Ehrlich does, of course, writes about how cowboys step away from their inner fears into outer space to save cow or cattle.  In fact, she even says "A cowboy is someone who love his work.  Since the hours are long... and the pay is $30 he has to" (Ehrlich 571).  According to my personal interpretation, Ehrlich is saying that cowboys "love" their work not because they enjoy sleeping in a cavern, but because they earn a satisfactory amount of money.  Cowboys only risk heir lives to save cows because it is their job to do so.  He doesn't always feel a complete total attachment to the cattle (the cows will get slaughtered at a meat processing factory anyway), he just really needs to get the money.  And because cowboys do not often hang around with women while working, they tend to be shy around women.  This does raise some interesting questions though: Why do only men get to be cowboys during the 19th century?  Why weren't there any cowgirls? These questions do not only apply to cowboys, but also football and ping-pong.  In football, there rarely seems to be any known female athletes; there are only male football players (at least in professional football).  Table tennis is not quite as extreme as football in gender segregation.  However, professional ping-pong is often split into male and female tournaments, preventing men and women from playing against each other.  Even several centuries ago when there were still powerful monarchs in Europe (who get called "Your majesty," "Your honor," etc.), there was an excessive majority of male rulers.  Also, male monarchs are noticeably called "kings" while female monarchs are called "queens," implying gender segregation in language since both kinds of rulers are not addressed by the same title.  There are even many more examples of gender segregation that are not included in this post.  My point is that is it fair for women to not participate in activities that are considered to be men's jobs?  It is fair for men and women to do participate together in activities such as sports?  Feel free to answer in the comments.

*According to the internet, this name should be spelled as "Gandhi," not "Ghandi."  So Ms. Valentino may have incorrectly spelled his name.  Also, it is bit of a hyperbole to compare the gentleness of cowboys to that of Gandhi because Gandhi did not treat women very well.  In fact, according to an article I found on the Internet, he was a misogynist.  (The link to the article is below this footnote).

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/mohandas-gandhi-women-india

On my Understanding of Sarcasm

For almost my entire life, I have struggled to understand sarcasm.  I have interpreted the literal meaning (or denotation) of people's phrases instead of their figurative meaning (or connotation) for a long time.  For example, when I first read Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (sometime before my junior year), I actually thought Swift really wanted to use children as "food" (405).  Since then, I assumed Swift was twisted and insane.  It wasn't until my tenth grade English teacher clarified that Swift's paper was a satire that I started viewing him as not so crazy.  Unfortunately, my new understanding of "A Modest Proposal" still didn't prepare me to identify sarcasm all the time.  When having conversations with people, it often takes me five to ten minutes to process any sarcastic remarks.  I have to constantly distinguish between the literal meaning of words and the connotation of words.  Oftentimes, when I am listening to a speech or reading a sarcastic essay, I need more information than what the speech or essay provides to help me understand any sarcastic remarks without taking them too literally.  (I apologize for being too repetitive.)  For instance, if a teacher jokingly says that he will take a point off of my test for asking a stupid question, I will need to know for sure that he will not take off that point in order to understand his joke.  If I am missing this piece of information, a heated argument will likely initiate between the teacher and me.  Fortunately, I now am getting a grasp of what sarcasm is like (thanks to 11 AP English's stressful workload), but I still have a long way to go.

Why the Lobster?

I am willing to admit that David Foster Wallace's essay, "Consider the Lobster" did make a good point.  It is true that many animals suffer severe pains from being turned into food.  I do appreciate how Wallace tries to raise questions of this issue, but there are a few components of the essay that I would like to criticize about.  Also, I will act as a devil's advocate against Wallace's argument.

Wallace vividly describes the various ways a lobster can experience "painful stimuli" and even uses scientific evidence to back his claim (Wallace 673).  However, one may weakly argue that lobsters do not easily feel pain because that they do not have a "cerebral cortex" to feel any pain (qtd. in Wallace 673).  This is a weak claim because Wallace easily makes a rebuttal by saying "this... claim is either false or fuzzy" (Wallace 673).  Nevertheless, there is still a different argument to be made that does not reject the assumption that lobsters feel pain.  It states that feeling pain is a part of being alive and is unavoidable.  In other words, animals will feel pain while being eaten simply because of the food chain.  Predators will keep on gruesomely and inhumanely eating prey even if all humans stopped eating meat.  In fact, humans abusing a lamb for food is just as cruel as a lamb being eaten by wolves while the lamb is conscious.  Therefore, humans should not care if about the pain animals suffer because of the food chain (or food web).  Such consumption is simply a part of the cycle of life.  (I am playing as a devil's advocate as I write this paragraph.  So I personally do not completely agree with this justification of animal abuse.)

Now I am going to give a personal criticism of "Consider the Lobster."  I have always wondered why would Wallace choose a lobster out of all of the animals he could have chosen from (besides the fact that he visited the Maine Lobster Festival).  In my opinion, there are many other examples of animals cruelty that could've served as better examples.  In France, Geese get forcefully fattened even when they are not hungry so foie gras can be well made.  In China, rabbits are skinned alive and have their fur gets processed into coats.  (I do not know why they have to be alive.)  In Korea, farmed puppies are hanged on a tree branch and are beaten to death (before being incinerated) to produce "better" meat.  In America, chickens are drugged to have bigger breasts; but this increase in mass had gave the chickens more weight than their delicate, limp legs could carry.  There are many more scenarios I can list, but I can't list them all because there are far too many of them.  However, I do think that if Wallace used a bird or a mammal instead of a lobster, he would've made a bigger impact.  After all, less people feel empathy for a lobster's suffering than that for a cow.  In fact, many people in the real world would like to see lobsters get cooked as seen with the World's Largest Lobster Cooker being "an attraction" (Wallace 675).  To put it bluntly, a lobster's life is treated like that of an "insect" (Wallace 666).  Very few people will feel bad for a squashed fly or a poisoned ant; this attitude is roughly similar to that of cooking a lobster since most people don't think about an arthropod's pain.  If Wallace wrote about a mammal, his essay may be more effective on his audience than it already is because many more people can connect to a mammal's feelings.  They know that mammals clearly have a brain to sense pain. (Unlike lobsters, which don't have much of a brain.)  Therefore, Wallace's essay may have a bigger impact on people's minds if he wrote about a different animal.  (I am not saying "Consider the Lobster" was not effective at all, I am saying it could be more meaningful with some alterations.)