Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial (1982), pushes viewers to think about the importance of the people and environment around them. By creating a reflective wall, slowly lowering viewers into a sea of names, and placing the sculpture in the famous national mall, Lin is placing the viewer in an environment where they are forced to think about where they are and the individuals named on the wall. She places the viewer in this environment, in order that they will begin to think about what each individual did to service the country they are in the capital of. Maya Lin is trying to force those viewing her work to think about what each human being does to contribute to a others’ surroundings and situations.

1. The memorial is unusual in design and it’s naming of all armed services members killed in the war. Comment on your reaction to its appearance and to the names on its wall.

Two major characteristics of this memorial are the reflective walls and the declining ramp that lead to the center of the memorial. Both of these aspects create a dense and crowded feeling, as if you’re surrounded on all sides by these names. Vietnam was the first war that was constantly viewed through television and it really allowed people to feel empathy for the soldiers and view them as individuals. Perhaps Maya Lin felt the same way. She wanted the viewer to enter the memorial and be surrounded by these names and really feel gratitude for each individual that was killed defending our country. When I visited the memorial this past summer, I wished that I could know who each of these soldiers were. There were so many names on the wall at the beginning, and as the walls got taller, the names began to crowd more and were filled. I really began to think about who these individuals could be. It was overwhelming, yet forced me to open my eyes to the power of the individual.

2. Speculate on the message this kind of memorial sends about armed services veterans, viewers, and war.

Rather than showing an example of what war was like, or a significant event in a war, like most memorials, Maya Lin creates a memorial that includes every individual that was killed throughout the entire war. She even makes sure that the center of the memorial includes the meeting of the names of individuals who died at the beginning of the war and names of individuals who died at the end. The memorial shows us the individual lives that were taken throughout the Vietnam War. It shows the viewers that every individual soldier is important and deserves gratitude. Rather than ignoring the large group of veterans we hear about, we should do our efforts to appreciate and feel empathy for every single one. It should also inspire the viewer to recognize how important they can be, despite the fact that they are only an individual. The memorial also shows the cost of war. So many individuals’ lives ended in this war, and the only information a viewer has on their lives is an overwhelming amount of names.

Living Like Weasels

Annie Dillard, in “Living Like Weasels”, suggests a lifestyle that includes exploration and not giving into fear. She uses a personal anecdote to support her idea, keeps the reader interested by the use of alliteration, parallelism, and metaphors, and appeals to the audience’s emotions by telling off her deep, vulnerable thoughts. Dillard delivers personal thoughts and uses rhetorical devices in order to add a more poetic feeling to her writing that will carry the reader through her ideas. Her goal is to connect to the emotion of her readers, in hopes that they will not turn away from opportunities, because of fear, like she did when she came face to face with the ferret.

Question 3: Write down the verbs that are most important to the argument Dillard makes and consider what they contribute to her aim.

The most powerful verbs Dillard uses in her argument are to “vow”, to “seize”, and to “dangle”. The three actions go together in order to fill the initial goal Dillard wants her audience to achieve. She wants them to keep sticking to their interests and opportunities, and not turn away in fear. In order to do this, a person needs to first vow to take on this task. This is how they develop their motivation to be successful. Next, a person must seize the day. They must take every opportunity given to them to accomplish this goal. The last step a person must take to accomplish this goal is to let himself dangle. He must be able to not fear any challenges that are in the way and continue to focus on accomplishing the goal.

Question 4: Find two lines or so that characterize the tone of this essay and comment on how they reveal the tone.

“I have been reading about weasels because I saw one last week. I startled a weasel who startled me, and we exchanged a long glance.”

These lines characterize Dillard’s calm and enlightened tone. Dillard creates a calming poetic style by the use of alliteration and description of nature. Like many transcendentalists, Dillard’s writing reflects the calm feeling of being surrounded by nature. Dillard also seems enlightened throughout her essay. She had an interaction with a weasel, and now she is taking a life lesson from it. In these lines, the fact that she researched weasels because she saw one, shows how enlightened and inspired she is by her interaction.

Question 5: This Essay suggests the need for the wild in life. How would you describe what Dillard means by “wild”?

Dillard does not mean that one should do the most risky and outrageous things in life, rather, she is suggesting to not let fear stop you from achieving what you want to achieve. She uses her personal example of seeing the weasel. She was curious and would have wanted to learn more about it, but she was so stunned and scared it might attack her or hurt her, that she froze and cannot even remember the instant. She suggests that people, when coming close to their dreams or opportunities, should not run away in shock or fear. She wants people to take risks and give all that they possibly can to achieving their goals.

Oregon Militia

Bruce Vanwyngarden, in his article Making Tennessee Great Again (1/7/16), suggests that the militias occupying the wildlife refuge in Oregon are ridiculous, wrong, and crazy. Vanwyngarden uses satire to bring out the seemingly ridiculous points the members of the militia, and its supporters, has made. He declares his views towards government in a disrespectful manner, threatens his audience with extremely dangerous weapons, and assertively mentions the fact that he is white in order to bring out the ridiculous declarations the militia has made over the past few weeks. Vanwyngarden hopes to raise America’s attention to the unacceptable  behavior the militia is getting away with, in hopes that the attention will bring a stop to this occupation and justice to the militia.

I am disturbed by the fact that the militia occupation, that started a few weeks ago, is still going on today. Although I understand that the members are not threatening anyone, they are breaking laws and threatening the power of the government. Until today, I was unaware of this event, and to read about this event was upsetting and angered me. Not only do I disagree with the views of the militia, I also disagree with their tactics and the actions the government has taken to solve this issue.

Although America is a free country, there are limits to insure public good and safety. While trespassing would not upset me so much, a well planned occupation of government property does. Especially while they are announcing the many weapons they have and shouting insulting slurs, how can someone expect to get respect and be successful? Sadly, they are accomplishing their goals. They are getting respect, in the sense that people see them as a threat. They are successful, in the fact that they are still occupying this land and the state government in Oregon has not been able to function properly, because they have had to deal with this issue. The fact that an immature group of people can get achieve their goals in such a disrespectful manner makes me angry.

Resilience: "Not just to survive, but to thrive."

Parul Sehgal writes about the transformation of resilience in his article, “The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience’” in response to those that are ashamed of what resilience is today. Sehgal recognizes the overuse of resilience today, as it appears in parenting magazines, books, government policies, and college campuses. Many would argue that this overuse of resilience has caused America to be whiny and seemed spoiled. While real resilience would be the first African American student at a college surviving his first day, protests and actions at Yale against racism is an act of whining students, and can barely be classified as resilience. While Sehgal disagrees with this idea and explains that the transformation of resilience into its overuse today is extraordinary, as it teaches Americans not to just survive, but to push for what they want and feel is right. Sehgal explains that African American students should not just be happy they are allowed in a school, they should be able to feel equal to all other students and fight against racism on their campus.

I strongly agree with Parul Sehgal that resilience today means, and should mean, “not just to survive but to thrive”. Not only do I agree, because it is important for one to stand up for what he/she believes in, but because when one does not continuously thrive, they slowly reach the point to where they cannot survive. This past summer I saw what happens when resilience is only to survive, and not to thrive. After visiting old and destroyed Jewish communities, destroyed buildings and cemeteries that were once included in ghettos for Jews, Mass Graves for whole Jewish communities and orphaned Jewish children, and Nazi Concentration Camps in Poland, I went to Denmark, where I worked at a summer camp for non-affiliated German Jews. Throughout history, Jews have struggled with resilience, with the Greek and Roman empires, the Spanish Inquisition, and the most recent struggle, the Holocaust. When working with these children and teenagers in Denmark, I saw one contributing factor for our recurring struggles. My week in Denmark opened up my eyes to see that Jews around the world are not taking the word “resilience” to mean “to thrive”. When Kosher labels are not allowed in their home country, because citizens will not buy food that they assume supports Israel, kids have to be conscious where they wear their Yarmulkes and where they pray, and one friend who is pursuing a political career was asked in an interview, “Are you Jewish or are you German?”, it is clear that resilience needs to take the place of “thriving”. We are seeing signs worldwide that we saw before the Holocaust, and we need to thrive before we reach our struggle to survive. When my grandparents could no longer feel safe in school in Germany, my grandmother moved to America and my grandfather moved to Switzerland. When he no longer felt safe there, he came to America. We should not let it get to the point, where Jews are being pushed around the world to find safety. People are boycotting Jewish businesses, attacks in France have been recurring against Jews, and a one week camp in Denmark is the only place German children feel comfortable practicing their religion. If Judaism in these countries cannot thrive, it is likely that in the future, they will struggle to survive.

Sehgal, Parul. “The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience.’” The New York Times. Dec. 1, 2015. Web. Dec. 4, 2015.

Last Lincoln Blog Corrected

Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural Address (1865), blames the sins and wrongdoings of the south for causing the war to fall upon the Americans. Lincoln insures that the south is at fault by pointing out that during his first inaugural address which promoted peace to save the nation, the south was doing the opposite, the south continued to own slaves, and the sin of slavery caused both the south and the north to be punished. Lincoln brings in the bible verse “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh” in order to prove that the south’s transgressions brought “woe” onto all of America. Lincoln is reuniting America in and encouraging Americans to recognize that they are all apart of one country and one does something wrong, everyone suffers with them.

I agree with Lincoln for attempting to reunite America, but I disagree with his tactics. I understand that during his age, religion was a key factor, even in government, so I will not criticize him for not separating church and state. I do, however, disagree with him bringing up the point of everyone suffering, because of one groups’ sins. There is a common idea of everyone being on the same boat. When one person fails to row or sail correctly, everyone sinks. This is an idea I agree with, feel is important, try to practice in my daily life by taking responsibility for my own actions, and even see reflected in my religion. In Judaism, we have the phrase “כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה” which translates as “All of Israel are responsible for one another.” Even if I did not feel this way personally, this idea is a part of my religion and my everyday life, but I do not feel it had a place in Lincoln’s speech. Lincoln was speaking to the United States of America. Even though Americans should be united, both to achieve common goals and keep their national government structured, America is a land for everyone to have freedom. It is not on citizen's responsibility to look after a different citizen. People immigrated to America to start their own lives. I do not agree with the south’s decision of slavery, but a citizen should not have to feel that if he owns a slave, he is causing thousands of Americans to die at war. If he wants to feel this way, that is okay, but this view has no place in a speech by the leader of the country. This is similar to the constant argument over taxes. If someone who has a high income would want to donate money to the poor or government programs, that is amazing and I would do the same, but if America was founded so that people could live freely and equally, it is not fair to force those with higher incomes to pay for everyone else’s welfare. The south should not own slaves and people with high incomes should give money to the welfare of others, but the American government should not be telling people they have to.

Last Lincoln Blog

Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural Address (1865), points to the South as the cause of the Civil War, that has torn the country apart. Lincoln supports the idea that the South is at fault by bluntly addressing the issue of slavery, how slavery is against God’s will, and how the nation is now at war because of the South’s wrong doings. Abraham Lincoln bluntly states his arguments in order to show that war can no longer be prevented, and the South has long ago caused the war to begin. Lincoln is trying to make a statement to his audience that they should no longer strive for peace, but blame the South for the harsh war.

It is obvious to recognize that this speech is not like most of Lincoln’s speeches. In his past speeches we read, he was supporting what was best for America. Now, he is supporting what is best for the North. As president, an inaugural address, or any address, should discuss the issues of the country. While the war is an issue of the entire country, he clearly gives off the idea that he is speaking for the North, and not only is not helping the South, but is stirring up anger and problems for them. While he asked for peace in his last inaugural speech, he is now asking for war. It is understandable that his tone shifted from calm and friendly to harsh and blunt, but as a president, who is responsible for the whole country, he cannot shift from an American to a Northerner and outwardly express his anger towards the South. This is in no way going to solve the issues of the war and will only make the South angrier at the government and the north. While I do not support slavery at all, I do think that Lincoln should have addressed that it is not right, but not stating that it was the cause of the war and the South is at fault for all of the country's issues. He should have supported both sides of the country he is in charge of, not just one.

A Movement Has its Moments

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/opinion/a-movement-has-its-moment.html?ref=topics

Charles M. Blow, in “A Movement Has its Moments” (2015), supports the need for the Black Lives Matter campaign. Blow discusses the American idea of equality and justice through bringing in quotes from leading politicians and the preamble of the American Constitution and brings in a few quotes from those against the campaign towards the end. He uses the root idea of America of freedom and securing “the blessings of liberty” to show that those against the Black Lives Matter campaign are “un-American” and “ridiculous”. Blow is gaining support from Americans that are indifferent on the topic by turning them away from the anti-equality Americans that are against the Black Lives Matter campaign.

I fully agree with Blow that all Americans deserve equality, but I strongly disagree with the values, cases, and existence of the Black Lives Matter campaign and the points he made to support it. Although I recognize that the cases of police brutality and injustice commonly affect African Americans, I do not agree that these cases occur because the victims or people involved are African American. For a while in America, African Americans were considered lower class, despite their education level or occupation. We now live in a time where this is not true, but many African American families have still not yet picked themselves up and started successful careers and productive lifestyles. Because of this, It just so happens to be that the people living in lower income communities and what people call “sketchy” neighborhoods are African American. Although police should be better trained when entering these neighborhoods about how to make quick and life threatening decisions, they are doing their best and are never intentionally killing someone just because they are black. We are taught it is better to be safe than sorry, and these are the choices these police officers are dealing with. They are risking their lives and safety to enter these neighborhoods and are left to make difficult decisions in a quick amount of time. I do not think that any of these cases or occurring because they involve black people or because the black community is not treated the same way as white people.

Today, we live in a society where we have an African American president, our congressmen, doctors, athletes, and all other occupations are filled with people of different races, and African Americans are provided with every right that is granted to every citizen. I do not believe that the Black Lives Matter campaign needs to even exist, but if some people still feel there is a need to promote equality, there still could be a better way to go about it. Black Lives Matter has made it seem like the police, government officials, and America as a whole has been attacking and limiting the freedom of African Americans. Black Lives Matter was created to promote equality for African Americans, because they are being oppressed and are being treated unfairly. Their website states that we live in a world “where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” They have supported events and protests in Ferguson and Baltimore last year and although they did not promote to take part in the violent protests, they did not discourage them and supported their cause. Blow made it seem that anyone who was against the Black Lives Matter campaign should be considered a hater of equality and American values, but I strongly disagree. I do not believe that supporting an organization that barely has a need for existence and promotes anger, and in cases, violence should be considered “un-American”.