Power

Chimamanda Adichie's The Thing Around Your Neck is a collection of her short stories she has written over the years. Starting it recently, we just read "Headstrong Historian" in class, which takes place in Nigeria when Europeans began colonizing Africa in the later 19th century. An interesting quote is made from one of the short story's characters named Ayaju, who is of slave descent and a traveler. Nonetheless, she says that they must "learn the ways of these foreigners, since people ruled over others not because they were better people but because they had better guns...." After discussing this in class, it makes sense, as this is commonly seen throughout human history. For example, when Spanish conquistadors invaded South America just a couple decades after Columbus's arrival, they dominated the Inca, Aztecs, and other indigenous peoples with their steel swords and guns, unlike the Native Americans who had weak bows and arrows and wooden clubs. With European colonization in Nigeria, the local Nigerians are forced to obey the ways of the foreigners "not because they were better people but because they had better guns."

Spacing away from "Headstrong Historian," Chimamanda Adichie stated, "How [stories] are told, who tells them, when they're told, how many stories are told are really dependent on power." What I think Adichie means by this is that whoever tells the story and exactly how they tell it have the ultimate power over it. It can be intentional or accidental, but either way, they have complete power of the story. For example, if you want to tell children a story a little too much for them, you can edit the story to avoid the bad parts. If you are with your friends at a campfire and are telling a scary story, you can also edit it to make it way scarier than it actually is. Either way, the storyteller has the ultimate power of the story to manipulate it however they like, which is what stories "told are really dependent on power."

China under Communism

During the 20th century, China became the People's Republic of China under the rule of Mao Zedong, the revolutionary who broke China from its original, dynastical, imperial roots. Under him, many reforms of him, most notably the demotion of intellectuals and the rise of the poor. In all of Chinese history, most of the population are peasants. When Mao took hold of China and established a communist state, he closed down many universities and made young students go to re-education. With a promotion of peasants, he sent students to re-education villages, the program being the way to learn from the peasant.

Twenty-four years after the death of Mao, Dai Sijie wrote a fictional novel called Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress. The story follows the narrator and his friend Luo as they go through the re-education process. Though they have been educated, they have only passed middle school, and are still very naive. However, this intelligence goes over all of the peasants. With re-education being an emphasis to escape from urban life (and most importantly, Western influence), Luo and the narrator rebel, bringing urban technology and eventually getting ahold of Western literature, one of them being Balzac's Ursule Mirouet, which was illegal. From this restriction of education, urban life, and Western influence, I see how Dai Sijie has let me understand how much it sucked to a [forced] participant of the re-education program. Though I could learn this from historical accounts, I find it much more enjoyable from a historical fiction novel as it keeps in focus more. With me, I pay attention better if the book is more story than fact. For example, I really enjoyed the movie American Sniper, the movie starring Bradley Cooper of Chris Kyle, the most lethal sniper in U.S. history (160 confirmed kills), who was a Navy SEAL and took four tours in Iraq. I ended up reading his autobiography, and I was actually bored of it. It was fascinating at some points, as he almost loses his humanity by the end of his third tour, but all around boring (but I do recommend it). If a fictional book took place in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule, and was much like Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress, I most likely will be more interested with that than I was with American Sniper. It's just a difference between intrigue and boredom.

Quarterly Update

We have recently finished the first quarter of the year. Though the grades right now are more or less meaningless and are basically a progress report, a comment is required. Though I am taking seven classes, along with most of my schoolmates at Sage Hill, this comment is a self-comment just for English II. So, this is my comment for myself:

I think that my participation in class is lacking. I think this because I either don't know what to say during a discussion or just don't speak in general. Though when it comes to group projects or assignments, I do participate a lot and do my hardest to find good information to supply that assignment. I think the vocabulary part of English II is easy, and I study vocab daily, so I don't find much challenge when it comes to that category. With reading quizzes, I usually do not know how I do on them after I've taken them. With each quiz, I feel like the pattern is that I will know most of the questions, but then I'll reach a question I ultimately do not know, even though I pay attention when I read and try to find key points that could be potential questions on quizzes. My analytical essay writing is steadily improving with each essay, which is good because I only started writing analytical essays in freshman year. All in all, I feel like this first quarter went well, and I plan on improving with all these characteristics as the year goes on.

You Have the Freedom to Read... Sort Of

When I think of the United States, I think of freedom and equality for all. However, as I get older, I see how that America contradicts itself from its notion of equality and freedom. Such issues are the unequal rights for females, the LGBTQ+ community, blacks, and many more. Such movements and conflicts that have come out from this are feminism, the Civil War, the Pride movement (correct me if that's not what it's called), illegal immigrants, and many more. This is all compared to the white male, as our founding fathers were white males and at the time, were not thinking of all these things. I mean, its understandable, leave it for your successors, but what happens when the government intentionally takes away the right to read whatever you want? Where is the freedom with that?

Last week, National Banned Book Week occurred in order to celebrate the freedom to read. All of these books were banned due to the themes they possess according to the age group they are directed to. Some of these books include:

1. The Complete Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi due to its political viewpoint, offensive language,  and gambling.
2. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison for its sexually explicit content.
3. And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell due to its political and religious viewpoints, promotion of homosexuality, and anti-family intentions. 

These are just three out of ten. If you want to look at the full list, here is the link:  http://www.bannedbooksweek.org/about

Out of the three I listed above, I have read The Complete Persepolis, and I really enjoyed it. I liked due to the story and the fact that it was a graphic novel, showing several themes in visual detail. Though it has offensive language, and its political viewpoint may not be agreeable to the American government's viewpoint, I think young adults won't be offended by the book. With The Bluest Eye, which I have not read, its almost laughable that its banned due to its sexually explicit content. I believe the you must show young adults "adult-themed" books in order for them to learn from a literary sense as well as experiencing it on their own. Now, if this book is like Fifty Shades of Grey (which I have NOT read nor plan to), then its understandable, or if someone in the story gets raped, that is also understandable. But if it is neither, then the fact that its sexually explicit isn't a sufficient excuse for why it is banned. Finally, And Tango Makes Three, makes sense to be banned for its political and religious viewpoint, if they are offensive. The anti-family pressure also makes sense for it to be banned, as everyone should love their family. Finally, the reason it is banned for homosexuality is ridiculous. It is 2015, and homosexuality rights are starting to finally take place nationally, after the Supreme Court nationally sanctioned same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015. If this book is banned for its emphasis for its homosexuality, diatribes should go towards the government, who banned this book, for its contradictive action.

If my community shunned me for reading these books, I will argue that I have the right to read whatever they want. I'm a maverick, what can I say?

Not Everyone is a Winner

Can two opponents fighting with one another both be winners? Is it even possible? Well, as much as society likes to believe it is, the truth is, it isn't. There is a loser and winner, and so what is even the point of fighting if both people will be winners? If both opponents are winners, then when two sports team plays with one another, is there even a point to it? Of course, one could argue about draws between opponents, like the end result of the War of 1812 between the Americans and the British. But no one wins in a draw. A draw is a halt, a permanent cease fire. A draw rather makes both opponents losers instead of winners. No people fight to both be winners. People want to win and make the other lose. No two sides can be winners; its virtually impossible. When playing chess, you want to checkmate the other person's king before they do to yours, hence, you want to win and you want the other to lose. Hitler didn't initiate World War II for both sides to win, only his side (thank God he didn't win).

So when you hear that little-league soccer matches play and don't count the score so everyone wins, what was the point of even playing? Yes, you could argue, "well, they're only seven years old and its just for fun," but what happens when they transition from this to losing. What if the next league does count their score, but the players are only used to both sides winning, and they're the losing? Not so great, huh? In 4th grade, I was only my school's soccer team, and we sucked. We won only one game, which was our last, all from poor coaching and a lack of practice. I remember the feeling of winning the game and being so happy, unlike the eight or nine games before. Then, in 5th and 6th grades, I was on the basketball team, and we sucked for the same reasons. The coach politely stated, "We are just here to have fun. We're all winners, so be nice." NO. Don't be nice, as only one side will be the winner. We ended up losing all or most of our games (you can see why).

Is a generation of wimps forming? Well, if this attitude continues, yes, we will. And when this wimpy generation generates even wimpier generation, and takes place for the current generation, which is strong, what happens then? What happens when a wimp takes place as president of the United States? I won't go into that, but, me personally, am hugely opposed to the idea that everyone is a winner. You either win or lose. Simple as that.

Staying and Leaving

In life we always have to make tough decisions, especially when we suffer from the anxiety of one choice over another.  We may not know which decision to make, nor which one will bring the best outcome. In my life, there have been two times where I had to make a decision to stay or to walk away. I chose one of each when I did these actions.

For the one where I walked away, I tried to stay for two years. I went to a Jewish camp up north in the summer of 2013 in Santa Rosa, California, in which I met somebody named Landon. Even though we weren't in each other's cabin, we still met and talked a lot, even hanging out during free time. After camp, we remained in contact via text. Well, he had a horrible home life. It just seemed that no one liked him, including his family, his school and his friends. This all got him into a deep depression, and I tried my hardest to help for the next year. The North American Federation of Temple Youth (NFTY), an organization where Jewish teens meet and hang out occasionally, gave Landon some good in his life, but only very temporarily. In the summer of 2014, we met again in Santa Rosa, where me and several other people tried to prevent him from hurting himself. Well, besides for the daily falls that happened, we succeeded... and then camp ended once again. His depression peaked again, and me and my friend Shaina tried our hardest to help him. We tried and tried, until it was to no avail. Eventually, I told Shaina, "God forbid he kills himself. I mean, we've been trying for months now but he's still depressed. This is a personal journey that he has to take alone." So, I walked away, decreasing contact with him, eventually not talking to him again... until I did. When I did, many months had passed, and he was in a much better position. His depression had vanished. He was much happier, and I was proud of him. I walked away earlier as his was his own journey to take. Even if I tried, he would always have something to counter it.*

Also in the summer of 2013, I started taekwando, the Korean martial art. My mother had wanted me to do it because 1) I needed a sport and tennis and other sports had failed, and 2) my long time friend Matthew was a black belt at the school and had been practicing since 2006. Anyways, I was reluctant at first, as I always thought that martial arts were for little kids. I was wrong. But, I didn't realize that at first. I was too stubborn to even go, fighting with my parents about going or not. And then, my mom made a deal with me: do it for three months, and if I didn't like it at the end, I could quit. I agreed, and after a month I started to really enjoy it. Two years later, I'm happy I stuck to it, and am looking forward to get my black belt around mid-junior year.

I believe there are always two ways to solve problems: decide to stay and to leave. These two events above are very different from one another, but they both represent a decision where I chose to stay or leave. In these cases, the "suffering child" were the decisions I had to make, choosing to stay with taekwando, and choosing to leave with Landon. Do you stay or leave? Staying is the best choice, but leave if you can't take it anymore.

*Landon is much happier now and is living happily. All of his problems have resided and he's headed down a good path in life.

False Worries

"Watch enough brutality on TV and you come to believe you are living in a cruel and gloomy world in which you feel vulnerable and insecure. In his research over three decades Gerbner found that people who watch a lot of TV are more likely than others to believe their neighborhoods are unsafe, to assume that crime rates are rising, and to overestimate their own odds of becoming a victim. They also buy more locks, alarms, and- you guessed it- guns, in hopes of protecting themselves. 'They may accept and even welcome,' Gerbner reports, 'repressive measures such as more jails, capital punishment, harsher sentences- measures that have never reduced crime but never fail to get votes- if that promises to relieve their anxieties. That is the deeper dilemma of violence-laden television.'"

This quote from the book The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner tells about his opinions on news media and how it can make us "come to believe [we] are living in a cruel and gloomy world in which you feel vulnerable and insecure." In my opinion, I do think that the media can easily do that, because there are so many journalists and news channels such as CNN, NBC, Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Newsweek, and so many others. Each can have their own story on one topic, even if each news company is talking about the same issue. They can either really exaggerate something (such as CNN with ebola in 2014) or make something a lesser deal than it actually is. One thing I saw of this was once I was on Buzzfeed and they had an article about the supposed "end of the world" on September 23, 2015. Of course, this spooked me, as does every other time I hear the world is going to end, and so I did my own research. Well it was, of course, false, and many people really exaggerated it, even religious extremists. What is supposed to happen is a 2-mile-wide meteor will crash in Puerto Rico, causing a geographical split of North America. The California coast would fall into the ocean, causing cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego to be destroyed entirely. However, this won't happen. NASA eventually got involved in the situation, saying that they haven't seen a meteor of that size anywhere, making it impossible. But just how Buzzfeed made people convinced of how the world was going to end before specifying why it would happen and the causes, almost makes it distrustful. 

Of course extreme focus on one subject for weeks upon weeks, such as CNN's intensive coverage on ebola in 2014, and all those doctors who contracted it and (stupidly) came back to the United States. When news sources talk about potential and life-threatening catastrophes over and over again, it will make people afraid to even leave their own homes, and may accept "repressive measures such as more jails, capital punishment..." In my opinion, if you really believe a news story, do some extensive research and see if different news source's stories add up, and make sure that something isn't as big as a deal as the media wants to be.

So do I agree with Barry Glassner's argument between fear and media? In a sense, I do, as the media can be so intensive about one subject that people can easily believe it, as these people are our source of news. But to prevent this reluctancy to go outside your home because you're afraid some person is going to run up to you and shoot you is absurd, especially over one news story. Do your own research, and find things out for yourself with more than just the story from the media.

The Story You Never Knew

At first glance, this photo just looks like two men petting an old dog. These two men are my brothers. On the left is Steven, the other is Greg. The dog is my old dog Annie. She, at the time, was 11 years old and was suffering from cancer. In addition, she had a blister where, if popped, would make her bleed to death. She had arthritis also, so, ultimately, she wasn't the best feeling dog. Well this was taken on October 11, 2014, the day before we put Annie down to relieve her of the pain and send her to a better place. We all did not know that this would be one of the last photos with her.

Today is September 3, 2015, nearly a year since Annie died. About three months after Annie died, we just needed a dog in the house. So in mid-January, we got a new dog named Izzy. He, too, is a Golden Retriever, but very destructive. Its worth it though. Anyways, being almost a year since Annie's death, she is well remembered and talked about. RIP Annie

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to my blog! My name is Nathan and I am a sophomore at Sage Hill. I like cats, watching YouTube, playing Xbox, eating food, and I practice taekwando. This blog will demonstrate pieces of literature that I will produce throughout the next 10 months. You will read posts about certain short stories and poems, and as well as some novels, including The Thing Around Your Neck by Chimamanda Adichie, The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri, and The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare. All in all, I hope you enjoy this blog in the duration of the next 10 months. Thank you and enjoy this word cloud I made, which tells some things that are important to me.