The History Teacher

I still remember the fateful day in my colorful and clustered fifth-grade classroom when we finally learned about the American Revolution. I had heard rumors, of course, and I knew the general gist of it, but I never could figure out the juicy details. We started with a simulation: We could have a great big party she said, we could do whatever we wanted. So we wracked our brains for the most glamorous, hot-ticket, party items we could think of. And soon, the whiteboard swam with the unfettered words of eleven year-olds, giddy with prospective enjoyment. But you can't have that, she said. This was how the colonists felt, she said. Their freedom was ripped away from them, she said. Do you understand now, she meant.
From an early age we were taught that the colonists were completely, one hundred percent right in breaking away from Britain. And only once the essential ideas of American patriotism were cemented into our impressionable minds were we allowed to view glimpses of the other side. History was twisted into its simplest form so that we would believe what they wanted us to believe.
In "The History Teacher," the teacher replaces historical tragedies with whimsical, fantastical tales to protect the innocence of his students. But when does protection become lying? Surely it breeds ignorance, from Santa Claus to the uncomfortable sex talks, what you don't know can hurt you.
But more a matter of integrity. Since history is so subjective it can be easily twisted to fit the needs of the people remembering it. Who can confirm that the textbooks are accurate? After all, they are based on the biased accounts of the people who came before us. History is so subjective that often times the lines between truth and fiction are blurred. Whether its telling kids that the colonists were martyrs or that the Ice Age was the "Chilly Age" (Collins)  history teachers are faced with the difficult choice of discerning how far is too far.
But everyone is guilty of telling a little white lie. The problem is that when we try to protect the innocence of children we risk breeding our own ignorance. After all, no amount of protection can prevent the swearing on the back of the bus or the bullying in the corners of the playground. We tell lies so we can go back to that ignorant state. We want to believe that the world is good, whole, and pure, and we associate that feeling with childhood. But the world, like history, is a matter of perception. If we ignore the truth, we start believing the lies. How many times does something need to be said before you believe it?
 

The Writer's Dillema

Although basic rules of punctuation need to be utilized when learning how to write, strict punctuation rules inherently prohibit freedom of expression and binds men to a set of arbitrary rules that has changed and will continue to change as technology and society progress.

The rules of punctuation are like training wheels. They teach young, aspiring writers how to properly communicate with the world.  As Thomas and Austen show through their pieces, good writers have to learn the punctuation alphabet before they can start experimenting with its usage (Source B, D). But as a writer's journey progresses, he or she becomes comfortable in steering their writing in the right direction. Writers should be allowed to take off their preliminary set of wheels in exchange for the freedom of exploring the uncharted territories of style and voice. All punctuation has its own connotation and meaning: Austen personifies the articles of punctuation in her piece (Source B) to show that punctuation has stylistic qualities that can enhance any writer's work. Her lack of punctuation also shows that punctuation is not necessary in order to clearly convey meaning. When the rules of punctuation are disregarded, the articles of punctuation are transformed from artistic hindrances to powerful weapons of literature. As Thomas clearly states, "while we might have more precision and exactitude for our meaning [when adhering to punctuation rules], we would lose the essential flavor of language, which is its wonderful ambiguity," (Source D). Furthermore, the rules of punctuation are not as clearly defined as traditionalists would have you believe. The Oxford comma, which clearly changes the meaning of the sentence (Source G) is an ongoing argument that is heavily debated. As Hitchings explains, "long-established rules for grammar and punctuation is largely imagined," (Source A).  Some punctuation marks like the hedera and pilcrow used to be in style at a moment in history but have since faded from the English language (Source A). Today, twitter and other social media sites have infused new forms of punctuation into society like the hashtag and the @ symbol. This goes to show that as society and technology progress, communication will as well. Change is inevitable because "language evolves in conjunction to culture," (Source A). There is no need to worry though because change is slowly beginning to be accepted. In the 1800s, Dickinson pioneered the use of dashes in place of conventional punctuation like periods. She used dashes as a stylistic device to create tone and convey theme (Source C). Today Dickinson is known as an evolutionary master and now writers all over the world follow in her suit. Even without knowing it, the writing gods and legends bend the punctuation rules. Dolnick, perhaps unknowingly, writes, "a writer was simply not to use semicolons. Ever." (Source E): the second sentence does not fit any standard rules of punctuation; in fact, the period isn't used for anything other than pure emphasis. As writers of the modern world slowly escape the confines of strict adherence to punctuation rules they transcend the limiting boundaries of prose and poetry. They become more than writers-they become artists.

 

Damsel in Distress

Fact: men and women are not equal in today's high-flying and modern world. Women are judged based on their appearance and sexuality, while men are not. And its not a harmless social norm. Research shows that the exploitation of female sexuality in the media has led to an excessive amount of rapes and other situations where women are taken advantage of. It's not a new concept. Viewing women as subordinate is a cultural stigma that has been around since the inception of the human race. From the days of the Puritans to even yesterday, feminists can easily argue that women have been oppressed through history. The problem is that it is still an integral part of our lives. Look at the Disney movies. Most of the heroines play the damsel in distress just waiting for their prince. This just encourages the idea that women are helpless and weak.
But contrary to popular belief women in history were not all subservient and subordinate, many of them managed success despite having to overcome sexual biases. Elizabeth Blackwell formed the Red Cross. Marie Curie made unparalleled discoveries in radioactivity. Other females have even taken advantage of their sexuality. Marilyn Monroe used her "weakness" and used it to succeed it in a male dominated industry. And even in more recent times, women like Madonna and Miley Cyrus continue to breakthrough cultural norms. They may get criticized but at the same time they achieve their goals.
If we want equality socially and politically we have to be willing to fight for it and go to extremes to challenge social stigmas. Yet it seems as if today, we play the damsel in distress, hoping that congress will come and grant us political equality and all its equal rights. We need to stop playing the victim of the male infested world and take charge. And while we scream for equality do we actually embrace it? Take a look at your personal life. Do you pay on dates? Do you ask guys out? Would you get down on one knee and propose to a man? Are you willing to get past an anti-feminist ideal? People tend to view these social traditions in a different light. No, many people say, romance is different. But is it really? Aren't we creating our own double standard? This double standard seems to be the problem. How can we complain that males judge us on appearance if we judge each other? How can we claim that women are empowered if we can't even run a Sadie Hawkins dance as a result of girls being to scared to ask guys? And looking at the women's draft created last year, how many so called feminists were happy about that? It seems as if many want the benefits without the strings attached. Trying to change the way women are seen in the world is no easy endeavor, but it starts by embracing all aspects of the feminine ideals. As Gandhi said, change begins with one person. So as you contemplate your commitment to the self righteous cause of female equality, you can ask yourself: How feminist are you really?

Fate has it

Fate or Free will? The age old question that continues to haunt human kind: are we in charge of our own destinies? Some like to believe that the choices we make are our own, that nothing but time itself will tell us where we end up. And yet some like to believe that their path is chosen out for them, that no matter what we do the pieces are set and they will fall into their selected places.
In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the entire colony is enamored with the idea of Predestination. A concept that decrees that from the second you are born you are either doomed or saved. This is their fatal flaw. (There is a reason that Puritans are all but extinct.) It holds them back and prevents them from accepting changes that occur in the world. Chillingworth, a once noble man, is turned hideous and deformed by his thirst for revenge. "It has all been a dark necessity...It is our fate. Let the black flower blossom as it may." (Hawthorne 171). His idea of fate hinders him from moving forward with his life. Chillingworth  may believe that it is his fate to die a horrible man or he might be using it as a cover, a excuse for his misdemeanors. Admittedly, fate can also lead us to do good things. How many times have heroes followed their "destinies" to that ever perfect happily ever after. It gives some men hope and a reason to believe even if there isn't one.
Whether good or bad, believing in a destiny prevents us from taking responsibility for our actions. If we think "it was bound to happen anyways" then we lose the ability to change it. Hester can't move on with her life because she is tied down by her fate, or her preconceived notion of her fate. She accepts the role in life given to her instead of moving on and out of Boston.

 In the end, it doesn't matter if we have fate or free will. It matters if we believe that we have the
power to make our decisions and craft our own futures. It's important that we consciously make the decisions that impact our surroundings. It's like the saying, "If it's meant to be, then it will happen." It prevents you from fighting for what you want. It's giving up the steering wheel to be a backseat passenger on your own life. We have to believe we have free will because otherwise we let life take control of us, instead of the other way around. Essentially fate, or the idea of fate, restricts us from being aware of our capabilities.  Giving into a fate is like boxing yourself in a preconceived notion of what you think you can do. We must act as if every decision could change our lives or we cease to live.