To Wiki or not to Wiki?

Even before 9/11 and the racial profiling of Arabs at airports, there was the running joke that one could be pulled over for a "DWB," or driving while black. This is a popular topic for many comedians who often spin-off the subject, discussing other racial discriminations in the U.S. Wikipedia, ever reflecting the society which created it, also contains an article with the title, "Driving While Black," which effectively breaks down the topic into neat, objective points. Of course, scholars are loathe to credit it as a valid source, because of the fact that all the articles are contributed by readers, often times without citation. I found the article about "DWB" to be a high quality source mainly because it was a) objective in its description, and b) had many cross references to pop-culture where the term was discussed. I do not think that using the article as a source would be appropriate, even if it had all the necessary citations, but I do think it could be useful in providing some factual information, as well as the culture references which could themselves be used as sources. I do not believe that Wikipedia will ever be accepted as a viable source for writers to cite, but I do think that there are many high quality articles in the database that can still prove useful to students by giving them more leads to follow.

Prompt #4: Ideal good life

Choosing one celebrity as having my ideal life is fairly difficult, as many celebrities live a life of comfort and luxury that I would like to have. On one hand, part of me idealizes some professional athletes, as I would love to be able to play a sport as my job and enjoy all the financial benefits that go along with it, but at the same time, many professional athletes have chaotic personal lives, or squandor their money (i.e. Mike Tyson). Not that I would make those same decisions, but if we are looking at a specific person whose life we would wish to emulate, it would not be most pro athletes for me. While this may be a cliché choice, I would have to say that Bill Gates would be the celebrity whose life I admire the most. Not simply because of his obscenely large fortune (although that is a factor), but also the fact that is the epitome of a self-made man. Going from a college dropout, to starting your own company in your garage, to one of, if not the, richest man in the world is impressive to say the least. The one other aspect of his life that I admire is the fact that he has essentially retired from his CEO role, but still continues his philanthropic endeavors. Personally, I do not feel that celebrities owe anything to society, but to see a man who could never earn a dime the rest of his life and still have more money than some countries not simply rest on his laurels but put his wealth to good use is enough to make a self-admitted individualist like myself feel at least a little inspired.

Prompt #3: Innovative Analysis

When certain controversial topics come up, such as racism, the same areas are discussed over and over. What both Hurston and Langston Hughes do to make their approaches innovative is to take new approaches that have never really been considered before. Hughes discusses racism in "Bop," through a conversation about black music actually being spawned from racism. IT is not a new concept to discuss how whites did not understand or appreciate early black music, but Hughes goes so far as to say that they didn't understand because they did not understand what is was like to beaten because of your color. The idea that black music comes as a result of racism is also not really new, after all the first black music was the spirituals that slaves sang in the fields. However, this approach gives racism a much more active role, saying that the sounds of a club hitting a black man's head created the sounds of Be-Bop. Hurston also uses music to illustrate the barrier between blacks and whites. Although she does not say that black music was created from racism, she does use the same idea that whites cannot appreciate it the same way blacks can. In the scene at the jazz bar, her white friend enjoys the music, but his quiet finger-tapping does not compare to the blast of primal emotions that Hurston feels when she listens to jazz. Just like in Hughes's example, whites may like black music, but because they cannot truly grasp where it came from, whether from police beatings or inspired by African tribal music, they cannot fully appreciate it like blacks can. By using music to illustrate the difference in both the origins of whites and blacks, and their vastly different experiences, Hughes and Hurston create and innovative approach to racism that goes beyond just the physical differences.

Prompt #2

Martin Luther King Jr. discussed the elimination of the idea of an "outside agitator," arguing that we ar all bound by common destiny and mutual fate. Perhaps this is true for our nation, and I doubt anyone would disagree with his idea that anyone who lives within the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. However, some people take this idea further, arguing that we are duty bound to give whatever aid we can globally. Why is it that we owe these people? It makes sense that we pay taxes to support our own country; our government protects us and gives us services, and we in turn are dutiful citizens. But what links us to the rest of the human race? That line of thinking is paritally responsible for wars such as Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. Both of these conflicts also had ulterior political motives, but what was their selling point to the public? That we are helping to liberate the oppressed people. These are extreme examples, but they show how thinking that are somehow obligated to help everyone who we deem in need of it can be dangerous to our national well-being. On a smaller scale, many people feel that we are morally bound to help those in need in our own country. In some cases, such as Katrina, yes we should feel an obligation to our countrymen, and also to help revive one of our nation's major cities. But in other cases, such as giving money to the homeless, there is no mutual benefit. Of course its not really a sacrifice to give whatever spare change you have to a vagrant, and I do it too occasionally, but my argument is more against those who say we should or we have to give to the poor. We owe to the community only what it gives to us, and vice versa. As individuals, we cannot expect handouts or free rides to fall into our laps without putting forth any effort, and at the same time, we have no extra obligations to the community. This may seem cold and selfish, but all too often moral obligation is used as a weapon, to guilt us into sacrificing or giving when there really is no obligation. And to those who say we have to sacrifice because as humans we all share some bond, why not then give everything you have to charity and live as simply as possible? Some people do this, and I admire them, but I do not wish to emulate them, and the rest are hypocrites who think that giving a couple hundred dollars to charity somehow gives them a moral high ground.

Prompt One: The Unquestioned Life

The standard cliché response to this question is that of course it is wrong not to question anything, then how can you be truly happy or know yourself or something similar to that. I think that when someone reads this question, this becomes an automatic response because the term "ignorance" is used. No one wants to be ignorant, it has a negative connotation, and as students, we have been taught that it is always better to have more knowledge. Mark Twain talked about only following your feelings for what the majority would consider to be right, and not forming your own independant opinions. And for the most part, it is true that this is the wrong course. Think where the world would be today if no one had ever questioned the status quo and gone along with the majority. The term, "revolution" as we know it would cease to exist, along with the notion of democracy and our own country. So, yes questioning public opinion is a good thing, we should not go through life as lemmings, being lead off a cliff because everyone else is. However, I don't buy the notion that we need to truly "know ourselves" in order to life fully. There are several examples where you really do not want to know the truth. Do you really want to know what goes into a hot dog? Or how about if your significant other was unfaithful many years ago but it was only once and now he or she loves you dearly? What about if you had a genetic disorder causing you to become a paranoid schizophrenic when you reached a certain age? Would you really want to know if that was going to happen or live the remainder of your sane years as a happy person. Now, of course, some people are going to disagree and say they would like to know these things (these are most likely also the same people who have the automatic reaction to the question that I stated at the beginining of this post). They want to know exactly what they are eating, they want to know any past indiscretion their lover may have had, they want to know exactly what is going to happen to them. Socrates said that we should truly examine everything, but I would argue that these people would eventually become cynics and not take joy out of anything because they have to know the whole truth about everything. It is a natural tendency of people to want to have the illusion of happiness, even if deep down they know it is a deception. What, exactly, is so wrong with not looking outside your bubble of comfort? In Socrates's argument, he claimed that people who did not subject their life to constant examination would be blind to what is truly important in life, but isn't what is truly important subject to each individual? I disagree with the moral obligation argument or the argument that we have some sort of purpose or role to fullfil in life. If you can manage to life a reasonably comfortable life and die a happy person then that is all that you can ask. There is no way to live "correctly," simply live however you need to to reach your own goals. Questioning is a good thing, we should never simply take things at face value because we feel the public opinion says it is right, however we should also recognize that in certain instances, ignorance is bliss, and spending your time looking for every ugly little truth can leave you just as empty inside as the lemmings who are lead off the cliff.