AP English Language and Composition classes were all given a satire project to complete with an assigned group. My group members are Alana, Sawania, Clay, Shanjida and Brad. Shanjida took the initiative of creating the google document in order to outline the entire project. So far, I am pretty sure that my group and I have the roles down for the project, that the skit is supposed to convey the aspect of twins obligated to take an SAT as babies. The concept of this is that the higher score gets to stay in the family, but the lower score has to be put up for adoption, which is a ludicrous, but that's the point of satire, isn't it? We are starting to write the script, which consists of the opening for the broadcast news report from Clay, the anchor. We are debating on whether or not to record a video and have a transition from past to present, or to have the transition live in front of our audience.
Michiko Kakutani delineates the concept of political correctness as she despises the movements to attract attention to this subject, as for this does not address important social and political issues. She mentions a store in Washington called "Politically Correct" that sells gear relating to the topic, such as T-shirts, bumper stickers and buttons and that the mascot of Coppertone suntan lotion would be given a male equal, pointing out the extents people go through in order to achieve their desires and to avoid the ridicule of others. She then goes to mention euphemisms in order to address politically correct language, such as saying "ovarimony" instead of "testimony" or "waitron" rather than "waitress". This simply replaces biased words and phrases for the satisfaction of those who are protective of who they are, and what they are. She explains the methods people would go through to promote an inclusive society, so no one would feel ostracized or left out, based on what they are. She then speaks about male superiority in comparison to females such as using 'jockey' as an example, implying the need for change in our norm today. She thinks that this entire notion is completely unnecessary, that if we were going to have this, then we might as well re-title a lot of other books, such as her instance of "All the King's Men" to be re-titled to "All the Ruler's People". Kakutani believes that making these changes would not remove the prejudice that people have, but rather formulate a bias that was initially meant to remove that. The constraint of specific words and phrases was originally devised in order to create a pacifistic society, but rather she believes that it only stirs up more catastrophe and hate and goes against what diversity truly means.
The English language contains a lot of misleading phrases, overused concepts, and unnecessary complex words, all which are leading to the decline of this language. George Orwell claims that what we're doing, in the current circumstances, is that we are overcomplicating this language and the perception in which we use it. Instead of simply stating specific concepts and such, we are making things more difficult and complicated than they need to be. He specifically focuses on the techniques labeled as Dying Metaphors, Verbal False Limbs, Pretentious Diction, and Meaningless Words as evidence in order to support his view on the decline of the English language. Focusing on Dying Metaphors, Orwell makes the claim that they are simply metaphors amongst the English language, to put it simply, they are cliché. However, the ones who incorporate this pompous technique only include them for the sake of implementing them, for the sake of them just being there to take up space or to seem intelligent. They don't understand what the metaphor itself, or the singular words within the metaphor, actually dictate. Also, people aren't original, they don't think for themselves anymore, as for they use these 'dying metaphors' to plagiarize a misconceptualized idea. Today, a dying metaphor such as 'fishing in troubled waters' is used by many, so forth to convey one's expressional or emotional distress, or if they are simply just dictating their past life, whether it be filled with stress, pain, or anything of that sort. I agree with Orwell's point of view that nowadays, people overthink things, which leads to them misconceptualizing ideas and concepts in their pieces. People would put in complex words or phrases in which they don't understand, just so that they can seem smarter, because these are our current standards in society. We would disdain people if they did not speak in a certain way, or if they don't sound intellectual. However, I disagree with Orwell's view that we should speak simpler. Without our complex English language, we wouldn't have a class such as AP English Language today, and we wouldn't have much more, such as legitimate politicians, thousands of novels, and the difficulty to obtain jobs, because the standards today are sophisticated, and well-organized beings, and none of that would be possible if it weren't for how confusing our language is.
The source I have chosen is the article titled Why Affirmative Action No Longer Works by David Frum, who delineates his view on affirmative action. Affirmative action is the act of inflicting benefits and advantages onto the people who suffer from discrimination, in order to boost them education-wise and employment-wise. Frum believed this policy as a 'compensation' for the discriminated, for the ones who were subjected to unjust racial remarks, so they could pursue what they wanted to do with everything being a fair game, but it turns out in society today, this action is anything but fair. Frum incorporates logos and anecdotes in order to convey his claim that the implementation of affirmative action was successful in the past, but in society today, circumstances have changed and now there is no need for it anymore. For instance, he included the statistic that one in six Americans marry someone who does not share their ethnicity with the spouse. This exemplifies the concept that we currently lack discrimination and nowadays we are more prone to be color-blind, that we don't mind someone's race or ethnicity as we did in the past. This is saying that we don't have a preference for people when it comes to one's color, disdainment in the past is not the same as what we have today, so why should affirmative action still be intact? Frum also included the fact that a Nigerian general can receive the same opportunities and treatment as an El Salvadorian immigrant and females as a whole, which speaks that our systems have changed immensely as over five decades passed. Affirmative action 'no longer works' because people are no longer discriminated due to the color of their skin or what their ethnicity on paper says, they are now considered for their efforts in what they do. David Frum believes that rather than being judged someone's race, people should be judged on their class. I agree with Frum's argument on affirmative action, that an advantage on education and employment should not be in effect. People who work extremely hard for their future may fall short because another person might take their spot, solely because of their race, which is unfair. Affirmative action should not be taken place because it can alter a lot of people's futures in an unjust perspective, someone should not have a boost because of what they are, but who they are. If anything, affirmative action is only creating a problem, rather than solving it, since they are only bringing up a problem of discrimination that does not exist.
~Jessica Wong
Is Donald Trump the friend Israel Needs?
The article I have chosen discusses the disdainment of race and gender due to a place's own language and culture. Donald Trump won the Presidential Election of 2016, and with this power he is soon to grasp, he wants to take the side of Israel. He planned to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, however this entails a withdrawal of Israeli sovereignty to be sinful, one of the reasons being that potential violence can erupt. Since forty percent of Israel considers themselves secular, their attitudes are reflected amongst their own cultures and beliefs. Trump professed his so-called 'friendship' with Israel, which further increased the extremist movements in Israel, even though he considers himself to be a true friend, all it did was increase the suspicion on him. The correlation is that Trump's language is only insulting to the Israelian culture and race, because it questions the stability of the nation and their believes, take for example Zionism. Zionism is, for example, a rhetoric, as for it revolves around independence and free-will, its plan is to build a modern Hebrew-speaking civil society. This is the importance of race on language, because the way people speak can alter the way advocates or politicians are seen, such as Donald Trump. His character is questioned because of the friendship he cared to develop with Israel. As for gender, the article reflects on nothing specifically about women, which shows that women are particularly neglected when it comes to topics like this. When it comes to politics or world issues, women don't have a voice, everyone in the article mentioned were men, such as Mr. Kerry and David M. Friedman. This may be one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the election, which tells us that due to the disdainment of gender, the future of our nation could be different, and the same goes with racial and linguistic issues.
~Jessica Wong
