Tuesday, October 25, 2011
This was a good movie. I liked how the director made me feel bad for this little girl. She knew what she had to do and she was ready to take on her challenges. The girl playing Pei I think does a very good job of making people feel what her character is feeling. The grandmother I think could have been a little bit more emotional when she notices that Pei is missing and could have done a better crying act. The grandfather does a good job of acting stone cold towards his granddaughter, and making the transition to a much softer person when he sees her riding the whale.
The film Whale Rider is a great film. I have always been taught to be a strong man. A warrior or chief like the boys in the village but I also learned to respect strong women. This film shows how Paikea pushed through adversity and kept her chin high. She had to fight for her acceptance and to be recognized and loved by her grandfather. She is knocked down several times but stands up again. This film has a great feel to it and is a good movie for a saturday afternoon. Id recommend it to my family and friends.
This film is extremely interesting and shows you that no matter what happens or who tells you not do do something don't listen and follow your heart and be brave. She is probably one of the most bravest girls i know i mean at her age who says "I'm ready to die" crazy like a boss she has my respect to save her people and the whales she was ready to giver her own life great movie.
This movie is definitely a “Have to see.” I really enjoyed this film. It was very interesting and I loved the way Paikea never gave up. It stood out to me because anything a man can do, a woman can do also. I also liked the fact that she showed her grandfather that tradition isn’t always right. She then believed in her heart she was the chief. I would definitely love to see this movie again.
“Whale Rider” begins when a young woman is giving birth. The woman gives birth to a set of twins (a boy and a girl), one of which (the boy) dies. The mother also dies. The death of the male baby spells trouble for the community of Whangara because the first-born, who has always been male, is considered Paikea’s direct descendant. These descendants are destined to be the new chief. From that moment, Koro, the twins’s grandfather, believes that the community of Whangara is doomed.
As Pai grows older, she believes herself to be destined to be the new chief. However, due to Koro’s belief in tradition, she has to fight him all the way through. Koro assembles an all-male school designed to teach the boys the old ways of their people, and hopes to eventually find his chief. Pai hides and watches the lessons, attempting to learn from her observations. Unfortunately for her, Koro catches her many times and she believes that he has begun to despise her.
When Koro has lost all hope, he calls unto their ancestors for help, but they do not listen. In an attempt to help, Pai calls unto them as well and is successful. However, her success isn’t what she’d hoped for. The whales from the ocean wash up onto the beach and all begin to die. When the people can’t get them back into the water, it is up to Pai to take action and try to save the whales, as well as her people.
I really enjoyed watching this film. It was interesting to see the different traditions of their people. I always find it somewhat interesting to how different other cultures are from ours. Just the little things that they do differently stood out to me. For example, when the people greet each other, they touch noses in a sort of embrace. In our culture, I feel that would be extremely uncomfortable. I also really liked Nanny. I enjoyed how she let Koro believe he was the boss, but really she was in more control than he would have imagined. She was a very strong woman. All in all, this was a very good film and I think I would enjoy watching it again sometime.
This movie deserves two thumbs up from me. I felt that this movie truly sent out a message to all girls that may have to deal with something like this. Women are always discriminated against because of who they are. Women are aloud to do anything a man wants or thinks he can do. Paikea showed to her grandfather that tradition is also not always right. Certain things in a family line aren't always made for a man. I can relate to this movie alot. I am so happy to have been able to watch this.
Your WP 3 assignment sheet states that your Rough Draft is due tomorrow for peer review. However, I'm not sure we're there yet, and I want to discuss your summaries more before you turn it in. Lucky for you all, this gives you till Monday to continue drafting, visit the Writing Center, and ask questions in class about this very complex paper topic.
In the mean time, keep preparing for our Practice Debate tomorrow, and we'll hammer out the draft details tomorrow.
With editors for many text books trying to write out that they were religious is almost elephant dung. I really do think that they had their religion influence them in writing the constitution but that doesn't mean that they were trying to enforce it on others. They took accountability towards everyone's religion.
The First Amendment stating that it doesn't keep state and the church separated. But it does keep the government from invading on the affairs and likes of the church.
Whatever our Founding Fathers believed shouldn't necessarily affect us or hinder us in todays world.
It has been around two hundred years since the constitution was written and states of change are always in play. If our nation were to become a nation of church. There would be uprisings. If we were a nation of pure government and limited church, still there would be uprisings. There needs to be an equilibrium but it seems that will probably be an ongoing case of "whimsical fuckery" in courtrooms, board meetings and congress.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Based on this reading I have to protest and take a firm stance against the Texas Board of Education changing the social studies curriculum because the changes were made unethically. America is considered the melting pot, this includes religion, therefore by making a Christian curriculum you are hurting students whom don’t believe in the faith nor want to learn about the faith itself.
The way I feel about this is that they should seperate religion from state. I my self go to church on Sundays and I respect the religions but some people want to keep their belifs seperate. It's just the way of America not everyone wants to read upon it everyday. They read upon it on their own. Texas revisers aren't thinking of the other side, they seem to be doing what they feel is right. Yes they have to hire workers to look over their revisions but those workers may just be on their side.
This article is about putting by not separating church and state and combining the Christian faith in with the student’s social studies books. That these new guidelines will affect grades from kindergarten till twelfth grades. Many people are against the vote to put Christianity into books just because of their thoughts on gay marriage, abortion and government spending. They also want to say that the United States was found devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. A big problem was the process of revising the social studies guidelines was the desire of the board to stress American acceptance. David Barton states that students should be taught the following principles that there is a fixed moral law derived from god and nature, there is a creator, the creator gives to man certain unalienable rights, etc. these right were taken from the Declaration of Independence. By March 3 all the decisions on Texas curriculum will be history.
Putting the Christian belief into the curriculum is a dictates religion saying that the United States was founded by a bunch of Christians by changing the components of history itself. They might as well just change the whole entire outcome of everything not just the science and the social studies books all of them so they everything would just be the way Texas curriculum wants it to be.
The article "How Christians Were the Founders" illustrated how the Texas Board of Education is editing textbooks in order to shine more light on religion. Currently, conservatives are trying to put a heavy emphasis on Christianity in the classroom. The Board members aren't changing public schools into church houses, but there is much controversy over some of the amendments passed in order to change Social Studies and History textbooks. A lot of the changes deal with religious issues in current history text books and how, in the eyes of the Republican Party, textbooks today do not have enough emphasis on religion.
Some of these amendment changes vary from calling creationism a theory to how "The United Stated was founded by devout Christians." (McLeroy 91) One of the conservative persons that is trying to change curriculum and believes he's smarter than historians is dentist Don McLeroy. He is saying bias things like "There are two basic facts about man, he was created in the image of god, and he has fallen." He says that the founding fathers recognized this, but that is irrelevant to how our country was formed. Even if our fathers were heavily Christian which in some ways the founding fathers were: Missionaries, Imprinting God's name on currency, etc.) it doesn't mean we should exclude other religions. In my opinion, if religion is going to be taught in the classroom (which I think children should be familiarized with it), all varieties of religion should be taught. I think it is selfish to want to teach religion in the classroom, but only focus on one because the old white men who founded our country happened to all be Christian.
The text “How Christian Were the Founders?” gives detail about how the different discourse communities (Christians, Jews, housewives, naval officers, professors, and many others) view the teachings of the current social studies curriculum. These people were meeting to give their input on what should be taught. As you would have it, each community is partial to his/her own community’s people. For example, one elderly Hispanic man told the Texas State Board of Education insists, “Please keep Cèsar Chávez.” With each person’s bias, how is the board to decide what goes into the textbooks and what stays out?
Unfortunately, not only are those giving their piece bias, but so are those of the Texas State Board of Education. Don McLeroy, he who dominated the board’s meeting, has been moving for amendments in the curriculum all the way through. McLeroy is a dentist, but claims that he’s read a lot about history. The text states, “The injection of partisan politics into education went so far that at one point another Republican board member burst out in seemingly embarrassed exasperation, ‘Guys, you’re rewriting history now!’” This shows how the bias of the different discourse communities is not only excluding historical events from history but rewriting them entirely. Still, the majority of McLeroy’s amendments passed in a vote held across the board.
The specific argument among the people, reported in this text, was whether or not the founders of America intended for the United States to be a “Christian Nation.” Those who are Christian like to believe this is true and attempt to prove so by insisting, “But Christianity has had a deep impact on our system. The men who wrote the Constitution were Christians who knew the Bible. Our idea of individual rights comes from the Bible. The Western development of the free-market system owes a lot to biblical principles.” These people believe that America’s system of government derives from teachings of the Bible and also point out that no “wall of separation” was ever officially published in any government documents. The Christian activists also assert that in school, science teachers should cover the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. They argue that “to bring Christianity into the coverage of American history is not, from their perspective revisionism but rather an uncovering of truths that have been suppressed.”
David Barton is a nonacademic expert who is nationally known as the leader of WallBuilders, who aims to “present America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.” Barton urged the Texas school board that students should be taught principles that derive directly from the Declaration of Independence. These principles are: “1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature. 2. There is a Creator. 3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights. 4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual. 5. Below God-given rights and moral laws, government is directed by the consent of the governed.”
Another expert, Daniel L. Dreisbach, a professor of justice, law and society at American University recommends to the guideline writers that “the founders were overwhelmingly Christian; that the deistic tendencies of a few-like Jefferson- were an anomaly; and that most Americans in the era were not Christians but that ‘98 percent or more of Americans of European descent identified with Protestantism.’” Thus proving the Christians who believed America to be a “Christian Nation” wrong. Richard Brookhiser, the traditionalist columnist and author of books on Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington reports, “The founders were not as Christian as those people would like them to be, though they weren’t as secularist as Christopher Hitchens would like them to be.” Basically, each argument presented is biased in the opinion of he who presents it.
The text states that McLeroy met with the publishers to discuss that Christians wanted books to include classic myths and fables as opposed to newly written stories whose messages they didn’t agree with. McLeroy states, “I met with all the publishers. We went out for Mexican food. I told them this is what we want. We want stories with morals, not P.C. stories.” The text goes on to state that McLeroy showed an e-mail message from an executive at Pearson stating, “Hi Don. Thanks for the impact that you have had on the development of Pearson’s Scott Foresman Reading Street series. Attached is a list of some of the Fairy Tales and Fables that we included in the series.” McLeroy didn’t even appear to have a valid reasoning as to why these changes should take place. The Christian activists wanted these changes because they didn’t agree with them, not because they were what was factual. Still, they were taken into consideration and made their way into the textbooks.
I feel that every argument being presented is biased. The only ones that are not biased are those of the experts. Now, why might that be? I would think this is because a fact can’t be argued. History is all about the facts. This is what the social studies curriculum should be based on. If it’s factual, it should be covered. Of course, the length of a term is not far long enough to learn all of the information, so the more cultural impacting events should be covered more than those that are not so relevant. I feel that the board members voting on what goes into the curriculum shouldn’t even have a say. Being a self-proclaimed expert does not make you an expert. When it comes to the social studies curriculum, who should you believe, those who have an education in the subject or a dentist with a little reading? Think about it, would you trust the professors of justice, law and society to give you a root-canal?
I believe that they are trying to force their religion on everyone. They need to know that not everyone believes in the same faith. I quote the textbook, “The Christian “truth” about America’s founding has long been taught in Christian schools, but not beyond.” I believe that the reason for stopping the studies at Christian schools is because we have Freedom of Religion. Christian schools are a part of the school system but they are also allowed to have teachings of the bible. As for public schools that are funded by the government and don’t interpret a lot of religion in their studies. Instead of learning about Baby Jesus, we learn about how some guys sailed across the ocean and found this country. It has been like this for a long time and nothing has gone wrong. We have been trying to maintain a separation of church and state. But the people who are proposing that Christians founded the country are trying to disrupt the balance. And as a personal opinion I don’t see why we should change anything now. Just because a few people think that should add more information about their religion. Yes, I understand that they feel very strongly about their religion but I think that if they do add more Christianity information in the textbooks, they should also add more information about the Native Americans’ culture and beliefs, and don’t forget the Hispanics, the African Americans. They shouldn’t just favor one religion or one historical leader. Don’t let the winners write all the history. Yes, I know that the winners always write the history and I don’t think this will change. Before I read the passage I didn’t think much about a suggestion declared by a lady. I strongly support this lady’s idea. In the passage a woman says that, “Sikhism is the fifth-largest religion in the world and should be included in the curriculum.” Honestly, I thought that we shouldn’t take anything out or put anything in. And that is where I left this argument, I didn’t think outside the box nor did I consider other ideas. Why don’t they just add everybody in the textbooks? I know there will be conflict but why not give them what they want and give us what we want. If we do add everyone in the book then we will truly balance everything out.
From the time that we are young, we are taught to look at everything, every situation, and every conflict from both sides. So we can see from other people’s point of view. I understand that Christianity is their faith and I would urge them to continue believing in their faith. But I believe strongly in my Native traditions and Catholicism. I would like for everyone to learn a little bit of information about my Native beliefs and how my people were told that the world came about. Why? Because I believe this is the way everything happen. But I know that everyone has their own beliefs and I shouldn’t be conceded and want to push my values and beliefs on everyone else.
But all in all the author of, “How Christian Were the Founders?” has some good points to make about both sides of the argument. I do admire the title of his most recent book, “Descartes ’Bones: A Skeletal History of the Conflict Between Faith and Reason.” I didn’t understand the title until we had a classroom discussion on it. And now I understand that he was simply saying that faith is the absent of reason. But ain’t that what religion is all about. To be your last resort when all else fails.