What are some important new ideas raised by your classmates that helped you better
understand significant ideas from the novel? How did writing blog postings help
or not in this process?
My classmates helped me to agree with my own beliefs, while others caused me to rethink them. Although I was able to understand and accept the opinions and input of others, I can't say that anyone caused me to change my own opinions and thoughts.
Classmates and outsiders that caused me to rethink my beliefs questioned my views on our government connecting to 1984. This rethinking occured specifically while discussing phone tapping and the US. The ideas of others helped not only to back up my own beliefs, but also to understand how our world today could possibly connect to Oceania.
Writing blog postings helped me in this process because, while reading the responses of others, I felt more energized and flowing with ideas for my next posting.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Part 2: Threats to Freedom
What have you learned about the threats to individual freedoms we face today?
Can you see parallels to our world and government today?
I've had to address the threats to individual freedoms we face today several times throughout this unit.
I've learned that some US citizens see our government's methods of protecting us as invasion of individual freedoms. As I have mentioned in other posts, I do not agree that actions such as phone tapping pose as threats to our individual freedoms, although I understand how other US citizens could construe this action as such. Our government taps into various conversations between its citizens and other nations. This action is taken in order to apprehend terrorists and gain information about future attacks. This action can be connected to "telescreens"; much like "telescreens", phone tapping allows the government to hear your conversations.
Orwell's warnings may be very valid, in a government that has no concern for its citizens and no restrictions that prevent the country from turning into an Oceania. I, unlike others, do not see any strong threats to my individual freedoms today, therefore, I find it virtually impossible to connect 1984 to our world today.
Can you see parallels to our world and government today?
I've had to address the threats to individual freedoms we face today several times throughout this unit.
I've learned that some US citizens see our government's methods of protecting us as invasion of individual freedoms. As I have mentioned in other posts, I do not agree that actions such as phone tapping pose as threats to our individual freedoms, although I understand how other US citizens could construe this action as such. Our government taps into various conversations between its citizens and other nations. This action is taken in order to apprehend terrorists and gain information about future attacks. This action can be connected to "telescreens"; much like "telescreens", phone tapping allows the government to hear your conversations.
Orwell's warnings may be very valid, in a government that has no concern for its citizens and no restrictions that prevent the country from turning into an Oceania. I, unlike others, do not see any strong threats to my individual freedoms today, therefore, I find it virtually impossible to connect 1984 to our world today.
Part 1: Warnings
What warnings is the author trying to make? Where in the novel do these warnings come through?
Throughout 1984, George Orwell tries to get across many warnings about how governments can suppress individual freedoms.
One warning presented is the way government can prevent you from forming your own opinions. In 1984, the Party brainwashed "comrades" into believing things like "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." (Book 1, pg. 16) These phrases were considered "doublethink" which demonstrates that the Party could convince you of things that couldn't possibly be true. Also, "Two Minutes Hate" contributed to the brainwashing of citizens into believing that rebels were enemies. Furthermore, "Thought Police" scared people into thinking what they were told to think, for fear of punishment. Finally, citizens who attempted to keep an ounce of actual truth left in Oceania were put in cells and tortured, but if released, were brainwashed into trying to willingly believe the Party's teachings; this too constricted them from having their own opinions.
Orwell presents the idea of government invading personal space or violating personal rights. Having "telescreens" forced government control into the homes of Oceania's citizens. The "telescreens" decided the exact time workers for the Party had to wake up, yelled at them to do their excercises, and had the ability to hear and see citizens' every move. This idea has been connected to phone tapping that occurs in our country today. According to the opionion of some, this phone tapping is exactly the sort of thing Orwell was trying to warn us about.
Although harder to notice, another warning peresented by Orwell was the idea of citizens being slowly brainwashed into believing whatever their government told them. I came across this idea during other postings. I found, and still find it, hard to believe that people could be so oblivious to such changes occurring. The gradual changes that the Party made to history and the small bits of power gained accumulated to the dystopia that Winston had to live in. In this way, the author tried to warn readers that such a situation could develop in our world, without us even notice it happening.
Throughout 1984, George Orwell tries to get across many warnings about how governments can suppress individual freedoms.
One warning presented is the way government can prevent you from forming your own opinions. In 1984, the Party brainwashed "comrades" into believing things like "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength." (Book 1, pg. 16) These phrases were considered "doublethink" which demonstrates that the Party could convince you of things that couldn't possibly be true. Also, "Two Minutes Hate" contributed to the brainwashing of citizens into believing that rebels were enemies. Furthermore, "Thought Police" scared people into thinking what they were told to think, for fear of punishment. Finally, citizens who attempted to keep an ounce of actual truth left in Oceania were put in cells and tortured, but if released, were brainwashed into trying to willingly believe the Party's teachings; this too constricted them from having their own opinions.
Orwell presents the idea of government invading personal space or violating personal rights. Having "telescreens" forced government control into the homes of Oceania's citizens. The "telescreens" decided the exact time workers for the Party had to wake up, yelled at them to do their excercises, and had the ability to hear and see citizens' every move. This idea has been connected to phone tapping that occurs in our country today. According to the opionion of some, this phone tapping is exactly the sort of thing Orwell was trying to warn us about.
Although harder to notice, another warning peresented by Orwell was the idea of citizens being slowly brainwashed into believing whatever their government told them. I came across this idea during other postings. I found, and still find it, hard to believe that people could be so oblivious to such changes occurring. The gradual changes that the Party made to history and the small bits of power gained accumulated to the dystopia that Winston had to live in. In this way, the author tried to warn readers that such a situation could develop in our world, without us even notice it happening.
?
Upon completing 1984, my first thought was, "?".
I didn't think, "what?"; I didn't think,"weird..."; I didn't think,"George Orwell's a freak."...I just thought, "?"...if it's possible to think in terms of punctuation.
Why did I think that? Well, after reading pages and pages that lead me to think in terms of rebellion and good overpowering evil, I never imagined an ending like that.
Most of Book 3 seemed to paint a picture of torture, betrayl, and failure (if you ask me), but Books 1 and 2 made it seem like Winston was going to be able to start something more that would contribute to the downfall of the dystopian society. After holding out for awhile, Winston still betrays Julia, and furthermore, ends up trying to accept the beliefs of the party. Doesn't that kind of make all of his previous efforts and opinions useless?
Blame Disney movies, and all of those childhood stories read to me that always had happy endings because this ending seemed uncalled for.
I didn't think, "what?"; I didn't think,"weird..."; I didn't think,"George Orwell's a freak."...I just thought, "?"...if it's possible to think in terms of punctuation.
Why did I think that? Well, after reading pages and pages that lead me to think in terms of rebellion and good overpowering evil, I never imagined an ending like that.
Most of Book 3 seemed to paint a picture of torture, betrayl, and failure (if you ask me), but Books 1 and 2 made it seem like Winston was going to be able to start something more that would contribute to the downfall of the dystopian society. After holding out for awhile, Winston still betrays Julia, and furthermore, ends up trying to accept the beliefs of the party. Doesn't that kind of make all of his previous efforts and opinions useless?
Blame Disney movies, and all of those childhood stories read to me that always had happy endings because this ending seemed uncalled for.
Friday, May 25, 2007
My first post
While I'm in the mood, I'd like to refer back to my first posting. It has, for some reason or another, become an object of discussion here as well as on my actual post. Not that I really mind, I like attention, but I feel like it deserves some more explanation.
The most controversial line in that posting was, "I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange."
I had 3 people tell me that they agreed with my post, but I'm not really addressing their comments here, I'd rather explain myself to those who don't understand.
Personally, I think that it comes down to politics; whether or not you agree with our government's phone-tapping. I believe that, in order to protect its citizens, our country has the right to intrude on some of our freedoms. Mr. Burell suggested that I search for, " domestic surveillance wiretapping Bush" while Teddy said, "What I do not completely agree with Bekah on is when she says, 'I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange.' I do not agree with this completely because our own president of the United States of America is allowing people to listen into our own conversation on the phone, computer, etc." It seems that others are concerned that our country will overstep its boundaries, and although it was trying to protect us at first, it will enjoy its control and begin to abuse its power---->if my analysis of others (which may mean you) is completely off, please feel free to let me know.
I also think you're probably watching too much CNN if you think that the government can listen to anybody's phone calls. Unless you're making phone calls outside of the country, the government cannot, in fact, listen to your phone conversations. I did a tiny bit of research and found a BBC News article about Bush defending wire-tapping, "Mr Bush emphasised that only international calls were monitored without a court order - those originating in the US, or those placed from overseas to individuals living in the US." Honestly, is that really so intrusive on our rights? Seriously, answer that question.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4542880.stm
Oh right, I'm suppossed to be discussing a book. George Orwell was trying to warn us of what we might become, but his warning was a bit extreme. Is it possible that our country in its current position could become that bad? I'd say no. Why? Well right now we have enough rights and our country doesn't have enough control over its citizens to put us in such a predicament. If you were to tell me that in 10 years our country could be like Winston's, then I'd believe you. It's not that I'm paranoid, but I think that 10 years is enough time for our leadership to change and enough brainwashing to occur for us to become like Oceania. As long as President Bush is in power, I believe that we have enough protection to keep us from such a situation. However, next year, elections are coming and, with some unpromising candidates, it's possible that our government could become so extreme (although I doubt it).
The most controversial line in that posting was, "I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange."
I had 3 people tell me that they agreed with my post, but I'm not really addressing their comments here, I'd rather explain myself to those who don't understand.
Personally, I think that it comes down to politics; whether or not you agree with our government's phone-tapping. I believe that, in order to protect its citizens, our country has the right to intrude on some of our freedoms. Mr. Burell suggested that I search for, " domestic surveillance wiretapping Bush" while Teddy said, "What I do not completely agree with Bekah on is when she says, 'I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange.' I do not agree with this completely because our own president of the United States of America is allowing people to listen into our own conversation on the phone, computer, etc." It seems that others are concerned that our country will overstep its boundaries, and although it was trying to protect us at first, it will enjoy its control and begin to abuse its power---->if my analysis of others (which may mean you) is completely off, please feel free to let me know.
I also think you're probably watching too much CNN if you think that the government can listen to anybody's phone calls. Unless you're making phone calls outside of the country, the government cannot, in fact, listen to your phone conversations. I did a tiny bit of research and found a BBC News article about Bush defending wire-tapping, "Mr Bush emphasised that only international calls were monitored without a court order - those originating in the US, or those placed from overseas to individuals living in the US." Honestly, is that really so intrusive on our rights? Seriously, answer that question.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4542880.stm
Oh right, I'm suppossed to be discussing a book. George Orwell was trying to warn us of what we might become, but his warning was a bit extreme. Is it possible that our country in its current position could become that bad? I'd say no. Why? Well right now we have enough rights and our country doesn't have enough control over its citizens to put us in such a predicament. If you were to tell me that in 10 years our country could be like Winston's, then I'd believe you. It's not that I'm paranoid, but I think that 10 years is enough time for our leadership to change and enough brainwashing to occur for us to become like Oceania. As long as President Bush is in power, I believe that we have enough protection to keep us from such a situation. However, next year, elections are coming and, with some unpromising candidates, it's possible that our government could become so extreme (although I doubt it).
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
How?
How did things get to be so bad; how is it that an entire population is convinced that things are acceptable the way they are? Okay, I take that back...Winston isn't convinced that things are all right. Even if no one is convinced that their way of living is acceptable; why is it that no one is taking measures to change it?
I have a feeling that Winston is going to risk his life in order to fix the situation, but if he's not, then I'm quite confused as to why things are the way they are.
I guess my question can be answered by situations like the Jewish Haulocaust; gradual dystopianizement (a word of my own invention, obviously).
All I can say is, I hope this situation never develops in our world.
I have a feeling that Winston is going to risk his life in order to fix the situation, but if he's not, then I'm quite confused as to why things are the way they are.
I guess my question can be answered by situations like the Jewish Haulocaust; gradual dystopianizement (a word of my own invention, obviously).
All I can say is, I hope this situation never develops in our world.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."
One of the questions in the 1984 packet inquired what the quote (pg. 35, part 1, chapter 3) meant. I, myself, am quite puzzled by George Orwell's words. What does the quote mean?" 'Who controls the past,' ran the party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' "
I'd easily say that no one can control the past, because the past is behind us...you can't change what's already happened. Also, upon first glance, I would say that the "who" described is non-existent.After some discussion with my teacher and some personal thought, I've found that my first impressions about this quote were all wrong; there is a "who" that can control the past/present/future.
First off, how do you change the past? Well, like in 1984, you can make it disappear; erase history. That brings the next question; how do you erase history? To erase history, you prevent people who don't know anything about it from ever finding out, and then you brainwash people possessing any personal recollections into believing whatever you want them to believe occurred in the past.
With that answered; why is it that the person that can control the past can control the future? How about an example?I
went to school yesterday. Now let's say that today, Joe Schmo tells me that I didn't go to school yesterday, but skipped school to go to Six Flags. If he can control the past by convincing me that I went to Six Flags; then couldn't he continue to do that every day, meaning that he controls the future? That's sort of hard to follow, but I can't think of an easier way to put it.
Unfortunately, there's still one more part: how is it that the person that can control the present can control the past? Well if you can control the past, you can control the future, and if you control the present you can control the past...confusing. I think that it's because the person can control the past that they can control the present and the future.
Strange/confused way of thinking, but I think I get it?
(ever wonder why there's a question mark after "bekah's thoughts"? Probably because sometimes I don't really even understand what I'm thinking)
Before anyone asks...I do realize that the "person" could be "people".
I'd easily say that no one can control the past, because the past is behind us...you can't change what's already happened. Also, upon first glance, I would say that the "who" described is non-existent.After some discussion with my teacher and some personal thought, I've found that my first impressions about this quote were all wrong; there is a "who" that can control the past/present/future.
First off, how do you change the past? Well, like in 1984, you can make it disappear; erase history. That brings the next question; how do you erase history? To erase history, you prevent people who don't know anything about it from ever finding out, and then you brainwash people possessing any personal recollections into believing whatever you want them to believe occurred in the past.
With that answered; why is it that the person that can control the past can control the future? How about an example?I
went to school yesterday. Now let's say that today, Joe Schmo tells me that I didn't go to school yesterday, but skipped school to go to Six Flags. If he can control the past by convincing me that I went to Six Flags; then couldn't he continue to do that every day, meaning that he controls the future? That's sort of hard to follow, but I can't think of an easier way to put it.
Unfortunately, there's still one more part: how is it that the person that can control the present can control the past? Well if you can control the past, you can control the future, and if you control the present you can control the past...confusing. I think that it's because the person can control the past that they can control the present and the future.
Strange/confused way of thinking, but I think I get it?
(ever wonder why there's a question mark after "bekah's thoughts"? Probably because sometimes I don't really even understand what I'm thinking)
Before anyone asks...I do realize that the "person" could be "people".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
