%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |
A blog to connect Humanities Core concepts with my creative side |
|
Hello, and welcome to Creative Intellect! I'm glad you've stopped by! ** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only ** This is my new blog, in which I aim to post some intellectual material while still showing off my creative side. I invite you to come join me on this adventure of my musings and reflections which I will tie in to various art forms. Most posts will be related to what is being taught in the Humanities Core class I am currently taking.  If you're looking for my other blog, the one with my Novel Prep, it's here  "Invalid Item"  ! Feel free to explore the rest of my portfolio and stories, too.This blog is linked on https://creativeintellect.weebly.com About the Image ▼ |
| "so do you think it's better for you now that you're here?" I asked a friend who moved to the US from China last year. Sure it's nice being able to use restricted websites was her response That made me curious. I asked her "why's that?" Cuz I like Instagram and fb? Well, I haven't known this girl for a long time, but I know her well enough to hear the underlying tone of this. It's like a "duh!" sort of question. One that reminds you, you should already know. Personally, I'm not a huge user of either service. I use Facebook to keep in contact with some teachers and old friends; my instagram has less than 50 pictures on it. I do suppose each person is different, but from my experience, students from foreign countries tend to fully immerse themselves into the American culture- from attire to behavior. I watched one such girl- my friend's family friend- who also came to America last year, transform. She came as a modest-looking, innocent freshman girl. A very typical Chinese child, if you imagine her growing up with a Tiger Mom. By the end of the school year, she could shamelessly talk back to the teacher, bare her midriff, and knew the lyrics to most of the top hits. If I were to hazard a guess, I would attune this to peer pressure- it's hard enough being new, but being from a different country and culture would be a possible hindrance to making new friendships. Finally, I know she has a Facebook. Now that she's back in China, I'm curious what will happen with it. |
As I rushed to finish my PowerPoint tonight,I "interviewed" two friends. I met the first (she's a sophomore in high school now) last year: she just moved from China, and we met through a mutual friend. The second "interview" came from Robyn is PUBLISHED!  . I'm glad I did not deactivate my account earlier this year, her insight was particularly helpful!Some points I found fascinating after pestering her with questions:  The Three "T"s - Tibet, Tienanmen Square, and Taiwan- they're all taboo topics!  "If anyone talks about the three Ts (or anything that openly and deliberately comes down on the country) - and a government official, or a friend of an official, hears you - it could result in immediate deportation." - Wow! This really sounds like 1984 all over again! "Around June, the internet is a nightmare to navigate. Sites are randomly blocked and search engines are monitored (with key words being impossible to search)." "Batman cut out a 1 minute clip because Christian Bale and Micheal Cains's characters were talking about re-ordering the Batman masks they ordered from China because they were poorly made." "The entire beginning of Pirates of the Caribbean 3 was cut out because it painted Asians "in a bad light" forgetting the fact the scene didn't even take place in China). They had a scrolling review on the screen about what was missed, then the movies started when they were sailing along the froze ocean."- Not that it actually matters, but Chinese or English? Here's something I found online: An Australian diplomat who specializes in Chinese affairs called the massacre a "myth". He wrote an article on it in the Japan Times, and it is posted on his website. Also, interestingly enough, "Tiananmen as a myth" is what you will get if you search "Tiananmen Massacre" on Baidu, one of China's search engines. They will not acknowledge Tiananment as a massacre. "Only a few people died from that," the searches say. |
| Words play an important part in everyday lives. Without them, it becomes difficult to express your thoughts and feeling. Sometimes, even with words, the real meaning is still lost. {indentUpon reading the novel, it becomes apparent that the title, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, has a dual meaning. The term, "Halftime", is most closely associated with football, especially with the most recent Superbowl and the half-time show. However, this "halftime walk" is also the "walk" in between all the running he does in war, because Billy is only half done with his military tour. After the break, or his "walk" back to America, he and the rest of the Bravo squad returns to Iraq to finish their terms. "What were you thinking?" and "What was going through your mind?" are common suggested interview questions to elicit a "good" response from any interviewee. However, in high-stress times like war, how exactly does a soldier describe his thoughts? As shown in Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, it's almost impossible. When the reporter asks, "'What were you thinking during the battle?'" Billy Lynn answers the reporter's question with "'I'm not sure.'" (page 3). It's not that Billy isn't sure what he was thinking- he knew exactly what his thoughts were during the battle- but he couldn't find the right words to explicitly describe and express his thoughts in a way that would make sense to anyone besides himself. It's like asking someone how to describe a color without using other colors in the description. Additionally, the word cascades throughout the novel show words as Billy hears them, instead of in their conventional form. This shows Billy's disconnect from society: he can not fully understand what everybody is saying; in fact, he can only hear specific words and snippets of each sentence. For example, "Nine eleven" becomes "nina leven", and "terrorist" becomes "terrRist" (page 2). Most of the other words Billy can distinguish are war-related, too. His mind is still set in war mode, not in relaxation mode. Describing how you feel, what you thought, or what you saw is not easy without the correct words. Sometimes, even with the correct words, it's next to impossible, as Ben Fountain aptly shows in his novel. |
| Maggot-rita pizza. Buffalo Lips. A springbox stomach. Feet-ucine pasta- with rats' feet. Bush pig testicles. Cud-cake: cockroaches, fly pupae, and parmey worms. Sick shake: a blend of fish guts and goat milk. Seven dishes two Australian celebrities consume in the "Twisted Takeaway" version of the Tucker Trials in the Australian reality show I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here! Watching the clip will more than likely make you gag. Another trial from a different episode included eating live worms. Then why do it? Why would ten celebrities agree to go live in a South African jungle for an extended amount of time and eat these disgusting dishes? Also, why would people at home even watch this? These eleven celebrities entered for a chance to win $100,000 to donate to a charity of their choice. Celebrities' loved ones will update the public via social media, thereby drawing in fans as the audience. Every celebrity relies on his/her fans to stay in the show, which is added incentive for people to watch- they don't want to see their favorite celebrity leaving the jungle, do they? In fact, this is a fan-powered show. People vote for celebrities online to choose who goes to do the next trial, and who they want to save. The person with the least votes is then removed from the jungle. At the end of the season, the last person in the jungle receives the $100,000 for the charity they chose before the season began. While this is not necessarily torture in the normal sense- it's not an extreme form of questioning to get pertinent information, the conditions they live in could easily qualify. These tucker trials allow the celebrities to win meals for their camp team. Each star they earn is equivalent to a meal for the team. The question now is, if these celebrities signed up for this show, would it still be considered wrong? For me, I think this would depend on their contract. If the participants are told "you will be eating live creatures", and contestants still sign the contract, it would be torture, but self-inflicted. They had a general idea of what they would face, and yet agreed to participate. However, if the did not mention what sort of "tucker" the Tucker Trials used, it would be considered unsolicited torture. |
"Violence is natural. Without it, humanity would become... unbalanced." -Ginny Taylor, CSI: Miami [Embed For Use By Upgraded+] Violence and torture have taken over the media. From video games to television, it is rapidly filtering itself into our entertainment stuff and heavily influencing society today, as the quote above demonstrates. For example, according to listal , since Call of Duty's inception in 2003, 20 different titles of the game have been published. Seeing that it is only 2015, this means 1.67 Call of Duty games are released each year. These games glorify war and promote violence. According to Common Sense Media , Call of Duty: Black Ops II is one of the top 10 most violent video games of 2013. Grand Theft Auto V, as shown in the above clip, also helps to "normalize" torture, in its game play.In this case, the torture is simply a form of leveling up. It is as if Rockstar Games wants to say that torture and violence are allowed, if it is a means of self advancement. Torture and violence are not just shown in video games. Television and movies are just as guilty of promoting media violence. Season 1, Episode 10 of CSI: Miami opens with a cross-country runner discovering the "horribly mutilated body of a professor is found lynched on a tree" (IMDB ). The picture is gruesome, and on the medical examiner's table during the autopsy, the injuries are each named out loud: signs of retina burn, "his eyes were glued open"; nine six-inch deep puncture wounds throughout the chest area- "the size and shape of an ice pick"; eight 12-inch contusions "indicating blunt force", 14 one or two-inch cuts that could be razor blades; puncture wounds on the bottom of his feet; for "a total of 62 wounds, all ante-mortem". Everything just listed is named within the first four minutes of the episode. This is evident of the media heavily promoting violence. As each injury is named, the camera pans over the area, giving the audience a clear shot of each laceration, puncture, or contusion site. Additionally, of the 62 wounds the victim in this episode sustained, "not a single one meant to kill him". His final cause of death? Asphyxiation. The victim's ante-mortem treatment can easily fall under the "torture" category. It has been said that society is getting more violent with every passing generation. This is probably true. Each new game, each new season, of a series must pass their previous levels of violence, shock, or torture. Otherwise, how will the audience come back for more? It is a psychological approach: the consumers are introduced to a certain level of horror- maybe level 6. They excitedly engage in the violence- shooting, killing, sniping, spying, watching- but the excitement eventually wears off, because they are now habituated to the violent stimulus. The developers must then decide how to dishabituate the audience- less excitement will not sell, so the new product must have more excitement, more violence, more stimuli to keep the consumers engaged until the next one. This cycle repeats, and it is like a spiraling staircase- the next cycle is similar enough to the old cycle to feel familiar, yet different enough to feel new and exciting, thereby drawing in the audience. When will this stop, if ever? Unless someone decides to stop producing violent video games that incorporate torture, never. |
| Often enough, confusing wording leads people to misinterpret the true meaning of a phrase. Ambiguous words and sentences with multiple meanings can easily be misinterpreted, and this can lead to many issues. For example, when it comes to situations like the law, wording is crucial. One such situation is defining "torture". "Torture", as defined by the United Nations, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." In this definition, phrases such as "severe pain or suffering", and "intimidating or coercing" are subjective. What is severe to one person may not necessarily be severe to the next. The same problem applies to "intimidating", because the concept varies from person to person. When these words are arbitrarily defined, it is difficult to establish a clear line as to what is and is not considered "torture". Additionally, the definition includes the provision that torture is "inflicted by...or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." In all technicalities, this means that if there is no public official present or if the order did not originate from a public official, whatever act of "torture" that was being carried out was not actually torture, because the full definition did not match the description of whatever actions the soldiers were taking. When people think about the law, they expect clear definitions illustrating what may or may not be done, not ambiguous words outlining what might possibly be illegal. When words create a fuzzy image, it makes people wonder what sort of secrets those words might be hiding, or what "crimes" they might be allowing. Also, it lets criminals push the limits- what would happen if I did this? The law does not explicitly say I may not do it. That, in itself, makes it dangerous, for if the law neither says it is legal or illegal, it would not be too bad for the criminal to commit his crime, and that would be his defense in court: If the law does not say if the action was illegal, how can the court say it actually was? Moreover, even if the law is revised, ex-post facto law says a person can not be convicted of an action that was not a crime at the time it was committed. Ultimately, he will go free. Confusing wording and multiple meanings can easily make something good go bad, such as with the example of torture. Instead of preventing it from happening, the law is allowing torture to happen by creating loopholes. |
| *Caution: contents of this post may be harsher than usual* After listening to and reading an interview between Fountain Hughes and Hermond Norwood, I was rather surprised at the many new pieces of information I learned from listening. Also, even though Hughes was 101 years of age at the time of the interview, I found it interesting how his speech was mostly slurred and the words were blurred. Hughes offered many insightful details regarding his life in slavery, and also offered pragmatic advice. There were a few shocking points in the interview, which I noted. Hughes makes the analogy of the slave trade being the equivalent of cattle auctions. "They'd sell us like they sell horses and cows and hogs and all like that. Have a auction bench, and they'd put you on, up on the bench and bid on you just same as you bidding on cattle you know" correlates with what Frederick Douglass wrote in his autobiography, about being examined at the auction, and then priced like items. The most surprising statement I remember Fountain brought up was what would happen if a slave was ornery, or in poor condition: he/she would be sold to a "nigga trader". I was previously aware of how slaves were sold and "traded" between masters, but having it addressed in such a manner astonished me. In textbooks, it was always much more mild: "slave traders", or "people who bought the slaves". I don't even remember reading something like that in Roots, but then that was in seventh grade, so I could most definitely be mistaken. One other detail I recall from Roots was masters cutting off parts of slaves, or going into female slaves' places at night, and the females would get an extra income from obeying the master. Hughes states "Dogs has got it now better than we had it when we come along." I can imagine that, if the events in Roots were accurate. A few less shocking, but equally intriguing topics Hughes imparted in the interview regarded money and clothes. He advises listeners to never buy anything on "trust", or in modern terms, "credit". He describes his mentality on this with an example: he would never buy clothes unless he could pay the full amount in cash. If one payed with "trust", Hughes explains, then the shopkeeper will put the payer through many hassles not worth the time, and the payer will end up paying more, anyways, because "they (the buyers) want something for, for waiting on you for, uh, till you get ready to pay them." It also gives the buyer a peace of mind, knowing somebody will not randomly barge into the house at night, demanding "you owe me a quarter, you owe me a dollar, [or] you owe me five cents." Listening to the interview before reading it was definitely a smart idea, because I realized after replaying the recording multiple times- there was no way I would understand certain parts of Hughes' interview. I ended up replaying it and reading along after a few runs. It greatly improved my comprehension of the interview. Works Cited: Hughes, Fountain. Web. 11 June 1949. http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc9999001/9990a.mp3} Hughes, Fountain, Web. 11 June 1929. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/afcesn:@field(DOCID+afc9999001t9990a)} Interview transcript |
| At the end of Frederick Douglass' autobiography, he included a parody of a hymn- "Heavenly Union". The parody was written when a northern Methodist preacher went to visit a slaveholder's property, before the movement to free the slaves began. The parody is too long to post here by itself, so today, I will choose specific passages or stanzas from the altered hymn to reflect on and analyze. "They'll read and sing a sacred song, And make a prayer both loud and long, And teach the right and do the wrong, Hailing the brother, sister throng With words of heavenly union." (Douglass 113) is my first stanza of choice. I will admit I laughed at this stanza the first time I read it. My mind pictured a group of white men flocked together, reading from a hymn book and pretending to be pious. What catches my eye here is "teach the right and do the wrong". It sums up everything the whites are doing- in seven succinct words. Additionally, the parody insinuates the whites call the blacks their "brothers" and "sisters", yet they choose to do wrong by them. The whites would say one thing, then use the words, and skew their meanings so it benefited their actions. This is actually shown in my other chosen stanza. "A roaring, ranting sleek man-thief Who lived on mutton, veal, and beef Yet never would afford relief To needy, sable sons of grief Was big with heavenly union." (Douglass 114) Mutton, veal, and beef, or sheep, deer, and cow, respectively, are all meat- and in those days, meat was expensive. Choosing to use the word "afford" was an interesting way to write the parody, as the word can mean both to have enough money to pay for something, or to give. The preacher here is pointing out how the white people were rich enough to afford all the different sorts of meat, yet would not help out the black people. In a way, it is like they are trying to compete to see who the worst master is. This is apparent in the last stanza: "All good from Jack another takes, And entertains their flirts and rakes, Who dress as sleek as glossy snakes And cram their mouths with sweetened cakes And this goes down for the union." (Douglass, 114) As with the previous stanza I picked out, the food here is significant, because the listed edibles are what the rich people ate back then. In this stanza, the whites take from the poor to give to the rich. The "good" that Jack would get is given to the flirts and rakes- the rich ladies and gentlemen. The sleek and glossy clothes in the third line also denote high fashion- another sign of wealth. With all the surplus, the whites still do not give the slaves and African Americans enough to eat. In retrospect, I theorize if the reason this preacher chose to parody this particular hymn, was because of the word "union". "Union" could also represent the United States as a whole- "Heavenly Union" making it sarcasm or irony in the fact that the United States was far from "heavenly". The whites were corrupt and cruel to their black "brothers", and the blacks were simply suffering the injustices the whites piled onto them. If anything, the "heavenly" could be argued as "hellish". Overall, this parodied hymn was an interesting way to portray the ways of the slaveholders. Douglass used it to prove his point on how misled the slaveholders were- since a Northern preacher penned this work, readers would also know it was not fictionally made up by Douglass, bitter at his owner. The parody also serves to bolster Douglass' ethos- having the poem from an (assumed) white abolitionist raises his credibility and increases his readership. Works Cited: Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. N.p.: Penguin Books, n.d. 113-14. Print. |
| Every picture has its own story. Regardless of its type- an action or staged shot, a sketch, or a painting- each one has its own meaning. On Wednesday, in lecture, Professor Fahs showed us many images depicting slaves escaping to the north. Two of these images, as I show below, really stood out to me. ** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only ** ** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only ** Sometimes, what is left out is just as important as what is included- especially in a picture like this. In the original image (left side), the woman looked like she was taking the lead, with a young child riding on her back. She looked strong, confident, and capable. She had the responsibility of taking care of the next generation, and the kerchief on her head shows she has been working hard. However, in that time period, having a woman in the foreground, being so confident, and leading, with a child on her back would cause discomfort among viewers and readers. Women were not meant to be so independent, or responsible. African American women in the 19th century were not supposed to be seen as strong. They should be submissive to the men and do as their husbands, masters, or mistresses bid them to do. Therefore, when this picture was published (right side), not only was the woman erased from history, but many men from the original sketch also failed to appear in the wagon. Additionally, the published version of the sketch added on more bows on top of the wagon. The combination of less men and more bows broadcasted the message that women were meant to stay inside, clean and uncontaminated by the outside world. The wagon itself is taller than in the original image, and the people in the background of the original image have disappeared in the engraving. I want to think of the people as other slaves- who may have been in on the escape plan, or slaves who are escaping, too, just going a different road. Since the engraved version was published in a Harper's Weekly magazine known for its racial prejudices against African Americans, the publishers would not want their audience seeing more slaves in the back- also escaping, and watching the large party leave. Next, the two of the three horses in the original image were changed to a cow and a donkey. Horses are typically more expensive than cows and donkeys; the transformation of the animals would undermine the slaves' intelligence; making the picture more accessible to the audience receiving it. One last thing I noticed in these pictures was the environment. The scenery and nature is changed in the engraving. In the original copy, the fence is at the back corner of the image, which would lead viewers to believe the group is already off the slaveholder's property. However, in the right hand side, since the fence is next to the group, it gives a different perspective. It looks as if the party is following the fence to the border of the property, and still in the process of escaping from their master. As these two pictures show, little details, little changes in a picture can have a large impact on its meaning. When looking at a visual work, it is important to know which version is being considered. Each little nuance in a work of art makes a large difference in how it is eventually perceived. Works Cited: Forbes, Edwin. African American refugees coming into the Union Lines near Culpepper Court House, Va. 1863. Pencil sketch. Library of Congress. Contrabands Coming into the Federal Camp in Virginia. Art. Harper's Weekly.. From a Sketch by Edwin Forbes |
| Sun Tzu’s writings still are very relevant in today’s life. Many of his points in The Art of War are pragmatic, common-sense ideas that a person should follow. Even if a person is not interested in war, applying these ideas to everyday life works just as well. For example, in chapter 6, point 65 states “If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in.” These open doors, in life, could be symbolic of opportunities. Waiting too long and letting the door shut is unwise, because that is a missed opportunity. Sometimes, this missed opportunity will come back in many ways, because not going with the open opportunity creates a rift in the time-space dimension, according to Buddhist philosophy. By not going with the plan the universe set down for you, you mess up everything else, and some things will come harder because of it. My family and I had such an experience when I was in seventh grade. My Buddhist family in Australia was hosting the World Buddhist Sangha Youth 5th Annual General Conference in Tasmania, at the beginning of December. The plan was to have the conference last 4 days; my sister and I would miss a week of school. My sister wavered at the thought of having to miss a week of school, and ultimately, Mom decided we would not go, because my sister was too afraid of falling behind if she were to leave for a week. Later in December, when we made the tri-yearly trip back to Australia, the incoming airplane from JFK airport that was to take us to Sydney was delayed and ultimately cancelled due to inclement weather. Our luggage was later lost in Sydney- they had been put on the wrong plane. When we got to Tasmania in Australia, around 6 or 7 in the evening, the airline told us our luggage would not arrive until close to midnight, on the last flight into the island that night. While nobody was actually harmed, and everything was safe, Mom explained to us that the experience had come from us “messing” with the time-space dimensions of the universe. We had an open door to enrich our religious understanding and belief, but we waited too long and let it pass. In this case, you could argue we did not let the original opportunity pass; we shut the door ourselves. Works Cited: Tzu, Sun. The Art of War. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2013. 46. Print. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
