So far at New Trier, I have taken World History, Modern World History, and I am currently taking American History obviously. I am really fortunate to have been able to learn about various different parts of the world and their historical significance. However, whenever I take a course (regardless of the subject material - could be math, science, social studies, etc.), I always ask myself the same question, "Should this be a requirement?" I even ask myself this question when I'm taking courses that are NOT graduation requirements. And this blog will discuss whether American History should be a graduation requirement.
From the start, I think it is extremely important to learn about the country in which you live. After all, that is essentially your country - it shapes your everyday life and is arguably part of who you are - making it important for you to learn about. Plus, many people believe that the country in which we live is the greatest on Earth, due to its many significant historical figures, pure freedom, and magnificent world-wide contributions. So, if you are one of many people who believe that America is the greatest country on Earth, you will probably find it necessary to learn about America's history.
However, some people do not find it enjoyable or necessary to learn about US history. Some believe that we should spend more time in school learning about other nations in South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Also, many people believe that people should be given the choice to take whatever history courses they desire; if one does not wish to enroll in a US history course, he or she should not have to. Additionally, some people think that America is not that great of a country, so they find no need to learn about its history.
Personally, I believe that American History should be a graduation requirement. I think that there are so many important aspects of America's history that should definitely be taught to students. For example, I find it important to learn about many great American historical figures - such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, etc. - whose great minds and contributions have shaped America and other parts of the world. I also think it's essential to learn about America's major contribution in WWII, possibly one of the world's most significant occurrences. Basically, because America has a rich history and has strongly impacted other countries, it is important to learn about its history.
What do you think?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
To how much privacy should we be entitled?
Today in American Studies, we had a discussion on privacy. Should privacy be a right? How much privacy should everyone be allowed to have? I was wondering about these questions, and even came up with my own: Should there be a school directory, or is that an invasion of privacy?
I believe that privacy should definitely be a right. However, there are appropriate times when you must "give up" your privacy. For example, if you're registering your kid at a certain school, you must give the school your name, phone number, home address, email address, etc. But you should only have to "give up" your privacy when necessary; it is NOT necessary to share any of your personal information with a telemarketer, on-line website, etc. (unless you want to...). And, of course, there are certain things that you should never have to tell anyone, like your social security number (unless you're applying for a job). Basically, I believe that each person should have the right to disclose however much about him/herself as he/she desires, but at the same time, there are certain times when one must disclose some of his/her personal information in order to accomplish something (like school registration).
I think that having a school directory IS an invasion of privacy. I believe that, if you want the school to put your address and phone number in a book that everyone will see, you should have the right to; but if you don't, then it shouldn't be a requirement. There will always be people who abuse directories and take other people's addresses and phone numbers and use them in the wrong way (like prank calling). And besides, there are some people who just don't feel comfortable knowing that 4000 other students can look up their address and phone number. I think that we should respect these people and, consequently, not list their address and phone number in the directory.
What do you think?
I believe that privacy should definitely be a right. However, there are appropriate times when you must "give up" your privacy. For example, if you're registering your kid at a certain school, you must give the school your name, phone number, home address, email address, etc. But you should only have to "give up" your privacy when necessary; it is NOT necessary to share any of your personal information with a telemarketer, on-line website, etc. (unless you want to...). And, of course, there are certain things that you should never have to tell anyone, like your social security number (unless you're applying for a job). Basically, I believe that each person should have the right to disclose however much about him/herself as he/she desires, but at the same time, there are certain times when one must disclose some of his/her personal information in order to accomplish something (like school registration).
I think that having a school directory IS an invasion of privacy. I believe that, if you want the school to put your address and phone number in a book that everyone will see, you should have the right to; but if you don't, then it shouldn't be a requirement. There will always be people who abuse directories and take other people's addresses and phone numbers and use them in the wrong way (like prank calling). And besides, there are some people who just don't feel comfortable knowing that 4000 other students can look up their address and phone number. I think that we should respect these people and, consequently, not list their address and phone number in the directory.
What do you think?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Obama Winning Nobel Peace Prize
Everyone knows that President Obama recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. He accepted it as a "call to action" to work with other nations in attempt to resolve current issues. I wanted to look into Obama's winning this prize, so I read an article about the subject entitled "Obama: Nobel Peace Prize 'a call to action.'" I tried to be open-minded, so I got this article from msnbc.
Personally, I never understood why Obama won this award. He hasn't done much for America, and a lot of what he has done has actually hurt our economy. And, importantly, Obama hasn't done anything for peace or humanity, the whole point of winning the award! According to the article, though, "Nobel officials said their stunning pick was meant to build momentum behind Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism." Essentially, they gave him the award because they thought that it would help to resolve current issues.
So apparently, the Nobel officials did have a rationale for selecting him. But I still don't understand their logic. How can giving him the Nobel Peace Prize possibly ease tensions with the Muslim world? I just can't quite grasp the concept that giving someone an award will all of a sudden lead to world peace!
I think that there might be other motives behind the Nobel officials' giving Obama the award. This may have been a "stab" at former President George Bush. Maybe the Nobel officials are so happy that Bush is gone (because they think he was a horrible president) that they gave Obama this award to rub it in Bush's face.
What do you think?
Personally, I never understood why Obama won this award. He hasn't done much for America, and a lot of what he has done has actually hurt our economy. And, importantly, Obama hasn't done anything for peace or humanity, the whole point of winning the award! According to the article, though, "Nobel officials said their stunning pick was meant to build momentum behind Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism." Essentially, they gave him the award because they thought that it would help to resolve current issues.
So apparently, the Nobel officials did have a rationale for selecting him. But I still don't understand their logic. How can giving him the Nobel Peace Prize possibly ease tensions with the Muslim world? I just can't quite grasp the concept that giving someone an award will all of a sudden lead to world peace!
I think that there might be other motives behind the Nobel officials' giving Obama the award. This may have been a "stab" at former President George Bush. Maybe the Nobel officials are so happy that Bush is gone (because they think he was a horrible president) that they gave Obama this award to rub it in Bush's face.
What do you think?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
What is race?
This week in American Studies, we have been discussing race. What is race? How would we define it? The documentary we watched added to this theme. Personally, this theme grabs my attention, and I have taken some time to think about it outside of school.
My definition of "race" is someone's ethnic background, relating to the countries from which his or her ancestors came. Race and religion are completely separate, and someone's race is not always related to his or her skin color. In my opinion, "white" and "black" are NOT races; they are simply skin colors. "British," "French," "Chinese," "African," etc. are races, as they are adjectives describing actual countries and continents.
Different races have different values and cultural aspects; no race is the exact same as another, although some may be similar. For example, the Asian culture strongly promotes education. Some races do not get along well with each other because they have different beliefs. For instance, the Israelis and Palestinians are in conflict because they disagree on who should be given Israel. In the United States, we have gotten to know many different races because so many people of different ethnic backgrounds have immigrated here.
I am interested in hearing your opinion...
My definition of "race" is someone's ethnic background, relating to the countries from which his or her ancestors came. Race and religion are completely separate, and someone's race is not always related to his or her skin color. In my opinion, "white" and "black" are NOT races; they are simply skin colors. "British," "French," "Chinese," "African," etc. are races, as they are adjectives describing actual countries and continents.
Different races have different values and cultural aspects; no race is the exact same as another, although some may be similar. For example, the Asian culture strongly promotes education. Some races do not get along well with each other because they have different beliefs. For instance, the Israelis and Palestinians are in conflict because they disagree on who should be given Israel. In the United States, we have gotten to know many different races because so many people of different ethnic backgrounds have immigrated here.
I am interested in hearing your opinion...
Friday, October 2, 2009
2016 Summer Olympics
The host city of the Games will be announced today. Some people are very excited and, especially around here, want Chicago to be the host city. Personally, I have always enjoyed the Olympics and am hoping that Chicago will be the host city.
I read an article entitled "Ten Reasons Why Chicago Should Host the 2016 Olympic Games" (written by Sophia S. Mark). It was a pretty convincing article. Obviously, we don't have time to discuss all 10 reasons, so I'll talk about the ones that I find most important and interesting.
For one, Chicago has a lot of different ethnic neighborhoods, so it is a very welcoming city. Say that someone visiting from Greece becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Greektown. Say that someone visiting from China becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Chinatown. You get the idea...
Also, Chicago cabbies are extremely aggressive. Not only does the article say this, but I have also personally experienced aggressive cab drivers here. If someone is running late for an Olympic event, the cabbie will have no issue getting that person to the event as quickly as possible.
It is my personal belief that Chicago is the most beautiful and tourist-friendly city among the different candidates. Miggs Field, with its majestic view of Lake Michigan and downtown Chicago, is a wonderful place for the Olympics.
What are your beliefs about this topic?
I read an article entitled "Ten Reasons Why Chicago Should Host the 2016 Olympic Games" (written by Sophia S. Mark). It was a pretty convincing article. Obviously, we don't have time to discuss all 10 reasons, so I'll talk about the ones that I find most important and interesting.
For one, Chicago has a lot of different ethnic neighborhoods, so it is a very welcoming city. Say that someone visiting from Greece becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Greektown. Say that someone visiting from China becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Chinatown. You get the idea...
Also, Chicago cabbies are extremely aggressive. Not only does the article say this, but I have also personally experienced aggressive cab drivers here. If someone is running late for an Olympic event, the cabbie will have no issue getting that person to the event as quickly as possible.
It is my personal belief that Chicago is the most beautiful and tourist-friendly city among the different candidates. Miggs Field, with its majestic view of Lake Michigan and downtown Chicago, is a wonderful place for the Olympics.
What are your beliefs about this topic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
