Speak Discussion 3

After three long week of reading Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson, my group has finally finished our last discussion. During the Lit Circle, my group agreed that Melinda has somewhat changed her perspective of the rape incident and is finally letting go of her belief that keeping silent will allow her to forget about being raped during the end-of-summer party. Melinda started her freshman year alone in denial, depression, and silence but by the end of her freshman year, she is able to verbalize rejection and unwillingness. This is exemplified when Melinda rejects the offer to help her former friend with the prom decorations because that friend abandoned her due to Melinda's lack of popularity and rumors of being crazy. Then I proposed a question: "Which is more important: friendship or popularity?"
My group agreed that friendship is more essential. Although it is true that many popular people have many friends, how many of those friends are their friends because they like them as who they are and not because of their popularity? (I'm not saying that friends of popular people are all fakes but how many of them are true friends and would not abandon them at the time of need or when their popularity ends?) I believe that having friends whom I can trust is more important than being well liked or famous. If I cannot trust those who I am suppose to trust, who can I trust then?
In addition, I believe that all people need friends because everyone eventually needs someone to rely on. I do not know why, but some people are able to open themselves to friends more than their families. Sometimes, people choose to tell their friends about situations that they wish to avoid consulting with their families. This can also be exemplified through Melinda because she told (actually, she wrote) her ex-best friend about the rape incident but never even hinted the incident to her parents. This also applies to secrets because some people are able tell their friends some, or maybe even all, of their secrets but not their parents. Why? What makes friends so reliable and trustworthy?

Alameda or Oakland Response

In his post, David sates that even though many people have their own opinions about whether Oakland is better than Alameda or vice versa, both cities are essentially equal:

There doesn't seem to be any difference on other areas. In both cities, the people are nice. In my school, there are many people that come from Oakland and I don't have a problem with them. They are actually pretty cool people to be with. Both educational environments are similar. There are those that drop out and those that continue to become successful.

Everyone has opinions about whether one location is or is not better than another location. When they are asked what makes that location better than the other location they are comparing to, some of the most popular responses may include: safer, cleaner, more peaceful, etc. However, there is no concrete evidence that would support their claim. Everything would only be opinions.

To me, Alameda is a much safer place to live and people are much more peaceful here. When I lived in Oakland, I got robbed and there were so many places in which people were hurt or raped. Oakland is much dirtier where I live and there are a lot of homeless people there. In Alameda, the streets are much cleaner and I don't see any homeless people around here. There are much more events in the city of Alameda compared to Oakland. 

David personally believes that Alameda is safer and more peaceful than Oakland because he has been robbed in Oakland before; however, some people believe that Alameda is safer simply because it is Alameda and Oakland is a dangerous, neighboring city where murder can happen at any moment. I do not have anything against what other people want to believe in, but I believe that these people should consider some factors before leaping to whatever conclusion they want to reach.
I do not have any statistics to back up these factors, but I think Oakland has a bigger population than Alameda. In addition, Oakland has Chinatown and many people from different locations go there is buy groceries and stuff they need. If there are more people wandering the streets of Oakland, accidents are bound to happen. On the other hand, Alameda barely has any shopping places except for South Shore and maybe Park Street, making accidents less possible.

Technology

     Crystal's post questions whether technology is a good or bad thing for human society:

In the modern society were technology is commonplace and accessible, many of our decisions are based off of what computers tell us. Even our identities are controlled through computers through our social security numbers or ID numbers. These numbers are assigned by society in order for computers to easily keep track of information about each citizen that resides in a particular state or country. On a more personal scale, whenever a person creates a social networking account, they identify themselves on the net by what they choose to reveal or say about themselves. Then people around the world will solely identify that person by what they see on their computer and not take the effort to know more about the person other than what is written on their screen.

     I believe that although technology cannot be seen as either a good or bad thing for human society, there are positive and negative effects that result from technology. What Crystal states above is true and it also support the claim that technology can be neither and/or either good or bad to society.
     In short, technology changes the way we live. As we become "more modernized," we no longer have to live the lives of farmers where prosperity depends on the quality and quantity of the crops. Instead, we now live the lives of convenience. We have cars that can take us to our destinations, we have supermarkets that allow us to get all the food we need without having to undergo the troublesome seasons and days of planting, plowing, and harvesting, we have phones that allow us to communicate with people halfway across the world if we take the time to make the call, and we have computers and the internet that allows us to gather all the information we need for research and projects. We can even choose to send email if we find calling and talking to bothersome.
     Technology has made lives in human society become more convenient; however, technology can also be seen as both positive and negative. I do not think there is a right or wrong answer if a debate arises.

Speak: Discussion

     During my group's latest Lit Circle Discussion, we talked about the idea of rape. After reading to the end of the second paperclip, which is also titled as the "Third Marking Period," we find out that Melinda was raped during the end-of-summer cheerleader party Rachel, her ex-best friend, brought her to. My group proposed the question "Why did Melinda call the cops when she was not able to speak up about the incident?" which lead to the question "Why does rape take place?"
     My group decided that there are many reasons to why rape happens and that the resulting reaction from the individual who is raped can vary between not having a second thought about the incident, depression and silence, and/or committing suicide. It all depends on the individual because some people are able to accept what happened sooner than others, allowing them to move on with their life; however, those who are unable to accept the incident eventually leads to the incident controlling them, leading to minor cases like not talking and becoming unsocial, or to the point of choosing death.
     I commented on Melinda's resulting effect by saying that it was not very smart of her to not speak up when the incident was impacting her negatively. Even she realizes that revealing the incident may be able to improve her ability to accept what happened but she constantly holds back.
     I also think that the people around her are not helping. For one, she somehow seems disconnected from her parents. They do not really communicate and even when they try to, something always seem to come up. Melinda also does not try to communicate with her parents. The way Melinda and her parents seem to operate is as though they all do their own things and they only discuss their needs when they have to. Two, it does not help when Melinda no longer has any friends to help her through the situation. All of her friends disappeared when Melinda decided to call the cops during the party but she does not tell them the reason why. If a person does not speak up, no one can tell what they are thinking so it is kind of impossible for Melinda to expect her friends to understand her when she keeps silent.

Behind Silence and Defiance

     Speak, a novel by Laurie Halse Anderson, is about a girl named Melinda who is an outcast - an individual rejected by student and teachers alike in school. The title names the one thing she has given up: speaking. She no longer expresses herself or her opinions. One can say that she has chosen to become mute and interpret the denial towards speaking as a way to protect oneself, a form of defense.
     In our discussion, one of the topics we talked about is the immigration debate. Mr. Neck, Melinda's history teachers, opened this debate after criticizing immigrants for "stealing" jobs from "true" Americans. He believes that his son, who wanted to be a firefighter, should get the job he wanted because the Neck family has been in America for over two hundred years: built America, fought in every war, paid taxes, and voted, but is denied the job he wanted because of immigrants. This leads me to believe that Mr. Neck is one of those conservative whites who believe that they should be given first priority simply because they are white.
     In addition, Mr. Neck deeply believes that America's borders should have been closed in the 1900s so that "real Americans can get the jobs they deserve," (pg. 54) and disagrees when a student argues that everyone are foreigners and that the land should be given back to the Native Americans. This leads me to believe that Mr. Neck is one of the individuals who are racist or prejudice because they believe they should have the first opportunity towards everything because they are "special" individuals simply due to their belief in a certain god, have a certain characteristic, or something. Moreover, I half agree and half disagree with the student who contended that the land should be given back to the Native American. I agree when the student state that everyone are foreigners because no one truly originated from America. This leads to what I disagree with because the land does not belong to anyone if everyone are foreigners and so there is no reason to "return America" to any group of people.

Response to Phuong's "Jaejoong"

     To tell the truth, I don't know why I am responding to Phuong's post on Jaejoong. I guess it is because I want to make fun of Phuong due to her great preference towards Jaejoong and DBSK's group members.

I will dedicate my post to a korean idol that I have been stalking a few year ago: Kim Jaejoong. he is also known as Hero, Youngwoong, or Jejung.

     Like Phuong, I know who he and DBSK are and I also like many of their songs. Unlike Phuong, I do not make a habit of stalking him and DBSK, nor do I know much of their backgrounds since I do not wish to research them.

one of his comment on a variety show when he describes how a real man cry on the inside and that a real man must cry three times in his life. His humor caught me laughing hard on my stomach because his demonstration of a man crying inside was a sleeping post and his explanation on the three time that a man must cry was: when they were born, when the girlfriend broke up with them, and when their managers don't feed them. I laughed from the last comment because I thought that it would be something serious.

     I agree with Jaejoong two-thirds of the way. Not just a man, I think that everyone cries when they are born and that not being fed should be a good reason to cry. However, for a man, breaking up with a girlfriend should not be a reason to cry because there is a saying that "men should not cry" - unless Jaejoong does not see himself as a guy, then he can cry all he wants. Whether he cry or not, I still have to agree with Phuong that Jaejoong's third comment is funny.
     The one thing I do not know if I should or should not agree with is Jaejoong's comment that "men should cry in their hearts." I have no clue what this means since I do not know if I have ever cried in my heart. Then again, what does crying in your heart feel like? One thing I know for sure is that the heart cannot shed tears.I don't know, maybe it's something he made up on the spot.

Garcia Girls Book Review

     Throughout her novel, How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents, Julia Alvarez uses a unique style of writing that contributes to the weaknesses of the book and its difference when compared to books with similar genres.

     The author’s writing style can only be described as unique because of the distinctive organization and development of this novel’s storyline. If an individual simply picks up this book and starts reading, confusion would most likely rise immediately because of the reversed storyline organization, inconsistent character viewpoints, and unclear character descriptions and events.

     For one, the story does not progress through the usual chronological order but instead, starts in the present and moves backwards so that the narration in the next vignette – or maybe even as soon as the next paragraph – would have happened before what the reader has just read. This style of writing can sometimes throw the reader off because the reader has to constantly keep in mind that the detail they just read had happened further back in time than the detail they had read before that detail. Although I do not have a problem with this reversed chronological order in the storyline, I sometimes find it hard to follow the before and after of the stories and vignettes.

     The second thing is the inconsistent viewpoints. Although Alvarez does give the names of the characters who play a part in narrating the vignette it is sometime had to differentiate between two characters that might both play a part in narrating in the same vignette. For example, in the vignette “The Four Girls” in the first section, the author lists that Carla, Yolanda, Sandra, and Sofia may be narrating but the story wavers between all four characters so that the reader cannot truly pinpoint the character that is telling the story. In this sense, the story becomes more of a third-person narration and it seems inconsistent when other vignettes have one character telling the story and is made clear who the vignette’s focus is on.

     The third writing style Alvarez uses is that she does not introduce the characters who are playing a role in the vignette at the beginning. She dives straight into the story and leaves the reader to figure out which character is telling the story as though the reader already knows what happened in the story. This can be exemplified in the last vignette of the third section, “The Drum.” The reader can find out that the focus of the vignette would be on Yolanda because it is written underneath the title but the vignette does not start out focused on Yolanda and is writing in first-person perspective.

It was a drum Mamita brought back from a trip to New York, a magnificent drum, its sides bright red, criss-crossed by gold wire held down by gold button heads, its top and bottom white. [...] "Ah," I sighed, for in the hollow at the center, two drumsticks were stored. (pg. 275).

     Here, it is easy to see that the first paragraph if the vignette practically has no connection with Yolanda, who is supposedly the focus of the vignette. The paragraph mainly describes about the drum and only refers to Yolanda through the usage of the word “I.” In addition, the use of that “I” does not even identify who is talking because the only character that is introduced in Mamita. This causes confusion because it leads to no clear or concise understanding of who the character is and what the character’s relationship is with the other characters or objects that may be or are also introduced. Therefore, I think that the author’s style of writing leads to the surfacing of some confusion which in turn leads to the novel’s weakness.

     The weaknesses of the book basically consists of what I mentioned above because I believe the weakness derives for the confusion that takes place due to the author’s unique style of writing. The most confusing aspects of this book seem to reside within the vignettes and the organization because of the three reasons mentioned above: the reversed storyline organization, inconsistent character viewpoints, and unclear character descriptions and events. In addition, there seems to be no connections between the order in which the vignettes appears except for the knowledge that what happens towards the end of the book happened before what took place in the beginning of the book. The story jumps around and there does not seem to be a pattern that derives from the incidents. Although I understand that the author may have written this novel because she might be relating back to her life, trying to make the book seem more realistic by connecting it the way an individual’s memories might surface – out of nowhere and without a pattern – makes the comprehension of the storyline challenging. Therefore, I think that the weaknesses of How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents derive from the unusual writing style that the author uses throughout her essay.

     I think the only book that I have read that has a similar genre to How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents may be The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. The most obvious reason why these two books are similar is because of the novel’s structure through the use of vignettes and because of the focus on mainly one character. Although one relates to Latin American culture and the other relates to the Dominican Republic, both characters essentially show growth. Esperanza, the main character in The House on Mango Street, is shown to be restricted by her community but eventually leaves the town she lives in. This is similar to Yolanda because Yolanda is at first restricted to what she can and cannot do by her parents but as she began to lose touch with her native culture and adapt the American culture, she gains a sense of freedom. In short, a common theme that both novel touch upon is a character’s life being restricted in some way at the beginning but soon gains freedom as the character learns more about society and the world. Although similar, these two books are also very different from one another because The House on Mango Street can symbolize oppression while How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents can symbolize change.

The Garcia Girls Three

     I have to admit that the ending of How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents by Julia Alvarez was a bit of a disappointment. I thought that the book would end on an interesting note or something like that; however, reality proved to differ. The book had to end with a vignette about a girl, a kitten, and a drum - hate to say this sarcastically, but that is a very dramatic ending for a book that was branded "confusing". The ending does not essentially explain anything.
     For one, I thought that the third section of the book should show how the Garcia Girls became who they are in the second section but it does not. I can see how the first vignette of the third section can lead to the second section because it relates to the reason to why the Garcia family had to leave the Dominican Republic in the first place, but I do not see how the remaining four vignettes relate to the transition between the two countries. In short, the last four vignettes seemed to be unrelated to what the rest of the book seemed to be about.
     On the other hand, I think the last vignette of the third section, The Drum, may relate a bit to Yolanda growth. The vignette is about how Yolanda finds this litter of kittens and wants one of them so she dumps the cat into her drum and makes a racket as she goes home so that the mother cat does not notice her kidnapping the kitten. When she gets home, Yolanda gets tired of the kitten and cold-heartedly abandons it by tossing it into the garden and ignoring it. The vignette does not explain if the kitten dies or not, but it notes that Yolanda begins to have nightmares about the mother cat haunting her. Then it says that Yolanda has these nightmares on and off for years and finally disappears when the family moved to the United States but it still occasionally reappears in Yolanda's stories and art. I think this last vignette may hint at this memory reappearing in front of Yolanda and influencing her life slightly, but not enough to prevent her from fulfilling her goals.

Response to Future

     Shiyun's post about the future contain many points about how we are unable to fix and change our past; however, we can make decisions that would lead us to a better future.

There is no way I would know what my future will be like, for I have to decide that myself. For every decision that I make in life, there will be a result to things. No one can really change what they have done or go back to the past and start over again. We will also have to look at the road ahead and make better decisions.

     Here, Shiyun states that the future includes many possibilities and every decision we make can lead to a variety of outcomes. She also states that the past could not be changed no matter what we do, and the best solution is to move on and to make better decisions if the ones made in the past led to mistakes. Shiyun's indications are correct. Even if someone tries to remain in the past, they will have to sooner or later face reality and that time continues to move even though they wish that time can stop.
    There is a saying that I have heard of before and it was something similar to this: wounds heal as time pasts, whether they are scars on the body, heart, or soul. I think this somehow relates to the talk about the future because people move on. Even if they want to remain in the past, even if they do not want to face reality, even if they do not want to accept that something has changed, everyone will eventually have to make a decision in what they are going to do.
     On the other hand, trying to remain in the past can also be connected to the future because a future is basically the choices made by individuals when it comes to deciding about what they want to do. Although I do not know if there are things such as fate and destiny, I do not think anyone but the individuals themselves chooses their future.

Justice

     I found this post on David's blog and I thought that it was an interesting topic to comment on:

In the case of Johannes Mehserle shooting Oscar Grant at the Fruitvale Bart station back on New Year's Eve on 2008, Johannes Mehserle was only sentenced to the minimum jail time of 2 years. I thought that this case was not fair at all. Any form of murder should have resulted in at least moderate amount of time of about 8 years.

     I agree with David when he states that the sentencing Mehserle received at the end of the trial was unfair. Although I understand that there were still a lot of uncertainty, confusion, and controversy around the subject of what truly happened during the day the shooting of Grant at the Bart station took place, I do not believe that it is reasonable to only sentence Mehserle to a two year imprisonment. The reason for this belief is simple: I find that it is simply unfair for a man to lose only two years of his life and freedom in prison when he has taken away everything another individual was, is, and could have been due to a "mistake" made that could or could not have been avoided.
     In addition, the reinforcement of this sentencing is also unfair because Mehserle does not have to serve the full two years in prison. For his sentencing, the judge included the time Mehserle already spent in prison before the final decision for the sentence was made and the judge also rules in "good behavior" and "double credit" - where one day in prison is equal to two days - as factors to subtract the amount of days Mehserle has to remain in jail. I simply find this sentencing unjust; however, it is the final decision ruled by the count.
     There is a quote that states "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life." If this theory was followed when this case was judged, then the sentencing that would be considered fair for Mehserle is if he received the death sentence or lifetime imprisonment penalty. Maybe then would I will think the sentencing is fair.

The Garcia Girls Two

     Today, during the Socratic Seminar - or whatever Sutherland now calls it for his class - my group realized that the title, How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents, may actually be referring to how the Garcia Girls lost their innocence. We came to this idea after we discussed the second section of the book and clarified the organization of the book because innocence is a common theme that arises in both the first and second section of the book, and because the second section presents the circumstances faced by the sisters that impact and lead them into becoming the characters they are in the first section.
     At first, when my group started discussing about the second section, we looked at the third vignette where Carla, the oldest of the four sisters, met this practically naked man in a car on her way home. My group talked about whether this was the point of time where Carla lost her innocence or not because she experienced something that did not impact her life positively.
     Next, we re-clarified that the story moves from present to past so the second section of the book actually happened before the first section and the third section happened before the second section. As we clarified this, we noted that the second section is related to the sisters losing their innocence because they did and experienced things they were not suppose to yet, and the first section was about the sisters after they had lost their innocence. Using these two details we noticed, we predicted that the third section will be about the four sisters before they lost their innocence because that section of the book may be about the time where the family was still on the "Island" because the conflict that forced them to move to the United States had not happened yet.
     Then, we noticed that the sisters losing their innocence can be related to the title of the book because as the Garcia sisters adapted to life in the United States, they lost touch with their native culture, leading them to the loss of their "accents," and they experienced things that were not exactly describable, leading to the sisters' loss of innocence.

Response to Autumn

     In Crystal's post, she talks about her second-favored season, which is Autumn, and why she likes this season:

Autumn is also one of my favorite seasons of the year, next to winter. It is a time when the weather finally begins to cool down after a hot and humid summer. Autumn invokes a relaxing feeling, probably partly due to the typical landscape scenes associated with this season. When one thinks of autumn, one would think of brightly colored leaves slowly cascading down from trees, flooding the floor with red, orange, and yellow tones. I think that these landscapes are primarily the reason why I like autumn so much. 

     In a sense, I agree with her - Autumn is a season where the weather "begins to cool down" and "invokes a relaxing feeling". However, it is also a season where individuals are likely to catch the flu because of the unpredictable weather patterns and temperature changes that associate with this season.
     Autumn is s season of uncertainty - with Spring as its partner. The temperature for early mornings and late nights can be freezing cold while mid-afternoon can be smoking hot. This inconsistency in the weather is what cause individuals to become vulnerable to the seasonal flu since the body has to have its internal and body temperature balanced with the temperature of external factors.
     In addition, Crystal states her favored past-time during this season:

During these days, I feel like doing nothing else but curling up with a good book or taking a walk down the park while listening to relaxing music.

     I entirely agree with this quote. Autumn is usually one of the seasons where I do not wish to concentrate in school. I become lazy and do not wish to do anything except for staying at home and becoming lazy. The best thing to do in a season where the weather is becoming cooler is to simply enjoy life and the things I would do consists of sleeping in late, reading good books, listening to music, getting online, and finding time to think about questions you never think about. Maybe the late point only apply to me; however, I think it is both calming and interesting to just sit there and think about things I have never thought of - or never thought of thinking of - and just think.

Image

     For the past week or so, Mrs. Corbally has been showing videos in class about individuals who have problems with their eating habits and dilemma over their appearance. In her post, Shiyun states that the American criticism upon beauty and how individuals judge others derive from American culture:

I think that it is not largely their fault that they think that way. It is usually because of our culture and how we judge people. I don't blame people that want to be skinny just to fit in. I think I kind of understand how they feel, although I have never went through this experience before.

     Here, Shiyun hints that individuals often have a desire - a crave - to fit in with their peers and are willing to go through extreme methods - in this case, diets - in order to obtain their ideal body. Although she does not explain how culture impacts the way society judges individuals based upon their appearance, she notes that individuals are more often judged by their physical structure than not. In truth, no one wishes to be isolated from the "popular crowd" simply because they do not look a certain way, so individuals who were once rejected by others often end up trying to find a way to become popular even if it means risking their health.
     In addition, I agree with Shiyun when she states popularity is not necessarily gained through appearance but through a warm personality:

To me I don't think that appearance matters a lot to me and I would not judge someone without getting to know them first. I don't think people like you just because you are skinny, but rather it is your personality that really matters. Everyone is beautiful in their own way. We should never give ourselves put downs that make us feel bad about our body or even ourselves.

     Individuals all have various differences and this uniqueness often comes with the experiences the individual endures throughout their life. Some traits are determined at birth, like gender, while others or not, such as physical images and personalities. Either way, the decision of changing who that individual is and whether they wish to become "skinny" or not is decided by the individuals themselves.

The Garcia Girls

     The book, How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents by Julia Alvarez, is written in a unique fashion. For one, the way the story progress is not through the usual chronological order, nor does it include a style where there are flashbacks. The story just starts at a point in time and begins to move towards the past rather than moving towards the future. This style is quite unusual to me because the books I have read often consist of the author telling the story through a flashback or through a plot where the story follows a chronological timeline in order to reach the climax.
     However, the most confusing aspect of this book seems to reside within the vignettes. The author never really introduces the characters and leaves the reader to figure out who they are themselves. This causes a lot of confusion because it leads to no clear or concise understanding of who the character is and what the character's relationship is with the other characters in the book. In addition, there seems to be no connections in the order in which the vignettes appear. The story jumps around and there does not seem to be a pattern. I understand that this may make it seem more realist to the way individuals' memories often surface - out of nowhere and without a pattern - but it makes the story really challenging to comprehend. For example, in the first section of the book, the story jumps Yolanda's point of view to Sofia's, then to the perspective of all four sisters, and finally back to Yolanda. This inconsistent pattern of perspectives also causes a lot of confusion because the reader has to remember that it is a different character telling the story and that each of the four sisters has different relationships concerning their love-life.
     Moreover, the vignettes often more straight into a story and does not take the time to give the reader the background information about what is happening. Although I do not really mind this style of writing the author uses, it gets tiring after a while because it starts to feel painful trying to read a book that requires the reader to think and form connections in order to understand the setting. Books like How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accent take time to read in order to grasp a full comprehension.

Reflective Essay

     During the first quarter, I have written the two necessary blogs posts on weeks where we are required to publish them even though blogging has never been – and still is not – an interest of mine. The main reason why I blog these posts is because of my responsibilities as a student to complete the assignments, not due to motivation. Because of my lack in inspiration, the results between blog posts and academic assignments differ.

     When Sutherland first assigned blogging as homework, he only required one response post and another that can be anything I wanted to write about as long as both posts reached the three-hundred and fifty words mark. I thought that this was going to be an easy writing assignment – how hard could it be to write as I pleased as long as I followed the basic instruction? I realized how wrong I was after my first two posts: a response to Shiyun’s “The Rich and The Poor: Part 1” and Being Bored. I began to understand that writing itself was not the challenge – the problem was finding the reason to write. Even though I continuously tell myself that I have to finish the assignment because it is homework, my brain does not cooperate – as though that was not significant enough as a reason. In addition, it was troublesome because I did not know what to write about. Nothing was sparking my interest and I was often simply staring at the computer screen without knowing what I should write about. This was when I decided to give up free write and just do response posts for all of the other blogs because it was more efficient commenting on the ideas of other people than it was to come up with topics that might or might not interest me.

     Blogging became easier after I decided to switch from blogging free writes to response posts; however, I still lacked the inspiration to blog and write posts. Moreover, the way I was writing did not help me develop or improve my writing skills. When I re-skimmed over the posts I had written during this quarter, I was able to get a basic understanding of how well I had been writing when I first started to post blogs.

     In a sense, I agree with parts of what Shiyun is saying, but I also disagree with her. True, rich people are different from poor people in various ways, and both rich and poor have similarities. However, I do not agree with the areas where Shiyun states that poor people have a "better life," trustful friends, and are nice and independent while rich people have distrustful friends and are mean and dependent. [...] Shiyun does not really define the terms "rich people" and "poor people" so it is hard to determine which individuals she is talking about. The terms she uses can vary depending upon which individuals she is comparing. Millionaires would be considered as "poor" when compared to billionaires; however, these millionaires would also be considered as "rich" when compared to the regular "working class" or those in poverty. In addition, the terms "rich" and "poor" can even be used in areas where there is poverty. For example, someone who is able to make ten dollars a day will be considered "rich" compared to another who makes less than ten dollars a day.

     This is a quote from my response the Shiyun’s “The Rich and The Poor: Part 1”. It was the first response post I did during the first quarter and it should underline the level in which I am writing at when I first started blogging because it represents the ability and the extent I was able to achieve at that point in time. In addition, all I had to do was to compare a piece of writing I did at the beginning of the first quarter with a piece I did at the end of the first quarter to see how much progress I made.

     Kristine is making a very critical point when she states that America is a place when everyone is suppose to be tolerated because they are suppose to have equal and natural rights. Instead, there are people who are denied their rights because they have a different sexual orientation than the "general population" of people. [...] Although it is understandable that individuals can be uncomfortable around others who are different from themselves, it is not correct to constraint those individuals from being who they really are. For individuals with a different sexual orientation, it is already hard enough for them to even choose to publicize their preferences because of the negativity the general society has towards them.

     This quote from my response to Kristine’s “What Has Society Come To?” was the last response post I blogged during the first quarter. Looking at these two quotes, I do not see mush of a difference between the forms of writing and the principles of ideas are basically similar to one another. Therefore, this shows that I have made no improvements through blogging during the first quarter.

     On the other hand, I was able to make some improvements between the two academic assignments. When comparing the analysis of Q’s character with the conflict in Night, the analysis between the concrete details is better in the second essay than it was in the first.

     However, it is easier to analyze a story than it is to blog free write posts because as essay has s prompt or a question that I can follow as I develop my points and support. Either way, there seems to be more progress in my academic assignments than in the regular blog posts.

     For the second quarter, I suppose my goals will be to spend more time on my blogs so that I am not actually procrastinating every week. In addition, I want to be able to find a significant enough of a reason to make me start focusing more on the responses that I am posting. Between the open-ended free write and the structured academic writings, I think I will stick with the more formal academic writing so that I will have more practice for college. This way, I will be able to find a reason to write better.

Night

     One’s fate often decides one’s struggles. In Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night, his fate – to live through the darkest era of his life, the Holocaust – presents him an option between his survival and his father. Elie's indecisiveness between protecting and abandoning his father constructs the central conflict.

     When Elie’s family first arrive in Birkenau, reception center for Auschwitz – a concentration camp, SS officers separate Elie and his father from his mother and sisters. The parting surfaces Elie’s instinct to stay with his father: “I had one thought – not to lose [my father]. Not to be left alone…At all costs we must stay together,” (Wiesel 27). Within the depths of uncertainty and fear of isolation, Elie’s conscience tells him the importance of remaining at his father’s side. At the risk of death, he is willing to follow whichever path his father is forced to endure. As new deportees go though the selection, Elie made sure he walked on the same path as his father: “The baton moved to the left…If [my father] went to the right, I would go after him,” (Wiesel 29). There were two paths – one to the crematory and the other into the concentration camp. Elie does not concern himself with the destinations of the two trails; he is willing to face the outcome as long as his remains with his father. However, this is before he endures the hardships of surviving a labor camp.

     As Elie struggles to survive within the concentration camp, his mind begins to wander from the importance of remaining at his father’s side. His mind is no longer constantly concerned about his father and only through a sudden jolt does he remember his father’s declining abilities: “And my father? Suddenly I remembered him. How would he pass the selection? He had aged so much…” (Wiesel 67). Elie has become so focused on his own survival and needs that he sometimes forget to concern himself with the well-being of his father. Survival in the labor camp meant continuously resist death and the temptation to give up, and without realizing it, the importance his father has on him is slowly fading away. Elie’s temptation to fight for his own survival slowly surfaces.

     When his father falls ill, Elie tries to remain a loving son by staying beside his father and tending his needs. Elie supports his father in whichever way he can by providing water and staying behind when all able individuals were to attend roll call. However, Elie soon abandons him because trying to tend and support the sick’s survival rather than his own – even if it was his father – only decreased his own chance to survival. When his father calls for him with his last breaths, Elie ignores him: “‘Eliezer.’…[My father’s] last word was my name. A summons, to which I did not respond,” (Wiesel 106). Elie decides that it is a better choice if his father is no longer weighing him down. He abandons his father and focuses on his own survival even though he regrets leaving his father behind.

     Throughout his struggle to survive the Holocaust, Elie is forced to choose between his life and his father. In the memoir, Night, the central conflict is between Elie’s choice of survival through abandoning or trying to find a way to support and protect his father. Eventually, he decides to abandon the weight and responsibility of his father.

What is the right response for society?

     Kristine's post on what society has come to is really interesting because is questions why America is unable to tolerate individuals with different sexual orientations:

At this moment, there are thousands of people fighting for equal treatment. These people are being constantly put down by society and everyone around them. Their rights are constantly being shot down and anything they try to do to gain their rights back lead to even more suppression and pain. These people are those who have different sexual orientations than everyone else. Whether someone is gay, lesbian, bisexual or anything else, they are still human beings. Nothing can change that. America is supposedly the country in which anyone is accepted and anyone has the same rights as everyone else. But look at where we are. Look at all the people around you anyone you know who has a different sexual orientation than the "norm" of society. They are not getting the rights they deserve.

     Kristine is making a very critical point when she states that America is a place when everyone is suppose to be tolerated because they are suppose to have equal and natural rights. Instead, there are people who are denied their rights because they have a different sexual orientation than the "general population" of people.
     Although it is understandable that individuals can be uncomfortable around others who are different from themselves, it is not correct to constraint those individuals from being who they really are. For individuals with a different sexual orientation, it is already hard enough for them to even choose to publicize their preferences because of the negativity the general society has towards them.
     I think sexual orientation is basically similar to an individual's gender. Whether the individual chooses to be what they want to be or if they were born that way, it is simply another choice or living style.
     If women and African-Americans were able to gain their rights through the changes in the Declaration of Independence when it was not included in the first place, why should individuals with different sexual orientations not be able to get their rights? The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and not tolerating a certain group of people is not "equal" at all.

Is Jealousy good or bad?

     In Shiyun's blog, she talks about jealousy:

When we are jealous, we do some things that we would not normally do. I think that we should be more calm when this happens. We do not always have to have what others have. If we do, then doesn't it just make us all the same. I think we should just feel happy for what they have. Everyone is different and there are other problems that we have to worry about in life. We can't always face with these little problems that we have because if we don't learn how to over come them we can not face life problems that we have in life later on. We can not let the feeling of jealousy take over our minds and bother our everyday lives. I have not felt jealous for a long time and I think that no one should have the feeling of jealousy. We need to be more happy in life and just laugh with our friends.

     I agree with Shiyun: we feel jealousy because of our differences, but these differences are what make us unique. Although people often think that being jealous of someone else is a bad thing, it is actually not because wanting something another person has can push us to do better in order to gain the thing we wanted.
     For example, Person A may find out that Person B has received a scholarship to the school he or she wants to go to and Person A also wants a scholarship so that he or she doesn't have to pay as mush for college. Person A may realize that Person B got the scholarship because he or she has been studying everyday and tries really had in school when Person A has not. Subsequently, Person A may try to work harder in school so that he or she can also gain a scholarship.
     I don't think jealousy is a bad thing unless it leads to bad outcomes in which an individual chooses not to use his or her own strengths to fairly gain what they want. Jealously can push an individual in working harder or it can corrupt them, such as making them learn to steal what they want.

Response to Vincent's "Right and Wrong Part One"

     I read Vincent's post and it got me thinking about the meanings and my beliefs of right and wrong.

A person can't be right and wrong at the same time. However, these two words are more similar than you know. They can actually be the same thing. Right can be wrong and wrong can be right. How is this possible? The answer lies in the human mind. Person A can consider whatever they are doing is the right thing to do, while person B can think that person A is doing the wrong thing. This of course causes a collision of two different mind thinking about what is right and wrong. I came up with two theories on why people have different views on this. One of them is that the sense of what is right and wrong is shaped by a person's personal experiences in life such as the things that they learn from other people, the places they grew up in, and the good or bad experiences that they have to dealt with in their life. My second theory is that it is all shaped naturally accordingly to the individual specific mindset/personality which creates a certain regime for that specific individual.

     Is right and wrong what individuals believe is correct and incorrect or is there a set of rules that clarify what is accurate of mistaken? Is what individuals believe to be right and wrong true or erroneous? Is there a constraint to how much people can believe is true of false to be right and wrong? If an individual does something believing they are correct or incorrect and another person believes the opposite, is the individual right or wrong?

     After reading this post, I became aware of how vague society really is, not only is there words we cannot truly define, there are things we can't really explain like the use of marijuana. By law, marijuana is an illegal drug; however, for individuals who need to use it for medical purposes, it is legal. Therefore, does this make marijuana legal or illegal? Is it legal for those who require it for medical purposes and illegal for others? If so, it this right or wrong?

     For now, I think there is a right and wrong to everything, or is this also either right or wrong?

Response to David's "Ability or Attitude?"

I was browsing through Google Reader when I found this (interesting?) post on David's blog and I just wanted to talk about it:

In my opinion, a small amount of success comes from ability while a lot of success comes from attitude. The reason is that if a person does not put any effort into what he or she is doing, there is no point in using any sort of ability. It mainly relies on the attitude of the person. Even though a person does not have the ability to do something, as long as their heart is in the right place, they will be successful because they are willing to learn how it does even without the experience and knowledge.

I agree with David in a way because success usually derives from attitude. Although an individual can fail if they have the motivated attitude but lack the ability, they usually become unsuccessful because they overestimated their ability and lacked enthusiasm. This is one of David's examples:

One example was mathematics project that a teacher handed out to the entire class for them to individually do. Over that assignment, I thought that this assignment was going to be easy and that even though I procrastinated, I was going to pass. Therefore, I waited two weeks until it was the last three days to finish the project. It turns out that I needed a lot of materials and it took me an entire day to gather them. Soon enough, I had two days left. I had to use them wisely but I got off task. I became behind and I used the last day to rush it. I turned it in incomplete and received a “C” mark on it.

David states that he had the ability to do the project but was lazy, decided to rush at the last minute, and failed. He overestimated his ability to complete the project because he thought that the assignment would be easy to finish. This proves that an individual with the ability but lacks the motivation will be unsuccessful because they believe that they can finish the project on time even if they wait until the last minute.

Analyzing Q's Character

     Qfwfq's cowardice causes him to remain neutral when conflict erupts around him.
     When the New Ones receive news on Dinosaurs being sighted, alarm spreads in the village. Confusion erupts within the New Ones: "'The Dinosaurs are coming back!' A herd of strange monsters had been sighted, speeding fiercely over the plain. At this rate they would attack the village the following morning. The alarm was sounded," (105). Although the New Ones do not know what Dinosaurs look like, they immediately assure that the beasts heading towards them were their enemies and prepare for battle. The term "Dinosaur" registers fear within the New Ones; however, the usage of that term surfaces a mixture of indecisive feelings for Qfwfq: "What was I to do?...The call of my blood insisted I should desert and join my brothers; loyalty toward the New Ones...demanded I should consider myself on their side..." (105-106). Qfwfq is hesitant about which side to support if war breaks out between the two species. He is unable to choose between the identity of being a Dinosaur and the identity of being an individual accepted to into the society of the New Ones.
     Rather than accepting one of the sides as a solution, Qfwfq rejects both the calling in his blood and his sense of loyalty. He resolute in running away: "That... night...I left the village. My...impulse was to get as far as possible from the battlefield, return to my secret refuges..." (106). Qfwfq is unable to dedicate himself between the challenging decision of choosing his identify as an individual of the past or as one of the present. He turns away from the options of remaining in the past or living in the present and moving on from the future.
     Qfwfq decides to remain neutral. Rather than encouraging a side, he chooses to criticize both of them: "...I knew full well that neither Dinosaurs nor New Ones were worthy of my lifting a finger for them...I wanted nothing to do with either side: let them rip each other apart in turn! I didn't give a darn about any of them," (106). In the end, Qfwfq dismisses the conflict as an insignificant problem by concluding that neither side deserves his help. He decides not to take part in the occurrence that involves himself the most by avoiding the incident altogether.

Response to Phuong's "Free Write: My 'Best Friend'"

     I found this very funny story on Phuong's blog, and I couldn't help but laugh as I read it. She starts off by saying that she has three "best friends" and I thought she was actually referring to actual people:

          I have notice how much bad luck I have been getting these few days. My three "best friends" are The Sun, Plants, and Bad Luck. These past days, they were very attached to me, especially bad luck. I tried to avoid them but it's inevitable. We are magnets stuck together which is sad for me. 

     When I first started reading this post, I thought that each of these characters symbolized an individual she knew, so I was trying to figure out who she talking about. However, as I read on, I realized that the "friends" she mentioned were non-human characters and that they were truly are her "friends," in the negative way.
     I'm not sure when she acquired these three friends but I do know that they cause her a lot of trouble and torture her to no end and it is the worst when the three of them gang up on her all at once. Phuong even states that:

          These three tend to work together and create my life of torture. Two of them seem "normal" to most people, but beware, every pretty thing/being have a darker side that they don't reveal. I am now trying to ignore them although it failed because the more I try to ignore them, the more they come to me.

     The best way for them to torture Phuong is in the seasons subsequent to winter, either spring or summer. During that time, her allergies are at her worst due to pollen and the sun is at its brightest. In a sense, that is already bad enough but it gets even worse when "Bad Luck" takes a part in becoming one of the torturers.
     Although this may be mean, I somehow find it funny, but it is really messes up for Phuong because she is the one going through the pain. Then again, it;s kind of fun watching her being tortured by her three "friends."

Response to Andy Tsang's "Prologue"

     I found this interesting I-don't-know-what-to-call-it on Andy's blog and it really sticks to me:

John just couldn’t put on a smile today. But who could blame him. A funeral is no place to be happy, especially when you’re the husband or son. There she lay, her face at peace; an expression completely different to mine. It all felt so unreal, like a dream, or more of a nightmare. And as the service ended, people began to clear out, except for John and I. We couldn’t move; our feet were entangled by the roots of our grief. After we paid our final respects to her, and she was whisked away by the staff, we were released from our trance, and grimly walked to the civic; one hand holding the keys; the other holding the boy’s.

     This reminds me of the funeral I went to when I was a kid. It belonged to my grandfather and although I no longer remember much about him, I still remember the day I went to his funeral.
     Back then, in my childish four-year-old mind, I thought that it was just another marginal day, that it was simply another day where my parents forced me to wake up early in the morning to go to some uninteresting place. I only noticed that I was in a church after I was forced to sit on the hard benches and seeing the colorful windows high up on the wall.
     I didn't understand why I was surrounded by relatives: some sad, some teary, and some crying. I suppose I only realized it was a funeral after seeing my grandfather in the coffin, or maybe I didn't realize. I might have only understood what happened after learning what a funeral was years after.
     However, there is one sight I will always remember about that day: my grandmother sitting alone on the bench at the very front, crying silently. Trying to facilitate the pain, maybe.

Being Bored

     What does is mean to be bored? Does it mean having nothing to do, having nothing you want to do, or you just want to be lazy and not do anything? I don't know. Seriously, I don't know.
     People throw around the word "bored" all the times, yet they never really stop to consider what they are truly using the word for. Whether it is at school or at home, the word "bored" is often used in many various ways and the most common phrases are "I'm so bored." and "This is so boring."
     Let's use an example, and because I am writing this blog for Sutherland's class, I'll be mean and pick on him. Today is Tuesday and you are already tired of school and classes because it is sixth period Sutherland's class. You go into the classroom and sit down in the regular seat just like any other regular day. Sutherland starts class with his usual blabber about whatever he might be talking about. After a while, Sutherland hits his beloved bowl a bit too loudly, pissing you off, to get everyone's attention. Then, he truly starts classes with some kind of strange topic talk that leads into a Quickwrite: "So! Let's talk about...(skip, skip, skip)...You have ten minutes and...Go!...(skip, skip, skip)...and the ten minutes is over!" Then comes the discussion you entirely don't pay attention to because ever since class has started, you have only been think about one thing: class being boring.
     Why is that? Why would an individual be bored? Out of the three possible choices, which was the individual's reason? I don't know the answer to this question. Maybe everyone has a different answer, or maybe there's no answer at all. I suppose how an individual chooses to reply to this question would depend on who the individual is because different individuals have different opinions.
     If this question came up for you, how would you answer? Would it be one of the three possible options or something else? Respond or comment if you want.


P.S. If you, Sutherland, read this, do not be offended by the example. It is entirely random and made up. I was bored so I ended up typing about being bored.

Response to Shiyun's "The Rich and The Poor: Part 1"

This is the interesting quote I found on Shiyun's blog:

      Poor people and rich people are really different in a way. Although rich people may have lots of money, poor people seem to have a much better life. I noticed that poor people mostly have trustful friends, nice, and independent; while rich people don't have trustful friends, they are mean, and not independent. Either way, they still have some similarities; both will got to school, have a family, and the knowledge is equal.

     In a sense, I agree with parts of what Shiyun is saying, but I also disagree with her. True, rich people are different from poor people in various ways, and both rich and poor have similarities. However, I do not agree with the areas where Shiyun states that poor people have a "better life," trustful friends, and are nice and independent while rich people have distrustful friends and are mean and dependent.
     Shiyun does not really define the terms "rich people" and "poor people" so it is hard to determine which individuals she is talking about. The terms she uses can vary depending upon which individuals she is comparing. Millionaires would be considered as "poor" when compared to billionaires; however, these millionaires would also be considered as "rich" when compared to the regular "working class" or those in poverty. In addition, the terms "rich" and "poor" can even be used in areas where there is poverty. For example, someone who is able to make ten dollars a day will be considered "rich" compared to another who makes less than ten dollars a day.
     In addition, I do not agree with her statements about rich people having unfaithful friends, and are negative and dependent while poor people have loyal friends, and are positive and independent. For one, I do not believe friends can be accounted for as part of the argument because an individual cannot control the thoughts and behaviors of their friends: they are their own beings and have their own ways of thinking, whether a friend is loyal or not is decided by the friend themselves. Moreover, there is no absolute saying that a "rich" person's personality is necessarily negative while a "poor" person's attitude is positive because every individual's personality is unique. A rich person has every possibility to be positive just as a poor person has the possibility to be negative. Additionally, whether a person is dependent or independent depends on the opportunities given and experience gained or the course of their life. As an example, a person cannot live on their own if they do not know how to cook or how to take care of themselves just as a person cannot survive on their own if they are unable to receive enough income to support themselves. Therefore, being "rich" and "poor" does not determine who an individual is.

My Vocabulary List

1. derive
2. acquisition
3. commission
4. compensation
5. constraint
6. discretion
7. facilitate
8. marginal
9. sector
10. subsequent

Debate Rebuttals

In Phuong and Crystal's opening statement, they said

In Hammurabi’s code, it states “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, therefore, a life for a life. Society needs to know that when someone sheds innocent blood, a high price is paid not only by the victim but also the murderer through the means of execution. Take for example the case of Timothy McVeigh, after killing 168 people with a bomb, we doubt that anyone can say that he deserved to live. If McVeigh had lived, who can say that he would not have arranged another bombing or kill more people. Only by sentencing the murderer to death will it ensure that the “killer will never kill again”.

However, they are contradicting Hammurabi's code with their example of Timothy McVeigh's death. If they execute McVeigh, it will only satisfy gaining revenge for one of the killed individuals. Moreover, it is also impossible to fulfill getting revenge for all 168 people because it is impossible to kill the same man 168 times over. Furthermore, by saying that the only way to make sure a killer will never kill again is to sentence that individual to death is incorrect because this is making an assumption that criminals cannot change, that people cannot find ways to amend for their mistakes, and that people are unable to forgive and forget. As a side note, even if the killer dies, it doesn't make the killed victim come back to life. A man is dead once they are dead. In addition, Phuong and Crystal states that

Killing, by definition, is the taking of a person’s life. However, it does not only mean taking the life away from a person, but also family away from family.

However, this point is insignificant. Although it is true that the death of an individual is the taking of a person's life from that person and its family, the execution of the murderer is also the taking of a life from an individual and its family. To relate back to the example given by the opposing side, wouldn't the death of McVeigh also be the taking of a life from a family? Wouldn't it be the same concept as the taking of a son's life from his parents and a brother from his siblings? Thirdly, the opposing side states that

Killing is a crime. It is against the laws of justice.

This point is also contradicting itself because executing a murderer or a criminal is still the killing of an individual. Although permission has been granted and the execution is technically legal, who has the right to decide whether that individual's life is to be ended or not? In addition, our opening statement said that this system is ineffective because "an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind", meaning that the cycle of death will never end if everyone live up to the statement of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and therefore, a life for a life." This is because the individual who injects the lethal poison, fires the gun, or uses whatever method assigned to end the criminal's life still technically ended a life with their own hands; therefore, that individual would also be considered to have killed someone.

Response to 'Just Kidding' and 'Ganging Up' from Odd Girl Out by Rachel Simmons

This is an interesting quote I found on Crystal's blog:

When I do see bullying occur, there are three obvious options: to help the victim, to join in with the bullying or choose not to do anything and have the victim fend for themselves. Though I would sympathize the victim, I would choose not to interfere because sometimes to not get involved is the best method to protect yourself. The reason is, if I help the victim, I will most likely become the next target and I might not even have the capability to help the victim.

     I think this quote helps relate to the ASTI Constitution because everyone is given three choices whenever they happen to witness bullying. As Crystal explains, the three choices offered are to either help the victim, join the bullies, or to do neither and be a bystander. However, when these options are presented to an individual, he or she would often most likely choose the third choice because that entity would like to avoid becoming the next victim, being despised by others because he or she joined the bullies, or simply due to the fact that the individual does not want to become involved with the situation in the first place.
     However, because individuals often decide to choose the third choice rather than trying to help the individual being bullied, this is breaking the sixth and ninth rule in the ASTI Constitution: 'speak up for yourself and others' and 'make a positive impact on the people and environment around you'. First of all, when a person ignores and walks away from the bullying happening in front of them, it is certainly not speaking up for yourself or others because to speak up is to stand up to the bullies. Second of all, there is no way bullying will make a positive impact because bullying is negative to both people and the environment no matter which way the situation is seen from. Therefore, bullying is breaking the ASTI Constitution.

'Just Kidding' and 'Ganging Up' from Odd Girl Out by Rachel Simmons

     From what I remember, there has never been a time where I have been part of an alliance that made someone feel bad or have been harassed by a larger group, so I do not know haw that would make me feel. However, I do know and have the experience of what it is like to be a bystander.
     Although I do not remember a specific moment where I have been a bystander in a bullying incident, I do remember that every time these situations come up, I have been presented with choices. There are three options: to help the individual being bullied and take the risk of also being bullied, to join the bullies in bullying the individual, or to be a bystander who does nothing for or against the situation. Every time I see a group of kids ganging up on an individual, I always choose the third option because of four reasons. One, I was not interested in being a bully. Two, I did not want to be one of the bullied individuals. Three, it had nothing to do with me. Four, I simply did not care. I did not want to become involved in the incidents that may end up becoming more complicated and troublesome.
     As for why people bully, I believe that there are many reasons, some which may be complex while others that may be simple. One reason that I know of for why individuals may bully others is because they wish to feel superior when compared to their peers. They wish to feel as though they have the authority over others and the ability to command their colleagues. In short, it is possible to say that bullies want power. Another reason can be family problems. The individual does not know what to do and vents out their negative feeling upon others in the form of bullying. There are many other reasons such as revenge, peer pressure, or simply because the bully dislike a certain individual and wishes to make that person's life miserable.
     In the end, bullying may always continue to exist because of different motives, as mentioned above, and different forms of bullying such as physical, verbal, and pressurized bullying. As long as individuals do not see one another as equals, there will always be conflicts erupting and bullying is only one of the many. Bullying can happens both anywhere and anytime, even if you are unaware.