Animal Farm Essay

     In society, language is a wide-spread form of communication. Different choices of words, tones, and topics can be used to influence the people it is directed towards. In George Orwell's Animal Farm, language is used as a form of persuasion by the pigs. Both Major and Squealer use reasoning to influence the "lower" animals, although their purposes are different.
     Major, a highly regarded pig on the farm, gave an influencing speech directed towards all of the animals concerning animals rebelling against the humans before his death. To persuade the animals into accepting his ideas about the rebellion, he uses the animal's fears and concerns. In his speech, Major addresses the life of the animals:

Let us face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies...and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end, we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty. No animal in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old. No animal in England is free. The life of an animal is misery and slavery: this is the plain truth...Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever (Orwell 28-29).

Major is careful in his speech. He is selective so that he chooses words that are easy for the "lower" animals to grasp, yet conveys the message of the animal's reality. He addresses the animal's fears - of being overworked, hungry, and slaughter - and blames them on Man because Mr. Jones, their owner, is a human. He tries to convince them that as long as Man is gone, they will no longer be hungry and overworked because they will no longer be kept alive and fed so that they work and are killed as soon as they become useless. In short, Major's message implies rebellion - that as long as the animals keep Man from controlling their lives, they will be happy and free.
     On the other hand, Squealer, a pig known to be very persuasive, speaks to persuade the other animals that the pigs need to have "special priorities" and "special needs" so that they can maintain their capability to work:

"Comrades!" he cried "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples...Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed at our duty? Jones would come back! ...Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?" (Orwell 52).

Squealer tries to convince the "lower" animals that the pigs are not consuming the milk and apples because they want to, but because it is necessary so that the pigs are able to maintain their duty of watching over the other animal's welfare. He questions the other animal's beliefs by asking if they assume that the pigs consume those foods due to selfishness and privilege. As a final attempt, he uses Mr. Jones to manipulate the "lower" animals into believing him. Squealer knows that none of the animals want Mr. Jones to regain control over them so he influences them by expressing that if pigs do not consume the milk and apples, Mr. Jones will come back to the farm.
     Between Major and Squealer, both pigs uses topics, including the animals fears, to convince them to take part of a certain action. However, the distinction is that Major tried to form a rebellion so that the "lower" animals can achieve happiness, leisure, and freedom, while Squealer tries to convince the other animals that the pigs should be prioritized.

Rebuttal to Phuong - Wikileaks

     Phuong's debate topic questions whether Wikileaks is more harmful or more beneficial to society as an overall. She believe that it is beneficial for the American democratic society and to societies ruled by corrupted governments because governments would be kept in check if Wikileaks reveal the actions of the government - good or bad - to the people. However, there are many weak points in her opening statement.
     For one, Phuong includes unrelated material without explanations:

The topic of whether or not political power corrupts those who attains it is related to this debate.

This line is irrelevant because Phuong's topic is expected to address the benefits of Wikileaks, not the concern of whether or not political power corrupts those who attain it. On the other hand, even if this line is related to the support of her belief, she does not defend this point.
     Second, Phuong does not use accurate facts:

News of how corrupted the government was had been revealed and it angered many people. They couldn’t take it anymore to the point that one person set himself on fire.

Here, Phuong states that a man set himself on fire because he could not tolerate the government's corruption after news about the government was leaked. However, resources, here and here, indicate that the man had set himself on fire because the police confiscated the fruits and vegetables he was selling from a street stall:

a young man, Mohamed Bouazizi, had set fire to himself in protest after police confiscated the fruit and vegetables he was selling from a street stall

Although the corruptness of the Tunisian government did anger many people, Phuong assumes that the man lit himself on fire because of the news leaked by Wikileaks when, in truth, the man had set himself ablaze in protest for having his products confiscated.
     Lastly, Phuong contradicts herself. Her conclusion states:

All in all, I think that Wikileaks is helpful to society in maintaining peace and giving people power and confidence.

However, in the same paragraph, she indicates that:

Just like the recent event of people setting themselves on fire and starting a rebellion because the news of their government was leaked out online.

This contradicts because her conclusion implies that Wikileaks help maintain peace when she also states that the leaked news from Wikileaks led to a rebellion and people setting themselves on fire. Rather than peace, this is violence.
     Therefore, Phuong has weak points in her opening statement.

Debate Opening Statement: Required Years of School

Topic: Should the number of years of required schooling be changed?
     In today's society, schooling is one of the essential, time-consuming tasks youths and teens are required to endure until the end of their senior year in high school. Although many students understand the importance of education towards an individual's future success, many would like to avoid spending almost eight hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year at school for twelve years of their life, excluding pre-school, kindergarten, and college. Therefore, the number of years of required schooling should be changed - not increased or decreased, but altered so that it fits the students.
     For one, people cannot deny the fact that all individuals are unique. Because all individuals vary in some way, it is not a surprise that individuals learn at different speeds with different styles. Some are better at math and others at English, or history, or writing, or science, or...etc. Some work better interpersonally and others intra-personally - it all depends on the individual. However, students are currently being assigned to "grades" based upon their age. They are expected learn at the same pace as the rest of their peers and to graduate to the next "grade" every year - their learning speeds are not taken into account.
     This expectation eventually leads to negativity - students begin to compare themselves to their peers and forget to factor in their differing individualities. They feel superior when comparing themselves to less academic peers and inferior when comparing to more academic peers. However, those who constantly feel inferior may choose to drop out of school - they are unable to bear the stress and expectation. In Barbara Pytel's "Dropouts Give Reason: Why do students leave high school without a diploma?," she gives the statistics of 500 interviewed dropouts to why they chose to leave school:

• 47% said classes were not interesting
• 43% missed too many days to catch up
• 45% entered high school poorly prepared by their earlier schooling
• 69% said they were not motivated to work hard
• 35% said they were failing
• 32% said they left to get a job
• 25% left to become parents
• 22% left to take care of a relative

From the statistics, over half of them said that they were not motivated to work hard. Students often begin to feel incapable to accomplishing after constant failures and this feeling of failure may come from comparison with their peers. As a result, they may choose to leave school to try to leave behind that feeling of defeat.
     Therefore, the number of years of required schooling should be changed but only altered so that students are able to learn at their speed since they may choose to drop out if the expectation is too high.

Political Power

     My opinion on political power is that political power does not necessarily corrupt the people who attain it. I think that corruption is only a possible outcome and that whether or not the individual with political power becomes corrupted or not depends on who the individual is and what the individual chooses to do with the attained power.
     For example, individuals who had abused their political power in history includes: Hitler from Germany, Franco from Spain, Mussolini from Italy, Stalin from Russia, and Mao from China. Although they may not have started out thinking that they wanted to be or would become corrupted individuals after attaining political power, they eventually became tyrants who abused that power. Therefore, I think that the corruption of individuals from attaining political power depends on who the individual is because some individuals become corrupted when they gets addicted to that power and are unwilling to release their grasp on it while some other individuals may only use their political power when it is for the good of others.
     As for George Orwell, I do not know how he would answer this question because I am not him, but I think he would agree that political power corrupts the people who attain it. In his book, Animal Farm, the animals describe some of the occurrences in their life:

The men had milked the cows in the early morning and then had gone out rabbiting, without bothering to feed the animals...At last they could stand it no longer. One of the cows broke in the door of the store-shed with her horn and all the animals began to help themselves from the bins...The next moment he and his four men were in the store-shed with whips in their hands, lashing out in all directions. (38)

     I think this quote shows an act of tyranny because it shows that Mr. Jones and him men believe that they can use unjust violence on the animals when they were the ones at fault for not feeding them in the first place. I think this shows corruption in people who attained power because Mr. Jones and his men believe that they have power over the animals, resulting in their belief that they can abuse that power.

Just Wanted to Pop This Bubble

     I am writing this post because I really, really, really, really (I would type "really" forever but Sutherland may end up making me rewriting this whole post or he may not even count it as a completed post, so let's just pretend that I typed in "really" three hundred and fifty times) want to pop Andy's bubble. I just found what he wrote in his post really, really (I promise I will not to type "really" for the rest of this post Sutherland, so do not get angry) amusing because he did not lie in the post - he just didn't include all the information and he only wrote what he believed was true. For this post, allow me to add some of the missing details and to correct some of his beliefs. Sidenote: This post will be written as though it is directed towards Andy.
     One: Dad does not wake you up at 6:30. He gets up at 6:30 so he does not wake you up until 6:45. In addition, you stole my alarm clock, so get your butt out of bed yourself.
     Two: I think you forgot to include how much time you spend online playing MMOs every day after you get home from school/tutoring in your schedule so you should edit that.
     Three: Cyber bullying is bullying only if you think it is bullying. It wouldn't even be bullying if you pretend that the people talking about you are old women gossiping like chickens (I don't remember how the phrase goes) because they have nothing else better to do.
     Four: People can contact you online because you have an email account, remember?
     Five: "Chow Mein" is a verb - it just depends on how you use it because people generally like to use it as a noun. Because you are going to ask for an explanation later, I will just tell you why now. People can say that they are going to cream pie (I don't remember if there is an "e" behind "cream" or not, but whatever - you get what I mean) someone, so why can't anyone chow mein someone?
     Last, but not least, six: Technically, I wouldn't even call what you said to Yazen in Chipman cussing (Yes, I was there - it was during lunch, if not, then you must have "cussed" at him more than once). Saying "f*ck" and "b*tch" once or twice is not cussing (at least not to me), so you really have to work on that.
     *pop* goes the bubble

Cussing

After looking at the topics that popped up in this week's blogs, I just really wanted to respond to Vic's post on cussing.

I feel like, if you cuss so much to anyone it has no effect. [...] Dropping bad words is a bad habit to start and may not possibly end. If you get too adjusted to the words, they just pop out sometimes. Even to the most simple things, a cuss word may leak out because those are your usual "describing" words.Those bad words may even become compliments because everyone uses them to describe bad things, unique things, and crazy things.

I agree with Vic when he states that people eventually become immune to cuss words after hearing the phrases being directed towards them or used to describe someone or something else after certain periods of time. People begin to adapt and they may even pick up and begin using these words.
It is also true that cussing would eventually become a bad habit (personally, I have a habit of using such words everyday and I do not plan to stop using them anytime soon). In fact, people can think of it as a habit worse than smoking and getting addicted to alcohol, marijuana, pot, etc because people can be restricted from these additions by not allowing them to get near whatever the individuals are addicted to but no one can restrict people from using cuss words - people can still think cuss words even if they cannot or do not speak them aloud. This is because words are part of human society; they are a part of communication - a way to express ourselves.
Because I believe that cussing is a form of expressing, I do not think of cuss words as "bad" words. Let's say that everyone took a test yesterday and the teacher is handing back the test today. Someone looks and the grade he or she got and says "f*ck," or "sh*t." How different would it be if that person substituted those words with "jeez" or whatever word they might use that they do not consider as cuss words? Would the word they use be considered as cussing? Or is cussing limited to certain words? What is cussing? Is cussing really even that bad?

Elite Colleges Debate

After reading all seven different response posts addressing the debate of "Does It Matter Where You Go to College," I decided the most persuasive response post was What You Do vs. Where You Go by Martha (Marty) O'Connell. She states that a student's decision of what he or she chooses to do with his or her time in college is more important than the school he or she chooses to attend because spending time in college resourcefully contributes to the student's success in college and beyond:

The key to success in college and beyond has more to do with what students do with their time during college than where they choose to attend.

This line interested me the most because it stated the truth - that hard work contributes to success. If an individual graduating from an Ivy League school with a Masters Degree applies to the same job as another individual graduating from a lesser known college or university with a PhD, the individual graduating from the lesser known college has a higher likelihood of getting hired. Even though the company may look at the resume from the person graduating from an Ivy League school first, the other individual is more likely to get hired because he or she spent additional time and effort in college.
In addition to finding What You Do vs. Where You Go as the most persuasive post, I find this response the least persuasive.

The “oohs” and “aahs” follow as the audience learns that Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates dropped out of college, that Oprah Winfrey is an alumna of Tennessee State and that Ken Burns graduated from Hampshire College.

Although this quote supports her idea of what a student chooses to do in college or university is more important than which college or university he or she chooses to attend, it also counters that very same argument. Using Oprah Winfrey and Ken Burns as examples positively contributes to her point because both of these individuals graduated from lesser known colleges and became successful; however, using Steve Spielberg, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as examples counter her point because, as O'Connell states, they "dropped out of college." How could college make them successful if they quit? Using them as examples can imply that individuals can become successful even if they do not go to college - which, sadly, is true for some people.
Therefore, I conclude that What You Do vs. Where You Go is the response I choose as both most persuasive and least persuasive.