Carr

While reading Carr's article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" I chose to read it on the computer, I find while reading that I can better focus when I'm reading something off line rather than on printed paper. My assumption of why I prefer to read stuff like that better, is because when I'm on the computer it doesnt feel as much like homework than when I have stuff printed in front of me and I can see the thickness of the packet i have to read thru. I tend not to really get distracted or click on anything extra while reading. However, i do catch my mind dirfting off and wondering if anyone good is on facebook or if i have any news updates which can get a bit distracthing while I'm trying to concentrate on what i am reading. I agree with carr though, i think the internet is making people i wouldnt say stupid, but more lazy. we no longer have to flip thru pages of stuff to find answers, we have online dictionaries and basically everything you can imginage on line at your finger tips where no flipping of a page is necessary, no digging thru books trying to find the answers. So i suppose i agree yet disagree with Carr. I wouldnt necessarily say google or the internet is making us stupid as a soceity just more lazy and not willing to read as much.

ong blog 13

Ong's article that we read for this blog, was talking about how writting is a type of technollogy. How writting dumbed people down in a sense because we no longer need to remember stuff in our brains to tell a story orally since we can just write it down and no longer need to remember details in oder to retell the story. I feel as though texting and cell phones have done the same thing. With cell phones we have everyones number all in the same spot, we no longer need to remember phone numbers, because all we have to do is go to our contacts and hit call, rather than take the time to remember the number, dial the number, and so on. So cell phones like writting is taking away from our memory skills. Texting I feel is really affecting writting and peoples intellegience because text lingo is so different than normal speech. It is almost as though it is a foriegn language that one has to relearn. So now not only do we have to no longer remember common things like before but we have to learn a whole new way of writting the texting lingo. As technogoly keeps advancing i think people will continue to become dumber in a sense because they are able to loose their brain less and less and are no longer forced to use their brain for such things such as memory. I am intrested to see where we will be 1o years from now, with the new technology, will we even have schools or will everything be through a computer?

yo momma so dumb.. she thought a quaterback was a refund.

The articles that we read over the past week and half were both about the different dialects that students use and learn while in school. They discused whether or not there should be a set standard English that is taught or whether a person should be able to speak with a dialect thats unquie to them, and what they feel comforatable with. Elbow's article was about how students should be taught to use one system of writting and one way of talking in English. Where as Smitherman thinks that everyone should be able to use their own dialect because thats what makes them unquie. Smithermans article was all about Eubonics and why and how it actaully became part of the "English Language" or why we can compare it to english. I would have to agree with Smitherman. I think that everyone should be able to talk how they want. However, I do think that there is a time and a place where you can talk in a dialect of your choice and when you should speak using proper English; as we discussed in class. For example, if two people were interviewing for a job, for the example we'll have both people be African American, and one used Eubonics and one used proper English, the person using proper English would be more likely to get the job because they would sound more intellegent. Since proper English is what is widely known and taught in school, where as Eubonics is what is picked up on the streets, or with in certain communites, and the interviewer may not know what you are tyring to say. I do think everyone should be entitld to talk as they please with respect to the situation.

blog 8

A students right to their own language... When I hear this, it makes me think of my friends. I talk to many different groups of people, and they all talk a little differently and use different words when referring to stuff, or different phrases. However, it is all still English, its not like theyre making up their own language or speaking a different language. I suppose this ties into the dialect portion of the article, all my friends talk in dialects that differ from each other. The phrase right to their own language, I feel like means that everyone should be able to speak with their own style. Everyone should be able to put their own flare into how they talk. It's part of what makes them, them, its a personality trait in away. I agree that students should be able to have a right to their own language. For instance how I am writing this blog would not be how I would have a conversation with my friends on the street. So, yes you can read what I'm saying, but are you really getting a feel for who I am? I think it would make writing a lot more interesting if we could write in the dialects in which we talk.

Says Who

Wallace's article brought up many points throughout it that I have pondered many times myself. Not to meniton it was a decently funny article to read. I've sat and wondered numerous times, how does a language even get invented? For instance, who thought about calling a spoon, a spoon? or that a dog should be called a dog, instead of a barker since it barks. Just as Wallace brought up the point, who says what goes in the dictionary. We all run to the dictionary for answers about words, deffintions, and spelling, yet who even wrote it, or said that they're correct on what they put in? The people who wrote it are no different than any one else, minus the fact, they wrote a dictionary and that apperantly is like god. Also he brought up and discussed how English keeps changing over time for instance we dont use the word thou any more when refering to a person, we say "you." How did these changes come about? This whole langauge and who thinks of this stuff and how it gets to be set in stone as thats what the word will mean, really baffles me. Because when you think about it these people arent any different than you, or me. Theyre just people who apperanlty have a lot of pull in society. This essay almosts tempts me to make up my own word or phrase, start using it, and see if I can get people to start using it as well. Wish me luck!

Analysis

“Perhaps more significant than what they taught is what they believed. As Trent says, “”They held visions of us that we could not imagine for ourselves. And they held those visions even when they themselves were denied entry into the larger white world. They were determined, that despite all odds, we would achieve.”” In an era of overt racism when much was denied to African- Americans, the message drilled into students was “”the one thing people can’t take away from you is what’s between your ears.”” The teachers of both men insisted that they must achieve because “”you must do twice as well as white people to be considered half as good.”” (Lisa Delpit, The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse 549).

This passage from Delpit’s essay, is talking about how racist the world is against African American education, that even though they may be smart, no one thinks of them as being that way, thus making them have to work twice as hard as a white person to prove their intelligence and ability to learn.

While we are in the 20th century and most claims to racism are, or appear to over, Delpit’s article about literate discourses bring up an overt type of racism against African American’s and their ability to learn. According to Merriam Webster’s dictionary, Overt means, open to view: manifest, and racism means, a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. So Delpit is stating in her essay by saying overt racism that people are being open or blunt about being racist towards African American intelligence or literate discourses. Delpit quotes a guy named Trent in her essay. Trent’s main point is that white people had visions for what African Americans can achieve that even African Americans themselves did not understand or foresee happening. How could a person of a different ethnicity set a goal for someone who they think are so inferior to them. The white people set these goals that even if it were met by a member of the African American ethnicity still wouldn’t be accepted as worthy of being compared to white standards. However all though they were told that they weren’t as smart or as educated or as prominent to succeed to learn as a white person the African American people should not give up but have the will power to move forward and succeed with their education to prove to the white people they could do it. The quote “the one thing people can’t take away from you is what’s between your ears” Is really an eye catching well written quote. No matter what people tell you, you can’t do, you can do, and you won’t succeed in. No matter how hard someone tries to change you or who you are, the one thing no one can ever change about you unless you want to change, is your brain. Your brain, that thing between your ears, gives you the power and the intelligence to do whatever and succeed in whatever you put your mind to. That’s the beauty of it, and this essay. African American’s like all people have brains and therefore should not be held back by any literate discourse; because just like white people they too have brains.

Delpit

I actaully found this article by Lisa Delpit to be quiet interesting. I like how she wrote and responded for much of her article, to Gee's which we had previously read. My favorite thing about this article was the she told little snippets of stories of people she knew, such as "Marge," who learned another discourse; when everyone had the mindset that people ecspecially african americans are stuck with the discourses they are born with. However like the story stated Marge went and proved them all wrong and learned and became excellent at writting research papers after she was taught by "Susan." A quote I really liked from the article that I think should pretain to everyone not just aferican amerians was, "the one thing people cant take away from you is what's between your ears." I really liked this quote because its true, people can try to change who are as a person or try and change everything about you, but they cant change your brain. It's yours, YOU and only YOU can pick to change something about it. This article was also interesting to me because it reminded me of the special ed kids I worked with my junior and senior year of high school. Most teachers thought because they were special ed they wouldnt be able to learn something the rest of the class was learning, however I found after working with them they can learn, and they want to learn, if someone will take time to teach them! This article made me think alot about schooling and the different types of people in the world today.

Blog 3. Brandt

Brandt's essay was about sponssorship of literacy. However, his use of the word sponsors differs from what one would normally connect the deffiniton to. When I think of the word sponsor the pitty commericals that are asking for money to help support this and help support that come to my mind. "for only $1.00 you can sponsor this little girl and save her life. I think of the word sponsor in regards to giving or supporting something with a money or another type of donation. According to the dictionaries deffinition sponsor can also mean: Definition of SPONSOR
1
: one who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation and undertakes responsibility for the person's religious education or spiritual welfare
2
: one who assumes responsibility for some other person or thing

From merriam websters dictionary.

However Brandt's usage of the word sponsor is one that I've never really considered before. Brandt uses the word sponsor throughout his essay in referring to that of someone who teaches or shows a person something such as a skill. Normally we would refer to these people as teachers. Brandt refers to teachers, and parents or anyone who takes their knowledge of a subject and shares and educates another is considered to be a sponsor based on Brandts understanding.

I think its interesting that he considers teachers and such to be sponsors. I never really thought about them in that regrad but I guess in away they are sponsors. They're investing theyre time and knowlege into a person and bare the out come. Teacher's spend 8 hours a day sponsoring their students to make sure that they understand and know everything that they are required to. Parents sponsor their children for 18 years investing the facts and knowledge of life into them. I've never considered this point of view before but its really quite interesting to think about.

Blog 2.. Gee

Gee's article was well kind of confusing to me in a way. I felt like I was understanding what he was saying, but then I would find myself gettin lost in the text, or just not quite comprehending what was being said. What I think Gee's article was about, was Discourse. He explained that theyre can be a primary discourse and a secondary discourse. He also explained in detail about how and what discourse is and how we use it in our everyday lives even though what were doing may not seem like we would be demonstarting a discourse. He explained how discourse cant really be taught its just something you have to pick up on and do. He said aline something along the lines of discourse is a lingustics, and you cant be taught lingustics you just have to be or do lingustics. Towards the end of his paper, Gee connected Discourse with literacy, and how reading should be considered part of a discourse. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure if I picked up the whole jist of his paper, but I tried to make sense out of what I could.

I am kind of torn with Gee's reasonin of what a discourse is I think that based off his deffinition of what discourses are, it could be connected easily with the many diffentions of Literacy. I think the two words go hand in hand with each other. To be literate at something means your skilled or knowledgeable in that aspect of a trade or enviorment. With discourse you are also showing that you know how to do something such as reading. Gee spent his paper trying to decipher the differences between the two words and show how theyre different but in my opinion i still think they are closely related.
Questions:
1. If your an expert at something, lets say a mechainc for instance, would that just be an example of discourse, or would that mean you show your literate in the subject of how to fix cars?
2.Gee says on page 526 that "a discourse is like an "idenity kit" which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instuctions on how to act, and talk...etc" However how does one know when to use which type of discourse? Is there set rules? Or is it to each their own opinion.

What does Literacy mean?

Deffinitions:

a person's knowledge of a particular subject or field: to acquire computer literacy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literacy

Literacy has traditionally been described as the ability to read and write. It is a concept claimed and defined by a range of different theoretical fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy

literacy, capacity to communicate using inscribed, printed, or electronic signs or symbols for representing language. Literacy is customarily contrasted with orality (oral tradition), which encompasses a broad set of strategies for communicating through oral and aural media. In real world situations, however, literate and oral modes of communication coexist and interact, not only within the same culture but also within the very same individual. (For additional information on the history, forms, and uses of writing and literacy, see writing.) ... (80 of 2147 words)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/343440/literacy


Literacy is the ability to use text to communicate across space and time. It is often reduced to read and write, or, sometimes, the ability to read.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Literacy

After researching the deffinition of Literacy I came to the conclusion that there is no real concrete diffention of what Literacy means. The word can mean many things depending on how you feel like using or viewing the word. When we discussed the word in class we were all told the same word, yet everyone had a different meaning of what the word means to them. Some of the words that kept coming up in my research were read, write, and text. The websites seemed to agree that literacy should be something along the lines of having the ability to understand how to read, comprehend what you're reading, and how to write. In class we did say the ability to read and to comprehend just as the websites did. However we also came up with ideas such as book smarts and street smarts, something I would have never thought would mean literacy. After looking and researching the deffinition of being literate book and street smart do make sense because we are learning to do something and then displaying what we've learned. I think if I had to form a deffiniton for the word Literacy, I would say literacy is something that one learns and then demonstrates their skills of understanding. Such as if you learn to read, one must then demonstrate that they are comprehending this new skill. Based on the deffinitions from the websites the word literacy mainly ment being able to ready write or understand a text. However I think literacy can be associated with many more topics besides just reading and writting. I guess I dont really have a concrete question but I am left to wonder if literacy critics will ever expand out from their orignial deffinitions.

Introduction

Hello Everyone, I'm Heather Komorowski and I am in my sophomore year here at UWM. Everyone is skilled and literate in their own way and their own concepts. I like to think I am literate in many things as well. I've been working since that age of 14 handling cash and dealing with customers, so I like to think that I am literate with money handling and assoicating with customers. I think I am literate at this becuase I learned and became good at counting money and making change. Also, I became literate with dealing with cusomters because I had to learn to adapt to different peoples personailties. I also think I show literacy with texting because I am extremely fast even when only using one finger to illustrate a text. I also like to think I am literate when it comes to hair, because I went to cosmotology school for three months where I learned the basics of all different hair techniques and styles. I believe I show that I am literate when its comes to being a good friend, becuase I learned how to listen, give advice, and keep my mouth shut when neccesary. I like to think I am and have learned to be literate in many aspects of my every day life.