Do We Need Adults? (Lord of the Flies Analysis)

 Do We Need Adults?

Kabir

Lord of the Flies is a 20th century book written by William Golding. Ralph and several other boys crash land on a tropical island, without any adult in sight. On an isle with feuds, bullying, and chaos can a group of boys beat the odds and learn to survive by themselves. Golding inadvertently hints at many reasons adolescent boys can and can't be trusted to survive without adult overseeing. This blog will take into account stories from the text to form an answer to the focal question.

Soon into the novel, the separated Ralph and Piggy discover a way to assemble all the boys in one place by blowing on a conch horn they found near a body of water. Already a sign of high intelligence, yet it only precedes the more impressive unity and logical skills that an unmonitored group of boys show after meeting. They propose a vote for leader, Ralph, who then unselfishly delegates another leader in charge of the "hunters." For a group with ages as low as six years old, they've thought up very rational ideas, and Ralph specifically showed lots of compassion gifting a leadership role to Jack, who just lost the vote to Ralph himself. 

Functioning and Just Government ✅

However, a working government doesn't necessitate a sense of camaraderie between the still immature boys. For one, this handing over of a large section the boys (hunters) will only create more division, fueled by the developing rivalry between Ralph and Jack. Consistently, Jack ignores Ralph's commands, crazed with his new persona around hunting. This went to the extremes of them missing a chance to escape on a passing boat, because Jack refused to light a signal fire. Along with Ralph's trouble, Piggy as he's is unfortunately nicknamed receives lots of abuse from the other boys. He is described as a fat boy, which is why the nickname stuck, who also suffers from asthma. Constantly he is picked on for both of these things, too often the butt of the joke. Near the end of the book, Piggy is pushed off a cliff by the deranged, violent hunters, while trying to calm everyone down. Not only is this lawless act horrifying, but it almost discredits any power and control this once ingenious government system was supposed to have.

Order and Unity ⛔

Finally, we must look into the ending result of the island. As Ralph and Jack fought and divided more and more, so did the island. Boys were forced to choose a side in who to trust their lives with, because make no mistake, this was a life or death ending. Many sided with Jack out of desire to feel free or out of pure fear. A war ensued on the island and slowly the hunters savagely took out Ralph's friends one by one. Without a doubt the actions of the hunters was barbaric. Roger, a chief of the hunters, even carved out a double sided stick, likely where he would put Ralph's remains if he was caught. Reading the last couple pages of the chase could make someone peek behind themselves out of sheer fear. Golding describes the hunters as emotionless beasts that only want blood. It is at last an officer who saw the commotion and ended up saving Ralph. 

Sanity ⛔

While savagery can't solely be accredited to the lack of adults, Golding's text certainly infers the tribulations and chaos ensued in the absence of adults. Certainly adults would remain sane much longer, and could control the kids' immature fantasies of being wild, blood thirsty hunters. If adults were on this fantastical island scenario, in all likelihood, they would have significantly bettered the situation.

Sexuality and Identity in "If We Were Villains" by M.L. Rio

Alana Santiago

    If We Were Villains by M.L. Rio is a mesmerizing novel that dives into the world of a preforming arts school where ambition and Shakespearean drama collide. This novel offers a blend of mystery, suspense, and complex relationships. While the narrative is primarily focused on a group of theatre students tangled in a web of deception and tragedy, one of the aspects of the book I found most compelling is its exploration of sexuality and identity. I find that the book skillfully addresses these themes and the impact they have on the characters and their journey. 

    One of the most refreshing aspects of If We Were Villains is its portrayal of sexuality in a way that subverts traditional stereotypes. The novel features characters who openly embrace their sexual identity, whether it's Oliver Marks, who grapples with his attraction to both men and women, or Meredith, who confidently asserts her bisexuality. I believe the novel does an excellent job of depicting characters who are unapologetically themselves, the novel challenges conformity and encourages readers to embrace diversity and individuality. 

    The novel explores the fluidity of sexuality and highlights the complexities of desire and attraction. The characters navigate relationships that defy easy categorization, blurring the lines between friendship, romance, and rivalry. This fluidity I've noticed in the novel adds depth and realism to the story, reflecting the varying nature of sexuality. I can't seem to decide whether it was Oliver and James or the subtle flirtations between the other characters that captures the nuances of intimacy and attraction. 

    While the novel celebrates diversity and acceptance, it also acknowledges challenges and conflicts that can arise from societal expectations and prejudices. The characters of the novel struggle with internalized homophobia, fear of rejection, and the pressure to conform to social norms. These struggles add layers of complexity to the story and illuminate the ways in which sexuality intersects with power dynamics and personal identity. 

    While reading If We Were Villains, I found it to be a thought-provoking exploration of sexuality and identity that challenges the reader to confront their own preconceived notions and biases. Through its richly drawn characters, complex relationships, and nuanced portrayal of desire, the novel offers a powerful reminder that sexuality is not a binary or fixed concept, but a deeply personal and diverse aspect of the human experience. 

Does Day Deserve to be Executed in Marie Lu’s Legend?

Does Day Deserve to be Executed in Marie Lu’s Legend?

By Ellie Rosch

    Legend by Marie Lu is a sci-fi dystopian book featuring two main characters named Day and June. June grows up wealthy and favored by a government she’ll later learn is corrupt. Day grew up poor and after taking a government mandated test and failing, the government tested on him and he was presumed dead. Obviously he survived and he turned to getting money in illegal ways so that he could still support his family. He becomes a vigilante of some sort that the government wants to kill. 

    First let's look at the crimes Day committed. The book opens his perspective with him sneaking into a hospital and stealing medicine for his youngest brother who was just diagnosed with a deadly sickness that’s spreading across the Republic (the faction of America they live in). He escapes, but narrowly. He almost gets caught by another officer and is forced to throw a knife into his shoulder so he can escape (Lu 33). Day is most famous for setting fire to a warehouse full of planes that would be used to hurt people living outside of the Republic. We also meet a character that Day has cut on his face that resulted in a thin scar (65). We also learn later in the book that Day often bets on street fights for money. 

    The way in which Day tries to save his family with illegal means is not by any means ok, but throughout the book we learn rules that he has and lines he doesn’t cross. The biggest one is his no-kill rule. Day often uses his smarts to steal or win money and his agility to run away. These tactics are non-lethal and he only engages in combat if he has too. The soldier that he threw a knife at actually ended up dying at someone else’s hand, but for a while Day thought he actually did kill him. He was ridden with guilt and I think that’s really telling of his character. 

    Day eventually gets captured and while deciding his legal fate the government doesn’t even give him a trial, but if they did his intentions would have become clear. Day never wanted to hurt anyone. It wasn’t his fault that he failed the government test and it’s a miracle he even survived the government testing. He never wanted to become a vigilante but his family would’ve most definitely died without his support throughout the years. It ends up all being for naught as his mom and older brother die halfway through the book by government interference when Day gets captured. 

    The government decides to execute him but I think that’s very harsh. Yes, he has done some bad and illegal things but I think of him as more of a Robin Hood character. All he does is to hurt the corrupt government and provide for his family. The government can take the hits Day gives and his family needs support, especially because his older brother was the only one who could get money (Day’s mom had to take care of her 9 year old named Eden who’s preparing for the government test and their father ran away). Not to mention, Day is fifteen. The government took this kid who they couldn’t catch for the longest time (and they only did because they found out his identity and killed his mom) who never killed anyone and sentenced him to die by firing squad in public. 

    My point is Day didn’t deserve to be sentenced to the firing squad. The government was behind all of his troubles and while he did participate in illegal activities that deserves jail time, no one can say a fifteen year old kid that never wanted to hurt anyone, never killed, and looked after his family, that he deserved to die for everything he did. He may be a vigilante but he still has morals.

Works Cited 

Lu, Marie. Legend. Penguin Books, 2011.

Is It Offensive for Sports Teams and Their Fans to Use Native American Names, Imagery and Gestures?

 

Is It Offensive for Sports Teams and Their Fans to Use Native American Names, Imagery and Gestures?

Several sports teams use Native American mascots and names, from high school basketball teams to professional football teams. However, these mascots and gestures could be offensive to Indigenous people. The mascots and chants not only promote Native American stereotypes but also disrespect Native American culture and beliefs. Research done by the University of Michigan shows that Native Americans oppose these names and mascots, and many of them are offended by them. There have also been protests against these Native American mascots, urging for a name change. A few teams have changed their names and mascots to accommodate to these objections. One prime example is the Washington Redskins, changing their names to the Washington Commanders. One article, however, argues that Native inspired names and mascots are a good thing.

An article written on a University of Kansas blog points out that these names and mascots should not be considered offensive. The writer states that they use the Native American names and images out of admiration, and they regard their culture with great respect. A news reporter says that these teams decide their mascots based on something they want to be positively associated with. They say that Native Americans are considered to be courageous warriors, and would like them to be represented in that regard. They also say that using Native American images and mascots can help educate others on Native American culture. They believe that using these names and mascots could be a way of keeping Native Americans to "remain visible and relevant in mainstream America."

Although it may be true that Native-inspired names and mascots could possibly spread awareness and knowledge about Native culture, I believe that it should be up to the Native American community to decide whether it promotes their culture or promotes negative stereotypes. Based on the articles I've read, it seems as if white team managers and news reporters were the only ones involved in the discussion. Apart from protests, Native Americans did not really have a say in the matter. I think that this is the ultimate problem. If you are debating an issue and want to settle it, you should involve the people who are the subject of the debate, and allow them to have a say. If teams wanted to promote their way of life, then they should ask permission from the Native American community if they can keep the images and names or reconsider them.

A few sports teams have already changed their names and mascots, and I think the rest should do the same. In the case of the Kansas City Chiefs, they chose their name as an homage to an old Kansas City Mayor, Roe Bartle. I think that it's fine in that case, but in any other instance, they should first consult with Native Americans to see what they think. There are many Native Americans who consider the images and names offensive, and there are even protests about it. You can't just ignore all that and say that you're respecting their culture. I think that if the teams would like to respect Native Americans, then they should listen to them.

Do Screens Get in the Way of our Lives?

Do Screens Get in the Way of our Lives?

Have you ever spent hours at a time scrolling through your phone, pulled in by a senseless urge, or even looked at your screen time and questioned what all that time was spent doing. Hours pass by like minutes on screens and by the time the dopamine rush has vanished and you leave the virtual world, everything seems to have blown past you and regret fills your mind. While this might not be the most common experience, it has been mine. In that precious time, I could've finished half of my Consumer Education course, read a book from start to finish, taken my dog on a walk, or taken time to appreciate my surroundings. Instead, the meaningless expression of entertainment through screens occupies that time. Are the things we see on our screens beneficiary to us? Not particularly, in fact one could argue the opposite. This is why screens are an interruption in our life.

According to the CDC, kids aged between 11-14 spend nearly 9 hours a day on screen entertainment! This obviously ranges from watching TV to scrolling through social media on a phone. Though this number might seemed skewed, several other sources (ranging in trustworthiness) shared similar data. Assuming this number is true, then kids aged 11-14 use over 130 days in a year looking at a screen. If the habit continues that's 1/3 of a full life occupied on looking at a screen. By some interpretations of this information, screens could be the most downplayed issue, even addiction of our generation.

To put in perspective and really ingrain the sheer amount of time spent on screens, these are somethings you could do in the 4 year period between 11-14 that the average kid spends on a screen. The ten thousand hour rule states that true expertise in something requires practicing for ten thousand hours. So, if you dedicate the same number of hours from screens to refining a skill you could master it and still have over 3,000 hours remaining (125 days). Also, assuming high school is 175 days a year and 7 hours long, you could graduate high school nearly 3 times.

The point of this blog isn't to trash on the use of screen entertainment, but rather bring awareness to the necessity of moderation of it. I chose not to cover the mental and social consequences of screen use, rather only the sheer number of hours lost. It would be hypocritical to give advice on this, because I too spend much time on social media, but hopefully we can all make more efforts to find entertainment outside of screens.

https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/multimedia/infographics/getmoving.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662388/#:~:text=Throughout%20his%20book%2C%20Gladwell%20repeatedly,at%20least%2010%20000%20hours.

Love-Bombing.’ ‘Gaslighting.’ ‘Victim.’ Is ‘Trauma Talk’ Overused?

by: Alana

    In recent years, the terms ``love-bombing," "gaslighting," and "victim" have become prevalent in discussions surrounding relationships and mental health. These terms offer a way to describe complex and often manipulative behaviors, allowing individuals to better understand and communicate their experiences. The rise of what some may refer to as 'trauma talk' reflects a growing awareness of psychological dynamics in relationships and the importance of mental health discussions. However, as these terms become more mainstream, there is a growing concern about their potential overuse and the subsequent dilution of their significance.

    The term 'love-bombing' describes an intense showering of affection and attention in the early stages of a relationship, which may later be revealed as a manipulation tactic. 'Gaslighting,' on the other hand, involves psychological manipulation to make a person doubt their own perceptions and sanity. The use of the term 'victim' can be complex, as it is essential to recognize genuine victims of abuse while avoiding over-applying the label to situations that may not warrant it. The challenge lies in striking a balance between providing individuals with a language to express their experiences and preventing the terms from losing their gravity through casual or indiscriminate use.

    As 'trauma talk' gains popularity, some may argue that the overuse of these terms risks oversimplifying complex relationship dynamics and pathologizing normal challenges. The concern is that by applying these labels too broadly, the true gravity of certain situations may be minimized or misunderstood. Moreover, there is a risk of perpetuating a culture where everyone is quick to identify as a victim without considering the nuances of their experiences. Striking the right balance is a major part of ensuring that the language remains meaningful and that individuals can genuinely benefit from these terms when navigating their own mental health and relationships.

    Despite concerns about overuse, it's important to acknowledge the positive aspects of 'trauma talk.' These terms have empowered many individuals to recognize and articulate manipulative behaviors, fostering a culture of awareness and providing a basis for seeking help. By having a shared vocabulary, survivors can connect with each other, validating their experiences and promoting a sense of solidarity. Recognizing the potential pitfalls of overuse, while still acknowledging the benefits, is key to fostering a healthy dialogue around mental health and relationships.

    In conclusion, the debate over the overuse of 'trauma talk' highlights the delicate balance required when discussing complex topics such as love, manipulation, and victimhood. While these terms have undeniably played a significant role in raising awareness and fostering conversations about mental health, it is essential to approach them with care. Striking a balance between providing individuals with the language to express their experiences and preventing the terms from losing their significance ensures that 'trauma talk' continues to be a valuable tool for those navigating the complexities of relationships and mental health.

What Is Love Bombing? 7 Signs To Look For (clevelandclinic.org)

The problem with describing every misfortune as ‘trauma’ – Chicago Tribune

Trauma | definition of trauma by Medical dictionary (thefreedictionary.com)

What is gaslighting? Examples and how to respond (medicalnewstoday.com)

What Is Trauma? Effects, Causes, Types, and How to Heal (psychcentral.com)

Should Boys and Girls Teams Compete in the Same League

 Should Boys and Girls Teams Compete in the Same League 

By Ellie Rosch

    I’ve competed in sports my entire life. I currently play volleyball, basketball, and soccer, but have also done archery and horseback riding for a large portion of my life. I play on all-girls teams now, but I have either played on co-ed teams or scrimmaged with all-boys teams in any sport. Some sports, I don’t really think it matters what gender you are; Chess, for example, is a mental game and is an even playing field for both genders. But even though I don’t think it’s right to separate gender in chess, I do think boys and girls teams should be separate in physical sports.

    There is science backing this up. Boys, as everyone knows, have a lot more testosterone than girls. Girls have between 15-70 ng/dl of testosterone whereas boys have 208-496 ng/dl. Testosterone allows boys to build more muscle mass and strength, stronger bones, and just overall increases physical physique. This leads to men having a 45% higher vertical and a 25% faster sprint. This means that boys will always have a biological advantage against girls when engaging in any physical activity.

    This can lead to lots of problems if they compete together. Namely, injuries would be more common. Women are already more susceptible to injuries such as ACL tears, shin splints, and ankle sprains. Now, if they were playing with boys who biologically will be stronger and faster than them, more injuries would be bound to happen. Plus, another advantage of testosterone is that boys recover faster. So maybe at the end of a sports season a girl might need more rest than a boy purely because the girl’s body needs longer to heal. 

    Another issue is fairness. Because of all of the advantages of testosterone, boys will be biologically better than girls at sports. Girls have to work twice as hard to build muscle or speed than boys do. If a boy and a girl have the same drive to make it pro and work really hard at the same sport, biologically the boy will be better and take away opportunities from that girl. Women in sports would fade out of existence because the boys will always be better. Female athletes just wouldn’t exist anymore. 

    The same goes for the boys though too. While testosterone does give them huge advantages in sports with a lot of explosive movements like jumping and sprinting, women’s bone structure is better for long distance sports such as long distance swimming and running. The bone structure of girl’s hips and shoulders make it easier for them to bear the weight of running for long and their higher body fat makes them more buoyant in the water. They are also more flexible which is helpful in sports like gymnastics, dance, and figure skating. Those would quickly become women dominated sports.

    Boys and girls are athletically the same till they’re 8 but when they get to middle school, high school, and further on, it is no longer fair or safe for girls and boys to play together. The advantages and disadvantages between the two genders are too great to make them compete together. The reason that they are separate is because there are so many differences in gender that matter in physical sports. They are also separate in order to protect both female and male athletes from gender erasure in their sports.

Works cited 

Handelsman, David J et al. “Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance.” Endocrine reviews vol. 39,5 (2018): 803-829. doi:10.1210/er.2018-00020

"Why Girls Should Not Be Allowed to Play Sports with Boys." Wildcat Voice, https://wildcatvoice.org/854/opinion/why-girls-should-not-be-allowed-to-play-sports-with-boys/.

"Testosterone Levels." Mount Sinai Health System, https://www.mountsinai.org/health-library/tests/testosterone#:~:text=Normal%20Results&text=Male%3A%20300%20to%201%2C000%20nanograms,0.5%20to%202.4%20nmol%2FL.

"Normal Testosterone Levels by Age." Baptist Health, https://www.baptisthealth.com/blog/mens-health/normal-testosterone-levels-by-age#:~:text=Normal%20testosterone%20level%20in%20early,100%20to%201%2C200%20ng%2FdL.