Rhetoric in "The Souls of Black Folk"

The rhetoric in “The Souls of Black Folk” is quite different from that found in “Up from Slavery”. While “Up from Slavery” is focused on a wide variety of audiences with a broad easy to read writing style, “The Souls of Black Folk” is aimed at a much narrower audience. Dubois uses multiple references to ancient Greek mythology to illustrate3 his points, and although he explains enough so that a layperson unfamiliar with the myths would be able to understand the basic meaning of the metaphor, the text is much more meaningful to someone who already understands them. Besides this Dubois also references quite a few statistics to illustrate the conditions under which black society functions. This is itself an indication of what kind of audience Dubois is writing for. He is writing for an intellectual audience. This also indirectly relates to whether he is writing for a white or black audience. At the time Dubois was writing this the majority of the Black population would not have been able to read this text. Even if they were actually literate they would probably have been to busy working to read a text of this nature, assuming they could even get access to it in the first place. This isn’t to say no blacks at all would read it, but it would be blacks from the more intellectual side of society, likely the ones who were studying or teaching in institutions of higher education. On the other hand while the same reasoning applies to white society, there was a much higher population of white people who fit this description. Of course the entire text is not written in this style. Several of the chapters are written in a narrative style that is both easy to read and describes black life on a more personal level. These chapters would be more accessible to people who would not fall under the category of being intellectual. In fact the nature of the chapter layout itself is quite interesting. The chapters skip between topics that vary widely. While the book on the whole appeals to a more intellectual audience individual chapters vary. This was probably the intent of the relatively random nature of the chapter layout. Dubois was probably attempting to appeal to a very wide audience. So that no matter who read the book at least one or more of the chapters would appeal to them and carry across Dubois’s primary message, which was that the key to the improvement of Black society lay in the education of at least some of the black population in higher more classical forms of education. These people would then be able to more clearly deal with the problems affecting society by dealing with them in ways that would lead to more future improvement rather than simply trying to get short term gains at the expense of long term gains. According to Dubois these long term views and the ability to think and plan for the long term would eventually flow downward through the social classes as long as their was a continuous supply of people being trained at institutions of higher learning.

The Souls of Black Folk

"The Souls of Black Folk" by W. E. B Dubois, is markedly different from the last text we read. "Up from Slavery" focused mainly on the education of black people in order to give them the necessary skills to survive in society, and improve the general living conditions of black society. “The Souls of Black Folk” is a more broad overview of the transition of black society from slavery to freedom. The rhetoric in the two texts is also completely different. “Up from Slavery” is an autobiography and is written in first person. “The Souls of Black Folk” is more of an essay written in third person. The effect of this is that the “Up from Slavery” is more easily accessible and relatable to personal life, while “The Souls of Black Folk” has more of a sense of authority in terms of statistics and large general views. It also takes a more political tone than Washington’s book. While Dubois agrees that Washington’s accomplishments and goals are noteworthy and in general a major improvement he believes that Washington’s own success is one of his greatest flaws. Because of his enormous popularity critics rarely speak out against Washington. However in the particular case of politics Dubois believes that he is wrong. He believes that black people cannot allow themselves to be made inferior to their white neighbors. Although industrial education is good and will ultimately help improve society, without higher education the system is flawed. Although the majority of black people can continue with the industrial education that was primarily developed by Washington, Dubois believes that the best and brightest minds have to be trained further, and that a institute of higher education has to be founded specifically for black people in much the same way that Tuskegee was founded to for industrial education. Dubois’s reasoning is that without an institute of this kind the training of next generation of teachers would become difficult. Even if most people are doing work in industry that requires non of what might be deemed higher more theoretical knowledge, someone has to study it. Otherwise the knowledge will be lost leading to a deteriorization of the entire body of knowledge and eventually even affecting the industrial schools. In other words Dubois believes that the teachers of more industrial schools had to be trained in institutions of higher education. Dubois also believed that the black people had to continue to pursue political power simply in order to defend themselves from the white Southerners attempts to force them back into servitude.

The effects of education

“Up From Slavery” by Booker T. Washington is a very inspiring text. The benefits of an education that includes practical experience as well as book learning have always been evident in my reading and in the courses I have taken, but this text has not only made it clear, but also provided a clear real life example of it. The use of autobiographical writing in this case has made the Washington’s position much more clear than it would have been otherwise. In regards to the concept it is quite evident that being taught personal hygiene and being given a work ethic has a major impact on the abilities of a person. The question is why this is. Possibly the reason that it has such a differing impact than an education that only involves theoretical book learning, is the sense of confidence that it gives the student. This reaches back to the discussion that took place over the last text, “Prologue from Race, Rhetoric, and Technology”. Being literate does not only involve knowing how to use a technology, but also understanding how the concepts behind the technology work. In reading a textbook it is possible to learn how something works, but the knowledge does not connect very well with the real world. However when a student actively works with something be it a piece of technology, a certain process, or even animals while at the same time receiving the book learning, they can see how the knowledge in the book applies to real life. Once they gain this knowledge they become more confident in themselves when they face other challenges. Because once they connect one piece of book learning to real life by working with it, they come to learn the process of how that connection is made. This makes it easier to make connections to other pieces of book learning no matter how much real experience they have had with it. Also the ideas in this text are quite similar to what was in the first text of the class, "Engineers and the New South Creed". Georgia Tech was founded with the intent of educating southern students not only in the theory of engineering, but also, in the actual use of the equipment.

"Diary of a shirtwaist Striker" Edit

The writing style of "Diary of a Shirt Waist Striker" makes it harder to analyze than most texts, but there was one point that stood out. That was the transformation of the narrator from having only a passing interest to becoming an active participant in the strike. Mostly this was because the strike brought into focus for her the conditions that the other girls worked under. Still the question is if this is very realistic. Given the same situation in real life would a person who had only a passing interest become almost a leader of their section of the movement, or is this a convenient plot device to allow the narrator plausible access so that all areas of the strike can be shown in the text. I’d say yes this is entirely plausible. Given the proper circumstance humans can transform themselves incredibly. If anything this transformation is on the lower end of that scale. One other question that occurs though is how much of the reference to the Jewish girls being the main part of the strike is bias. Admittedly my knowledge of this strike is limited. But the Theresa Malkiel, the author of this text, is Jewish herself. Given that how much of the repeated mentions of the Jewish girls being the driving force is real and how much is inflated bias. There is no idea denying that the Jewish girls were the driving force, the question is simply to what extent bias on the authors part inflated their role. The answer could range from none at all with them playing just as important a role in reality as in the text to a significant inflation of their importance. Without a deeper knowledge of the author, the author’s writing style, and other sources of information on the strike the answer is uncertain. The text does not only deal with the strike though. It also approaches the question of gender equality, and the differences in views of how male and female workers should act. The main point explored seemed to be that most people regarded the concept of females working being improper. Even male workers who strongly supported their own unions right to strike viewed this as improper. This goes back to the text we read on social reproduction. Women are the main workers in social reproduction. Meaning that their role is to produce new generations of workers by raising and educating children and by taking car of the household. So any females in the workforce are regarded as being outside the norm. As long as no crisis's arise the extent of female participation in the workforce can be ignored, but if a crisis like the strike occurs, then society can gauge the amount of women who are not doing what society expects of them, and in light of this it will respond in a matter designed to re balance the population into accepted cultural outlets. In the case of females this means trying to put them back into a position where they manage the household. This is illustrated in the text by the narrator's father and Joe deciding to marry her to Joe and move her into a new household in order to remove her from the strike.

"Diary of a Shirt Waist Striker"

The writing style of "Diary of a Shirt Waist Striker" makes it harder to analyze
than most texts, but there was one point that stood out. That was the
transformation of the narrator from having only a passing interest to becoming
an active participant in the strike. Mostly this was because the strike brought
into focus for her the conditions that the other girls worked under. Still the
question is if this is very realistic. Given the same situation in real life
would a person who had only a passing interest become almost a leader of their
section of the movement, or is this a convenient plot device to allow the
narrator plausible access so that all areas of the strike can be shown in the
text. I’d say yes this is entirely plausible. Given the proper circumstance
humans can transform themselves incredibly. If anything this transformation is
on the lower end of that scale. One other question that occurs though is how
much of the reference to the Jewish girls being the main part of the strike is
bias. Admittedly my knowledge of this strike is limited. But the Theresa
Malkiel, the author of this text, is Jewish herself. Given that how much of the
repeated mentions of the Jewish girls being the driving force is real and how
much is inflated bias. There is no idea denying that the Jewish girls were the
driving force, the question is simply to what extent bias on the authors part
inflated their role. The answer could range from none at all with them playing
just as important a role in reality as in the text to a significant inflation of
their importance. Without a deeper knowledge of the author, the author’s writing
style, and other sources of information on the strike the answer is uncertain.
The text does not only deal with the strike though. It also approaches the question of gender equality, and the differences in views of how male and female workers should act. The main point explored seemed to be that most people regarded the concept of females working being improper. Even male workers who strongly supported their own unions right to strike viewed this as improper. This goes back to the text we read on social reproduction. Women are the main workers in social reproduction. Meaning that their role is to produce new generations of workers by raising and educating children and by taking car of the household. So any females in the workforce are regarded as being outside the norm. As long as no crisis's arise the extent of female participation in the workforce can be ignored, but if a crisis like the the strike occurs, then society can gauge the amount of women who are not doing what society expects of them, and in light of this it will respond in a matter designed to re balance the population into accepted cultural outlets. In the case of females this means trying to put them back into a position where they manage the household. This is illustrated in the text by the narrator's father and Joe deciding to marry her to Joe and move her into a new household in order to remove her from the strike.

Technophobia

In “Technophobia” the role of technology as viewed by conservative thinkers is dissected and analyzed. The text says that conservatives use technology in film to portray the negative effects of what would happen if technology was allowed to run rampant in society, and that they do this in order to portray the idea of nature and natural forms of society in a positive light. When in fact those very forms of society are in themselves artificial, for instance the text states that in the film Logan’s run patriarchy and the natural deferment of females to males is portrayed to be a natural effect inherent in the human condition that is unfettered by technology, and that a society of equality is an artificial institution imposed by technology. In fact the opposite is true. In a state unfettered by technology of any kind survival becomes the predominant concern. Without the labor saving device and more efficient methods of production developed through technology supplies can only produced on a one to one basis. Each person essentially produces enough food to feed themselves. What excess there is has to be stored against emergencies and to feed children who are too young to help at all. Because of this each individual is extremely important to the society and equality is the norm even between the genders, since every member has an important role to play in the survival of the whole. It is only with the technological developments of agriculture and manufacturing processes that the surpluses needed for more advanced forms of society can be produced. When one person can produce enough food to feed ten then the dependence on that one person is greatly reduced. Even if they rebel they can be replaced. So a ruling class can form and members of society can be treated differently. This however escapes the view of conservatives or is glossed over by them in part because society hasn’t been on the level of where no technology is present and everyone is vital to society’s survival for a very long time, but also because the goal of conservatives is not to promote the destruction of technology. Technology is in fact key to the conservative economic practices, as it states in the article. The threat of technology is an artificial threat generated by conservatives. The reason is that to make one object which is inherently neutral or even has negative connotations appear good, another threat has to appear that is much worse and makes the first option appear good in comparison. The best method is when there is a natural threat, but in the absence of a real one, humans are relatively easily led into believing that a fake one is real. In fact the very values that are portrayed as be evil and heartless about technology, the way no one has individual freedom or thinks for themselves, are the values in today’s society which allow people to manipulate the media in order to lead the public into believing whatever they want. Although the stark uniformity and collective conformity of humanity is portrayed as the main evil of technology, if anything is the natural way of humans it is. In the absence of a prompt that makes them think for themselves, most humans are more than willing to blindly follow the majority. Even people who rebel against the mainstream usually end up forming their own groups and blindly following that. A society of true individuality where everyone thinks for themselves at all times and is completely unique is probably the most aberrant and artificial society there is which isn’t to say it is bad. In fact a society like that would probably be highly beneficial. The problem is that the continued use of natural to label good concepts, and artificial to label bad concepts has had major effects on the way people view those terms. In reality the terms natural and artificial are themselves neutral terms. Just as technology is neutral and can be bad or good depending on the context, so too does the effect of those terms depend on the context. Most of the best poisons in the world are completely natural, but that doesn’t make them good, and prosthetic hearts are artificial, but they have saved lives.

Life in the Iron Mills

The aspect of this story that most interested me was the transition that Hugh had when Deborah gave him the money. At first he absolutely refuses to use it and he has every intention of taking it back to Mitchell. But as he thinks about it more he becomes more and more convinced that not only should he use the money, but that it is his right to do so. So the question is how much of that decision was influenced by him actually having the money in front of him. If he had not had the money and he started to think about the rights people had to money would he have come to the same conclusion or did the fact that he had that much money give him a desire to rationalize why he should keep it? I think that at least part of it was rationalization on his part. For someone so poor that much money would have been too huge a temptation to resist. But how much of it wasn’t rationalization? I would assume that at least part of it was his own natural feelings because he was already longing for something more. To have ways to express himself, which were only partial satisfied by his carvings in the Kohl. I think that some of it was also a desire to protect Deborah. He must have realized that if he turned the money in he would have to say how he had got it and that would implicate Deborah unless he lied. So at least on a subconscious level he was probably protecting her, although the lure of having that much money was probably a much bigger factor in his decision than that. Of course even if he had tried to use the money it was in the form of a check and so it was probably already made out to someone else. So it was very unlikely that he would have been able to use the money from the start. Is that a more subtle commentary by the author? Even if the main context is something else is she also implying that not only are the workers poor and mistreated, but they’re too ignorant to even differentiate between a something which will truly lift them out of poverty and what is only a false hope at best. Besides that one of the themes of the book is that the only way for a revolution to happen either to individuals or on a larger scale is if it comes from the people who need it, which means basically that they have to lift themselves up. So even by stealing from a rich person they are in a way getting help from the upper class, and so the endeavor is doomed to failure from the start whether or not they can get away with stealing, because the check is useless to them because they can’t cash it even if they don’t realizes that.

Bartelby the Scrivener

Herman Melville's "Bartleby, the Scrivener" was to me a rather disquieting text. It illuminates the effect that a simple refusal can have. Simply by refusing to do anything Bartleby was able to just stay in the office without doing any work or paying anything. Still this brings up the question of how far can a refusal go. How far can simply refusing to go along with society take a person. The answer is it can take you as far as society will let you before violence becomes an option. In a violent society if a person refuses to do something then the person asking will just hit them and that will be the end of it. On the other hand in a society where violence is frowned upon by simply refusing to do what is required of them a person can essentially stop their interactions with society. In the example of "Bartleby the Scrivener" the narrator eventually moved his entire office to a new location in order to be rid of Bartleby rather than attempt to force him out. Eventually of course the landlord called the police and they took Bartleby away, but the amount of time it took for them to finally decide on this course of action is rather surprising. So could this then be used as a test of the level of violence inherent in society. Have a person refuse to abide by the rules of society and see what happens. No violence just a simple refusal. And then judge the level of violence by how long it took for society to resort to physical means of removing the offender. Of course this isn't a very valid test. There a types of societies where the offender could be removed without violence. For instance if the rest of society simply ignored the offender completely, then eventually the offender would starve because they would be unable to eat. Still any option capable of removing the offender would count towards the test, and the very option taken could be used as an indicator of society type. Also in "Bartleby the Scrivener" the narrator and the other scriveners eventually start to use the word prefer in place of more emphatic choices. This has two implications. First the effect of one person simply using the same phrase over and over can be profound. Second the effects of prefer in place of stronger words is by itself interesting. It implies that although the person who is using it would rather not do the stated task they will if they have to and that they are open to persuasion. This sets up the asker towards trying to persuade the user into doing it. However by using it in this context the user actually means that they will not do the task. So the asker will waste their efforts trying to persuade the user when in fact the user cannot be persuaded. This is opposed to simply stating outright that the user will not do the task. In which case the asker would immediately abandon the user in order to find a more willing person or simply order the user to do it whether they want to or not. In this case the eventual result is the same. The narrator eventually orders Bartleby to do the tasks and Bartleby refuses anyway. However the key is that by using the word prefer instead of stronger words the user is able to redirect to asker into futile lines for at least a little while. This may or may not be helpful in the situation the asker finds them self, but it is useful to know. At worst the asker has to reorient themselves for a few seconds in order to switch to ordering that the task be done instead of asking. At best it could throw the asker completely off track.

Change and Technology

In Doctorow's "Ragtime" the advance of technology plays a major role in the development of the characters, and of society as a whole. The two characters most affected by the advancing technology are Tateh and Mother's Younger Brother. Tateh goes from being a poor immigrant to being a rich successful movie producer. He is able to do this because of the newness of the technology, and the flexibility which any new technology brings to the market. On a side note I think that Doctorow was also trying to explore the effects that technology has on economics here. When a new technology emerges there is an immediate surge in market forces as people strive to figure out how this new technology will eventually fit into society as a whole. Some people's ideas on how the technology fail and their businesses crumble, while others' ideas succeed and allow them to make fortunes. Tateh is one of the latter. He sees what the new technology of filming can do and he exploits that to make movies people want to watch. If the technology to make movies had not existed he would probably have remained a poor immigrant worker for the rest of his life, or possibly he would have been able to succeed by making more flip books and establishing that as his profession. But that would in itself be a new technology. According to the book Tateh essentially invents the idea of flip books along with a projector that would be able to show small movies using a variant of the flip books. So either way without new advances in technology Tateh would have been stuck in the same situation as the other immigrant workers, but with it he was able to advance himself and essentially live the American dream. On the other hand Mother's Younger Brother was not as fortunate in the changes that technology made in him. In his case the technology that most affected him was the advance being made in explosives. Because of his knowledge of explosives and how to make them he eventually ended up dead in Mexico. Admittedly the major changes were caused by his emotional problems in his relationships, but without technology he would not have had the opportunities that he did. Without his specialized knowledge in the art of demolitions he would have been of little use to Coalhouse Walker Jr. and as such would probably not have become as involved to the extent that he was. And without the incentive to leave the city that being a fugitive provided he probably would not have left the city and joined the revolutionaries in Mexico.

Technology also had a major impact on society at this time. Henry Ford’s assembly lines revolutionized manufacturing, and turned what was once a status symbol of the rich into something that was affordable by the middle class. At the same time that the movie industry was providing Tateh the means to become successful, it was also giving the major media businesses the tools they needed to turn people into celebrities who would capture the public’s attention. While the media did this in order to cause people to spend money on their products the impact on society was more profound. It caused the public to treat what were essentially ordinary people, who had had the good fortune to be chosen by the media to be built into stars, in the same way that their ancestors had treated royalty and the nobility.

So there is no question that technology is a source of change. The question then is whether that change is bad or good. I think that in this novel Doctorow was presenting cases which would support both arguments. So if technology can cause both good and bad changes, what then is the factor that decides between the two? Is it the speed at which technology advances or the intent with which it used? I think both of those aspects play a role in how technology changes society. In “A Connecticut Yankee” technology is introduced at an accelerated pace, and as a result the people aren’t ready for it. This eventually leads to the destruction of the new technology and the society which had been built around it. On the other hand in “Ragtime” while the technology was still advancing it wasn’t as rapid as it was in “A Connecticut Yankee” so the changes weren’t as dramatic. Instead the focus of the change seems to be focused on the underlying character of the person who uses technology. Tateh believed in the American dream and that anyone who managed to find a niche could become successful. And so the technology was for him a good thing. While Mother’s Younger Brother believed in the revolutionary movement and so technology enabled him to be a revolutionary. So I think that technology is an enabler. The effect that technology has whether good or bad will be a reflection of the person who uses it. The actual magnitude of the fact however is based on the speed in which technology is introduced. The more quickly that technology advances, the more likely that the changes it causes will be major society shaping influences.

Contradictions in Ragtime

In Doctorow's "Ragtime" there were several things that stood out to me, but the most prominent was the contradictions depicted in America's society throughout the first few chapters. On one hand the top levels of society lived in lavish homes, some were even palaces. “He had designed her home in the style of a doge palace.” (p. 32). On the other hand the immigrants lived in tenements that were poorly designed and were so tightly packed that they quickly became centers of disease whenever some new disease broke out. When the father left on Perry’s expedition to the North Pole, the expedition left with much fanfare and expectations were high for them. However when a ship of immigrants came in to port no one even noticed besides the officials on Ellis Island, even though the immigrants would probably have a greater impact on America than whether or not Perry’s expedition managed to make it to the Pole. The poor lived harsh lives full of suffering and hardship, while the rich had their every whim catered to. Yet they lived in a constant state of flux, both classes lived side by side. Doctorow illustrates this through his continued switching of the viewpoint of the novel. First one character is described and the plot flows around them, and then a character they interact with or think about is used. Then the next character is referenced and the viewpoint switches to them. And through the continued use of this style Doctorow manages to illustrate how interconnected all the levels of society were. So the question is what kind of influence did this constant intermixing and flux have on the characters? Also how much of it is real, and how much of it was invented by Doctorow in order to have the novel flow properly. Assumedly there was a fairly large amount of interconnectedness among the people of that time frame. The ranks of the rich and the poor were constantly changing as some poor families realized the American dream and made their fortunes, while some members of the rich lost their fortunes through bad luck or bad decisions. The constant stream of new immigrants also contributed since as the older generations of immigrants settled into the culture of America and became integrated, they also rose in the ranks of society. At which point a new wave of immigrants would fill the lowest slots.

Blind Faith in a Conneticut Yankee

The last few chapters in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" have brought up what are in my opinion several interesting points. First there is the matter of how the people of that time period unquestionably believed anything they were told. When the members of the court heard a new messenger come and give them a quest they unquestionably believe it and act on it with without even trying to verify that its was the truth first. When the new magician came to the monastery after the well was repaired and started telling his fortunes, the pilgrims immediately believed him even when a modern person would have tried to question it like the main character did. And when the Hank Morgan and Sandy finally found the castle that they were looking for and it turned out to be a pigsty, Sandy said "And how strange is this marvel, and how awful—that to the one perception it is enchanted and dight in a base and shameful aspect; yet to the perception of the other it is not enchanted, hath suffered no change" even though she must have seen them as pigs too, she insisted and probably actually believed that she still saw the ladies as not being enchanted. What purpose would Twain have for putting this characteristic into the medieval characters. Most likely it was a device to emphasize how people who have been trained since birth in one way of thinking are completely closed to any other views. Even to the point where they will disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes. Since it was implied that the reason they were this was because of the feudal system and the efforts of the nobles to keep the peasants for thinking for themselves, this characteristic was probably also one of Twain's techniques to cast a negative light on the feudal system in favor of some form of republic. Another interesting question is how similar to this the readers of Twain's period or even modern readers are. Of course any reader of either of those periods would probably be offended by any such comparison, and would believe themselves to be beyond that level of blind acceptance, but are there others beliefs or reactions that are so fundamental to them that they don't even realize they're there? And even if there were how would could they be discovered by the modern reader, by definition they would be invisible to the person who had them. So only an outsider would be able to see them, and an outsider probably wouldn't be believed. This is the problem Morgan faces. He even says so in chapter 11 "but as I was the only person in the kingdom afflicted with such impious and criminal opinions, I recognized that it would be good wisdom to keep quiet about this matter, too, if I did not wish to be suddenly shunned and forsaken by everybody as a madman." (On a side note when they brought the pigs to the castle Morgan assumed that Sandy knew the owner of the castle, but as it turned out that was not the case. Was this utter acceptance by the servants and Sandy that a stranger could just walk in and make themselves at home part of their blind acceptance of all things they were told or somethings else. And what happened to the pigs when Morgan and Sandy left?)

A Connecticut Yankee

In the first ten chapters of Twains "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" several things came to my mind. First of all was the practicality of the main character. Most characters in more modern stories would probably have panicked or refused to believe it at least for the first few chapters, but Twain's character thought about it for a few minutes and then began planning how he would take power and rebuild the country to his own liking. So the question is was this a common viewpoint among literary characters of that period. Did they take things in stride no matter what? Or was it even a viewpoint of the actual people of that period. If a factory foreman had been dropped into the past would he have begun doing the same thing or at least trying or would he have gone insane. Or was this simply a literary device used by Twain to keep the story moving. Also another thing that struck was the speed and efficiency with which the main character was able to build up industry. It only took him four years to develop massive factories and even start laying telegraph wires. And at the same time all of this was carried out in secret from the church and the general public. For modern readers this would be the strangest thing about it. The Internet, TV, radio, and a reliable mail system connect us. So we know what’s going on everywhere and even when something is kept secret we know something is going simply because of the lack of information in a world where information is everywhere. And when modern authors write novels set in the medieval world they tend to gloss over the lack of communications in those times. Of course they don't provide them with radios or the Internet, but they always seem to assume that they at least have reliable roads, some form of mail, and at the very least maps. On the other hand Mark Twain gave the characters in his version of King Arthur’s court none of these things. Historically his version is probably more accurate, but why is that? Also the way the main character is treated. He is respected and obeyed because of his power and position, but the viewed as an animal because he has no pedigree. Whereas the main character views everyone else in more or less the opposite view. The question isn't why they are doing this, but how they can accomplish this split in they're thinking. Is this split between the office and the person in it something that was prevalent in Twain's day? Of course it occurs in modern times as well. The most obvious example is the president. As a person he may or may not be liked and respected, but the actual title of president is respected either way. However in this case it’s more of respecting the title and power and being almost repulsed by the person in it. In the modern age the two blend together, but this is almost a total separation of the two. So is this a product of the period in which Twain was living in, or did Twain himself think this way.

Discussing the New South Creed

The article "Engineers and the New South Creed” brought up several questions to my mind. First the concepts of intellectual elitism as opposed to class elitism. I had heard of the idea of a meritocracy before, but this was the first time that I had actually read about people who really believed it and were putting their ideas into action. Or at least the first time I had read about them doing it so explicitly. The question this brought to my mind was how did this actually work out? How much of an impact did this new trend have on modern day society? I would assume that it actually had quite a large impact since people with higher educations generally are treated with more respect than people who only graduated from high school, but I don't know how much of that is due to this particular group of people and how much of it is due to the greater demand for people with higher education as technology becomes more advanced. Another thing that I found interesting was the rhetoric used in these people's arguments. They were much more aggressive than modern speakers. Lyman Hall said that they were declaring war on the North by building the textile department, because it would free them from their dependence on the North. And Robert Thurston’s statements on how certain people were better suited to using their hands and others were better suited to using their minds was also much to the point than what a speaker on the subject would say today even if they had the same views. So what changed this? Was it because the Civil War and the reconstruction period following it were in the recent past or did events later in the 20^th century effect how people thought. Or maybe I’m wrong about this and I just haven’t been reading the works of modern speakers who use this sort of rhetoric. I also found the idea that schools were places for economic growth very interesting. Of course the very fact that the schools educate people who then enter the work force will benefit the economy of the region, but the fact that the schools themselves could produce and sell actual goods is one that I haven’t really thought of before. Eventually schools stopped doing this, but was it because it wasn’t commercially viable or because commercial manufactures didn’t want the competition and forced them to stop. In class we discussed how the sports department brought in money for the school. So is it possible that schools have transformed from providing actual material goods to sell to providing services, other than the actual education process, such as reference materials and entertainment?