Posts

Posted on

Milagros’ Weekly Reflection for 9/16

This week I wanted to reflect on the Battiste reading. I thought the whole reading was quite interesting but also at times very upsetting. Batiste writes “early Euro Christian travelers and missionaries destroyed, transformed, or simply ignored most aboriginal literacies of America or created myths to their Eurocentric biases favouring pages writing” (Battiste,111). When I read this, I was upset because the colonizers completely ignored the culture of the indigenous people that were already well established and had their own form of communication. Just because of the fact that their communication was abnormal or different then the colonizers, they had to destroy or ignore it. The reading then goes into the forms of communication they had. I think that the pictographs actually meant more than just writing on paper because every aspect of the pictograph truly has a lot of meaning, whether it was drawn on a birch bark or the way they drew. (Battiste,115). Their way of communication helped them to think cognitively whereas when the colonizers just gave them what they wanted to give and there was no room for anything else. I also think to how in our education system, we are taught at a young age one certain way and taught what we are told, but if a child doesn’t learn or do something a certain way, then they are categorized as “different” or “autistic”. But how about if their way is better or why can’t it just be the way that works for them? This reading really left me with questions and left me with a lot of information I never thought about.

Cited Works

-Marie Battiste. “Print Culture and Decolonizing the University: Indigenizing the Page: Part 1.” The Future of the Page . University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Posted on

Carolyn Pena Blog Post Week 3

For this week I am going to write about “Communication as culture” by James Carey because of how many great points were brought up in this reading. On page 25 in “Communication as culture,” James Carey wrote “There is nothing in our genes that tells us how to create and execute those activities we summarize under the term “communication.” If we are to engage in this activity writing an essay, making a film, entertaining an audience, impairing information and advice we must discover models in our culture that tell us how this particular miracle is achieved.” This quote reminded me of our discussion during class on Thursday. There have been so many changes in communication throughout the years and it wasn’t always perceived how we see it now. Culture also plays an important role in shaping communication. One example that I can think of is years ago when the Egyptians used Hieroglyphics to communicate and how they used it for 3,000+ years. Hieroglyphics were used to record important events such as stories, wars and were first used by priests. After years passed by the use of Hieroglyphics were uncommon to rare and now no longer existent as a sense of communication. The reason I mention this sort of communication is that this was taught and learned by so many people for years, only to end up non-existent and no longer practiced. This makes me wonder how our sense of communication is going to change after the years. Most of us learned how to read and write ever since we were able to and I’m sure once you started getting older, you have been curious about where a word came from and why it’s called that word. Also as a child my first language taught to me was Spanish and then I was put into school and had to assimilate into learning English. Why did this happen? Why were schools closing in communication from other cultures? Living in Queens, it is so diverse and for that reason, it would make sense if communication with other cultures was taught to us as children. One thing that hasn’t changed over the years is getting taught how to communicate and what communication exactly is. We were all taught the same language, taught to read from left to write, thinking before you talk and the writing structure of an essay. Who created all of this and why do we keep practicing it?

 

James Carey, Communication as Culture, second edition, 1991

Posted on

Michael Farias NYPL Oral History project for September 20

For my oral history project I chose to do an interview with Bruce Moore by Diane Norris. In this interview Bruce was asked to speak about what it was like to grow up in an Italian neighborhood in the Bronx during the 1960’s. He talks about how there were no cell phones at the time and how kids used to always be outside playing sports. He also said that it was safe to play in the streets and not have to worry about getting hit by a car.

 

When it came to editing the transcript, it was a lot more complicated than I thought. I thought it was particularly hard when the speakers are always saying “um”. I found this to be very annoying because you always have to put these pauses or “ums” into the transcript. Otherwise it’s wrong because it wouldn’t be identical to the way it was spoken. I don’t think that it is really that hard to edit transcripts, but it just takes concentration and can maybe get a little overwhelming if it something long. This assignment helped me realize that we speak so differently from the way we write. When we speak, we sometimes stutter and say things like “um”. We also show emotions such as laughter. When we write, we just write words but we don’t stutter or say “um”. It really showed the difference between communication through writing and communication through speaking.

Posted on

Jessica Colasacco Blog Post 2

For this weeks blog article, I decided to focus on Walter Ong’s “Orality and Literacy.” This article was interesting to be because Ong argues that the concept of writing “weakens the mind” and warns “those who use writing will become forgetful.” To me, this concept seems obscure because writing is such an integral part of today’s world. There is not one class in college that I have taken that did not have at least one paper due during the term of the class. Also, since I was a little kid, I have kept a journal in which I write down interesting things that happen in my life that I do not want to forget. To this day, I can go back and read those writings and remember exactly how I felt in that moment, which goes against Plato’s claim that writing would make people forgetful. I do agree with Plato’s claim that “written text is basically unresponsive.” When writing, someone is having a one worded conversation that cannot be debated, as opposed to having a conversation with someone, which allows someone else to interrupt and include their own opinions.

Sources:

Ong, Walter J. “Orality and Literacy” in The Book History Reader. eds. David Finkelstein, Alistair McCleery. Routledge, 2006.

Posted on

Isaac Espinoza Week 2 Blog Post

For this week’s blog post I’ve decided to write about Diana Taylor’s “The Archive and the Repertoire”. While reading this I found myself relating to a lot of what she was discussing. Diana mentions in her work how she is a Mexican immigrant in a Canadian boarding school. She says during her time there “the training failed miserably” meaning she never fully adopted the Canadian culture. However, when she returned to Mexico City she didn’t quite feel Mexican nor Canadian. She was stuck somewhere in between which is how I feel most days. I was born and raised in New York City, however, I come from Ecuadorian parents that immigrated here shortly before I was born.  I’ve been to Ecuador several times and every time I come back I do so feeling more and more Ecuadorian.  These trips give me an opportunity to learn about my roots, spend time with my family, and open up about different ways of living. It is because of this that I don’t quite identify as American nor as Ecuadorian but actually as a little bit of both. I’m somewhere in the middle like Diana Taylor which allows me to see the world from a couple different perspectives.

Citation

Taylor, Diana. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Duke University Press, 2007. pg. XV

Posted on

Michael Farias Blog Post 2 “The Craft of Thought”

Michael Farias

 

For this blog post, I chose The Craft of Thought by Mary Carruthers. In her writing, Carruthers talks about memory, creating, and inventing. Carruthers says that when one invents, he or she is creating. Then further into the text she begins to talk about “inventory”. This term relates to memory because Carruthers defines it as “the storage of many diverse materials, but not into random storage” (Carruthers 11). Basically “inventory” is an organized group of innovative thoughts. Another quote that really stood out to me is when Carruthers says, “Having “inventory” is a requirement for “invention.” Not only does this statement assume that one cannot create (invent) without a memory store (inventory) to invent from and with, but it also assumes that one’s memory-store is effectively “inventoried,” that its matters are in readily-recovered “locations” (Carruthers 12). This quote says that our minds store different innovative thoughts or images into different parts of the mind. This is very interesting to me because it shows how complex the mind really is. Our minds store these inventories and are easily accessible when we want to use them.

 

Work Cited

 

Carruthers, Mary. “The Craft of Thought”. 1998.

Posted on

Anthony Sierra 9/10/18 Week #2 Blog Post

This week’s blog post is focused mainly on Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy Writing restructures consciousness.  In this passage Ong states that “Fourthly, in keeping with the agonistic mentality of oral cultures, Plato’s Socrates also holds it against writing that the written word cannot defend itself as the natural spoken word can…” This quote caught my attention because it highlights how something that is written could easily be misinterpreted. Something such as a news article or a tweet could be taken the wrong way and it could not defend itself because it isn’t anything but words on a page or a screen. It would be easier to clarify your point of view through “the natural spoken word” because it would be easier to communicate with. To use a real world example, arguing with someone via text message is way more harder than arguing with someone through phone calls or face to face. Your points don’t come off as strong and its easier to misinterpret each others point. I feel like the quote above still applies to society today, despite the advancements in technology.

Posted on

Alassane Diop Week 2 9/10

For this weeks reading I looked at the article ORALITY AND LITERACY by Walter Ong. The article reflects on the idea that the technology of books and any written documentation is making humanity more “stupid”. The author sourced Plato in which he claims “writing destroys memory. Those who use writing will become forgetful, relying on an external resource for what they lack in internal resources”. To an extent I do I agree with Plato’s ideas. Hes saying that instead of us actual trying to use brain power to memorize and think of ideas and facts, we instead rely on what is already written down. Once those written documents are burned they are gone for ever unless someone can remember them. It is similar to calculators, some people believe they will cause society to worsen an individuals math skills.
But my argument is written statements hold information longer and once its written it can’t be changed unlike oral history. You can tell the same story multiple times but it may be subject to change and false info may be spread. Also it is more easier to learn more knowledge and makes it widespread to anyone that can pick the book and read.

Posted on

Anthony Dyce 9/10 Blog 2

For this week’s blog post I decided to respond to Walter Ong ‘s “Orality and Literacy”. I found this reading to be very intriguing because Ong stresses the importance of writing in correlation with our minds. Ong states that “writing is a technology that restructures thought” the main thing he tries to show us is writing is a technology and it changes the way we think. For example, reading on the internet is different than reading on a printed page online reading were scanning looking for the main points, and for a printed page were taking our time reading and annotating. I think we are impatient when it comes to finding information online we are quick and want the answers now. Ong says that writing changes us without awareness and changes human consciousness. He talks about orality. Orality makes the community, because speech always makes us interact to more than one person. For example, in class when we share our stories it makes you learn other people experiences and it gives you the insight into orality and literacy understanding. Overall, I found Ong article to be very helpful in understanding oral cultures and the importance of stressing your thinking ability.

Posted on

Carolyn Pena Blog Post Week 2

On page 143 in “Orality and Literacy,” Walter J. Ong writes “The reader must also fictionalize the writer. When my friend reads my letter, I may be in an entirely different frame of mind from when I wrote it. Indeed, I may very well be dead. For a text to convey its message, it does not matter whether the author is dead or alive”. The reason this part stood out to me is that I never realized how many times I actually did this while reading.  When I look back at myself reading I would always have to try to fictionalize the writer so it could help me get a better idea of what I am reading. Another thing that Ong wrote was how “the writer may be dead or alive but that still does not matter for the text to convey a message to the readers”. Writers try to convey their message as direct as they can get so they can get their points across to the reader. Writers have to think ahead about any questions that a reader might have and therefore tries to cover all the questions that can possibly come up. Another thing is about the “different frame of mind” and how quickly the mind of a writer can change. I say this because I have met writers that published their books and said that they wish they could’ve changed this or that about this book but could no longer because it’s published. At the end of the day, we still fictionalize what we want about the writer although he might be dead or alive, it does not matter because it does not change the message they wrote.

 

Ong, Walter J. “Orality and Literacy” in The Book History Reader. eds. David Finkelstein, Alistair McCleery. Routledge, 2006