The board of education voted unanimously to approve the Forward Learning 1:1 for grades 3+4.
"The Taming of the Shrew"
March 12, 2012
Katherine's final speech is the most debated scene. Some critics believe she is well matched with Petruchio and delivers the speech because she has genuinely changed her behavior. Others believe the end of the play marks Katherine's defeat, and sadly she is forced to submit to the social norms of her time. Still others believe the final speech is sarcastic and part of the humor of the play. Which interpretation do you believe is true? Explain why.
Tags:
COMMENTS
i think that she does love him, but she dose not want to show that she is very vulnerable because she don't want to get hurt. in the play as Petruchio was trying to woo Kat she seemed to be falling for him. then when she notices that she is showing care she gives out and act rude and mean. so therefore at the end of the play the speech she gave was out of love, care, and respect.
In the play, I think Katherine is jealous and feels like she needs to be mean to take away attention from Bianca, but I feel like she was nice in the beginning but when everyone starts saying she is the mean one she starts believing it and goes on base on that. However by the ending when he starts paying attention to 'Katie' in a way that Katherine only can relate to. Then she starts truly caring about someone that truly care about you.
I believe Petruchio and Katherine were well matched. Katherine fell in love with him, she loved his traits. It took her a while to accept that she was crushing over him. As soon as they were deeply in love she was... Herself.
I believe Petruchio and Katherine were well matched. Katherine fell in love with him, she loved his traits. It took her a while to accept that she was crushing over him. As soon as they were deeply in love she was... Herself.
I think that neither interpretation is true. it honestly depends how each actor does the scene. If she ended up falling in love with Petruchio she said it with complete honesty. If she didnt fall in love with him then she didnt mean it.
I think that at the end of the play marks Katherine's defeat, and sadly is forced to the social norms of her time. I think she just gave up and she just thought in her head that she would have to marry him and live with him so she might as well go with the flow.
I think that at the end of the play, when Katherine gives her final speech, she genuinely changes and she was also defeated too, I think both because she could have kept on fighting Petruchio, but that would mean she would not get what she wanted like to go to her fathers house or eat or sleep, so by conforming to the rules, she gets everything she desires.
I think that Katherine's speech at the end of the play was a sign of defeat. The reson why is because all of the play, Petruchio was bossing Katherine around and not paying attention to her mean comments
I think that her last speech was her giving up and not being sarcastic because she seamed really tiered and she just gave in. The way Katherine was treated she changed and she was treated the way she treated others. So basically she was killed with kindness, and she was changed by not being able to have everything she needed and she had to beg and plead to get something. She was finally able to act the way she wanted to and she was finally very op0en to where she would change.
I believe that it was a genuine speech because i think that Petruchio's behavior really brought out her true self.
I believe that Katherine genuinely changed her behavior when she said that speech because at the end she felt she could be herself with Petruchio. I felt that they were happy together and that they loved each other.
I honestly, I think it was both sarcastic and serious. I think this because in the play she seemed really just in love with him and it also i think that with everything that happened she still just going along with what he says just to get what she wants. I think this because he was very cruel to her and i think she would just want to get what she wants by pretending to love him and go along what he says.
I believe that she is well matched with Petruchio and she is genuinely changed her behavior. I think that because everyone thought she was mean and they were use to her being that way and for her to change in a quick way its new for everyone.
I believe that Katharine is telling the truth and that she genuinely changed her behavior. I do so because the way that the actor in the play portrayed the speech made more sense to me than if they were saying it sadly or sarcastically. I also do because of the events that happened before that made her change seems believable.
I want to believe that it is true (because I don't like the idea of woman being treated like a piece of property) but I have my doubts because it doesn't seam like a person can change so quickly.
Well I think that Katherine was being sarcastic because at the end she changed but its hard to change your own personality. I think that she had to deal with it.
I think Katherine's speech was her saying that I have changed.I think so because she was really happy at the end. Some people can honestly change from being bad to a good person.I think is one of those people.
I think she genuinely changed because Petruchio changed her. I believe that she learned how other people felt about her and wanted to change for the best. Also, people always sad negative things about her, so maybe she just started to act like that.
In my opinion I think Katherine is being honestly giving up that she met somebody that can "tame" her and that she really does care about Petruchio and loves him too.
I believe that in the final scene Katharine is just well matched with Petrucio and has genuinely changed her behavior. I believe that Petrucio's plan worked and that starving her made her worship what she had.
I believe that she has genuinely changed her behavior because to me she said her last speech with much emotion towards the others and Petruchio and she was being herself.
I believe the speech is genuinely given from Katherine, because in a way, what Patruchio did, did teach her to be a much better person. Also, It gained her more respect as a person, and maybe that's all she really needed. She needed to feel wanted by someone.
I think Katharine's final speech was genuine because you can tell she actually means it from everything that she had to go through that brought her to that point where she was at. Also, the way she acts and how she expresses her feelings with everyone around her.
i believe that Katharine realizes that she cannot win and decides to give in so i guess she submits and is forced into the social norms of her time.
I think that she actually changed her attitude about being a wife. I think this because in the play the actor herself and the tone in her voice sounds genuine.
I believe that Katharine's speech at the end of the play marks Katharine's defeat. She is finally forced to submit, now that she has someone who does fight back. She realizes that her attitude isn't going to help her situation and that it is easier to submit, rather than fight the inevitable.
From the play, I think Katherine's speech was genuine and it changed her behavior. The way the actress said the speech made it sound like she really changed, and she was glad she did, and thinks the change is for the better.
i think it is because she is well matched with Petruchio and delivers the speech because she has genuinely change her behavior.
I believe she is well matched with Petruchio and delivers the speech, because she has genuinely changed her behavior. I believe this, because near the end of the play the way she responds to Petruchio is different from the way she does during the beginning of the play. Katherine begins to like him and appreciate being married to him and I believe her speech was to show her change in feeling. Lastly, I think Katherine just wants everyone to understand how she feels and by this speech I think that's her way of telling everyone her change in feeling.
I believe she genuinely changed her behavior and loves petruchio because if she didn't she probable could have said mean things and not even said that at all. Also watching her actions in the play made if even more obvious to me that she loves him and has changed a lot.
I believe that she has changed her ways and is being genuine. Anyone can change and Petruchio made her realize that she can be whoever she wants to be.
I believe Katherine is sarcastic. No matter how people act no one can change there actions that quick. They will believe what they always believed no one can change their opinions that quick.
I believe that she is genuinely change because as the actress that played Katherine she said she acted that way because of how the people treated around her.
I think that she was sincere because she really got to be herself at the end, and not what other people made her to be.
I think that Kathrine and Petruchio are a mach because both speak their mind up. I think that her final speech was honest and that she had been"tamed" , and that Petruchio had made her into another like-able person. Her behavior had changed because Petruchio has killed her with his kindness witch was a plan. I think that she honestly meant it because before she made that speech, she was doing everything Petruchio was commanding her to do. She had changed , she said that she feels like herself with Petruchio.
I believe that she is defeated by Petrucio but also genuinely changed her behavior. I think that she is defeated in a way that she doesn't seem to speak her mind anymore but also saw how mean she really was. Based on what the actor said at the end and the way she portrayed the ending that leads me to believe this.
I think she said it genuinely said the speech because she realizes how terrible her behavior had been. She knew that Petruchio was imitating her and she knew that she needed to change her behavior.
I believe Kathrine's speech was more sad. It seemed to me like Petruchio had broke her spirit. Mean as it may have been, this is sad. I think it is not genuine because Petruchio seems more forceful than loving.
i think she is being true because people change for love.
I believe that Katherine is well matched with Petruchio and delivers the speech because she has genuinely changed her behavior. I believe this because at the beginning of the paly, she was hard-headed and was very rude. At the end of the play, she would listen to Petruchio and was very nice.
I believe that Katherine has changed and is done acting bad. Because she knows she has lost the battle. I think she changed because she knew that the man she married was not gonna give up util she acted better. Also because he would not let her eat or be happy.
I believe it that that she genuinely did change and meant what she said because I think she was tired of being called a shrew and she wanted to be herself and be happy.
I believe it is genuine because the actor who played Katerina said so. Also, she acted very nice and the tone of her voice was happy.
I believe that Kathrine's final speech is a point of sarcasim at the end of the play. I find it that he wanted people to believe that Kathrine was defeated, but she still held strong and was able to remain shrew to match her husband.
I think that Kate was being genuine. I think this because she was acting more lady like in the play so i think that she has changed. If she wasn't acting more lady like earlier in the play, i would think it was sarcastic.
I think Katherine was being genuine. I think that Katherine had such a nasty attitude because everyone always told her that she was a shrew. No one really cared, and no one bothered to give her a chance. It seems like all Katherine ever needed was to be loved by someone.
I think Katherina genuinely meant her final speech. I think she just didn't want to be vulnerable in the beginning of the story and acting out and violent was the way to protect herself from getting hurt.I think Katherina and Petruchio are a good match.
I believe she meant it because she was all nice and sincerer about it. Also, at the end of the play we asked the person who played Kate and she also said that Kate was bening serious and nice about it being married to the guy.
I believe Katherine final speech marks Katherine's defeat. I believe this because the way the actor stated it in the play she seemed very into the lines and that she changed and isn't a shrew anymore.
Fahrenheit 451
February 02, 2012
As we examine Captain Beatty's argument for burning books, we've learned that the society Bradbury imagines in the novel views books as offensive. Use the link below to view a list of frequently banned books. After you review this list and think about books you've read that have strong opinions, post a comment that offers your opinion on book banning. Why shouldn't books be banned, or what would be the benefits of limiting people's access to certain books?
Tags:
COMMENTS
I think it is bad book should be rated like movies not banning books. The pro of banning good is that no one will be offended by the content of the book the cons is that someone will get offended. harry potter i don't see how it offends anyone.
I believe that books should not be banned at all. Sure some books might be offensive to others but just because its offensive to others doesn't mean that it should be banned. If you don't like a book deal with it yourself, don't go and ban it and rid the opportunity for other people to read the book. Imagine if we banned food! Hamburgers offend me because they have to raise cows who have a destiny of getting fat and getting their heads cut of for peoples enjoyment.. (P.S. they don't really offend me I was just useing it as an example, something will always offend someone, theirs too many of us.)
Books shouldn't be banned, because different books appeal to different people and they should be public to the people so if they like a certain series or a certain author they can continue to read the books the publish. Also, it introduces new authors to enthusiastic readers and spans the topics instead of reading just fiction or horror. The benefits of limiting people's access to certain books is that it may change the opinion of the reader, some books influence racist, sexist, or religious language that offends certain people, or may push negative opinions against the reader.
Books shouldn't be banned, because different books appeal to different people and they should be public to the people so if they like a certain series or a certain author they can continue to read the books the publish. Also, it introduces new authors to enthusiastic readers and spans the topics instead of reading just fiction or horror. The benefits of limiting people's access to certain books is that it may change the opinion of the reader, some books influence racist, sexist, or religious language that offends certain people, or may push negative opinions against the reader.
Books shouldn't be banned. No matter what, you're going to offend somebody. If EVERYONE complained, then there wouldn't be any books left. Parents should know how mature their child is, and if they aren't mature enough to read a certain book, then the parent shouldn't allow their child to read it. Books shouldn't be banned because a certain group is unhappy. If a book was meant to offend someone, then it wouldn't have been accepted into the publishing process in the first place. People are too petty.
I personally, do not believe books should be banned, no matter how mature or diverse the content is. If someone doesn't want to read a certain book, then don't read it! Only, don't drag a whole colony of people with you. Sometimes you need to read, to learn. The books teach you. It said that books that contain "sexual" content are often first to be banned, but that's how life is! If you aren't mature enough to take it then don't! Know your limits when reading! Also, people ban book because they don't agree with the beliefs in them. If you don't agree, get a different book. Respect others beliefs. I am proud of my religion, but i don't shove it down people's throats. I respect other's beliefs as much as my own.
Banning some books in my opinion is needed. I don't believe that all books should be open to the public, such as books like the Satanic Verses, because some may take offense to it and others may interpret the books in ways not meant to, especially if they are not mature enough to be reading the book.
I believe some of the books that were banned are really stupid. Harry Potter and Dr. Suess were both banned and I want to know why. I don't see how Dr. Suess's writing is considered bannable.
I don't think books should be banned at all. Some people might like a certain book, but others might dislike the same book. If you don't like the book, don't read it or don't let your child read it. Don't deprive others the chance to read it.
I do not think that books should be banned. We have a freedom of speech, writing books is one way to exercise this right.
I think that book burning is ridiculous and shouldn't happen. It is a free country and we should be able to read whatever we want with permission. Most of the books that are banned are not even bad. If parents don't want their kids to read something they can stop them themselves.
It surprised me that they banned the Lorax because it's a Dr. Suess book. They banned it more for reasons that adults understand, not little kids who enjoy reading the book.
The pro to banning books is that no one gets offended. The con to banning books is that books let people be creative and imaginative and banning books restricts that.
I don't think that books should be banned at all. If you ban books, you're banning another persons thoughts and opinions. If you ban one persons thoughts and opinions, others should be banned, too. Why don't we just ban all thought?
I was surprised to see books like "The Giver", and "Slaughter House 5" because they seem like okay books in y mind.
I think books shouldn't be banned at all! Some people need books to learn. If we ban books, teenager that enjoy reading might find other activities that are not safe. The only advantage of not having books is that we won't get as much homework. Other than that we shouldn't be banning any books!!!!
Books shouldn't be banned because its a form of entertainment. Everyone at least has a have a favorite. For me reading isn't my favorite thing to do to be honest but when i go to bed i always have a book on my night stand and just reading one page it makes me just want to keep reading and takes my sleep away.
I think that banning books could be good and bad. Good because some books are offensive to some people because book gives us the writers point of view about a certain subject. they would be banned because the writer would be giving us offensive language and information. Its bad to ban because some people agree with the writers point of view like and the book might be the writers imagination about the future. I was surprised that Fahrenheit 451 was banned. I think that it shouldn't be banned because the writer was just giving us his opinion about the future and showing us part of his imagination and showing us why books are important and what would happen if books were illegal. And he shows us how the the world might be if people stop thinking.
I don't understand why The Giver is banned because of killing. The only killing scene in the book is when the father kills the baby. After I read the book I thought it was sad and didn't even think of the killing part.
I think books should never be banned. Books share opinions and stories and ideas. Books may sometimes share negative opinions, but people should be able to hear all opinions and use their own decision.
I think that banning books isn't that good because people can't learn new things. Also, because it could give a new look on a book or person or event. It's bad because we should be able to choose for ourselves what we want to read and not let people make that decision for us. The only bad thing to me is that some people may not be mature for a book that is very mature.
I believe that books should not be banned because they're creative, and their purposes are most likely not to try and offend anybody.
There is one book that i am surprised to see banned and that book is The Harry Potter series by JK Rowling. The reason why this book was banned because of it being wizardly. I don't understand why they banned the book just for that.
I think that some of the books that are banned is ridiculous because they are just books, fiction or nonfiction. Kids should be able to read what they want because they need to know about different situations that could happen. Also some of the books that are banned are reasonable but i think that kids should get a chance to explore and read them, only if they are mature enough to handle it.
I think the banning of books are wrong. Books are to be read and banning them from being read is against our rights. Freedom is what america is about. people can read just about what ever book we want no one can stop us.
My opinion on banning books is that if you ban a book your losing in opportunity to learn something new. If their not old enough or not mature enough for the book wait till their older. Their going to learn about it sometime in life.
I think that they shouldn't have banned books because books can give you information that you wouldn't have known. And because it expresses emotion.
I think the banning of books is kind of dumb because if you know theres bad language and such then just let the mature kids read not younger people i's common sense you should know who can read those books you don't have to bann them
I think that some book should be removed because they make people super sad and some make people mad and some just have bad words and are not approved for teens and children
Some pros of banning books are that some may be really bad and just offensive to a certain number of people. A con is that there may not be anything wrong or inappropriate in the book, but adults just overreact to these things thinking it will affect their child, when it really doesnt. I was surprised to see some books like Fahrenheit 451 banned
i do indeed understand why some of these books are banned , but we as young adults are growing up. We already know most things about are body and the opposite genders body. I think we should be able to read them but only if we are mature enough to read them. But also in the book The Dairy Of Ann Frank i do not understand why that is banned? Yes it may be very well depressing but its a part of history and we have a right to learn it if we wish!
My opinion with banning books is strong because I think particular books can go over the top some times and only various people can take the books maturely and serious.
Books should not be banned because we should be open to read whatever we want. They can't censor everything they find bad for us.
I think some books are should be banned because some books make people sad. A bad thing about banning books is it limits some peoples learning. A good thing is there is less books for me to read. I am surprised that James and the giant peach is banned. This is because I loved it when I was a kid.
I think the pros of banning books would be that they protect people from being offended or kids from learning things they shouldn't be. The cons to banning books is missing out on an opportunity to learn a story and see a different perspective on something. You might learn something new from a book that is banned.
I dont understand why The Giver is on the list. That is a great book and its not all about suicide. They dont know any better in the book
I don't understand why the Harry Potter Books are banned. There is nothing bad in those books. I have been reading those books since I was little. It also shocked me that Dr. Seuss was on the list. When you think of Dr. Seuss you think of innocent little kid books, not a book that would be banned.
I don't understand why the Harry Potter Books are banned. There is nothing bad in those books. I have been reading those books since I was little. It also shocked me that Dr. Seuss was on the list. When you think of Dr. Seuss you think of innocent little kid books, not a book that would be banned.
Books shouldn't be banned because books aren't meant for everyone. Most people are able to read these kinds of books without feeling offended on the topics listed. The disadvantages of banning books would be that people who are mature enough won't be able to read and enjoy the books.
I think most books shouldn't be banned because most books could be entertaining or sad or action etc etc. So if you ban them it takes out some of the amusments people see in life.
"I Have a Dream" - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
January 19, 2012
To conclude our unit on allusions, we will examine how Dr. King masterfully wove allusions into his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Use this link to access the full text and an audio version of the speech. After we complete our analysis of the allusions, please post a comment that responds to one of the following questions:
- Which allusion is most effective in the speech? What impact do you think it had on the audience?
- How doe Dr. King use historic events to make his argument?
- Which words are most powerful in the speech, and why?
Tags:
COMMENTS
No comments yet. Be the first!
Harriet Tubman: Conductor of the Underground Railroad
January 03, 2012
In order to learn about another account of slavery, listen to one of the podcasts from the Library of Congress that provide firsthand accounts of slaves' stories. In the interviews featured, three men, Fountain Hughes, Wallace Quarterman, and George Johnson discuss what life was like during slavery and after it ended. The interview with Fountain Hughes even includes his observations of a slave auction. As you listen to the interview of your choice, think about the historic facts in these accounts relate to the selection we read about Harriet Tubman. In your comments, consider the following questions:
- What did you learn from these podcasts about slavery, and why are their perspectives unique?
- How do the men being interviewed regard education?
- How did the Civil War impact these men's lives?
- How did these men react to freedom?
The textbook selection "Harriet Tubman: Conductor of the Underground Railroad" gives us a vivid account of the struggles Tubman faced as she led slaves to freedom. In order to build background knowledge about slavery and the Underground Railroad, we will follow a virtual journey on the Underground Railroad. As you follow the links through this site, you will learn about slaves' lives on the plantation, how they planned escapes, and what it was like to finally reach safety and freedom. You will complete questions asking you to imagine that you are retelling the story of the escaped slave depicted in this activity.
Tags:
COMMENTS
I listened to Fountain Hughes's podcast. I can't believe what he said about needing a permission slip from his master to go from place to place. That is crazy! It is a free country and why would you need a permission slip just to cross the street. It shouldn't matter what color you are.
The men give a rare 1st hand perspective. They see education as a luxery. The civil war gave them freedom, which was still challenging because it was hard to find work and they were discriminated against.
As I was listening to Fountain Hughes, he described how bad the living conditions were, he said that they had to sleep on hard wood, and if the slave owners caught them trying to read or learn something, they would imediatly take it away. That surprised me how they just never wanted them to learn, and that impacted them after they were free.
What surprised me the most was their living conditions during slavery they had to get permission for doing anything like crossing the streets. Food was limited. They didn't have privacy. They used to sleep on a mattress on the floor.
Wallace Quarterman regarded education as sometime that no man could do without. He quoted "You know when a man ain't got no education he ain't got no sense." I believe that he held education very high in regards for the black community because they all had their own judges, lawyers, and jail wards.
I learned from the website that not all slaves hated their owners. For example, Wallace Quaterman said that his owner was always nice to him and that Wallace wouldn't take anything from him.
The living conditions surprised me. Waking up at 4 in the morning is ridiculous! And then having to work the rest of the day on the field is horrible.
What supriesd me was how could he surive his jouney and how can someone live knowing that they did that to a human being
I can't believe how little the slaves got to eat. That just isn't right. People need to eat and be well fed to do good at work. I think it would have been logical to give them more food and better living conditions at least.
What surprised me the most is the living conditions of the slave. How the slave sleeps on a hay mattress on the floor without any privacy. The only freedom they have is to use the bathroom.
It surprised me that they separated families! HOW HORRIBLE!
Something that surprised me was the horrible living conditions the slaves were forced to survive in. They had to split very little food between many people. They had a limited amount of living space and had no privacy. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to not have a bedroom door!
I was surprised by the living conditions that the slaves were given . They had to sleep on an old piece hay. They were whipped a ton for doing things that their Masters didn't like which was terrible.
that they started working in the tabaco fields at a very young age .
One suprising thing was that even when you were a baby they would still sell you as a slave! Which means getting separated from your mom/family.
I'm surprised that some people who were against slavery, would still turn slaves in as fugitives.
The slaves had a house that only had between one or two rooms in it. Plus the slave owner would fit two families in the home.
I was surprised how they had limit amount of foods, and how got to escape although it was dangerous and the chances of getting caught was big.
A peace of information that I learned was how long and the journey takes and how careful you have to be to cross.
I found it most surprising that some people would take in slaves for safety and then turn them in.
The most surprising thing is that they would travel for a long period of time and they would only have what they brought. Also that their was a fine if you were helping a slave.
One piece of information that surprised me was that some slave owners made their slaves go and get a glass of water for them. That is extreme laziness.
One thing that I found interesting about the virtual underground railroad tour was that someone would leave candles out on his window to signal that he could help slaves.
What suprised me was that in Canada there were no slaves.
What surprised me was that a man named John Rankin left a lantern on his window to let the slaves know that the Ohio river was safe to cross.
One suprising thing was that he survived it all and i was wondering were there any close calls where people almost found him.
There was a $1,000 fine if you were caught helping a slave escape
The ways they knew which direction they were going surprised me. They would use moss or the stars as compasses.
I was suprised with the amount of food slaves were given. I knew that they didn't get much, but I didn't expect that they would get less than half of a small bag for 4 people to eat.
Maya Angelou
December 10, 2011
"Words mean more than what is set down on paper. It takes the human voice to infuse them with shades of deeper meaning."
Now that we have read an excerpt from Maya Angelou's autobiography I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, take the opportunity to further explore her life and works. In "Mrs. Flowers," Angelou lost her ability to speak until a trusted mentor helped her regain her voice.
- View a recent interview with Dr. Angelou in which she discusses the power of words. What do you think of Dr. Angelou's opinions on how words affect people? How does she view rap artists' use of words? Do you agree or disagree with her?
- You may also view Queen Latifah's reading of Angelou's tribute to Michael Jackson, a poem entitled "We Had Him." How does Angelou incorporate some of the literary devices that we've discussed? What is your opinion of her portrayal of Jackson?
Tags:
COMMENTS
I agree with Maya Angelou that it's not right to say rude things to people no matter who you are, but the thing is that some comedians make fun of their own race and everyone thinks it fine. I will admit that I do think that comedian's jokes are funny as long as they don't go too far.
I think she has a point. Even if the insult IS in an art form, it still hurts. As an example, if someone drew a picture making fun of you, would you accept it just because it's in an art form? I know I certainly wouldn't. She view's rap artist's use of words the same way. If it hurts, it hurts, no matter how it's said. (Or in this case rapped.)
I personally AGREE with her. I don't like people not being considerate to others. You need to respect EVERYONE. Every single individual wants respect, and don't even try to deny it. To me, it doesn't matter how you look, but your respect does.
I do not think that regular people and the musicians should be compared because some musicians are some times brought up in places ware that word is used constantly. I am no fan of rap or using that kind of language though. That is what i think.
I think that Dr. Angelou's opinion is correct, because even if not an African American was targeted but any other religion or ethnicity people would still rampage about hurtful words. Even if it is a joke, you don't have to use such vulgar words that impact a person's feelings. She views a rap artist's use of words with the same point of view "Vulgarity is vulgarity." I believe not all rappers mean it, but even if you refer to it that can demean a person's feelings. Not in all cases is it racist, but the way it's mentioned in a song can describe if it's racist or just a use of words.
I agree and disagree with Maya Angelou. Comedians like Dave Chapell aren't trying to offend anyone. Hes a comedian and thats his job to joke around with people. Don lnus shouldn't be saying stuff like that. Yes people are entitled to their opinion, but what he says was just mean and rude. Racism isn't a good thing. I agree with Maya that everyone's just human. No one should have the right to put down people and talk trash about them .
I agree with Maya Angelou. Vulgarity is vulgarity, no matter the form. A hateful word has an insulting meaning. The meaning of the word doesn't change just because a comedian like Dave Chapell uses it. Vulgarity and ignorance will remain in the U.S., and all over the world if people are able to insult people whenever they feel like doing so.
Honestly I disagree with Maya Angelou because rap artists use the rap tecnique to express there feelings. Sometimes rap artist do mean what they but they ussally don't. Maya Angelou as a writer expresses her feelings through poetry if I'm not mistaken. Rap artist express their feelings through rap. Everyone has different ways of expressing that. If the rap artist do use vulgarity that's their problem nobody else's.
I disagree with Maya Angelou because comedians do that type of stuff for entertainment. They don't want to offend people. Don Imus said it to offend people and make them feel bad.
I agree with Maya Angelou. Whether you are a musician or a comedian, it shouldn't be acceptable to feel free to call anyone whatever you please. If we are going to end the vulgarity in this nation, we have to have everyone abiding by this. We can't end the racism and discrimination if we still hear it in our favorite rap songs, and on the other hand we can't end the vulgarity if we still hear it on the radio or from your favorite comedian.
I agree with Maya Angelou. Words can be very hurtful. It doesn't matter who is saying them, either way they mean the same thing. Everyday people say these words and every day you are hurting some one when you say them.
i agree with Maya Angelou because those things they say can be hurtful and i don't think it matters if their a comedian or a rapper because i don't think they like being called names.
I agree with Maya Angelou completely because "vulgarity is vulgarity." It doesn't matter what it is in, like a song, a poem, or even just a conversation, it will still hurt someone's feelings. It might not be on purpose, but it still is cruel. Everyone deserves the same respect as the next person, no matter what race.
I think Maya is correct, no matter who's saying what, it's still really insulting and rude. Words affect everyone no matter who the person is saying it, and when people say it, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I agree with Maya Angelou because people shouldn't being saying mean or offensive words to intentionally hurt some, especially on live radio. Musician or not, people shouldn't being saying anything that offensive.
I do believe that people shouldn't use vulgarity or degrading terms but sometimes it's just for entertainment purposes. When it's not meant to offend anyone no one should be offend by it. Sometimes us humans just like to play around and it's certainly distinguishable when a person is trying to offend someone or when their just joking around.
I agree with Maya Angelou. Everyone should be treated equally, no matter how famous you are. Words can really effect your outlook on the world and your self-esteem.
i disagree with Maya Angelou because Dave Chapell or any comedians intention is not to offend anyone they want you to know it as a joke. Music artist use offensive words but most are not truly that mean to a race, woman, or man. Don Inus was just being mean. I feel his intentions were to offend someone. I feel this way because if he did not want to offend someone he would not have said it.
I think that Mia Angelou was correct by saying all harsh words are insulting and rude. Also, it doesn't matter who said what. If you said something insulting and is used to be rude and ignorant, then that's insulting and you should be ashamed.
i don't think hip hop and any person saying it is the same hip hop is telling a story not showing hate like other people.
I agree with Maya Angelou's opinion about how words affect people. Words can be very hurtful.
i dont agree with maya because when people say vulgarity not to insult some one but its just part of their vocabulary. black people call them selves and others some of these words. they say it to just to joke around. some people take it to the extreme sometimes. yes it is wrong that some people use crude language intentionally and they should be punished but when others say it they say it jokingly not offensively.
i believe that Maya is correct because i think that nobody should be called a racist term they should be equal
In my opinion, I agree with Dr. Angelou when she says using vulgarity is demeaning. Dr. Angelou was stated that it does not matter how old you are or what race you are, every insult is mean.
I agree with Maya Angelou when she said "vulgarity is vulgarity"and that it's degrading. It doesn't matter what you say if you say a nice comment. My mom tells me "if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all."
I agree with maya angelou because words are a powerful thing. People use vulgarism as a funny thing. I find it rude and disrespectful. if you took away all the color in our skin and hair we would all be the same. The saying sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me is very false when it comes to name calling.
I agree with Maya vulgarity is vulgarity and u can hurt people by the words you say towards them its like racisim to others your hurting there feelings cause not everyone believes in the same thing and either way we are all people and we deserve to be treated fairly.
I agree that vulgarity is vulgarity and it doesn't matter who said it, it will mean the same thing. Even if you are a different color or a different religion, it still means the same thing.
I agree with Maya Angelou because it might be different people that are saying that but it is the same words, and it might be in an "artistic way" or in a " hateful way", but they are still the same words.
I agree with Mia when she says that all vulgarity is insulting and mean. i think it doesnt matter who the person is who said it. its still bad and sometimes it could be worse. When your putting someone down there going to think negative about you.
I agree with Maya Angelou, because it does not matter how you say something hurtful or inappropriate, it was hurtful and uncalled for no matter what the context was.
I think that it dose not matter what people call each other. Life is to short to be put down by something someone calls you. Be who you are, even if you're black or yellow or red. Who cares what other people think.
i agree with Maya Angelou. It doesn't matter who says those comments, its all hurtful. Its just rude, and insulting!!
In my opinion, Maya Angelou is right. "Vulgarity is vulgarity" and it doesn't matter what race you are. Even though rap artists use vulgarity they are degrading people and they want other people to hear them. Its insulting to who they are singing or talking about.
I agree with her because words effect on people vulgarity is vulgarity. Because it doesn't matter who said it along it was said.
Words do affect people, of course. But, people can't let words get to them. Honestly, words don't mean anything.
In my opinion, I agree with Mia Angelou when she says that all vulgarity is insulting and demeaning, it doesnt really matter who you are all insults are the same and they are used for the same purpose, to put people down and make them feel bad.
I agree that vulgarity is vulgarity and that words can affect people in many ways black or white.
After watching Maya Angelou's interview on CBS news, I must say that I completely agree with her statements. After what she said about rappers and comedians such as Snoop Dogg, and Dave Chappelle and how they say the same comments during their songs as the radio talk show host. Which is true because in most songs and acts they can mention racist and sexist comments. And if they were to say that about one of the first ladies, they will be in alot more trouble.
i don't agree with Maya Angelou because some times when people say some thing they really don't want to heart the person they are doing it for other reasons like they think they wood get cooler and get out there and people would know them more .
She believed that white people and black people could talk together and become friends. Many people were inspired of her poem and her.
I agree with what Maya Angelou said in her interview because when people of any race say things towards another race, they are trying to single them out when in realty, everyone is the same.
Maya Anguelou's opinions on how words effect people are inspiring to hear I never thought of vulgarity like that before. Her view on the rap artists' words are that it doesn't mater if it in music vulgarity or not vulgarity is the same no matter how you use it. I agree with here opinion on the rap artists' worlds because I'm sure that if the words they used in their songs were said to them in real life they would not enjoy it.
I agree with Maya Angelou because Vulgarity is Vulgarity. In any way, shape, or form you say what you say and if you say hurtful things you need to apologize because words hurt people.
I agree with her statment that words do affect people. Also that the rap artists do say things that can make people feel bad.
After watching Maya Angelou's opinion on vulgarity I agree that vulgarity is color blind. No matter who says uses those words any race, no matter how they use it vulgarity is vulgarity.
i agree that rappers use degrading words to different races and that some have songs that are very degrading to women.
I agree with Maya Angelou because no matter what your race or if it's in a song or just talking, vulgarity is vulgarity. Just because you are saying something in a song doesn't make it ok.
Angelou's statement "Vulgarity is vulgarity" is completely correct. No matter who says those things no matter how they say them it is still an insult. No matter the person's race, gender, or age that insult will still cause pain.
After watching Maya Angelou's video It really made me qustion what could be said and whats takieined as a insault or as a joke. I think if its two friends messing around makeing fun of each other its a big difference then someone publicly speaking racial terms.
I agree with Maya Angelou's opinion. It doesn't matter who makes the comment its the fact they made the comment, they are hurting somebody. Once your say words out loud you can never take them back.
I think that Maya Angelou's opinion on " Vulgarity is vulgarity " is true because when you say things like that it will hurt someone else and your'e trying to demean the person. It doesn't matter who says it or why but it will hurt someone and when you use words like that and it will effect someone else.
REPLACED BY CAMPUSUITE
