2014년 3월 21일 금요일

What made the umpire make a big gesture?

Hello! Here comes the new writing about baseball :) Do you think umpires of baseball games exaggerate thier move? One of our members explain to you why this happened. You can post your comments to express your thinkings on this article.


What made the umpire make a big gesture?

Ryu Hye-ran
Department of English Education
Kyungpook National University 

Have you ever watched a baseball game in the ball park? If so, you might realize that an umpire makes an exaggerated gesture compared to other kinds of sports. If not, why don’t you listen to the touching story behind the gesture like ‘Safe’, ‘Out’, and ‘Strike’?

There is a close relationship between the larger gesture and one baseball player.

About 100 years ago there was a baseball player named ‘William Ellsworth Hoy’, who was the first deaf major-leaguer. Though he, with hearing impairment, must have had a variety of troubles and limits, he was a sincerely proficient player as proven by the fact that he played in a dream major league. Especially he was good at stealing a base, setting a record as having the highest stolen bases over the season.

Even though there seems that he had no problem according to his notable record, it is true, needless to say, that he had difficulties in communicating with others and also understanding what the umpire said. One day, one of the umpires who struggled to keep up with a way to deal with the problem decided to make signs by moving his hand. Thanks to this small caring consideration, Hoy could perform better.

After that, it was applied to other team members as well with simple gesture, resulting in a positive way. Though it took a lot of time since Hoy played, it goes on still, which shows careful concern for the disabled. It is often described that the exaggerated gesture is a wonderful combination between one player’s passion to overcome his limit and one umpire’s caring for him. 

Actually some people assert that direct reason for the big gesture is for the audience. They say the gesture was made because the audience with cheer cannot recognize whether it is strike or ball. Anyway, there’s no one who thinks that the sign was not influenced by Hoy.

What about reminding of Hoy and his efforts when you watch the umpire’s exaggerated gesture during the baseball game next time? Also, remember wonderful the umpires’ thoughtful consideration and its effect.
 

2014년 3월 14일 금요일

Changing in Fashion Trend: Hijab in America

New writing arrives! This is about the NEW perspective on Hijab-wearing. Please read and let us what you think about this! You can show your opinions through comments :)


Changing in Fashion Trend: Hijab in America


Pusan National University
Department of Global Studies
Yoo, Hyunji 

Hijab represents not only Muslim women, but also their society. People tend to think that Muslim women’s hijab is still considered as a symbol of sexual discrimination and oppression. It seems as though they are forced to wear traditional clothes. Of course, the social system that prevents women from promoting their right to express themselves is problematic in the perspective of the West. However, interestingly, most Muslim women do not think that wearing hijabs is a way of being discriminated. Rather, by wearing hijabs, they can express their identity at the same time practicing their religion. Therefore, for Muslim women, hijab is their daily-item. Most of all, these days, the recognition on hijab is changing into positive among people in the United States.

As the world is globalized, wearing hijabs is not limited only to Muslim countries, and the population wearing hijabs in the U.S is increasing nowadays. There is increasing number of immigrants from the Muslim countries and American women are contributing to the positive recognition of hijabs. American non-Muslim women wear hijab for its beautiful design to be distinguished, even though they believe that Hijab reflects social discrimination. Furthermore, for the feminists’ movements, wearing hijabs can be a symbol to protest toward their unequal societies. Therefore, more and more Americans are having positive thoughts on hijabs even though they are not Muslims.  

However, hijab is still a controversial topic since we cannot ignore the fact that hijabs are considered as a tool to discriminate and oppress women. Even though we cannot decide exactly whether hijabs are used as a discriminatory tool or as a beauty and designing function, but at least, we should accept their uniqueness and respect the cultural diversity.

2014년 3월 7일 금요일

Gwendolyn Brooks, We Real Cool

One of DSKUSSS members express her experise on poem. Have you heard of Gwendolyn Brooks? She uses his poem "We Real Cool" to show her point of view on it :) Take a look and give your thoughts through comments.
 
The Final Word:
the Implications of “We” and its Ultimate Failure
 
Eunsong Lee
Korea University
English Language and Literature
 
 
We Real Cool


                                        Gwendolyn Brooks
THE POOL PLAYERS.
                   SEVEN AT THE GOLDEN SHOVEL.
 
We real cool. We
Left school. We
 
Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We
 
Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We
 
Jazz June. We
Die soon.

  Each line of Gwendolyn Brooks’ “We Real Cool” begins with a capital letter, indicating youthful boldness and at the same time a grasp of reality. The poem is not just an immature boast about rebelling against social norms and rules; to a certain level, the boys understand the ground they walk on. Words such as “lurk” and “sin,” words no doubt directed toward them by society in condemnation, they now take up to describe their own actions. On the one hand, this may be self-mockery and denunciation of their inexcusable “crimes.” But if the boys’ behavior is rebellious revelry rather than shame, the words’ mockery is directed not to themselves but to the authorities above them and the vocabulary of their moral code.
  But whether the boys are grimly accepting the standards of society’s condemnation, or whether they are taking a stab at this code of ethics, there is clearly uncertainty in their words and actions. The jerked ‘We—We—We—’ at the end of each line rhythmically breaks up their speech and gives it a “limp,” an ambiguity toward themselves. This ambiguity increases because of the empty space following each “We,” which seems to question the validity of the speakers’ identities and existence. It is almost as though after each assertion of Self, the boys continuously halt, wondering, questioning who they really are. This feeling dominates the entire poem.
  The collectiveness of “We,” however, implies an awareness of Self the boys do have in spite of their ambiguity. There are many possible other ways the words of the poem could have been arranged but were not; the lines could have been connected together as one long sentence listing the boys’ actions—but they are not. Instead, the poem is broken into short, three-worded sentences, each firmly nailed down by a period. In addition to creating rhythm and a tone of youthful energy, the short-cut sentences reflect the boys’ conscious desire to not dwell on the reality of their wrongful actions. Long sentences hold continued thoughts, which may come under introspection and undermine their self-esteem. By plugging down the sentences and cutting each thought before it has the chance to develop into something that may sting and shake them, weaken them, the defiant speakers fashion a layered armor of defense.
  But another important intention behind the wording seems to be to position the word “We,” capitalized, at the beginning of each sentence, therefore repeatedly emphasizing collectiveness. The reasons for this is obvious: the speakers are adolescents, and the prominent characteristic of adolescents is a powerful sense of collective identity, of being acting and thinking in a group entity. “We” is made all the more vital in their case because the dark life they have chosen, playing pool into the night and singing and drinking, is a path that rejects authority and morality. It is a refusal of society’s expectations and therefore a dangerous, unwarranted life. The boys need one another to share the ambiguity and fear; the “We” wards off, if at least momentarily, their uncertainty; their mutuality serves as an essential source of motivation and sustenance.
  Therefore “We” is a tool of both defense and retaliation. Not only have they rejected the existing authorities, they have found a new authority—themselves. Hence the word is capitalized, exalted at the head of each new thought. At the same time, the line break after each “We” makes it the last word as well as the first. To “have the last word” in a matter means to have the final say, to have the greatest authority. By asserting their collective identity at both the start and finish of each thought, surrounding each thought, the boys give their speech autonomy. It is speech unrestricted and unlimited by any “other.” The assertion of sovereignty could not be any stronger.
  Yet there is a weakness that is exposed by the undeniable presence of death at the poem’s finale. The short-cut lines, armed with autonomy, eventually come to an end with the words, “We / Die soon.”—with no “We” following them. The absence of “We” has impact enough to cancel out all that the previous sentences with their powerful capitalized pronouns tried to achieve. The reader’s eye, accustomed to seeing the “We” at the end of each line, is met now by a blank space, the emptiness, coldness, and loneliness of which are conveyed as visibly as if there had been an explanation. Death breaks the strength of “We.” No matter how strongly boys’ collective identity had rejected authority, here is one authority that it cannot conquer. They know this. The last two words in the final line—or rather, the absence of one word in the final line—carry this tragic realization. The authority the youths strove to attain is in the end revealed to be fundamentally flawed.
  The ultimate failure of “We” inevitably casts doubt on its initial validity and contributes to the general tone of ambivalence. “We” now becomes a fake thing; it is not true autonomy the boys have but merely a passive route of escape—safety in numbers. It is not really they who hold authority. What they have believed in thus far is unreal and insubstantial. In the light of such a revelation, then, one may also say the last “We” before the finality of death is of a nature different from the previous seven. There are seven boys playing pool at the Golden Shovel; seven times they assert their collective identity until death rends them apart. The last “We” no longer holds the active implications of a collective unity; it is merely a passive term indicating seven individuals, each separately facing his fate—for, the saying goes, “everyone dies alone.” In the face of mortality, the title’s declaration falls pitifully flat. Unfortunately for the boys, in the end, it is death that has the final word.

2014년 2월 27일 목요일

Gun Cotrol is Needed!


  One of our members wrote her thinking on gun-using in the states. She insists the government should take a action on gun controlling. What about you? Please take a look and share your thinking through comments :)

Gun Control is Needed!

 

Yunzee Kim
Dongseo University
Broadcasting and Media Studies


             “Bang! Bang! Bang!” “Help me!” “Don’t shoot me, please!”
Does that sound familiar? If you do so, you already understand what I want to talk about. Gun accidents! Compared to other countries, tragic gun accidents happen a lot in the U.S. On November 1st in 2013, there was a shooting at the Los Angeles airport. Due to this accident, one man was killed and three men were injured. On October 22nd in 2013, there also was a gun shooting at Sparks Middle School in Nevada. It killed one teacher and hurt two students. However, this wasn’t the end. There are more gun shooting accidents in the U.S. at the elementary school, university, and even the army base.

Have you ever wondered why these terrible accidents happen in the states?  Personally, I think this situation happens because the government allows all citizens to use guns. All citizens are not sensible. Among them, there might be some who might lack of judgment or be able to use guns as threatening and harmful devices to others. While many people say guns help protect themselves from dangerous situations, this right to own guns doesn’t always lead to good results. Guns could be possessed by criminals and mentally unstable people. In this case, many innocent people can be killed like the Virginia Tech Accident in 2007. Also, there are some cases where people get hurt by guns because they make mistakes while handling guns.

These cases show that the price people pay for having the right to own guns is not cheap. In the states, there have been debates on making laws of controlling gun possession for a long time but there hasn’t been any conclusive answer. Therefore, to lower the number of shooting accidents in the states, I think the government’s action will be needed. Since existing for protecting the life of people in the nation, the government has to start forming a social consensus on necessity of gun possession controlling as a first step. Once the consensus is formed, the government and the parliament can easily legislate the law on controlling of gun possession (especially gun possession of mentally unstable people or criminals).

2014년 2월 21일 금요일

What Should Teachers Focus More: Character Education or Academic Education?

  One of DSKUSSS(Democratic Society of Korean U.S. Studies Specialists) members is shwoing his interest on education. Just take a look and give your thoughts on this posting through comments. :)
 
 
<What Should Teachers Focus More: Character Education or Academic Education?>

 

Cha Sumin
Korea National University of Education
Dept. of English Education

  

As schools are not considered the place where students merely memorize tons of words anymore, teachers are suffering from balancing two aims: character education and academic education. Character education refers to teachers’ effort to enhance the way students deal with others, introspect themselves, and react to diverse unexpected events. Academic education, on the other hand, focuses more on concrete knowledge so that students get ready to have occupation and contribute to social development. Even though one cannot outweigh the other, it is hardly possible for teachers to accomplish both aims due to limitation such as school hours. Then on which aim should teachers give more attention? There cannot be a definite answer, but it is meaningful to take this question into account, especially if you are to be a teacher.
 

Martha Nussbaum, an American philosopher, lays particular stress on character education saying “Nations all over the world will soon be producing generations of useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criticize tradition, and understand the significance of another person’s sufferings and achievements.” Others who put emphasis on character education insist that people are not empty piggy banks supposed to be filled by handed-down contents, but being who are able to express their ideas to communicate with others. They also point out that character education is a lot easier to accomplish since it does not require elaborately scheduled lesson plans, but can frequently be realized through subtle arrangements including communicative activities and adjusting classroom arrangements.
 

Those who place priority on academic education, by contrast, argue that teachers are the only ones who are capable of conveying academic contents. In other words, while character education could be achieved not only by teachers but also by parents or peers, academic education could only be realized by teachers. In addition, they point out that society cannot work well unless there are intelligent people with abundant academic knowledge since every field around us is based upon concrete knowledge. Students must be soaked with academic knowledge during school life because those who drive our society in a more progressive way are not good and kind people, but those who are equipped with practical knowledge, they say. They also insist impossibility to gauge character education, which is significantly important in motivating students.
 

The point is not on selecting one education but on balancing the two, hence the term “focus more.” As shown above, there is not a predominant position, and it means it is teachers’ responsibility to mix them properly. If a teacher thinks students are satisfying minimum academic achievement, then the teacher may emphasize more on character education and vice versa. That is, what is important to teachers is to keep in mind that they are not ones who are specialized in one specific area; students require both character and academic education. Again, it is never an easy task but that’s what teachers are supposed to do. Bearing in mind the importance of character and academic education, they should always be ready to adjust where to put more stress.