"Dead Teen Walking"

"Dead Teen Walking" is very similar to White Fang in that they both discuss society's influence on events, people, and reality in general (the "molding" concept). In "Dead Teen Walking," the unfair imposition of the death penalty on minorities and on others who are undeserving of it is discussed. It tells the story of one boy in particular who had a bad childhood and who made poor decisions. This very much reminds me of White Fang in that both the boy in the article and White Fang had very rough childhoods. Despite this fact, those who made up a part of their environment did not care or take that into account when questioning their bad behavior. It seems that these kinds of things (past experiences, etc.) are never taken into account. In White Fang, it appears as if his past was not taken into account until he came upon Scott, a man who truly looked at how the past had molded White Fang's character.
I do not believe that teens should be put on death row at all! As I discussed above, those teens' pasts are not taken into account when making these decisions. Maybe if each case was dealt with individually, then the legal process involved with youth punishment would be more fair. I also did not like the part of the article that states that valuable evidence that could be used to prove a minority innocent is often passed up or ignored. This is very discriminatory! Everyone should have the right to a fair trial. In addition, I do not agree with the fact that these youth trials are put off until the youth are of age (this makes age appear to be an uncontroversial issue). Who knows how many innocent people have died by means of capital punishment? I believe that youth should be given a chance to prove themselves. Why should they not be allowed to prove themselves? This would be much better than learning one's lesson by dying!
Reading White Fang impacted my viewpoint only in that I noticed the same "nurture" stance in which I had agreed with (and still agree with). Both pieces definitely had a lot in common!

Abu Ghraib/What Makes Us Moral: Makeup for Missed Seminar

The atrocities that happened at Abu Ghraib prison and the content of What Makes Us Moral both directly tie into the nature versus nurture theme that is prevalent throughout White Fang. They both support the "nurture" philosophy-that one's environment molds one's character accordingly.
At Abu Ghraib prison, the soldiers who were put in charge of interrogating "terrorists" or keeping order became so accustomed to the inhumane torture that, although they originally strongly opposed it, they began to get carried away. They allowed the people who were "in charge" to mold their character into an uncaring, savage beast-all for the purpose of interrogating those people, ninety-percent of who were innocent. The U.S. government, for example, also got swept up in controversy due to its external environment. After 9/11, the government became so angry that it was willing to go against the Geneva Conventions at all costs just to get people to confess something that they usually knew nothing about. Prisoners were humiliated, ridiculed, sexually harassed, and beaten, all due largely in part to the negative impact that other people and society had on the guards' characters. Anger turned into savagery and embarrassment on the United States' part.
What Makes Us Moral also offers great insight into the "nurture" argument. For example, the "shunning" concept basically says that one will succumb to the expectations of some kind of group to avoid abandonment. This clearly illustrates the "molding" concept. In addition, it is discussed how one tends not to sympathize with those whom they know nothing about (e.g. specific races, religions, or cultures) and therefore, one will be less likely to help those kinds of people out or to connect with them because their environment has never supported acceptance or even acknowleged those specific groups.
As in White Fang, both What Makes Us Moral and the story of Abu Ghraib prison tie directly into the nurture theme, in which one is continually molded and remolded to the satisfaction of society and its evil wrath.

What Makes Us Moral

While reading the magazine article "What Makes Us Moral," I noticed a strong connection to the debate of "nature versus nurture." The article explains that one is born with an innate moral code, or a kind of "moral grammar." However, one tends to switch up that code based on different environmental factors. One may know right from wrong, but he/she may not act upon these values because their "membership" in the group would be threatened if they did so. I see this as saying that nature only goes so far, and after that, nurture kicks in. Society's influence molds our, otherwise morally correct, character. The information in the article definitely supports my view of White Fang's stance on this topic. As in the article, White Fang demonstrates that character is shaped by one's surrounding environment. It supports the nurture argument completely. For example, the article discusses how one tends to show empathy towards those who he/she can relate to, but when it comes to outsiders, one has a difficult time showing empathy or acting based on their moral code. One is "programmed" by society to feel as if certain groups of people are very different from them. These specific groups become alienated to the point that one feels as if he/she has nothing in common with them. It is nurture at work!
The article "What Makes Us Moral" has, as I previously mentioned, a strong connection to White Fang, but also a connection to Lord of the Flies as well. On page 196 of White Fang it is stated that, "...according to the clay of his nature and the pressure of his surroundings, his character was being molded into a particular shape." In addition, White Fang acted only for the "gods" a majority of the time (this reinforces the "shunning" concept discussed in the article). In Lord of the Flies, the "two regions battling in the brain" concept is illustrated with every killing performed on the island. In addition, the fact that everyone kept joining Jack's group for the purpose of survival, says to me that all of the kids were trying to avoid the "shunning" as well.
The two summer reading assignments, White Fang and Lord of the Flies, truly reinforce the statements expressed in "What Makes Us Moral!"

Summer Reading Assignment: Senior Social

Between the two summer reading assignments, I enjoyed White Fang a lot more than I did Lord of the Flies. I enjoyed White Fang more because I love animals and stories about them, I truly enjoyed the transformation from heartless to loving on White Fang's part, and I was eager for each new page because of the uncertainty of what would come next. I agree with White Fang's view concerning whether man is inherently evil or not. As opposed to Lord of the Flies, White Fang supports the "evil people and circumstances mold character" point of view. I definitely agree with the "nurture" position as far as the books are concerned. I did not like the portrayal of the savage nature of man in Lord of the Flies at all. It implies that we all have it in us to kill and to be dangerously instinctual, which I do not believe. We are not born to kill!

Chambon's Link to the Holocaust

I think that it is great to hear about a town that went against all rules just to help out their fellow "men." At a time when one could easily be killed for doing such a thing, the people there hid Jews and gave them everything that they needed anyways. One "refugee" even said that he was not once asked whether or not he was Jewish. That shows true empathy on Chambon's part. The "conspiracy of good" was something that led to the honor at Yad Vashem, something I feel that they truly deserve. However, I feel that it is too bad that their heroism is so rarely talked about. Their story should definitely be in textbooks and talked about in French schools so that they can feel proud of their actions. Chambon has not gotten enough recognition for the part that they played in preserving a race. Genocide was not in their vocabulary at all! They should be proud.

"Did Communism Threaten America's International Security After World War II?"

I agree more with Richard M. Fried's "no" argument. Communism's "red scares" share too many similarities with the Salem witch trials back in 1692, especially since Joseph McCarthy went severely overboard with his accusations. I do not truly believe that there were half as many Communists as he claimed there were. It is truly ridiculous how Hollywood actors, teachers, and other prestigious people were accused. They had done nothing wrong at all! In addition, Fried makes a good point when he says that Americans' first and fifth amendments were violated because they couldn't really do anything without being accused of being Communists. Many government officials were also wrongly accused. I think that McCartney was just trying to get attention, and that he went way off track when doing so. The lists that he had of supposed Communists did not even originate from a legitimate source! In conclusion, I believe that the "witch trials" of the 1950's and the McCarthyism that accompanied it posed much bigger threats to the American people than actual Communism did. A mountain was most certainly made out of a molehill.

Dropping the Atomic Bomb

Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified at all on our part. The main issue is that hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens were killed on impact either from the bomb or from the radiation that followed it. These were not just the people who had bombed Pearl Harbor, but rather innocent children and other innocent citizens who had done nothing to deserve their fate. I am sure that many more Americans would have spoken up about the catastrophe that we caused if they had known someone who was directly affected by it, but the sad fact is that, for many Americans, it did not affect them directly, so they kept quiet about the issue. We should have come up with some other way to punish the people who had directly attacked us, and only those people. At the time, Japan was believed to have been "leaving" the war soon anyways. America made an aggressive and ill-founded decision because the end of the war was coming shortly. In addition, the bombing made us look inhumane and uncaring. It also "singled us out" in a negative way. In conclusion, America's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary, and it helped further portray us as a ruthless and aggressive country.