Wednesday, March 2, 2011

TKAM and MB

Is it possible to send a moral message condemning racial prejudice by portraying both the positive and negative sides of both racial groups (Blacks and Whites)?

If it was possible to do so, it would mean that we are able to see both the positive and negative sides of both racial groups. However, more often than not, we only have a one-sided judgement of a person; that is to say that we determine whether a person is "good" or "bad" by weighing the positive sides and negative sides. Similarly, even if we are able to see both the positive and negative sides of both racial groups, we will still make a judgement of who is "right" and who is "wrong", even if the separation between the former and the latter might be just a fine line. This concept is often evident in religions as well.

How do we determine whether a person is good or evil by nature? This is very hard to determine. A common storyline used in drama serials, where a seemingly good person suddenly goes "mad" and does something "evil", demonstrates this point. Also, a novella which I had read in the past Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde embodies the same ideology. Next, what is good and what is evil? This is a harder question to answer and does not have a definite answer. The answer is subjective to one's opinions and viewpoint. If we adopt a utilitarian perspective, what we might think as good might be seen as evil to one who adopts a Kantian perspective. Murder and suicide might seem wrong and cowardly to the majority of the population but a small group of individuals might think otherwise. Not to say that I am advocating it, but rather it is more a personal opinion of things.

Linking back to the original question, it is not possible to condemn racial prejudice by portraying both the positive and negative sides of both racial groups as we will always see one group as dominating the other even if that certain group has positive traits portrayed that we will view as insignificant, even if we are wrong. If the positive side and negative side of both groups are prominently displayed (i.e. we are unable to tell who is good and who is evil), then the audience would be very confused as to who the author wishes to criticise and the moral message condemning racial prejudice would be lost.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Why Learn Grammar?

After reading Shiyao's post on the reasons he felt on why we should learn grammar (http://wangshiyao.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/why-the-need-to-learn-grammar/), I would like to express my own opinions on the issue as well as comment on the points made in his post.

First of all, we learn grammar so that there is a standardised platform for communication, regardless of the language. When there is a common platform for communication, people who utilise the language would be able to speak "proper English" that everyone would know and understand. In addition to grammar, vocabulary as well as elements like tone are also very important. For example, one might take a joke or a sarcasm seriously and think that it is an insult. This arises when we do not use the language much and have a less broader view of the usage of the language in that particular society or culture. It is important to learn grammar so that there are the foundations to build upon language. Having learnt 3rd language for one year or so, I have come to realised that grammar in Japanese is as essential and vital as in any other language. Without the basic knowledge of grammar, one cannot construct "proper sentences" which is the acceptable way of writing and speaking. Grammar is a basic set of rules that defines the usage of a certain language. Similarly, school rules also define the basic rules and responsibilities that a student follows. If a rule is broken, the student disobeys the rule and he would be performing an act detrimental to the school. If one breaks a grammar rule, the broken grammar would be considered as a "misdemeanour" to the language.

About Shiyao's point that language evolves with the evolution of humans, I totally agree with his statement. He mentioned that as long as someone is able to express his views and opinion to others, it does not matter what form it takes. However, I would like to point out that he had failed to see that the way in which this particular person expresses his opinions and views is grammar. Grammar is defined as "A system of rules and principals for speaking and writing." as defined by Wiktionary.com. When one is able to understand someone else, there must be a certain logic or rules that he follow to understand the person.

Grammar rules need not be recorded down black and white on paper but they should rather be in the hearts of the people using the language. Grammar need not be something that is concrete but it can be abstract as well. Rules need not be seen but the actions and consequences can be seen. What I am trying to say here is that Grammar has no certain definition. Singlish can have grammar as well, it is just subjective to individual's views as to whether they are "valid" or not.

All in all, grammar is essential for communication and development as it ensures that there is a common platform to do so. There is never a valid set of grammar rules to be followed in all contexts and scenarios. Grammar rules are established when there is a person or a group of people using the language involved.