Blog Post #2 - Ong Second Half

Ong opens up to discussion of being human in relation to orality. This can be seen with his example of how "civilized" people have long separated themselves from those who are inferior, considered "savage" or "primitive". He says this is a behavior that is not limited to snobby folk at cocktail parties or in opinionated conversation, but in fields of studies. Mainly, historical works and anthropological studies. What this shows is that we as society consider that "illiterate" societies are not smart enough for perhaps a sustainable civilization. This seems to put pressure on these oral-oriented cultures. Ong says that while they lament on losing their sense of culture, they're not opposed to learning to be literate, in fact he says they try to learn it as quickly. It's funny how humans begin with only orality then forget that, and try to brand the terms like "savages" or "primitive" on them, when that is the roots we began with. This shows are willingness to branch off from traditions, even if it creates a discourse with people who still has an oral based culture.

Ong goes on to discuss that speaking has a very important trait of addressing oneself. He says that our subconsciousness is fundamental to speaking. To speak, he says, you need to address another person. He makes a statement by saying that "People in their right minds do not stray through the woods just talking at random to nobody. Even to talk to yourself you have to pretend that you are two people." I think our brains learned to speak just because we needed to communicate with others. Since that is the prime reason we even speak, our brains are wired to create an audience to communicate to. Ong says that "I have to be somehow already in communication with the mind I am to address before I start speaking." It's odd to be conscious of something that we've been subconsciously doing for all our lives. I think of the nights I am hunched over a journal in the middle of the night. If someone were to walk by, they would just see me scribbling words over a page. That is all they can see. And all that I can hear, are my own thoughts. I think and write. But I don't even notice that I am speaking with another person, even if it is myself, reiterating my own thoughts to perhaps form a conversation.

In the afterwords, the man named John Hartley briefly mentions something that caught my eye. He says "One of the oddest things about printing was that it delivered monopoly control over the expression of the truth to those who controlled publication. It seemed to liberate thought for all, and was so hailed by many over centuries, but this was a read-only freedom."

This is what intrigues me the most. I've heard stories how American history books loves to omit information about what they deem unimportant. A good, recent example was of Texas' school board approved of a history book to... water down slavery. They avoided the word slavery as much as they could, like excluding that word from "slave trade", calling it instead as "Atlantic triangular trade." History textbooks are introduced to us ever since we were old enough to read. We learned of our founding fathers and how slavery was bad and a lot of stories of white men doing great deeds. History books are a publication that is primarily written by people who can decide what is important to learn, and what is optional. A good argument is that we are required to learn "American history", which neglects to go remotely in-depth of how cruel slavery was, how brutal the post-slavery era was. It hides the history of America's own internment camps for Japanese-Americans, and how the Chinese built the railroads on their backs, and how the native Americans are still living a not so luxurious life. And presently, how racism still exists today (And how there are 160 KKK groups still active today.) A publication is read-only. You can scribble and cross out words, but it will not be seen as official or published. Publishers still have a say today, and it silences the people that reads it. We can go off and publish our own, but like Sherman Alexie's book; The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, a book he claims is 78% true, is banned from school across the nation. Even a partly fictional book can be banned. Young adult novels featuring people of color are not popular. And it might be for a reason... What I'm trying to say is that the people who run publications are predominately white. They can set things in pages that we take as true facts or quality writing. They can hide things as well, like true history and experiences of people they don't understand. They decide which texts should be on the Best Selling List in the New York Times, and gain lots of revenues. While other texts which they don't see as worthy can be shelved at libraries, and hidden in #2330 popularity on Amazon's book list.

We should expand our views on publications, listen to those unheard who can only write online, or speak in public or private. Don't just read what is claimed to be true, think and question what they are saying to you.