Thoughts on the Readings
Wow! What a great idea and what great reasonings! These three articles I thought were a great read. In the "Introduction to the First Edition," I liked the fact that cultural literacy falls between the specialized and generalized. This way it's not too basic, and also not too difficult. Also, it's good that they are not including ideas and events from hundreds of years, and instead are using about a 15 year period.
In the second reading, "The Theory Behind the Dictionary: Cultural Literacy and Education," they also had some great reasoning for their ideas. I liked their whole explanation of someone may know how to read, but until they fully understand the whole background of what they're reading, they are not getting anything from the reading. The reader and the author are not "communicating." They also explain why reading ability is measured in how well a person can understand diverse kinds of writing on numerous subjects. I feel that they could not be anymore correct. How is someone supposed to learn if they only know a lot of, let's say, a couple subjects. They aren't going to learn as much unless they know "a lot" of many subjects.
Finally, in the "Preface," I'm glad they explained why they hope that the book will continue to be helpful to Americans of all ages and background. Not all countries are going to have the same views on what subjects are as important. That's why the German's, Dutch, and Swedish all have their own version of the book. I enjoyed reading all of the three articles, and it's nice knowing people are working to solve such problems as cultural literacy.
Comments
I agree with you. I thought the readings were very good and brought up some very good points. One point I thought was good was the comment in the readings that the book's purpose was to help people of all kinds to communicate with one another. Yes, we are all different and come from different places, but we all belong to the community of America and should be able to communicate with shared basic cultural knowledge attached. This book doesn't necessarily help the communication tohappen, but it states that it occurs. For people who don't feel sound in their knowledge of American Culture, however, this book would be a very useful tool.
Posted by: Anna Pirsch | September 29, 2006 3:03 PM
I agree with you completely on your response to the readings, except for the last line where you mention that they are only including information from a fifthteen year time span. When I read it, I took it as, if it had reoccurred in our language or culture for at least fifthteen years then it was worthy of being in the dictionary. The term must have “lasting significance� was a basis for judging whether it should be included. If we left out all the terms, events, and people of the past, how would someone possibly learn about our culture? According to http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/culture.html, culture is “The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning “. Without knowing who formed our country and what events impacted it, one cannot be deemed completely culturally literate. It is the history that makes us what we are today, and the present will soon become history for next year. If we can look back on what history tells us from the past, we can improve our country and focus on trying to prevent the same mistakes again, while growing into a more culturally diverse and aware society. So all in all, the dictionary is a great tool for each and every one of us, no matter how well we think we know this country, because there is always more to learn out there.
Posted by: Ashley Johnson | October 1, 2006 4:34 PM