In our wold today people have become too sensitive and get offended by everything. When are parents were in school the teachers were allowed to hit them with a wooden paddle if the teacher felt like they deserved it. Now a days if a teacher even looks at a kid wrong they could be in trouble.
If we look at the past generations our parent's age are law abiding good citizens. If we look at millennials or even some kids our age and younger, as kids they are not respectful and believe everything should be given to them. I know in our own school that most of the younger kids do not respect upperclassmen at all. A lot of parents now a days won't spank their kids because it's "child abuse" but is it just normal discipline. At day cares, schools, etc. people aren't allowed to discipline kids by spanking them because it may offend people. But in all honesty some kids need it. Although I don't think that hitting a kid on the butt with a wooden paddle may be the best idea maybe parents should start disciplining their kids.
Do you think spanking a child is considered child abuse? Are parents to gentle to their kids now or is it the right thing to do? Are sensitive parents creating misbehaving children?
Recently, the iconic spire at the top of the Notre Dame cathedral collapsed from the fire that broke out in the 700-year-old landmark. Although the cause remains unclear, they suspect that was set ablaze due to extensive scaffolding from the massive renovations (a poorly funded, 6.8 million dollar project). Since 1993, the board, established by the Paris Diocese called “Friends of Notre Dame,” has been begging for funds all over the world to renovate the cathedral which costs millions of dollars. The French government previously paid for the upkeep but no longer does because of strict rules on separation of state and church, so they couldn't fund the renovations. This means the board has to get private investments. Separate from the fire-related damage, the cathedral's pinnacles, gargoyles, finials, crockets and railings, stonework, stained glass, and flying buttresses are all in need of repair, according to the site. Ironically, nobody would put money into the building before the burning, but now the funds are pouring in - after it was burned down due to lack of money. The wealthiest families in France and across the world have donated millions of dollars and many foundations have started “Notre Dame Fire Restoration Funds.” France’s leader, Emmanuel Macron, vowed to rebuild the building in his presidential address to the nation - he said within five years, yet it could take decades for it to be completely restored. Unfortunately, certain aspects cannot be remade. For example, the roof’s wooden beams were massive because of the old-growth trees in the 13th century, and now, there are not large enough trees still alive to replicate this aspect.
The Notre Dame Cathedral's centuries of history, art, and iconic architecture are irreplaceable. It is saddening to know that with proper funding for proper renovations, this fire wouldn’t have happened. Do you think that historic landmarks should be funded by the government - religious-related or otherwise? Or, should they be funded by private entities. How important is it to preserve history? Also, do you agree with the renovations that will be done to rebuild the cathedral? Or, do you think it should stay as it is to hold onto the original structures and to preserve the fire - because now this fire is part of history.
Over the past 95 years, Disney has been a truly inspiring part of everyone’s childhood. Their success has grabbed the attention of millions of viewers around the world, leaving them with a sense of awe and wonder. Recently, Disney has set much of their time turning all their classics into live-action remakes. Past movie remake success in the box office has led to Disney’s realization of one prominent thing that all their fans desire more than anything: nostalgia.
On April 10, 2019, the first official trailer for the live action movie The Lion King was released. We get to see some sneak peeks of our favorite characters from our childhood; waiting in anticipation for its release onto the big screen on July 19, 2019. It may seem as though it is a great idea to provide a new experience for the public, but is it really anything other than a cash grab?
Disney knows they have audience members eating out of their hands. What other low-risk way to make tons of money is there other than remaking what people already know and love? Familiarity brings a sense of calm that Disney knows anyone would pay for. Remakes do often offer a different twist to them, but they can never surpass the original. But then again, it doesn’t matter as long as they get their money, right?
The Lion King isn’t the only one that’s been remade in this year alone. Dumbo and Aladdin are also used as an attempt to show audiences a different perspective. Some argue that these remakes are ruining the feeling that the originals used to give them--such as the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don't fix it.” Others say that it is a perfect way to bring back memories in a new style.
Do you think Disney is gaining their massive amount of money in the correct manner? Or should they use their resources to make something new and original? Do remakes change the way you think of the original classics?
Our school and community has always been known as the 'Salmon Savages.' It's a rite of passage to advance from being a 'Brave' to being a Savage. We see it as something to be proud of, a symbol of our youth and our town. But, as you all know, there have been attempts to disband our namesake. The people of Salmon, especially the students, quickly shot down that notion and became fired up at the audacity to even propose an idea such as that. Although, others understood and took a shaky side; that our mascot is offensive to the Native Americans. I certainly wouldn't want a slanged version of our race paraded around, but yet I couldn't really know how it would affect me because it isn't the other way around. Plus, if a new school today were to suggest naming their mascot the 'Wild Natives' it would be shot down immediately, would it not? But what about the schools and colleges that have literally filled the spot of that 'offensive' role for years?
The mascot is something we look up to. We strive to be 'Savage' material, right? And surely if other big shot cities get to keep their titles (Such as San Diego State; the Aztec Warrior), then why should we be any different? Or would it be best to change, because of that very reason? It's not just Native American mascots that are targeted and called racist. Below is a link of other 'Racist College Mascots Left in the U.S.'
So, what would be best? Should mascots that could be viewed as offensive and racist be replaced? Or should they keep their place regardless?