Moving towards the future or past?

This week in class, one of the things we did was examine John Adam's letter to Abigail. Our task was to "modernize" this piece and turn it into an email. I found this to be a rather complex task, as the vernacular back then was very different than what it is now. The passage was littered with sentences containing unusual phrases and structures. Now, some of you guys may be thinking, "that was the whole point of the assignment - to convert those sentences into something more understandable." This simply doesn't make very much sense to me. If society is so focused on moving towards the future and making technological advancements, then why are we going back in time for English class?

I understand that in order to make those advancements in society, we must learn from our past mistakes. That is why historians exist. However, it's not like we've made fatal mistakes in our language in the past and must correct it. Our everyday vocabulary is long past those days filled with "thee" and "thy", so why should we pick apart all of these old English passages? I think that it is pretty pointless, to study something that we will probably never use again.

Many argue that this is necessary to "improve reading comprehension". Advanced texts like these cause us to think deeper and read more carefully. But this stimulation is also achievable through a vast assortment of other works - works that aren't in a language that no one uses today. School is supposed to prepare us for the future, right? I really don't think many employers will communicate with their workers through 1800s English, or that tax bills require us to have to "modernize" the wording.

Essentially, I just don't really see a need in analyzing these types of passages when there are better and more beneficial alternatives out there.

The Standard Male

As almost everyone knows, yesterday was Snowcoming. This is basically a replica of Homecoming, but with "snow". While there are obviously some differences between the two, I noticed that one key aspect remained the same: the attire. Both of these events have people putting on their best blazers, heels, bowties, and more. Our group decided to take pictures at Somerset, as did pretty much every other group that went to Snowcoming. As I looked around at everyone there, though, something stood out to me. Almost every guy there was wearing the same thing, albeit with different colors, while all of the girls there wore an assortment of dresses. This reminded me about something we read in class this week - "There is no Unmarked Woman" by Deborah Tannen. In her writing, Tannen argues that women will always be "marked", or different from the norm, and that men have the option of being marked or unmarked.

However, the more I looked, the more I realized that there were actually many differences in each man's outfit. For example, one person was wearing a plain dark red dress shirt, while another was wearing the same color but with subtle patterns on it. I saw two black jackets, one with a silver collar and one with a red one. This made me realize that in our world today, no one can really be unmarked anymore. Tannen states that all of the men had hair of "standard length", but what is considered "standard"? Two inches? Three inches? Some people may think that standard is a short buzzcut, while others may argue that standard is hair down to your chin. Our society is seeing more and more diversity in the way we dress and present ourselves, so to say that someone is a standard, unmarked, male is no longer a statement that belongs in our ever-changing world anymore.