Month: May 2020

A highly contested issue for much of human history is how much freedom should we allocate to our citizens to express themselves. Many governments have often struggled on where to draw a line and for whom to draw a line.

Through allowing the freedom of expression, we create an environment in our society where people are not afraid to speak their minds and share revolutionary ideas that can develop our societies. An open society allows for many people such as political commentators, comedians, and others to have jobs as many in these professions often touch on radical or offensive material which can be used in a good way. As the government is allowing people to speak their mind, this indirectly fosters improved trust between both sides which can help especially in times of crisis such as now. Additionally, free speech ensures that all individual’s voices can be equally heard, which can help to draw social issues to light without fear of repurcussions.

However, counterintuitively, allowing for the freedom of speech can create several problems in society. If anyone is allowed to speak on any subject this could possibly lead to controversial comments being issued which could subsequently cause civil unrest. Many nations have also lamented about how free speech allows radical extremist groups to establish a foothold. A firm that is currently in the spotlight on this issue is Facebook. Until recently, they have struggled to decide whether or not to censor news from radical sources or fake news in general. Implementing censorship, if used appropriately, can ensure all information we see is factual.

There are several parallels that can be drawn between these historical documents and today’s pandemic. Methods from the 17th century such as quarantine and curfews are still used today to curb the virus. Breaking these rules still carry punishments, but not in the same severity – during the 17th century, breaking one of these rules could carry a death sentence. Much like today, people were very frightful of the disease and how destructive it was, with some accounts describing it as “frightful violence”. Those people who had the money fled the city for the countryside. Additionally, there was a large stigma placed upon those that were infected, “breathed death”, and there was general frightful feeling towards victims. With such negativity, rumors quickly circulated that they believed the plague was caused by bad air quality, which prompted citizens to go out for air. Even now, rumors have been circulated that the coronavirus was created in a lab in China, created by Bill Gates, caused by 5G. While in quarantine, people tried many different methods to pass time, while now we use the internet or other modes of technology, in the 17th century people drank alcohol or rolled “tobacco to smell and chaw – which took away the apprehension”. Much like the current pandemic the plague unevenly struck cities, some areas saw few cases, while others saw horrendous numbers. The narrator of one of the accounts also laments how the changes that were implemented happened too late – again another similarity – “If proper steps had been taken, might, Providence concurring, have been avoided”.

Teacher Comment: Yes, very astute observations here, Kunsel. I like the way you’ve thought about penalties (although Duterte in The Philippines did suggest people should be shot dead if they break curfew!). Excellent writing here – well done 🙂

Both Armitage and Whamond uses their own techniques to draw attention to the parallels of the current COVID-19 pandemic and The Great Plague of the 17th century. In Armitage’s poem he uses language to convey a feeling of desperation as the narrator wishes to escape the hellish world he is in, “I couldn’t escape the waking dream”. The poet uses a “hearth” to symbolize how everyone is isolated in the comfort of their home. A sense of loneliness and a somber tone is brought up when the poet refers to the ill-fated love story between two people in the village of Eyam. The reference to the yaksha and his wife is meant to stir hope in us. An allusion to the silk road is brought up, “an earthly map of camel trails and cattle tracks, drawing similarities with the present situation as COVID-19 was spread through trade and other mediums of globalization. The feelings of lockdown are brought up as the poet implies that the process is “long and slow, but with necessarily so”. Similarily Whamond uses language to illustrate the similarities, but this time in the form of visual language. Originally, Trump said that he was not going to wear a mask. By showing President Trump donning a mask that is identical to those worn by doctors during The Great Plague, this gives the impression that he is qualified to handle the response and his advice should be heeded. Trump’s defensive nature is brought to light in the dialogue, “I never said it”. However, Whadom reveals that Trump has been lying this whole time – as shown by his elongated nose, a callback to the story of Pinnochio. Forms of satire are used to further Whadom’s point that Trump cannot be trusted, as he depicts him in an unappealing way. He ridicules him by highlighting Trump’s insecurity of having small hands and his face looks queasy. Additionally, his hair looks pale making him look more repulsive. Both pieces draw on trusting the law. Armitage’s poem focuses on how sacrifices must be made, leaders must be listened to, in order for the worst to be over. However, in Whamond’s cartoon, it is shown that order is not in the US as the leader is not taking charge and focusing on the response to the pandemic

The cartoon that we made has the main intent of portraying celebrities in a negative light for a lot of their reactions to the lockdown imposed because of the coronavirus. In this cartoon we are specifically targeting Ellen DeGeneres for her comments that lockdown was just like “being in jail”. Our group wanted to portray Ellen in a negative way where her immense wealth and facilities at her disposal are shown, yet she still has the nerve to complain about her current abode. We use a platter of food, a garden and a uniquely designed structure in the back to convey the feeling of wealth and how being in lockdown is definitely not like being in jail. We chose to have the structures in the background so the main focus could still be on Ellen and her comment – which is bolded. Some of the feedback we received from other groups include us experimenting with Ellen’s facial expressions to help convey our message