Reading

I've been working on my paper for US History, and so I haven't had a lot of time to work on my paper for Friday. However, I bought this book yesterday called "Look Me in the Eye," about a man with Asperger's Syndrome. Reading the first chapter, it's obvious that the main character has difficulties functioning normally around people, but in no way is he severely impaired. When researching about Asperger's Syndrome, I found out it's similar to autism in that it has varying degrees of intensity. To what degree of impairment must a person be before a state decides that they require free medical attention? This is yet another question I need to look into before penning my paper.

Alas! More Progress!

Well, last night I forgot to blog because I was working on my proposal. My proposal is okay. I used an anecdote as my introduction! And it was all downhill from there. Writing my proposal, I realized what a vast topic I've chosen to write about. Health care is complicated. Mental health care is especially complicated. What is "mental health care" in the first place? What qualifies as a "mental disease?" When I chose my topic a couple of days ago, I forgot about degenerative disorders, like Alzheimer's. Are Alzheimer's and the like considered mental diseases? If so, according to my thesis, geriatric hospitals would need to be funded and possibly run by the government. That's a lot of taxpayer money. Furthermore, are learning disabilities considered mental disorders? When I wrote about mental health care, I was referring to health care for personality disorders. However, ADHD, ADD, and the like are technically caused by malfunctioning neurons in the brain and are therefore "mental diseases." But people with ADD can learn to cope with their problems. People with personality disorders, like schizophrenia, are continually plagued by the symptoms of their disease. These questions are vital to the understanding of my topic, and I only hope I will be able to make sense of the great topic I've decided to take on.

Progress

Tonight I read through the assignment more thoroughly to fully understand the project. I feel confident in my topic choice, and, even throughout this lengthy assignment, I know I will continue to find mental illnesses and their treatment interesting. I am able to relate to the topic at hand, having both a brother and sister that suffer from mental illnesses, and I have a somewhat broad knowledge of mental health issues. I'm excited to begin writing.

Paper! And Mental Institutions!

I'm completely and utterly intrigued by mental disorders, and so for my paper I'm going to write about the (lack of) health care in the United States for the mentally insane and the mentally disabled. The nonexistence of health care in the United States not only harms the poor and the unfortunate, it royally screws those with mental disorders and their families. Medical institutions, where patients can go to be treated, cost insane amounts of money, and medications, without the aid of health care, are a financial strain on families. Even "simple" mental disorders, like ADHD, can affect a family both financially and emotionally. The United States has a disgusting history of abandoning and mistreating those with mental disorders. Throughout the 1840s and 50s, Dorothea Dix led a campaign to reform mental institutions. Before her campaign, patients in such care had been kept in cages and tied to chairs, the medical workers untrained, not knowing how to cope with seizures and outbursts. Her strides improved the system, but such horrors were not completely eradicated. Electroshock therapy, as detailed in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," would become popular, a treatment now seen as inhumane. In today's society, good care is available, but not all can afford this care. PEOPLE magazine just last week featured an article about an old woman who has a son impaired by autism. Wheelchair-bound, her health is failing, but she cannot afford to put him into an institution, and so was pleading in the magazine for someone to adopt her son when she dies. It was horrifying to read. Two weeks ago, I saw a special on "20/20" that discussed a program in Nebraska that allows parents to drop off children that they are unable to care for at state hospitals. The program was intended for newborns, but families began to drop off their mentally challenged children, some as old as seventeen, so that the state could deal with the stress and money that comes with mental disabilities. Some children were bipolar, others were autistic. The program showed a woman struggling with the decision to give up her young son. She ultimately is forced to, after her son has another angry, violent fit. In my paper, I intend to discuss the past of mental health care, the present, and what needs to be changed.

Ellis and Conversation

C.P. Ellis testifies that he seceded from the Klan when he started having dialogues with blacks and other minorities. As Ellis spoke with local blacks and realized that both he and blacks had shared experiences, he saw that blacks were of equal footing to whites. He realized that “Low-income whites and low-income blacks are… used by those in control, those who have all the wealth.” (523) Conversation led to Ellis’s realization of equality. “I… didn’t like blacks. I didn’t want to associate with 'em. Blacks, Jews, or Catholics. My father said: ‘Don’t have anything to do with 'em.’ I didn’t until I met a black person and talked with him, eyeball to eyeball, and met a Jewish person and talked with him, eyeball to eyeball. I found out they’re people just like me.” (523) Exchanges might have influenced Ellis and his prejudice, but dialogue is typically not an efficient way to sort out differences. People do not want to discuss difficult topics, especially with those whom they detest. We are naturally stubborn, and so it’s difficult to force maturity onto unwilling recipients and then prod these individuals into rationally discussing a controversial issue. Ellis’s solution would not work on a large scale. Peace talks and United Nation-esque organizations have existed for years, but the decisions created by these meetings rarely succeed or are actually accomplished. The ongoing genocide in Darfur continues to be overlooked by the United Nations, proof of the ineffectualness of such summits. Ellis’s idea of dialogue can be accomplished by the open-minded on a small scale, but large-scale dialogues, like those held at United Nations meetings, are often tricky to manage due to their size and diverse composition.

Mainstream

The notion of a mainstream is indeed a myth. A mainstream implies a realm where a person can be entirely normal. However, as Yoshino states, “It is not normal to be completely normal.” (605) Every person, even a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male, has a trait, disability, or belief that distinguishes him from the members of a crowd. Most Americans realize, to some varying degree, that the concept of a mainstream is false. In fact, the myth of the mainstream has become a cliché. Many a novel introduce the reader to a plain character, only to reveal later a dark secret. “Nancy seemed like every other teenager, except that she was a cannibal on the weekends,” or something of that nature. If all members of the mainstream have a feature that actually separate them from the norm, then the mainstream is composed of the atypical and unusual. With dissimilar features coursing through its supposedly identical followers, the mainstream cannot exist.
Yoshino uses stories of racism and prejudice to aid his argument. He tells of Renee, whose job was threatened when she wore cornrows to her job at an airport. He writes about Robin, who lost her job when she married a woman. The veracity in these stories is shocking, creating disgust in the reader and leading the reader to agree with Yoshino’s argument. I thought his argument was fairly effective. I understand his desire to create laws that protect all of society from having to cover, but this aspiration is impossible to achieve. As Yoshino implies, some covering is necessary to ensure privacy and well being. Bigotry will continue to exist, and covering is occasionally necessary to be shielded from persecution.
Mainstream is synonymous with normalcy. Your mainstream American, for instance, is obese, takes Prozac, watches television whenever possible, and thoroughly enjoys apple pie and fireworks. This is indeed the typical American, but many more Americans loathe reality TV and have ambitions.

A Passage from "Incidents"

I found most of Chapter Twelve disturbing. Harriet writes about how, after Nat Turner’s Rebellion, white countrymen raided her grandmother’s cabin. She describes how these men harassed and beat her neighbors. I was disgusted as I read how these men rummaged through their food, their clothes, and their personal belongings.
“The door was rudely pushed open; and in they tumbled, like a pack of hungry wolves. They snatched at every thing within their reach. Every box, trunk, closet, and corner underwent a thorough examination… Towards evening the turbulence increased. The soldiers, stimulated by drink, committed still greater cruelties. Shrieks and shouts continually rent the air. I saw a mob dragging along a number of colored people. Among the prisoners was a respectable old colored minister.” (99, 102)
It’s very unsettling that Harriet must explain her letters and belongings to a group of drunken men. It’s disturbing how, as Harriet explains her literacy, her neighbors and friends are being whipped and searched. Her use of detail is effective in this chapter. The use of the words “shrieks and shouts” to insinuate torture is especially haunting. Her decision to write about the arrest of the “respectable old colored minister” tells the reader that these white men are cruel and without mercy.

The Truth in Fiction

In order for something to truly impact its reader, it must speak the truth. Truth is both stranger and more powerful than fiction. In a fictional piece, the reader can be affected by the emotions and events shown in the writing but can also take comfort in that these events never occurred. In a work of nonfiction, the truth in the unfolding events can actually distress a reader. The veracity in the piece astounds the reader because these events actually happened, and these people actually existed. It's what makes "Angela's Ashes" more relevant than "Misery." "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" is stunning because Harriet witnessed and lived the events of which she writes. The validity of her words makes them stronger and more meaningful than the words of fiction. Because her words have not been edited or censored, her autobiography is authentic in its tone and its grammar to how Ms. Jacobs would have voiced her experiences. If the editor had rid the book of its sometimes salacious subplots, the book would have lost its shock-value and its unadulterated truth.

Polls!

As a person interested in politics and journalism, I understand the importance of presenting unbiased news. However, details in presentation can undermine a person's attempt to appear nonpartisan. This morning, for instance, I was listening to the radio, and the radio host proclaimed, "Today's a good day to keep Indiana red." Yesterday morning, this same radio host had gone on a ten minute spiel about the fairness of his news cast. A presenter of news can show passion, but this passion must be contained when a show is touted as unprejudiced. Watching CBS tonight, I could tell that the station had a blue tinge. Many of the guest commentators were talking about Obama, his campaign, and the change he would bring to Washington. At Fox, a station known for its red tendencies, the commentators spoke about McCain, Palin, and whether Palin was a ticket sinker. I flipped back and forth between these two channels for about an hour, and I find this race absolutely fascinating.

Confrontation

I haven’t been involved in a confrontation about race. I’ve seen prejudice actions take place, but these actions were not overtly rude or cruel. Yes, at airports Muslims are frequently pulled out of security lines, but, sadly, this can be expected. Security guards and airport officials are paranoid. I’m paranoid. Last Spring Break, my family visited Washington, D.C. When at a famous art museum, I saw a Muslim speaking Arabic into a walkie-talkie. Suddenly, I felt an intense urge to flee the building because I was absolutely sure this man was going to blow up the museum and all of its American paintings. I convinced my brother I was sick, and we promptly left. Of course the museum did not go up in flames; I had let a stereotype influence my judgment. Afterwards, I was upset at myself for being so skittish and weird. I can’t say these kinds of decisions won’t happen again for they have. At the state fair or at the mall, I will purposefully avoid groups of black men because they worry me. It might be bad that I do this, but I’ve heard too many stories. I don’t agree with every statement in Wachtel’s essay. I’m neither racist nor indifferent. I know there are racial unbalances in America, and I feel for those affected by these unbalances. I’m friends with all types of people and treat them all the same. My actions are sometimes not founded in reality, but I’m only trying to protect myself.

Socialization Process

Parrillo writes, “In the socialization process, individuals acquire the values, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality, and social class (514).” According to Parrillo, the socialization process occurs when a child is exposed to prejudices and beliefs and, over time, accepts these notions. A child doesn’t necessarily have to be taught such beliefs or stereotypes. Acquired by simple exposure, these ideas will slowly leak into the subconscious. These ideas can be heard and displayed in the community this child is raised in, the media this child is exposed to, or the school this child attends. A child will hear a racist comment and will store this comment in the subconscious. Such comments will remain in the mind and will become a truth for the child. When the child is older, he might be a quiet racist or even be unaware that he is racist. As described by Parrillo in his essay, “… if we develop negative attitudes about Jews because we are taught that they are shrewd, acquisitive, and clannish — all-too-familiar stereotypes — as adults we may refrain from business or social relationships with them. We may not even realize the reason for such avoidance, so subtle has been the prejudice instilled within us (514).” I do think prejudices are instilled this way. A child can be taught hatred by his parents, but a child can also pick up this hatred at school or when watching television.
Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda of the Nazi party, revolutionized propaganda. He came up with a way of selling ideas that is still used today. He would create a horrible lie and continue to repeat this lie until it was considered truth. Goebbels would write his ideas into German films and books, leaking his views into the minds of others. Like children, the people of Germany slowly accepted Goebbels’ lies. Some Germans had always been anti-Semitic, but Goebbels’ propaganda turned many more Germans into followers and believers in the Nazi party. Goebbels’ propaganda was like the socialization process in that it used time and exposure to change the minds of people.
I’d like to think I refuse stereotypes, but I know that’s not entirely true. In elementary school, I remember some classmates would squint their eyes and say, “Look, I’m Chinese!” Because my two older siblings are Korean, I’m extremely sensitive to comments like that, and I used to have no problem telling people to shut up. But in middle school, all the smart kids were Asian, and so I began to buy into the stereotype that all Asian students are gifted in math and science. In the back of my mind, I knew this was untrue, but whenever my math class was assigned a project, I’d rush to the nearest Asian and ask her to be my partner. Towards the end of middle school, this technique proved to be unsuccessful because I was following a stereotype and not basing my partner picks on actual intelligence. I know this stereotype is untrue but, because of our culture, I cannot shake its hold on me.

Paying Its Dues

As Cose writes, “The problem is not that black Americans never got forty acres (and a mule); it is that so much was taken and so little given that impoverishment and despair became self-perpetuating… One need only make a decision that a damaged community, whatever the cost, must be restored (502-503).” Cose believes that the poor treatment of minorities and the poor decisions made by state officials have undermined America. Failing to compensate those who have been hurt has lead to a distrust of the American legal system and government. When, in 2003, the descendants of the survivors of the 1921 Tulsa riot were denied compensation for property damage and the like, these survivors felt rightly cheated and forgotten. Many of the actual survivors of this riot were dead or were falling ill; their descendants felt that the Oklahoma state government owed them money. They felt cheated because the Japanese-Americans harassed during World War II were eventually awarded settlement claims for their mistreatment. The black Tulsa residents had certainly been mistreated during and after the riot. By admitting one problem but denying another, the government, state and national alike, had failed. Cose thinks that those who have been mistreated should receive compensation, for if these debts are not paid, the events that lead to the mistreatment will be forgotten. Although the American government did not fully pay back every Japanese survivor and descendant of the World War II encampments, what was given to these people was still important. Indeed, when, in 1990, the American government admitted its mistake and began repaying its Japanese-American citizens, General Richard Thornburgh exclaimed, “‘By finally admitting a wrong, a nation does not destroy its integrity, but rather reinforces the sincerity of its commitment to the Constitution, and hence to its people. In forcing us to reexamine our history, you have made us only stronger and more proud (494).'” When the American government compensated its wronged Japanese citizens, a trust in its rule was reestablished among these citizens. However, black community wondered about its compensation for its mistreatment. America cannot admit one problem but forget another. Cose wants all wronged people to receive American money to strengthen trust in America’s government and to even out the disadvantages given to these wronged people. When America pays its wronged citizens, it admits its mistakes, allowing it to learn and move forward towards towards a more united nation.

Cora and Willy

Cora Tucker is quite different from Willy. Cora is an active member in her community, fighting for the civil rights of blacks and raising awareness about the availability of food stamps. She has been able to rise above the hardships in her life. Raised in a sharecropper family, she grew up in a shoddy house and with a mother who was not well educated. Even at a young age, she recognized the poor treatment of the blacks in her town and was determined to do all she could to cause change. Since this vow, Cora has tirelessly battled with local lawmakers and officials to pass unbiased laws and has continued to aid those in her community in a multitude of ways. Cora helped to register hundreds in her community to vote. In 1975, Cora created CBA, Citizens for a Better America, an organization that conducts studies on the activities of blacks and protests against governmental members and businesses that practice unequal treatment of African Americans. When Cora had to undergo surgeries and treatment for cancer, she still continued her work. She’s been threatened, had her house broken into, been spit upon, and had family members turn against her, and yet Cora continues her march towards a better America.
Willy Loman is a ruined man, depressed and unable to ascend to happiness. He offers none of his time to charity. He, unlike Cora, is unable to look outside of his own drama. The community around him does not benefit from his existence. He crusades for nothing of worth. Distracted by work and his sons, he is concerned with money and his likeability.
While their differences are plentiful, both Willy and Cora have difficulties with members of their family. Biff and Willy have relationship issues, and Cora, her husband, and some of her children disagree on issues. Both are wrapped up in their work- Cora’s cause and Willy’s sales. But their similarities stop there. Cora is too active and hopeful to be like Willy’s mentally unbalanced and eternally unhappy character.

Willy, Miller, and Individual Opportunity

Throughout “Death of a Salesman,” Willy Loman stresses his belief that if a man is attractive and well liked, he will succeed. As said in Act I by Willy, “Because a man who makes an appearance in the business world, the man who creates personal interest, is the man who gets ahead. Be liked and you will never want.” (20) Willy believes in the American Dream. He truly does think that a combination of genetics and hard work will open doors. However, as we’ve discussed in this class, other elements will prevent the accomplishment of the American Dream. In Biff’s case, his own indecision about joining the work force hinders the holding of a respectable job. Billy longs to out in the world, working with his hands, but he also wants to make a salary. He attempts several times to get a job, but his distrust of corporate America and his propensity to steal squelch his opportunities. Willy is unable to gain respect because he jokes too often with his customers and colleagues. Happy, like Biff, is called to nature and manual labor, but he stifles these urges and works in a department store to earn a salary. Happy cannot succeed because he is held down by family drama and his immature pursuits of women. Dispute all this disheartening evidence against his rationale about individual opportunity, Willy still chooses to believe that an attractive and liked man will be happy and successful.
Arthur Miller, by having Willy commit suicide and by having Happy and Biff so distracted and unable to create achievable goals, reveals that he does not believe in individual opportunity. Miller shows us that Willy, a somewhat normal family man, is unable to be happy and is eventually ruined by his pursuits of hope. Biff and Happy seem content, but in moments of anguish or distress, they unveil sullen attitudes and disrespect for their father. By making his characters so miserable in their jobs and lives, Miller curses individual opportunity.

Death of a Salesman Discussion Question

Do you think Willy's suicide was selfish? Was it right for him to end his life? Consider the family he leaves behind.

Speeches Part Deux

Aside from the fact that after my speech, I wanted to bathe in nail polish remover and use a skunk as a loofah, today's speeches were kind of fantastic. The presentation about the Julian Center was very compelling and interesting. I liked how Elise didn't use the lectern, so she was free to move around, creating something to look at besides someone's nervous hand gestures. I also liked how Elise used the story of Grace to introduce the Julian Center's importance. I thought the facts Elise chose to use in her speech really helped to make her argument. I was especially intrigued by the fact that there are more animal shelters than domestic abuse shelters in the Indianapolis area. Henry's use of humor in his speech about Keeping Indianapolis Beautiful made his speech more amusing than others. I also liked Daniel's speech because he too didn't use the lectern, making him seem more open to the audience. After the speeches were made, I felt that several organizations deserved my money, but I ended up giving a large chunk of my donor bucks to one organization that seemed more important than all the rest.

Today's Speeches

I managed to dodge the speech bullet today, and I'm glad of it. The speeches made today would have put my speech to shame. My speech seemed childish in comparison to the well-researched presentation given by JP, and my writing seemed unemotional when looked at after Amy's speech. Speaking in front of a group of jaded high-schoolers is obviously not easy nor fun, but today's group was professional and calm when voicing their information and thoughts to the class. I noticed how essentially all the speakers used an appeal to pathos, and some used an appeal to ethos. Many used quotes and statistics from studies to fortify their argument. Although the statistics were somewhat boring, especially if mentioned in the middle of the speech, they did make the speaker appear more knowledgeable about their charity. I applaud the speakers today for their well-written speeches and for their obvious labor.

An Update

I've worked for awhile on this project, and I feel confident that my speech will be a good one. Habitat for Humanity, the organization I've decided to rally behind, is an organization I am familiar with and trust. It was difficult to come up with a rebuttal, but I think my rebuttal is a question that's often posed when dealing with charities that handle those down on their luck. This weekend I'm going to do research into home equities, and I will read more studies that revolve around poverty and how a home can ease the strains of poverty. And then I will give my speech. And win.


Claim: Habitat for Humanity is an organization one should give money to.

Reasons: Because Habitat for Humanity provides homes to those unable to buy a typical home in their area and to those whose homes have been destroyed by means of natural disaster. Because Habitat for Humanity recruits teenage and adult volunteers to create a sense of community. Because Habitat for Humanity does not simply give away homes- the recipients of the homes help build them, and the new owners eventually pay back Habitat for Humanity, allowing more homes to be built for those in need. Because Habitat for Humanity uses local materials to build homes, stimulating the local economy. Because the homes built by Habitat for Humanity are environmentally friendly, cost-efficient, and safe.

Warrant: Homes provide a secure place to raise a family. When one lives under a stable roof, they are more likely to be healthy and more likely to be safe. A person is more likely to be hired for a job if they are able to provide an address of residence. Owning a home not only gives the owner a sense of pride and accomplishment, owning a home increases one’s wealth through means of equity and savings resulting from mortgage payments.

Backing: Personal testimony from volunteers and recipients of homes. Statistics- Planning and Development Collaborative International 2006 report, Emory University 2001 report, UN 2003 report, National Low Income Housing Coalition 2004 report. Research- How do equities work?

Rebuttal: Habitat for Humanity gives away free homes to recipients of welfare.

Qualifier: Habitat for Humanity does not gift homes to those in need. People who come to Habitat for Humanity usually are working people who, due to harsh circumstances, take in an income 30 to 50 percent less than their area’s median income. Habitat homeowners are required to make a $500 down payment on their home and are asked to help in the construction of their home. Usually, a Habitat for Humanity home recipient contributes 300 to 500 hours to the making of their home. Furthermore, many Habitat homeowners go on to become volunteers of the organization.

Thoughts on Charity

Although I’m not too enthusiastic about speaking in front of more than three people, I do like this assignment. Charities better our nation and help those in need. Betterment is necessary, and therefore charities are an essential part of our society.
My parents have always been generous, donating money and time to charities like AMVETS and Planned Parenthood. As a child, I helped my elementary school raise money for Riley’s Children Hospital, and I loved walking around my neighborhood, picking up trash. As a Girl Scout, helping those in need has become a habit.
I’m researching into several organizations that I think are worthy of note. I was contemplating writing about Crystal House, an organization that feeds the homeless, but was unable to find any recent information about this charity’s strides. Perhaps Crystal House is no more? There are many praise-worthy charities that exist in Indiana or have chapters in Indiana, so this will be difficult.
As for my speech, well, I’ve never been one for public speaking, but I know this is a fear I must conquer. I fully intend to appeal to pathos, as feelings are both powerful and convincing. I also plan to cite statistics on Indianapolis homeless numbers and other such facts as an appeal to logos. I’m eager to see what other charities people plan on researching.

Bucking the Trend

Emerson’s lengthy exploration of self-reliance basically states that one must reject conformity, and one must rely on their intuition. In the beginning of his piece, Emerson writes, “To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius.” He goes on to write, “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.” Emerson repeats this advice throughout his essay. He ends by writing, “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself.” By finishing the essay on this strong note, Emerson clearly states his belief that, “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”
Emerson evidently believes that the rejection of conformity and the embrace of intuition will ensure success. He says to reject conformity because what is right for others may not necessarily right for you. Emerson also hints that your refusal to conform may bring you prosperity. For example, at one time, many Americans held stock in a company known as Enron. My parents felt uncomfortable investing in this popular energy company and refused to purchase its stock. When Enron went under after a series of scandals and poor business decisions, my parents were certainly glad they had ignored the Enron trend.
Emerson writes, “When we have new perception, we shall gladly disburden the memory of its hoarded treasures as old rubbish. When a man lives with God, his voice shall be sweet as the murmur of the brook and the rustle of the corn.” With this sentence and a succession of similar sentences, Emerson is explaining that when a man trusts in God, this man’s intuitions and “gleams of light” will have come from God. “My friend suggested, ‘But these impulses may be from below, not from above.’ I replied, ‘They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.’” If Emerson’s reactions came from the Devil, he would have to worship the Devil because the inspiration for these moments of genius is an inspiration worth of praise. However, it is Emerson’s belief that our intuition comes from God, and therefore we should follow our urges because they are from the Man himself.
While following your heart and rejecting conformity are nice messages, they are messages difficult to observe. Sometimes gut reactions turn out to be false— just think of the first impressions we have of other people. These snap decisions often turn out to be untrue. Or we don’t trust ourselves enough to obey our intuition. It’s even harder to reject conformity. Although many of us claim to do this successfully, we usually end up submitting to the laws and opinions of others. Our ancestors were forced to adapt to the wills of others to survive. Quite simply, we naturally to want to please others. It’s fascinating to read about conformity; countless studies have been conducted to research into the matter. The results, with slight variations, show that it’s much more natural to go along with everybody else. Conformity is possible to refuse, but it takes a strong will to break chains. Emerson writes lovely sentences, but his advice is ultimately hard to accept.

Class in America

This essay does not state or hint that the rich are exploiting the poor. As stated explicitly in the text, “One is not rich because the other is poor (309).” As Mantsios writes, “Class standing, and consequently life chances, are largely determined at birth (320).” The rich do not cause the poor to be indigent. Birth standing, as well as education, race, and luck, are factors that can either make or break a person. Mantsios discusses that “class standing has a significant impact on our chances of survival (318).”
He goes on to write about how people who toil in low-wage jobs have lower life expectancies than those who work in high-paying positions. This statement makes sense, but then the author writes about how “the higher [a] student’s social status, the higher the probability that he or she will get higher grades (319).” I can assume many reasons for this occurrence, citing how teenagers living in poor families will often take on a job or somehow assist in household responsibilities. I can assume these reasons are true because of Cheryl Mitchell’s profile on page 316.
Mitchell is a black woman currently working as a nurse’s aide at a municipal hospital. Before holding her current post, Mitchell was employed at several places, including working as a supermarket checker. She was just seventeen when she held her first full-time job as a counter clerk at a local bakery. She was forced to take on this job after she left college due to financial difficulties. Abandoning her dream of becoming a social worker, Mitchell took on her low-paying nurse’s aide post to be able to take care of her son and mother. Had she not had to drop out of college to take in an income, Mitchell might have been able to earn a degree, but, as cited by Mantsios, “Socioeconomic background… operates independently of academic ability at every stage in the process of educational attainment (319).” Even if Mitchell had made it through college, there is no guarantee she would be successful or even earn good grades. Class standing determines so much in America, from our health to what we’re able to do in our free time, whether we are willing to accept this reality or not.

Discrimination Prevents Accomplishing the American Dream

As both Harlon Dalton and Stephen Cruz recognize, Alger ignores the complication of race when achieving the American Dream. Alger assumes that “each of us is judged solely on her or his own merits, and we each have a fair opportunity to develop those merits (279).” However, as discussed by Cruz, minorities and people of race are often subjected to stereotypes and discrimination when working in any kind of job. Cruz, a man of Mexican descent, struggled to gain the respect of his peers while working in engineering firms. While unsteadily mounting the ladder of corporate America, Cruz felt as if his coworkers were thinking, “[Mexicans are] good to have as part of the management team, as long as [they aren’t] allowed to make decisions (355).” For a while, “I was convinced if you worked hard, you could make it. I never considered myself different. That was the trouble. We had been discriminated against a lot, but I never associated it with society. I considered it an individual matter. Bad people, my used to say (354).”Cruz now understands that he was hired because of his Mexican heritage. When he attempted to find a job before the passing of the Civil Rights Acts in 1964, he received few offers. After the passing of the Acts, he was given a multitude of job offers. He thinks this is because he is Mexican; it’s more acceptable to hire a Mexican than a Black, explains Cruz.
Over his time in these firms, Cruz came to realize that discrimination was “deep [and] ingrained (355).” Cruz noticed during his stint at one post that no blacks worked at the office. He was able to hire a black secretary, only to find this secretary inexcusably fired after he returned from a vacation. Cruz, after dabbling in such firms for years, quit his high-paying management post. He had been told throughout his career and life, “if you worked hard, you could make it (354),” and if you “just learn more, you’ll make it (355).” He found this all to be untrue. When interviewed about his experience later, Cruz exclaimed, “The American Dream, I see now, is governed not by education, opportunity, and hard work, but by power and fear. The higher up in the organization you go, the more you have to lose. The dream is not losing. This is the notion pervading America today: don’t lose (356).” Not to succeed, per se, but to not lose. To succeed in some way, to hold some gain over others.
In Alger’s stories, men easily rise above life’s challenges and succeed. Cruz and Dalton dismiss these stories as myths because discrimination, whether against race or any other such factor, has held back men for centuries. Although Alger and Cruz seem quite different, happenstance unites them. In “Ragged Dick,” Dick is given his lucky break because of a chance encounter with a wealthy man. In Cruz’s story, the passing of the Civil Rights Acts allows him to break into the realm of corporation. This tie is loose though; Alger and Cruz hold very different outlooks on the American Dream.

Toil... Triumph

“Ragged Dick” is a story of happenstance. Dick, our young, tenacious hero, toils as a shoe shiner but longs to hold a respectable job, like a clerk in a shop. Rewarding himself after earning a hundred dollars, Dick shelves his black wax for a day and decides to take a boat ride. On this day, coincidentally, the child of a rich man would fall overboard, and Dick, being an excellent swimmer, would save him. Dick saved this boy without knowledge of his father’s wealth and without knowledge of any kind of reward. And, indeed, the father does reward Dick. He grants Dick a job at his business, with a salary of ten dollars a week. Explaining that he is eternally in debt to Dick, this man also buys Dick a new suit. The author explains to us that this is extremely remarkable, especially considering that just a year ago, Dick could neither read nor write.
Horatio Alger is subtly telling the reader to work hard and to not expect rewards for this hard work. Rewards will come unexpectedly and in the most bizarre of circumstances, but their unsuspected arrival will therefore be all the more sweeter. Dick aspired to rise above the feet of others, and so he studied his English and began to edit the slang that usually peppered his sentences. He was able to earn a large sum of money, and it was only after this accomplishment that he decided to reward himself. Saving the child was difficult and dangerous, and still Dick expected no reward to come of it. Dick’s moil and his honesty in completing each task was certainly rewarded, and Alger hopes we recognize Dick’s accomplishment.

The Benefits of a Visual Argument- An Exploration in Words and Pictures

A visual argument is more persuasive than, say, an essay. Although I do consider myself an avid reader, I tend to be more affected by pictures than words. After all, humans are visual creatures. We might be alarmed by someone yelling at us, but we’re not truly afraid until we see the spittle spewing from the corners of their mouth and their eyes ablaze. And so, visual arguments naturally affect their viewer more than written arguments.
Pictures swiftly deliver a message. A picture can take your breath away in a glance; words must be read, processed, and then interpreted to solicit a gasp. Yes, words contain more depth and information, but if what you seek is shock value and a quick response from your audience, a visual argument is more effective than a written one. Visuals also nicely supplement written arguments. As young children, we would read books accompanied with pictures. These pictures, often displayed on the page opposite the text, would further our understanding of the text, heightening our interest in the story and helping us form mental images in our minds of the characters. Now, of course, most of us can read a book sans doodles and still enjoy the story. In fact, without pictures to guide us, we can paint our own images of the characters, limited only to the descriptions provided in the text. However, as I’m sure some of us have witnessed or experienced, young children, accustomed to their illustrated books, will express disgust when shown a book that lacks pictures. “No pictures?” they will ask. “How boring.” This, again, is because we are visual creatures. Images help us to connect with those literary characters. It can be written that a character is afraid of a witch, and we, the reader, can’t truly relate to this poor character, and so we feel no fear. That is, until we see the picture on the next page of the witch. And, man, is this witch ugly. No wonder the character is afraid! We’ve related to this character via images.
However, there is a downside to a visual argument. Visual arguments are usually implicit arguments, and implicit arguments are open to interpretation. You could interpret a picture as hinting at one message, when the creator of the picture was trying to convey an entirely different message. Ultimately, a visual argument is a persuasive argument because it quickly and concisely presents its message, although this image can be understood in ways unintended by the creator.

Credibility and Sniper Fire

When an author or speaker decides to use an appeal to ethos and pathos, he must remember to be truthful and honest in his argument. Telling the truth consistently will fortify his credibility and his reputation for being honest. If he would decide to embellish a story or to give a murky explanation of one of his views, his opinions would begin to be questioned and his appeal to the audience would diminish. It is so important to be honest so that your words are never doubted. People should be able to look at you and not recall the boy who called wolf.
Remember when Hillary Clinton claimed she had dodged sniper bullets in Bosnia during a 1996 trip there? Footage from that day in Bosnia would later be uncovered, and the clip showed a smiling Hillary accepting letters and hugs from Bosnian children. Hillary Clinton had been running on a platform of experience and had cited this sniping incident as a testimony to her vast experience in international affairs. When this incident was proven to be false, though, voters began to wonder if the stories of experience she had been claiming were true. Her audience, voters of American, eventually lost their faith in her. Hillary Clinton had lost her credibility among voters. When telling a story to strengthen an argument, one must remember to not modify this story. If the modification were to be exposed, the repercussions would diminish the credibility and reputation of the speaker or writer.
When engaging in a debate, it is important to remain composed and fair. John McCain has gained a bit of a reputation for being a hothead. For many voters, they fear that, when participating in a negotiation with a foreign country or at the United Nations, John McCain will lose his cool and speak with anger when his views are queried. When one reacts violently or loudly to the statements of others, a loss of credibility ensues. At a debate early into the presidential race, John McCain kept on interrupting Barack Obama with his opinions. Viewers considered this rude of McCain, and thus McCain further lost his credibility with Americans. When faced with an opposing view, it is vital to keep calm and patient to remain credible in the eyes of the audience. If someone kept on annoying you, and you yelled at this person, people who didn’t know you would assume you are mean. If you calmly told this person that they were interrupting the completion of your homework, you would come off as fair.

Skateboarding and Such

David Langley relies heavily on evidence in his skateboarding piece. He tells several personal stories about his run-ins with unfair laws and police officers. Langley also poses questions to make the reader think more critically about his piece. Further on into his piece, Langley acknowledges other views on skateboarding and disproves these theories by putting forth facts and his opinions. Langley uses several of the tactics Michael Levin administers in his “A Case for Torture” article.
Langley’s essay begins with a personal story. He tells of a time he was frisked and his friend was fined because they were caught skateboarding. Before they were caught, Langley and his friends thought they were skateboarding legally because a nearby sign allowed skateboarding on holidays. When the police officer stopped them, though, she told them the sign only meant “rolling” was legal; tricks were not allowed. This introduces the argument that Langley later writes about, stating that skateboarding signs should be clearer. Langley goes on to tell of a time that he asked a police officer if he would arrest a skateboarder who was performing tricks, even with no endangered people around. To this, “the officer admitted that he might arrest the lone skater anyway and not be questioned by his superiors” (127).
At one point in his piece, Langley poses a question: “Where are skateboarders supposed to go?” He explores this question by writing of skate parks and parking garages, telling why both are inadequate. By posing this question, Langley is asking the reader to think of solutions, subtly forcing the reader to become engaged in the writing.
In an appeal to ethos, Langley acknowledges other views on skateboarding and skaters. He admits that skating does damage property to some extent, but, as he writes, “skateboarders help the environment more than they hurt it” (127). He explains that skateboarding is “green,” meaning it produces no toxins to be released into the ozone. He also says that skate parks are unsafe and crowded. He discusses how some skate parks are designed poorly and so endanger skaters. By revoking common opinions some have of skaters, he makes a clear argument about why cities should be more accommodating towards their skaters.
Langley, like Michael Levin, briefly acknowledges other views people hold on the issues at hand. Levin is very forceful in his writing, though. He thoroughly discredits other views and makes it seem almost sinful to not believe in torture. Langley, however, is not forceful, and he doesn’t disprove other opinions. Instead, he confesses that there is some truth in what others think about skateboarders, but he then gives reasons why people should rethink skateboarders. Furthermore, Levin cites a lot of hypothetical situations in his article to illustrate his point. Langley employs stories of his own experience to fortify his argument.

A Pseudo-Argument

Pseudo-arguments are arguments that are never solved; the issue is just kicked around until someone decides to allow the other arguer to win. Pseudo-arguments are usually created when a stubborn person refuses to even acknowledge the other arguer’s side. Both sides end up spewing opinions, and nothing is resolved and no one walks away enlightened.
I’ve engaged in a pseudo-argument. One of my friends is extremely conservative-minded. This is not a bad thing, per se; it’s just that she absolutely refuses to even contemplate my side of an issue. She shoots down my opinions before they are even fully explained. One time, in eighth grade, we were discussing a paper we had to write for English. In the paper, we had to take a stance for or against a controversial topic. I, being the mild feminist I am, was writing a passionate paper about abortion. My friend was also writing about abortion, except she was arguing against abortion. We had exchanged our rough drafts and were correcting them. On her paper, I simply corrected grammatical errors and wrote in commas where she had forgotten to place them. I handed her paper back to her, and she gave my paper back to me. On mine, there was a large “NO” and marks everywhere. Instead of merely correctly grammatical errors, she had decided to correct what she thought were moral errors. “So you’d kill babies?” she commented after one paragraph. This, I thought, was shocking and unprofessional, and I told her so. Thus ensued a long, tiring pseudo-argument. She was arguing why abortion should be made illegal, and I was advocating the opposite. Actually, it was more like she would yell, and I would try to reason with her religious zeal. Nothing came of this argument except bad moods and anger. If she had been more willing to listen to me and had not been so concerned with what she saw as the only choice, a more productive argument would have resulted.

Pathos

Appealing to the pathos of a reader or listener is a powerful rhetoric device because, although mildly cheesy, emotions do connect us all. Emotions are relatable and stirring- Remember when Hillary Clinton’s voice cracked when she was explaining why she wanted to become president, and her poll numbers jumped up a couple of points? She had appealed to voters’ pathos. Voters saw a more relatable Hillary in that moment, a more complex, interesting Hillary. Pathos reach out to a person and ignite to their emotions. Whether we like it or not, we are creatures driven by our emotions; underneath whatever persona we take on, we truly do want to be safe and happy. During the first stages of John McCain’s campaign, he warned Americans of future terrorist attacks. He said that another terrorist attack was imminent, and only he, as president, would be able to prevent this attack. He was purposefully installing fear in Americans, aggravating their emotions and desire for security to convince them to vote for him. This, like Hillary Clinton’s teary speech, was an appeal to pathos.
Generally, articles, speeches, and stories that appeal to the pathos are more interesting and more personal than factual statements. Emotions create a connection between the creator of the work and the viewer or listener. Emotions connect and bond us, and so when you appeal to the pathos of another, you forge a bond with this other. Emotions drive us and form our opinions, and because emotions rule us so, an appeal to pathos is a powerful rhetoric device.

Torture

I am undecided about torture. I am attune to both its benefits and its negatives. If a group of terrorists in custody should be suspected of a plot to kill thousands of innocents, by all means, go after their nails and teeth. Before calling in Jack Bauer, though, there should be extreme amounts of evidence that incriminate these terrorists. Also, it should be known that many terrorists, especially terrorists heavily into their cause, will not divulge their secrets truthfully and willfully. People will say anything to get the pain to stop, and terrorists have been known to consciously give false information to mislead investigators. Moreover, some terrorists do not even respond to torture. A terrorist will sit there, electrodes pumping into his brain, and shake his head when asked a question. Furthermore, if the United States were to begin torturing prisoners of war, that would give the Middle Eastern countries permission to torture their POWs, American soldiers.
As Michael Levin writes, “How can we tell 300, 100, or just 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, ‘I’m sorry you’ll have to die in agony, we just couldn’t bring ourselves to…’ … I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils.” I agree with him in this regard. It would be wrong to have innocents die because the government had refused to extract necessary information from prisoners who had known the information that would have prevented these deaths. Torture should only be used in extreme cases, like preventative actions against terrorist plots.

GE Foods- I win!

I see no problem with genetically modified food. There’s a plethora of reasons for GE foods, and the arguments against GE foods are flimsy. Packages containing GE foods should be marked, though, for those who do not want to consume such foods.
GE foods will allow more food to be grown in shorter amounts of time, and this food will be better food, more immune to heat fluctuations and cold frosts. The world’s population is quickly growing, and with the rise in people, the food demand will rise as well. GE foods will insure that food shortages do not appear. Even so, world hunger has been, and will continue to be, a problem. Over time, GE foods able to withstand days with too much water, or too little water, will allow world hunger due to droughts and floods to be eliminated. GE foods will help feed the world.
Furthermore, many people in the world do not get enough nutrients in their diet. In regions of Africa, for example, children suffice on rice and beans. This dish, eaten almost every day, does not provide enough nutrition. Beans and rice do not contain vitamin C, vitamin A, calcium, and other such essential nutrients. Children can die from vitamin deficiency. GE foods can be infused with vitamins and minerals. A cob of corn can become calcium-fortified. When GE foods are made available throughout the world, they will be able to enhance and round out the diet of people not able to access or afford healthy foods.
Critics of GE foods argue that the long-term effects of eating GE foods have not been studied. Yes, this is true, but this point should be treated with skepticism. Scientists have spent years developing GE foods and will continue to do so. GE foods have been on the market for years. Nothing significant has happened during the development or selling of GE foods, and nothing hints that trouble is coming. Those who claim certain deaths were caused by GE foods are only speculating. Deaths blamed on GE foods are rare, and, when one investigates into these deaths, the link between the death and the consumption of a genetically engineered food is strained.
Even though I am not against GE foods, I do think that GE foods should be labeled as so. People who are concerned about consuming such foods should be able to discern between GE corn and natural corn.

Arguments and Genre

The cartoon, while not quite pro-GE foods, is arguing that GE foods prevent starvation due to drought. Because of this, GE foods should be tolerated. It claims that people against the idea of genetically modified foods are “reason resistant.” (1) The cartoon is not promoting GE foods because it merely presents why GE foods are tolerable. It’s not advocating the prolific use of genetic engineering on food products.
The advertisement presents several reasons on why GE foods should either be made under strict guidelines or made illegal. The advertisement discusses how “no one can predict the long-term effects of these foods on our health,” (line 11-13) and promotes “mandatory labeling and safety testing” (line 19-20) for GE foods. The advertisement is obviously trying to raise awareness about the subject of GE foods and trying to recruit members for the “Keep Nature Natural” campaign.
The cartoon does not fully represent the cartoonist’s opinion of genetically engineered foods. Steve Breen, the cartoonist, shows some support, if not indifference, towards the science of GE foods. Because of the cartoon’s size and text limitations, Breen could not present a well-rounded argument or idea. The viewer does not see Breen’s entire idea on the matter. Therefore, the genre of cartoon made Breen present the controversy of GE foods without elaboration. Perhaps this is best. The image of the starving man being refused food by an overweight hippie is disconcerting. People glancing through the morning paper would notice this cartoon and take away that perhaps GE foods would be able to help someone in a time of drought. The cartoon is effective because it quickly informs people about another’s perspective on GE foods.
The advertisement has space to present several sentences about GE foods and therefore can better inform the reader than a comic can. Truly, though, the advertisement is more about influencing the reader than informing them. The ad discusses why you should say “No!” to GE foods. The ad, although longer than the comic, is still brief. Its sentences are not wrought with knowledge. The genre of advertisement allows for more words than a comic, but the words are still too few to present a full argument. The cartoon is more effective because it presents its point swiftly to the busy American.

Explicit vs. Implicit Arguments

When engaged in an argument, you are usually trying to persuade others to see your point of view. Underneath this argument, though, is a quest for truth. This truth manifests itself as arguers enlightening each other in the topic at hand. Arguments inform the arguers of other facts, other bits of information that contradict their beliefs. Points brought up during an argument broaden the views of the arguers, allowing them to see truth in the opinions of others.
An argument can be presented as either an explicit argument or an implicit argument. An explicit argument frankly puts forth a claim, sometimes a controversial one, and then proceeds to support this claim with reason and factual information. An implicit argument displays itself as a poem, a picture, a story, even a cartoon, that silently persuades the reader or viewer towards a certain opinion.
Explicit arguments, whether presented on paper or in person, contain a thesis and evidence. The thesis explains a viewpoint, and the evidence justifies this viewpoint. Throughout an explicit argument, the arguer must clarify certain statements and address counterpoints that would be given from a person with an opposite viewpoint. Explicit arguments often take the form of scholarly papers, papers that present a well-researched thesis to lead the reader to agree with the writer on a certain topic.
Implicit arguments do not appear as overt arguments. Instead, these kinds of arguments only hint at what the arguer is trying to convey. Implicit arguments do not contain a thesis or evidence. “Dulce et Decorum Est,” by Wilfred Owen, is an implicit argument. This poem goes against the statement that it is “sweet and fitting” (6) to die defending one’s country. Owen presents his argument not by putting forth reason but by describing of the disturbing image of a soldier drowning in the gas of a mustard bomb. This image appeals to the reader’s emotions, leading one to the opinion that war is “devoid of heroism or a higher purpose.” (6) In implicit arguments, the use of images and detail guide the reader or viewer to assume one opinion or another. Other times, implicit arguments are simply used to get the opposer to see another’s viewpoint.
The purpose of an argument is not to win but to find truth. When one argues a point, they are informing an opposer of their view, the view that conflicts with the opposer’s view. This broadens the opposer’s viewpoint, and, in turn, the opposer will further enlighten the arguer by providing counterpoints. Not all arguments are heated debates; some arguments are merely discussions between people of opposing views. Explicit arguments directly present a claim and then defend it. Implicit arguments do not come with a thesis or facts. Implicit arguments are images and words that subtly hint at an opinion and bring a reader or viewer to see, and sometimes believe, that opinion.

A Vivid Memory

I went to public school when I was in sixth grade. Clay Junior High was not entirely horrible. Yes, there were a few druggies and a couple of weirdoes, like that boy who purposefully cut himself and then proceeded to bleed on my notebook, but, for the most part, Clay was fine. I especially liked my science teacher, Mr. Butcher. He had a moustache that resided under his nose, and it was there that, nestled in his finely groomed hair, a family of very happy boogers made their home. He was very no-nonsense; once he stopped mid-sentence and stared at me. Everybody in the entire classroom turned around to gawk at me. My crime? I had dared to unzip my pencil case to retrieve a pen while he was speaking. But I liked him because he would go off topic and talk about fascinating things. It was in his class that I learned how a refrigerator works and how oxygen came to exist. I also respected, and still respect, Mr. Butcher, especially after one of his students tried to commit suicide during his class, and Mr. Butcher stopped him.
Brandon was a troubled kid. He was in the special education program at Clay for his autism. He would chortle to himself during class and draw funny little animals in the bylines of his papers. His strange behavior and high voice made him a target for bullies. It was alarming to sit near him in class because he would suddenly start crying and silently weep for several minutes.
One day in the fall of my sixth grade year, I was sitting across from Brandon and listening to Mr. Butcher talk about the composition of soil. Brandon was fiddling with his pencil and muttering to himself. Without notice, Brandon looked up at Mr. Butcher and announced that this particular school day had been the worst day of his entire life. Sighing, Mr. Butcher said something like, “Now, Brandon, it can’t be the worst day of your entire life. You haven’t lived your entire life yet. You don’t have much to compare this day to.”
Brandon straightened up higher in his chair and exclaimed, tears wobbling in his voice, “It is! It is the worst day of my entire life! This is the last day of my life because I’m going to kill myself!”
And with that, Brandon seized his yellow pencil and began violently racking it against his wrist. My jaw dropped. Mr. Butcher flew to Brandon and wrestled the pencil out of his grasp.
“Brandon, don’t do this,” Mr. Butcher grunted as he entangled the last of Brandon’s fingers from the pencil. The pencil out of his hand, Brandon slumped onto his desk, and Mr. Butcher dashed over to his desk phone and swiftly dialed the front desk. Brandon had not broken his skin, but his threat was obviously one that should be treated with caution. All of us sat in silence and stared at Brandon as he breathed heavily. Two or three minutes later, two women from the special education program arrived at our classroom. They kneeled around Brandon and whispered encouraging words into his ears. He eventually stood up, his head hanging, and followed them from the room.
Mr. Butcher watched the trio leave the room silently. Then, looking at us, the bewildered students, he uncharacteristically dismissed us before the ending bell had rung. I left in sadness for the boy who wanted to die, and I left in awe of the man who had saved him.

In Response to "Memory and Imagination"

Patricia Hampl writes in I Could Tell You Stories about the value of one’s imagination and the power of a memoir. In a chapter entitled “Memory and Imagination,” Hampl declares, “Refuse to write your life and you have no life (34).” This statement seems alarming, but Hampl is correct. We exist only in how others perceive us, and if others are not aware of us, how can we be sure we exist? In her memoir How to Tame a Wild Tongue, Gloria Anzaldúa explains how sometimes she feels as if her knowledge of both the English language and the Spanish language are ruining each other. She writes, “… I feel like one cancels out the other and we are zero, nothing, no one (42).” Because we relate to each other through our stories, when someone is unable to tell their stories, they cannot share their experiences and therefore make their reality known. Like Gloria, they are metaphorically cancelled out through their inability to articulate their thoughts and experiences.
Hampl goes on to write, “True memoir is written, like all literature, in an attempt to find not only a self but a world (35).” Anzaldúa hints that she is writing How to Tame a Wild Tongue to connect with fellow Chicanos. She is writing her memoir to reach out to her world. And, indeed, her world, though unsteady, is found. She describes how she became aware of other Chicanos through the publication of the Chicano book I Am Joaquín and the formation of the Texas party la Raza Unida. “With that recognition, we became a distinct people. Something momentous happened to the Chicano soul— we became aware of our reality and acquired a name and a language (Chicano Spanish) that reflected that reality.” By announcing their existence and story, Chicanos existed outside of their own reality and were known to others. Chicanos were truly present in the world.
In the final pages of “Memory and Imagination,” Hampl explains that “[t]he authority of memory is a personal confirmation of selfhood… (36).” Through our memory and our language, we tell our stories and share our experiences. When we share our stories, we claim our own reality and inform others of it. Likewise, when we are told the experiences of others, we are being informed of another’s reality. Stories and language are needed to create a common reality-like life where all of us can exist. Without our shared experiences, we would continue to live in our perceptions. In another chapter of Hampl’s book, “Red Sky in the Morning,” she says, “Maybe a reader’s love of memoir is less an intrusive lust for confession than a hankering for the intimacy of this first-person voice, the deeply satisfying sense of being spoken to privately (19).” These private words people tell us are their stories, and we need these stories, yearn for them, so that we can further understand ourselves and make our reality known.

This Better Work

Hopefully, this blog will work.