I.C. progress #3

I know this is my second blog of the day, but it's about a different step in my progess. I searched about the men who needed to have rights to help keep their unborn child alive, but for this step I attempted to find men who wanted an abortion and the woman said no. I am a little frustrated right now with this part because it is hard to find a good scenario where the man wanted an abortion and the women didn't. If anything I found one night stands, or things of that nature. I'm thinking about argueing that if the male wants an abortion and the female has the baby anyway, should the male be held responsilbe for the child's care with child support.

I.C. progress #2

For my I.C. project I came to the decision that the males rights in abortion argument would better suit me. I have quite a few connections in the medical feild, but hardly none in the military. I also care more about the males rights in abortion issues than the other one, which I can't remember what it was. For my project I've begun to look up articles of men who have been in a situation where they wanted to have a say in their partners abortion, but due to the legality of it, had no rights. It is a very sad topic; I've read many sad cases in which the man wanted the child and would take care of it, but the woman wouldn't carry the child, so she'd have an abortion. These men feel very strongly about this issue. There are many powerful articles I could use to help persuade my audience. Overally things are going pretty smoothly right about now.

Proposal arguments response

I chose to respond to the Stone's End no tips policy argument. The problem that Wilson addresses is that the hosts for Stone's End restaurant do not receive tips. Wilson addresses that tis is not fair for the amount of work they do, and how that the lower income they receive can make the unhappy, which is detrimental to the overall success of the restaurant.

Wilson addresses this proposal to the CEO of Stone's End restaurant. Wilson does this by using sophisticated vocabulary, and correct grammar. It is a very well written paper. Wilson also addresses the "numbers" surrounding this argument. Wilson discusses the pay of a host compared to a server who receives tips. Then he breaks down the tips into an average hourly wage to show the ratio of the two wages per hour. This is effective because it shows the CEO how much more the servers are being paid per hour. Wilson proposes that the servers tip their hosts 1% to 2% of their tips, which on average would be one to two dollars. It would hardly "dent" the servers income, but it would greatly increase the hosts income. This was a well thought out proposal made the a CEO. The CEO would probably be more willing to make a change, if the servers were paying the hosts extra and not the company. The CEO probably wants to receive more money, and not pay employees more, but with this solution the CEO wouldn't have to loose any more money. Wilson also states that this would benefit the host, which in turn would benefit the company and it's overall success, which in the business world means overall profit. The CEO is interested in doing what's best for success, so I believe due to the effectiveness of Wilson's argument that the CEO would be more willing to change the policy.

Wilson did a great job on choosing the audience and what to highlight about this argument. His proposal would make the employees happier and give the company more profit, which is what a CEO should want for their business. This was a very effective proposal, and if I were the CEO, I would definitely accept it.

I.C. progress #1

For my inquiry contract paper I decided to argue whether or not males should have rights when it comes to women having abortions. I decided to do this because men do not have rights to thier child being aborted or not. We all know their is debate whether abortion is right or wrong, but I don't think many of us have thought about the men that are involved with the women that have abortions. I believe it will be a unique paper and it will be a new veiwpoint for the abortion argument.

I haven't started typing the paper, but I researched whether or not men have rights to their child being aborted or not. In my research I found that there is no law giving the father the opportunity to have a say in the decision of a child being aborted, but there are many sites that have debates on whether or not men should have a say in the decision. I believe that the final decisions should be joint, unless the women was raped, or the father says that he doesn't want anything to do with the child. I also want to explore if it's fair to make a father pay for child support, if he says at the beginning of pregnancy that he didn't want the child. I will research some more and try to get some cases of these happenings.

Inquiry Contract ideas

Because Lamags told me I can’t argue chocolate or vanilla, I’m not really sure what I want to argue about for our inquiry contract paper. I’m thinking about either writing about abortion issues, in which I would argue why pro-abortion is wrong, or writing about a plan against terrorism.

If I decided to write about the abortion argument I will be able to have a lot of statistics and it would be pretty easy to interview people for quotes. I also want to think about a guys perspective of abortion, and discuss whether or not the male parent has a say in abortion because as far as I know they don’t.

The idea of terrorism and what we should do about it would be more difficult for me to write. I hate terrorism, but I don’t know much about it. I would have to do more research and it would be more difficult to come up with a solution and argue why it’s my plan would work. For right now I’m leaning more towards the abortion argument, but it may change depending on what I feel like writing about in the future.

C.P. Ellis

Ellis’s story does not offer a credible way of overcoming misunderstanging and hatred between races. Ellis begins with telling us how he got involved with the Klan. To me he never truly hated black people to begin with, but he was sort of in a depressed state. He constantly reminds us that he was a low-income white person. He was also bitter from the fact he does hard work 7 days a week and barley has anything to show for it. When he was offered to join the Klan it gave him a feeling of belonging. He then felt like he was doing something. I think that he got so involved that he was practically brainwashed into believing the “Klans” ideals. I mention this because I feel he was never truly racist to begin with. Hating blacks was a way for him to have a reason for why his life sucked, and it was what everyone else in the Klan was doing.

Ellis becomes the president or Cyclops of the Klan. Because he is the leader of the Klan in Durham, he was invited to a meeting. At the meeting would be people of all walks of life., from whites, blacks, Jews, Catholics, and liberalists. Most of the people at the meeting wanted things in life to change. They were willing to make a change. In our society I don’t believe the majority are as willing and wanting for change as those people were. Ellis’s situation is also conditional. I don’t believe that doing what Ellis went through would work on a large scale. There are too many variables in his story. To say that it would work would be assuming that everyone in this program went through similar circumstances, and the only way to assure success would be if they people in this program were exactly like Ellis. Since we are all individuals and different, a large scale effort would not work for our society. We’ll just have to do it one person at a time.

Yoshino and the "mainstream"

Yoshino argues that the term “mainstream” is a myth. He feels that “mainstream” is just a synonym for “normal,” which he feels no one can truly achieve. He feels that it is impossible for someone to be 100% normal because being normal is opinionated.

I disagree with his argument. Being “mainstream” does exist. I see the term “mainstream” as a synonym to the word majority. I believe that in life a lot of time decisions are made by the majority, for example the president is the “majority” of the electoral votes, passing laws goes through a system where the “majority” rules, when I have dinner with my family the majority chooses where we eat. Therefore I feel our society is a majority rules society. So, the mainstream is what the majority of the society chooses.

Linda's freedom

Linda manages to get her freedom by getting to the north. She gets there with the help of many people, which includes her son, Benny, her Uncle Phillip, and her friend, Peter. She reaches New York, but she still wasn’t free. The daughter of Dr. Flint came to reclaim her because she was never released from her ownership. Mrs. Bruce then hires a man to negotiate with Mr. Dodge for Linda’s freedom. Mr. Dodge the lets her go for 300$.

Linda wasn’t happy with the fact that her freedom was bought. She still feels like she is property to someone. She felt that as a person she wasn’t something that should be bought or sold, and on top of all of that she was sold in a free state. She is very compassionate about this, but even though she is upset with how she was freed she is still happy that she is now a free woman.

Jacobs use of honesty

The passage I chose to show how Jacobs uses her honesty to establish credibility is a powerful one. Jacobs decides to tell us her reasoning for having children with another man besides her master (pg 49). To me this is a very powerful passage. For her to tell the reader such a personal decision that she made must have been difficult. I find this very effective. She’s audience are people that have never been slaves. She is trying to show the reader exactly how it was to be a slave. She would be willing to have children with another man not because she loved him but because she felt it was a way to be freed for sexual harassment of her owner, and quite possibly get away from him. She goes on the say, “you never knew what it is to be a slave; to be entirely unprotected by law or custom,” because it qualifies her reasoning for what she did. Some readers may be disgusted in her decision, and they may look down on what she did but because of this statement she makes the reader think twice about what they may have thought. She also asks the reader to pity and pardon her for her actions. She comes out of the style in which she is writing to ask the reader specifically for them to forgive her for what she did. That to me is very powerful.

The passage I chose did a good job in establishing her credibility. She pulls on our emotional strings with this part of the story and begins to show us that we don’t have any idea of what you may have to do to escape that situation she was in. She does this so that the reader beliefs she was a slave who was in a very bad predicament. To me one of the most powerful ways to win a person over is through your own personal experience. In this book, Jacobs does that well. She convinced me through her personal accounts that slavery is indeed tortuous and I am even thankful now that I myself am not a slave.

Douglas

To me, Douglas is saying that the 4th of July has no meaning to black people. He states that even though we became a separate nation the slaves were still slaves. There is no meaning for celebration for the slaves because they were not freed. He uses logos to show us how slaves should be freed. He turns the beliefs of people who have slaves to show that slaves are indeed men. He turns all the slave owners argument against themselves. He also states that since a slave gets punished for certain actions that’s admitting the had premeditated thought, and what separates humans from animals is the ability to think about our actions. So therefore a slave is indeed a man. Not only can a slave think he can also do a list of things that a white person can. That to me is a good way to argue his point because giving a lot of examples to support his argument makes his point a lot stronger than if he had two examples. He relates to pathos by asking how white people would feel if they had the flesh ripped of their backs from flailing. Thinking about something so brutal makes strong connections to the human emotions. He appeals to ethos with all of his evidence, i.e. using the Declaration of Independence to show that the slave should be free because all men are free in the document and earlier he used logos to show how a slave is indeed a man. The point overall is that the 4th of July doesn’t mean anything to the slaves until the slaves are freed.

Parrillo

According to Parrillo the socialization process is when “individuals acquire the values, attitudes, and beliefs, and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality, and social class. Generally, the child conforms to the parents’ expectations in acquiring an understanding of the world and its people.” The process goes on talking about how children are impressionable and accept the parents values without question knowing no better. Thus we learn prejudices of our parents and others, which eventually become our own beliefs and values. Then when we grow up we unknowingly shape our judgments on these prejudices, even if false, with sometimes out even knowing. I believe that this is true. When we are children we learn from and act like our parents It is nature for us to learn from them. When you are little you don’t know what is right or wrong and you don’t have any prejudices when you are born. Being prejudice is something that is taught and not something you were born with. So I believe that we inherently learn our prejudices from our parents and use them in our daily lives and own personalities.

Jefferson

From the passage I couldn’t really understand how Jefferson felt about race. I feel like he was describing the “black” persona and then stating how they were different from whites. On page 488 Jefferson writes, “it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites: in reason much inferior.” To me that isn’t a good sign. Even though he feels slaves should be free I think he is a white supremacist. He constantly points out how the blacks have a persona based sort of an animal instinct, and in lot of catagories that seem civil, like reason, blacks are inferior to whites.

In the picture I see a world that has evolved. We still have prejudices, but we have gotten to a point where white people and black people can live as equals. Now I’m not saying everything is perfect, because I know our country isn’t perfect, but this shows how white and blacks can get in a picture together and be equal. Both the white and black people come from Jefferson in some way, so this shows progress in the country. Jefferson’s way of thinking seems different from the photo. I feel that he was proposing the slaves not as equals as Americans but as living creatures. I don’t think he wanted to live among them as much as them be free. It seems to me that Jefferson would be happy with giving the slaves their own place to live separate of the whites. Overall I think Jefferson had a good and bad way of looking at blacks and whites. It was good that he wanted blacks to be freed, but I don’t like how he wants to put them out of the country. At the time it was a good way of thinking, so I feel that this was an important step in the emancipation of slaves.

Cora Tucker vs. Willy Lowman

Cora Tucker differs from Willy Lowman in a variety of ways. For one, their views on success are completely different. All of Cora’s life she’s believed that hard work and dedication is the way to succeed in anything. She grew up in a family with 8 brothers and sisters with only her mom. She watched her mom work so hard to succeed and provide for her family. Cora’s mom was so poorly educated that she didn’t even know how to get welfare support. As you can see from the beginning Cora had that mindset of working hard to succeed. Willy on the other hand believes that you must be well liked to succeed. By well liked I mean that someone likes you enough to give you a job, or a promotion. In Willy’s opinion it is not how well you do something, or how dedicated and hardworking you are. It is how many connections you have with people that are willing to help you based on how much they like you. Cora would totally disagree with that thought process. Cora thinks completely differently from Willy. Cora is quoted saying, “if you stop doing things because somebody says something bad about you or does something to you, then you’ll never get anything done” (RA p.364). By that quote you can tell how much perseverance she had. When Cora faced adversity she pushed through it. The difference between Cora and Willy is success, not only success gained, but how they define success. Cora is a successful person. She is well liked by many and hated by just as much. She wasn’t given handouts as a way to succeed, she “raised hell” as she puts it. She didn’t own land and a house because someone gave it to her. She worked as a seamstress for a large knit sportswear manufacturer. The conditions at this factory were tough. She states many women hurt their backs, and two women had heart attacks due to the work environment, and after all of this she worked there and saved 1,000 dollars each year for the first two years she was there. With that money she saved she bought land, the saved some more and bought a house, and she bought every piece of furniture with the money she earned. Her dream when she was younger was to buy her own house, and with hard work she completed this task. To me she has been successful throughout her life with helping in organizations and being involved in the community. With Willy he wants what he doesn’t have, and doesn’t believe that he can work for it. He believes that he needs a handout to succeed. When Willy doesn’t earn these handouts, then he feels like he fails, not only does he fail, but due to his son not being successful he failed as a father. Cora succeeded through hard work, and Willy failed through wanting to be “well liked.” In the end, Cora is the more successful person.

Emerson response

In Emerson's essay he believes that self reliance is the way to success. To him those who completely rely on themselves are the most successful. I completely disagree with his point of view. I see the most successful people are the ones who are guided and have helping hands along the way. It is not as easy as he makes it sound. You can't just rely on yourself and work hard an be successful. The world doesn't work like that. We have to rely on many people to help us advance ourselves. We rely on teachers to bus drivers to help us get our education. That to me is relying on someone else to gain success. Personally I need the guidance and support I get from my family, friends, teachers, and mentors. A world where you had to rely on one's self to become successful is a world I wouldn't want to live in. I believe it is a balance of self effeciency and the assistance of others that makes us successful.

Speech day 2- 2nd person- Brittney

The second person for the speeches I choose to write about is Brittney. Her charity was NSH MBA, although I don’t exactly remember what it stands for. Brittney seemed very prepared and had a well thought out and organized speech. She was passionate about her charity and she had good info to back it up. Overall I feel she had one of the best speeches in class. She had a good balance between both the pathos and ethos side of argument. I liked how she talked to us and not at us. I feel a lot of people didn’t talk to their audience but at them, which made their presentations not enjoyable, and quite boring to be honest. The language she used matched our age, which I feel is a good way to get our attention and it made her views easier to understand. Her charity was well supported with statistics and information, and I think she did a good job picking a charity she could relate to. The most important thing she did was keep the audiences attention, which made it easier to understand, listen, and care more about her charity. Overall Brittney’s speech was my favorite one to listen to, and she did a great job.

Speech day 2- 1st person- Maggie

I was absent for day 1 of speeches so I’m just going to do two people from day 2. The first person I want to respond to is Maggie. Maggie presentation was very energetic and entertaining. Her enthusiasm for her charity, Posse, was enjoyable because it kept me involved in her speech. It was easier for me to pay attention to her, than it was for me to pay attention to other peoples speeches. I don’t think she did the best job in stating her claim, and terms of rebuttal, but at the time I wasn’t thinking about that because she was so passionate about what she was saying. Because she made me listen I got more out of her speech than I did out of most of the class. I thought it was funny how she looked professional just for the speech. That was a really unique idea that I thought was a nice addition to her speech. I think that in a speech you’re not just representing your charity through their words, but also through their appearance. She had good quotes, and her speech flowed very well. Overall I believe she had a very effective speech.

Willy's views

Willy doesn’t believe in individual opportunity. Willy believes that you have to be “well liked” to be successful. He says well liked because people can be like but still not be liked enough to get ahead in life. To him you must be really liked so you have more advantages given to you from people with the power. He disagrees with that philosophy, but to him it’s how life is. He has been working for his company for so long that he new the original owner, but yet he still isn’t in a powerful position. He’s put his time and hard work and someone else comes and takes what he believes is rightfully his just because they’re liked more. This is important because you get an understanding of how he feels and you know why he seems so miserable. He wants so badly to be successful and he works hard, but no matter how hard her tries he can’t achieve it. He believes that it’s impossible for him to succeed unless he’s well liked. For his case in the play that’s true, but I believe it is not this way in real life. Sometimes people do get ahead not by hard work but a hand out, but for the most part people get ahead by hard work and dedication.

Upper and lower class

In the essay the argument is that the rich exploit the poor. Even though this was the intended argument, the essay, to me, was more showing the difference between the rich and the poor. The part where the author uses the building blocks as a symbol for upper class, middle class, and lower class really put the gap of the classes in perspective, but it doesn’t show how the upper class exploits the lower class.

The author could’ve made a lot stronger argument if he would’ve used examples or more data. The author doesn’t use much ethos in his argument. He focused on the pathos hitting your emotional side, which makes you forget about the issue at hand and if he is actually making a good argument.

Overall it wasn’t a well written argument for what he wanted to say, but it does show you how much of a gap there is between the upper and lower classes and the advantages of being wealthy to begin with and how we always don’t get to chose or class.

Stephen Cruz

Stephen Cruz believes the definition of the American Dream is constantly changing over time, and that it has problems. For one, he believes that it is based off of fear and power rather than hard work and determination. The other problem is that the “dream” is being changed by a small group of individuals rather than everyone. I disagree with his reasoning. He is wrong when saying that only a small group is changing the dream and also that it is based off of fear and power. He is generalizing who is in control. For him it is the wealthy, and that they believe in controlling through fear and power. I believe that the “dream” hasn’t changed. The American Dream is what you want it to be; it is more of a titled opinion about America. Everyone has his or her own opinion. His argument isn’t persuasive or relevant. He entered the work force in the 1960s and thought he was experiencing the “dream.” During this time it was the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Even though he was wrong in thinking that he was more skilled than another, and that he only got the job because of his ethnicity, but if anything that should strengthen his belief of the American Dream. This occurrence it shows change in how our society was and how success was becoming more of a reality for everyone and not just a group. The American Dream is still alive in us today. It is an opinion about the opportunities of America, and as long as you believe in it, it exists.

Pseudo-Argument

A pseudo-argument is an argument based on opinions, which can be started by both sides and both sides can stimulate the argument. I have had many of these types of arguments in my life. One pseudo-argument is one I used to constantly have with my parents. We constantly debated my bed time. This is a pseudo-argument because it is an argument between to sides, which both sides are opinionated and have the ability to further stimulate the argument.

My parents always wanted me to go to sleep early. They felt that if I had more sleep then I would be more willing to wake up in the morning and also to better in school. I thought that the amount of sleep I had really didn’t matter, and that I could run on about 5 to 6 hours of sleep. Neither my parents nor I had sufficient evidence to back our claims up besides our opinions of my actions. In the end they won because they are the parents and they can easily punish me.

Visual Argumetn

Visual argument can be more persuasive. I don’t believe in all cases that visual argument trumps any other kind of argument, but I do believe that in most cases it does. Most people believe in the phrase seeing is believing, which means that its only true and believable if it can be seen. In most cases if you can provide visual evidence to your argument, then the opponent is more likely to believe you based on what they’ve seen. The best example of a place where visual argument is bad, is when it comes to religion. You can’t see a God are a celestial being, so visual argument would be bad to use. If you could provide visual for religious arguments, I’m pretty sure it would be the most effective.

Visual argument allows you to see what is happening and see what the argument the opponent is making. In most cases the sight of something is more powerful than just the telling. A picture says a thousand words so to speak, so it is easier to depict your argument through a visual reference rather than spoken or written. Not only is it more powerful, it can make the story more believable. People could change any aspect they want to about their argument with lies. It is more difficult for a visual image to lie than a person saying of writing down lies. In the end visual argument is more overall effective than any other argument.

ethos and pathos in today

The ethical responsibilities that an author has is not to use ethos and pathos to manipulate the story. The author must be responsible and use ethos and pathos to accurately depict something. To me it isn’t so important for fiction as it is for non-fiction, because fiction is false anyways, but non-fiction is the truth and is facts. If the author uses ethos or pathos without ethical responsibility then the writing may no longer even be non-fiction from the changes.

The news today doesn’t always use ethical responsibility. They have used the use of ethos and pathos incorrectly on a couple of occasions. When we went to war in Iraq, they major belief was that there were weapons of mass destruction located there, and that was one of our main reasons for going. Now that we’ve infiltrated and found that there is no WMD’s, then what are we to believe? Some of the media made it seem that there were WMD’s and we believed. Our emotions were falsely changed and the info was incorrect. I feel that a lot of the time the media over exaggerates, which plays on ethos and pathos. It plays on ethos because it’s the information we receive and it always isn’t necessarily true, and pathos because they make it seem more important that what it is or the downplay it and we don’t know exactly how important it is. I feel that the news today is not ethically responsible for how they use ethos and pathos.

'Pathos'

The appeal to ‘pathos’ is such a powerful rhetorical device because it connects you to the argument. Many can be swayed just by the sheer emotion put into something. Some of the greatest occurrences in history happened because of one’s emotion. Having emotion is a critical part in being human. We all have some emotion, so pathos can relate to a lot of people. Pathos also is a powerful tool in argument and you don’t even have to have evidence or data or credentials to back up your argument. You can sway people just by emotions alone.

Using a metaphor or a story to get the reader interested is a common hook used when focusing on the appeal to pathos. It is easier to you to see the point of view with a story or a metaphor rather than a table of data. People may not be as bored with a story, and more willing to continue reading or listening to your argument. The appeal to pathos makes your argument related to humans and makes it more important to you. Passion is also a commonly used when appealing to pathos. When someone is more passionate about something, people usually think that they care more about the subject, which would make it more believable and easier to persuade you. I believe the appeal to ‘pathos’ is a powerful rhetoric device, but the use of all three in harmony is the best way to argue and persuade.

implicit vs. explicit

Implicit and Explicit arguments have very distinct differences. An explicit argument “states directly a controversial claim and supports it with reasons and evidence. An implicit argument, in contrast, doesn’t look like an argument. It may be a poem or short story, a photograph or cartoon, a personal essay or an autobiographical narrative” (Writing Arguments p. 4). To me this means that explicit directly attacks the problem and gives evidence. Implicit is a more opinionated way of arguing, through one’s ability to communicate through other means. The big difference to me is that they attack different parts of the human personality. Explicit focuses more on facts and the intellectual part of a person, but implicit attacks the emotional side of the person, attempting to make a connection through emotion than just facts. Both the photo and the poem are implicit. Neither states a specific argument and they both aren’t backed up by facts. To me they both are focusing on the emotions of one and not the factual side. The photo looks like a very touching moment between two officers and the poem is also emotional in the descriptiveness of the horror of what war was like. It is based on his personal bias and his thought process and not on what we call facts.

Cartoon vs. Ad

The cartoon and the ad both have different arguments. I feel like the cartoon with the hippie and the starving person is showing the side of which thinks that it is ok for us to eat the food. I feel the ad with the can that says “ingredients- none of your business” is for the side that believes GE (genetically enhanced) foods are not ok.

The ad and cartoon have to completely different genres of making you understand their point. The cartoon’s genre is comedy. It’s a comical drawing. You look at it and see an overweight hippie wearing buttons saying “NO FRANKEN FOODS” GLOBALIZTION” and a button with the peace sing (an upside down y in a circle). The hippie has a piece of corn in his hand that has “drought resistant” and then “reason resistant” pointing at the hippie. On top of all of this he is telling a starving person, that’s so skinny you can their ribs, “you don’t want this (corn), its genetically enhanced.” To me this was funny. This hippie won’t feed a starving person just because it was a piece of GE corn. The idea that this cartoon is trying to get across is that people that resist GE foods are hippies. Not only are they hippies but hippies are reason resistant and they wouldn’t feed a hungry person GE food. This cartoon is very negative towards the people who believe GE food is bad. Their intelligence, look, and thought process was insulted by this picture. I feel like the artist was trying to draw you onto his side by making the other side seem stupid and funny in their beliefs. This reminds me of the drawings the Nazi’s used against the Jews, demeaning their look and intelligence.

The ad on the other hand is a very serious concept. The picture of the can without ingredients but instead a note saying it’s none of your business makes you think, “what if that were real?” “What if I picked up a can and I didn’t know the ingredients?” “Would I even buy it?” All of these are valid questions that I would assume most people would think of if the picked up a can of corn and saw that same label that was on the fake can. This ad is trying to get their point across by showing you their perspective on the matter. They do this without bashing and degrading the opposing side. I feel that in most cases the more serious diplomatic approach is better, so I like the can ad more so than the cartoon.

Carlos Fuentes Response

In Carlos Fuentes’s “How I learned to Write” his purpose to me was to show how language is so important to culture and to show how a culture cannot exist in solitude. In his writing he explores the fact of the importance of language to each country. His father was a devout Mexican and he was forced to learn so much about Mexico even though, to him, Mexico has a very disappointing history full of defeats. But, even though they had a humiliating history it was still important to learn about his heritage.
The other purpose was for him to show us how learning and remembering our culture is important to defining a culture identity. This is so important because that is how we are different from each other and how we define ourselves as people. We also need to share our culture because culture can’t survive alone. We need to have other people to share our culture with and be different from at the same time.

Class reflection

So far the class has been really interesting. We have had numerous deep discussions. Everything we’ve done in the class has been very thought provoking but I’d like to reflect on is “The Great Gatsby.” I want to reflect on Gatsby because I now have a much deeper understanding of the book. In class we’ve discussed this novel so much that I’ve learned so many more outlooks, perspectives, and meanings of the novel. This is so interesting to me because I never would have thought that Gatsby was somehow trying to live the American dream. I never looked into the deeper meaning of Gatsby and Daisy in the book. I just looked at the shallow meaning of it. I am now learning that when I read I need to pay more attention to the deeper meaning of the story. Authors don’t just write down words to make a story; they very carefully choose everything that’s put in the book and a lot of times the book has a deeper meaning than just the story.
In “The Great Gatsby,” Jay Gatsby is trying to live his American dream, but to the outside world he is living the American Dream; Gatsby’s rich, and he came from nothing. Isn’t that the American dream? To in the end prosper when starting out with nothing? I disagree. I took a different understanding to the American dream. How could Gatsby be living the American dream if he’s not satisfied with all his money and objects? Gatsby longs for Daisy because he wants to relive the happiness he once had with her, but in reality that is unattainable. So, Gatsby’s not happy with his money, he can’t have Daisy, but I believe he’s still living the American dream. He is attempting to pursue his happiness. Isn’t that what the American dream is? I feel that the American Dream is that we all have the right to pursue what makes us happy. I just feel that in general people want money to make them happy so we generalized the American dream to just the idea of one day being rich. This all is important to me, because I learned so much about what it means to be American, and what the American dream really is to me. And I learned all of this from a book.

Class discussion

Today’s class was an interesting one. We discussed the deeper meaning in “The Great Gatsby.” It was a very interesting class and the discussion was deep, but I couldn’t always follow what was going on. I found it difficult sometimes to understand what was going on, so it was difficult to participate in the discussion. The class discussion is constantly changing. I found myself thinking hard enough to just follow, without trying to think of something to say. Even though it was a challenging discussion I really enjoyed the content and thought put into it. I don’t exactly remember everything that was said but I do remember thinking “Why is everybody in this class so smart?”
In the discussion we discussed the meaning of the characters in reference to how they were like the author Fitzgereald. The night before we read an article written by Fitzgerald when he was “cracked up” and we related him to the characters in the novel. We also analyzed this article and try to understand what all of it meant and the deeper meaning behind it. Overall it was a great class. It was engaging, thoughtful, and entertaining.