This was a short essay that reflected on a young girl's past. She wanted so badly to be just like everyone else. When she was in elementary school, she would have to learn Chinese at a night school by her mother's request. Her mother wanted her to learn the foreign language associated with their Chinese heritage. However, the girl just wanted to be a kid and play. She also did not want to be affiliated with the culture. She described it as "humiliating," and referred back to her grandma's awful, "unbeautiful" voice in the supermarkets. After two years of Chinese school, she and her brother had finally convinced their mother to stop making them go there. This was a decision she clearly regretted.
At the end of this essay, the author shows how she wanted to fit in so badly at a young age. However, she reflects upon it now as saddening that she is more like a normal American, not by association, but by choice. Had she not gone the route of quitting Chinese school, perhaps she wouldn't have given up a piece of herself just to fit it. Being an American does have strong affiliations with our slurred English language, and it seems like this pushed her over the edge. She did not want to be unique, but later in life, everyone (at least I do) does.
I'm sure we can all think of a time when we did something for the wrong reasons. We may have even conformed to society's ways on something we objected to. This is what Elizabeth Wong did, and it appears that she regrets her decision everday. This story teaches us to hold on to our backgrounds and our unique habits, because they are the only thing that separate us from the neighbor next door who is your average American.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Response to "Take This Fish and Look at It," by Samuel Scudder
The essay, 'Take This Fish and Look at It," by Samuel Scudder, is about a young man studying to be a scientist. When he meets with his professor for the first time and talks with him about his desired field of study (to study insects), he presents him with an unusual, yet daunting, task. The student had to study a fish. It seemed easy to him at first, however the professor expected him to see a lot more in the fish than that which was first visible. I think that the professor was trying to teach him a valuable lesson that goes deeper than what the eye can see. Observation is not always with your eyes.
In the beginning, the student was told to tell the professor what he observed about the fish. After a few minutes the professor came back into the room. He asked what the student had initially observed. The student answered back to him regarding its structure and body parts. The professor said, try looking deeper. Each time the student saw the professor, he would tell him all the new things he had observed, and each time the professor would say "That's good, but there's something else."
Finally, the student became confused as to what else there was to be seen of this dead fish. He decided to draw it on a sheet of paper. To this, the professor was delighted. He said something along the lines of, "Art is one of your best pairs of eyes." After this, the professor took the fish away from him and made him study without actually observing the object. After a few days, he came up with observations he hadn't when he actually had the fish in front of him. The professor proved a point to him that day. What i gathered from the article is that observations are to be made after looking at the objects. The thought process is obviously involved and infused with making and recording observations. After all, your eyes can't think, but they can give you the necessary information required to produce a thought about something you see.
In the beginning, the student was told to tell the professor what he observed about the fish. After a few minutes the professor came back into the room. He asked what the student had initially observed. The student answered back to him regarding its structure and body parts. The professor said, try looking deeper. Each time the student saw the professor, he would tell him all the new things he had observed, and each time the professor would say "That's good, but there's something else."
Finally, the student became confused as to what else there was to be seen of this dead fish. He decided to draw it on a sheet of paper. To this, the professor was delighted. He said something along the lines of, "Art is one of your best pairs of eyes." After this, the professor took the fish away from him and made him study without actually observing the object. After a few days, he came up with observations he hadn't when he actually had the fish in front of him. The professor proved a point to him that day. What i gathered from the article is that observations are to be made after looking at the objects. The thought process is obviously involved and infused with making and recording observations. After all, your eyes can't think, but they can give you the necessary information required to produce a thought about something you see.
Response to "Cesar Chavez Saved My Life," by Daniel Alejandrez
The article "Cesar Chavez Saved My Life," is one that threw me for a curveball. Many different ideas are produced throughout the article. Some ideas are tied so deep into the article, that I had to read certain sections twice to understand the connection the author was trying to make. The article reflects on the author's life, and doesn't fail to cover any bases. It discusses how hearing a man prach about his beliefs helped shape his own. It also jumps to some conclusions about the Mexican race, but ends on a good note in which everyone had a selfless moment that failed to recognize race.
Mr. Alejandrez was just an average Mexican fieldworker who had to travel to find work. His family had done the same before he did. One day, he realized that he was being paid over four times less than the men who just sat on a machine all day (he was working by hand). He hadn't noticed that he was even being treated unfairly until a radio broadcast came on one day. Cesar Chavez was on the radio telling his ideas about seeking justice. This struck a chord with Alejandrez, and he and the workers went on strike. The employers agreed to raise their wages a little, but that wasn't the point.
After this, the article skips around to when he organized dances that unified people at prison. It ends talking about an instance where gang members of opposing gangs held hands and dances unified. He mentioned that the world was happy for one moment, and that these people put aside their differences for those few minutes of bliss.
I think Mr. Chavez's radiocast was fortunate to be on at the time it was. It influenced Mr. Alejandrez to want to help all people, for the good of mankind. Mr. Alejandrez talked about how so many of his people (Mexicans) had wound up in jail, much like he did. I believe what he meant by this article is that if you unite everyone, differences will fail to be recognized by society, and no one group can be classified by its race. To Mr. Chavez, we all owe a little thanks. He stood up for justice, and each and every one of us can too (much like Alejandrez did).
Mr. Alejandrez was just an average Mexican fieldworker who had to travel to find work. His family had done the same before he did. One day, he realized that he was being paid over four times less than the men who just sat on a machine all day (he was working by hand). He hadn't noticed that he was even being treated unfairly until a radio broadcast came on one day. Cesar Chavez was on the radio telling his ideas about seeking justice. This struck a chord with Alejandrez, and he and the workers went on strike. The employers agreed to raise their wages a little, but that wasn't the point.
After this, the article skips around to when he organized dances that unified people at prison. It ends talking about an instance where gang members of opposing gangs held hands and dances unified. He mentioned that the world was happy for one moment, and that these people put aside their differences for those few minutes of bliss.
I think Mr. Chavez's radiocast was fortunate to be on at the time it was. It influenced Mr. Alejandrez to want to help all people, for the good of mankind. Mr. Alejandrez talked about how so many of his people (Mexicans) had wound up in jail, much like he did. I believe what he meant by this article is that if you unite everyone, differences will fail to be recognized by society, and no one group can be classified by its race. To Mr. Chavez, we all owe a little thanks. He stood up for justice, and each and every one of us can too (much like Alejandrez did).
Response to "Vows," by Christopher Caldwell
*This Response does not argue against the idea of gay marriage, but against the idea that it would make homosexual couples more acceptable in today's society*
"Vows," by Christopher Caldwell, is a response to an article written by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch is a Washington journalist who mainly writes/responds to gay issues, and who happens to be gay himself. Rauch wrote an article pertaining to the sanctity of marriage. In it, he comes to the conclusion that gay marriage fits the definition and standards of regular marriage. However, Mr. Caldwell, who wrote the article that responds to Rauch's, completely disagrees with Caldwell's conclusion, and how he came to his overall reasonings. I mostly agree with Mr. Caldwell, in that legalizing gay marriage would not solve the problems that gays face in America. There are numerous logical ideas against this information, including lowering standards as opposed to meeting them and changing a law that many consider sacred (this could make quite a few people angry).
Rauch comes to the conclusion that once gay marriage is legalized, that gay citizens in America will be "seen in a new light." He argues that society does not accept homosexuals because they do not conform with society's ideals and traditions. One of these prominent traditions includes marriage. Because homosexuals cannot marry, he argues, they are seen as adulterous and threatening to the community. This idea seems to be a bit nieve. Allowing marraige does not make homosexual couples more "acceptable" in society than before. Caldwell argues that if marriage is altered to fit the desires of homosexuals, that marriage will no longer be a norm in society. The concept of marriage would lose its moral luster, and their would be no new push to accept gay couples, because gay marriage would still be a new idea. (and) New ideas are often not accepted at first, or possibly even at all. There is a method of building up to do so, and going from nothing to marriage is a large step. Quite possible there is a step inbetween no legal tie and marriage.
Also, legalizing gay marriage would create the same kind of problematic opportunity for polygamists. If made legal, not only would it fail to change the unfavorable opinion of homosexuality in America, but it would give polygamists a reason to shout for change as well. Sub-common religions like Mormonism would demand that multiple marriages to the same partner be legal. Once the definition of marriage is altered for a minority group, a majority of Americans would be upset. Also, once altered, the legalities involved with marriage would change altogether, because it only takes one (precedent) case to change the definition of marriage as it has been known for decades. Marriage would not make any difference to society's acceptance of gays (however, I'm not saying gays wouldn't enjoy the right to get married).
In conclusion, Caldwell was right in that Roush failed to realize that changing a normality in society to fit a new idea, is altering the normality as society knows it. Upon changing the idea, it is no more normal and holds less weight within the socially acceptable boundaries in America. It would make no difference to most of America (Roush's reasonings were off).
"Vows," by Christopher Caldwell, is a response to an article written by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch is a Washington journalist who mainly writes/responds to gay issues, and who happens to be gay himself. Rauch wrote an article pertaining to the sanctity of marriage. In it, he comes to the conclusion that gay marriage fits the definition and standards of regular marriage. However, Mr. Caldwell, who wrote the article that responds to Rauch's, completely disagrees with Caldwell's conclusion, and how he came to his overall reasonings. I mostly agree with Mr. Caldwell, in that legalizing gay marriage would not solve the problems that gays face in America. There are numerous logical ideas against this information, including lowering standards as opposed to meeting them and changing a law that many consider sacred (this could make quite a few people angry).
Rauch comes to the conclusion that once gay marriage is legalized, that gay citizens in America will be "seen in a new light." He argues that society does not accept homosexuals because they do not conform with society's ideals and traditions. One of these prominent traditions includes marriage. Because homosexuals cannot marry, he argues, they are seen as adulterous and threatening to the community. This idea seems to be a bit nieve. Allowing marraige does not make homosexual couples more "acceptable" in society than before. Caldwell argues that if marriage is altered to fit the desires of homosexuals, that marriage will no longer be a norm in society. The concept of marriage would lose its moral luster, and their would be no new push to accept gay couples, because gay marriage would still be a new idea. (and) New ideas are often not accepted at first, or possibly even at all. There is a method of building up to do so, and going from nothing to marriage is a large step. Quite possible there is a step inbetween no legal tie and marriage.
Also, legalizing gay marriage would create the same kind of problematic opportunity for polygamists. If made legal, not only would it fail to change the unfavorable opinion of homosexuality in America, but it would give polygamists a reason to shout for change as well. Sub-common religions like Mormonism would demand that multiple marriages to the same partner be legal. Once the definition of marriage is altered for a minority group, a majority of Americans would be upset. Also, once altered, the legalities involved with marriage would change altogether, because it only takes one (precedent) case to change the definition of marriage as it has been known for decades. Marriage would not make any difference to society's acceptance of gays (however, I'm not saying gays wouldn't enjoy the right to get married).
In conclusion, Caldwell was right in that Roush failed to realize that changing a normality in society to fit a new idea, is altering the normality as society knows it. Upon changing the idea, it is no more normal and holds less weight within the socially acceptable boundaries in America. It would make no difference to most of America (Roush's reasonings were off).
Friday, February 5, 2010
"Today's Special" by David Sedaris
The main point of this article is to explain how "fine dining" has turned into awful meals. Mr. Sedaris explains that when he and his friend got out to eat in New York, they face ridiculous dishes. He would much rather prefer something simple. However, I think that many Americans can relate to what he's saying. I appreicate simplistic foods because I appreciate the affordability.
Some dishes described by the author have over ten ingredients, and sometimes no one even knows what the ingredients are. Mr. Sedaris talks about how a food with so many different ingredients is humorous because it defeats the purpose of enjoying a meal. A food with so many "odd flavors" can not really be called a food anymore. Sometimes, the plating makes the food a bit less edible and desirable as well. I would much rather prefer a huge burger with cheese over a stick of meat topped with green speckled "things" and shiny glazes with who knows what in them. Sometimes simple really is better.
On to my favorite point about this "busy" kind of cuisine: the ridiculous prices. Although the author did not really touch base on how horrible the prices are. I woud never buy a $35 salad, and I wouldn't care if it had roasted almonds that had been baked in sunflower-seed oil. I would much rather have a salad with French dressing, and for $5 to boot. Although the chefs of New York and other big cities would like to think of these weird combinations of ingredients as food, others would rather call them an "interesting experience." I know that America jumped in late to the game in everything, but this doesn't mean we have to claim new recipes and call them American "cuisine." It's not the quantity that counts when dealing with almost anything, it's the quality, and some things are best served simple (like Google's blank webpage, for example.)
I completely agree with the author's attitude toward "fine dining" : It's not worth it.
Some dishes described by the author have over ten ingredients, and sometimes no one even knows what the ingredients are. Mr. Sedaris talks about how a food with so many different ingredients is humorous because it defeats the purpose of enjoying a meal. A food with so many "odd flavors" can not really be called a food anymore. Sometimes, the plating makes the food a bit less edible and desirable as well. I would much rather prefer a huge burger with cheese over a stick of meat topped with green speckled "things" and shiny glazes with who knows what in them. Sometimes simple really is better.
On to my favorite point about this "busy" kind of cuisine: the ridiculous prices. Although the author did not really touch base on how horrible the prices are. I woud never buy a $35 salad, and I wouldn't care if it had roasted almonds that had been baked in sunflower-seed oil. I would much rather have a salad with French dressing, and for $5 to boot. Although the chefs of New York and other big cities would like to think of these weird combinations of ingredients as food, others would rather call them an "interesting experience." I know that America jumped in late to the game in everything, but this doesn't mean we have to claim new recipes and call them American "cuisine." It's not the quantity that counts when dealing with almost anything, it's the quality, and some things are best served simple (like Google's blank webpage, for example.)
I completely agree with the author's attitude toward "fine dining" : It's not worth it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
"All's Not Well in Land of 'The Lion King' " by Margaret Lazarus
Margaret Lazarus wrote about "The Lion King" (the movie) using deep thoughts and connections she made while watching the movie. She states that the Lion King presents racist ideas, and even implies a gay character. Howver, this was not exactly the first thing that popped into my mind when I think of the movie. Mrs. Lazarus made some pretty significant assumptions when watching this movie. I don't think anyone else could quite understand what she believes, not even her young son, who she said agreed with her.
When I think of the Lion King, I think of the plot, of course. I think of the singing animals and their catchy tunes. I wonder if the little cub is going to survive. However, I never delved in to thought and analyzed the movie for deeper meaning. Lazarus mentions that the hyenas live in a dark place, and are mostly black. She thinks this implies racism. Honestly, the writer wouldn't write such a thing on purpose would he? I would like to think he just wrote it for the story. I am not much for "trying to put thoughts together that weren't supposed to be grouped that way " stuff. Sometimes those kinds of connections can lead to the wrong types of assumptions. For instance, if my grandpa had a long beard and a jolly belly, one could possibly assume that he is Santa Claus. And since "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" last year, my mother is really my grandmother?!?! No, of course not. My grandpa is just round and the fake santa last year was my dad in a suit. See what happens when you try to hard to find something, Margaret?
I thought the article was interesting, however I can't take a series of analogies that outrageous and believe them to be true of the movie. However, I managed to "analyze" one thing about Mrs. Lazarus: she doesn't like Disney.
When I think of the Lion King, I think of the plot, of course. I think of the singing animals and their catchy tunes. I wonder if the little cub is going to survive. However, I never delved in to thought and analyzed the movie for deeper meaning. Lazarus mentions that the hyenas live in a dark place, and are mostly black. She thinks this implies racism. Honestly, the writer wouldn't write such a thing on purpose would he? I would like to think he just wrote it for the story. I am not much for "trying to put thoughts together that weren't supposed to be grouped that way " stuff. Sometimes those kinds of connections can lead to the wrong types of assumptions. For instance, if my grandpa had a long beard and a jolly belly, one could possibly assume that he is Santa Claus. And since "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" last year, my mother is really my grandmother?!?! No, of course not. My grandpa is just round and the fake santa last year was my dad in a suit. See what happens when you try to hard to find something, Margaret?
I thought the article was interesting, however I can't take a series of analogies that outrageous and believe them to be true of the movie. However, I managed to "analyze" one thing about Mrs. Lazarus: she doesn't like Disney.
"Do Americans Really Want Jobs" by Ruben Navarrette, Jr.
Illegal immigration is a touchy subject for some Americans. However, many unauthorized people cross the border into our coutnry, and never check out. How are they surviving? Surely not on welfare, because they don't even exist in our country. No, they're surving because they have jobs. Yes, I said it. There are plenty of illegal immigrants with jobs in America, thousands really. Just the thought that someone who isn't even supposed to be here in the first place has a job when millions of legal citizens don't, just makes my blood boil (especially in this economy). However, this article challenged my thoughts about illegal immigrants, and the work they find in the United States.
Americans often expect the best. Because of our high-standard society, we often think that as a part of it, we have already earned our keep. The article mentions that Americans can often find jobs, but that they do not care for the type of work, or that it doesn't pay enough, or that their schedule falls over their favorite t.v. show. The author makes a point that illegal immigrants are low maintenance, and don't expect a lot, seeing as they were just happy to escape from, say for example, an impoverished country. Illegal immigrants will take anything that pays, most of the time, making them eye candy for the average employer. Some businesses have hired large numbers of illegal aliens in the past because they can save money and the workers require adn expect less of their jobs.
Although I used to be angry at the thought of an illegal immigrant taking up an American job, it's almost entirely true that there is work to be found. It might not be as much pay, or benefits, or hours as one might want. However, it's a job, and in these tough times, anything that pays is a blessing (don't take this too literally).
Americans often expect the best. Because of our high-standard society, we often think that as a part of it, we have already earned our keep. The article mentions that Americans can often find jobs, but that they do not care for the type of work, or that it doesn't pay enough, or that their schedule falls over their favorite t.v. show. The author makes a point that illegal immigrants are low maintenance, and don't expect a lot, seeing as they were just happy to escape from, say for example, an impoverished country. Illegal immigrants will take anything that pays, most of the time, making them eye candy for the average employer. Some businesses have hired large numbers of illegal aliens in the past because they can save money and the workers require adn expect less of their jobs.
Although I used to be angry at the thought of an illegal immigrant taking up an American job, it's almost entirely true that there is work to be found. It might not be as much pay, or benefits, or hours as one might want. However, it's a job, and in these tough times, anything that pays is a blessing (don't take this too literally).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
