Death of Mr. Abe - 2.28.16

“The Secession war? Nay, let me call it the Union war. Though whatever call’d, it is

even yet too near us—too vast and too closely overshadowing—its branches unform’d

yet, (but certain,) shooting too far into the future—and the most indicative and mightiest

of them yet ungrown.” (3) 

- The part of text show above stands out to me because Walt Whitman disagrees that the Civil War should be called by the name “Secession War.” even though that is a great name to describe it as, because the war is technically caused by the secession of several states over the disagreement of abolition and the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. He instead wants to call it the “Union War.” He could be calling it by this name just to describe how the Civil War is a fight for justice of certain individuals and to make the country a union once again. Whitman’s purpose with this piece of text is to show two common names the Civil War was called by, but not only that. He used this piece of text to show that the war was overshadowing other issues and was something that would unravel into something larger than what is expected. To elaborate on that, an issue that would unravel later on (like a lot later) in the 1900’s is the fact that white women have less right’s as a group than the black community, but on the other side of things they weren’t as heavily discriminated. Honestly, I think Whitman included this small piece of text because he wanted to show people that a war can be differently interpreted by many, but in war it overshadows many other issues that are going on — like women’s rights — and then even later on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln because of the support that he had for the black community.

Reflection - 2.24.16

To begin, I researched the civil right of same-sex marriage. Some have come to believe that same-sex marriage is unlawful and question whether or not it is indeed a "civil right." The research that I conducted enhanced my views on the topic because I noticed that those who are supporting or directly affected by the fight have been discriminated against for so long, and all that they were fighting for was to be granted the right to marry someone. It made me realize that not all of those have it easy in life and are discriminated for who they are on a daily basis, whether it's in their place of work, at home, or on the street. Issues like these that are related to civil rights are so controversial because it simply means that a set group of individuals are not able to do something like another group is, or even be granted equality as a certain individual would be. I attempted to address controversy by talking about the counterpoints that are like the Bible and the basic definition of what marriage is as defined by many things - including the Bible.

A Single Story - 2.12.16

In Chimamanda Adiche's Ted Talk, A Single Story, she shows that for every country there is typically a single story about it. In other words a stereotype or common prejudice that the country or continent (in this case) is defined by. For example, she talks about how she had lived in the United States for a while and the media portrayed the Mexican country as a country where the citizens cross the border, get arrested at the border, and things like that. However, when she travelled to the country of Mexico and visited the city of Guadalupe she learned that in fact those stereotypes were completely opposite of what she expected. People had been laughing, smoking, and happy. She had felt ashamed of her thoughts because the thoughts were wrong and only of a single story. What a "Single Story" really means is just how a something is pictured or imagined to be. She shows that America does not have just a single story, but that there are many, because of American literature there are many views to the American life.

TNJC Blog 5 - 2.11.16

     In Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow,  she brings up prominent African Americans like President Obama for several reasons. In chapter 6, she has a subsection named,  “Obama — the Promise and the Peril”. The subsection starts out with some prior information and the first paragraph ends with a rhetorical question (I believe is the correct word), one that the reader will be able to answer by the end of the section. The next paragraph goes on with an anecdote about President Obama in his early years, about how he used to inhale marijuana and how those bad decisions could have led him into a whole different part of life that is completely opposite of where he is now. That life would be of a “junkie” or a “pothead”. She uses the president as a prime example just to show possibly ethos because typically the president is a trusted figure, but she goes on to give points of why we should view him otherwise. These points being with his choice of Vice President, Joe Biden, and his choice of Rahm Emanuel who are both strident drug warriors, or in other words, against drug users. I suppose that she includes these facts because she wants to make it known that Obama went off his campaign trail to make it look like he isn’t “soft” on crime, so he could be better liked int he political world. She also then brings up towards the end of her subsection how many black people choose to ignore the racial issues during his presidency to ensure that he gets a smooth sailing and looks good as a presidential figure. All of these points that she makes that are prominent with President Obama help contribute to her argument by showing that some are negligent to the fact that some will just sit back and wait for changes to be made, rather than making it themselves and using other ways to get things to happen — whether it is through Vice Presidents, or sparking up old laws. She also shows that with the President’s anecdote that if he had still used drugs throughout the end of his teenage years he would be in a much different place than he is now, since the “Drug War” would have found him somewhere and somehow. So, in conclusion, Alexander brings up points in order to advance her point that there are still issues to mass incarceration and the Drug War that need to be fixed, but some just sit back while there is a colored man in office and ignore the racial issues in order to just let the President have a smooth sail through office.

The Poem - 2.9.16

Laughing. The action that expresses happiness, or joy. First thing that comes to mind are my friends and family. Just thinking about laughter makes me want to recall previous memories where I or someone else had said a joke. It makes me want to just sit down with my friends and recall how hilarious something was at one point, even if it is no longer funny.

Writing Intro - 2.9.16

Describe the purpose of chapter five. How does syntax play a role in establishing the purpose? How does it compare & contrast with other sections of the book?

The purpose of chapter five is to essentially summarize what The New Jim Crow is all about. She focuses on different aspects throughout the chapter through subheadings which end up showing the reader what the purpose of the book really is: to raise awareness about problems in the court system, how there are historical parallels, and how people of color and/or minorities are affected by the drug war and everything else. The syntax of chapter five plays a role by giving a broad topic, and then breaking it down into subtopics, which she does not do as much in other chapters of the book. These subtopics explain, but also compare and contrast the issues that the real Jim Crow has and the ones that she believes are a part of the "New Jim Crow". All of her paragraphs throughout her book contain statistics, explanations, and opinions regarding how the New Jim Crow is what it is today. In her chapter five, under the subtopics of "The Limits of an Analogy" and "Mapping Parallels" she uses bold text in order to introduce a new topic that she is going to explain, she does not do this with other parts of the book.

TNJC Blog 4 - 2.8.16

     In Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, she includes a section that references interactions between police officers and civilians. For example, she includes the statement that, “a wallet could be mistaken for a gun” (84) This is obviously a problem that should be fixed, but it is not irrational to say the least. The stereotype that people of color that live in a “ghetto” neighborhood are typically armed and or dangerous is sad to say the least, but is still a problem. A police officer has to act quickly and must save themselves from any harm to benefit others around them, so shooting on sight seems like the best plan possible. But, is there a way to fix this? Possibly. I am not extremely educated on the topic of “police shootings” (not sure of the exact name, this one just came to my head) or topics that are related to it, but I will try to propose an argument in order for how we could reduce tragedies like the ones that have happened to Tamir Rice, and various other victims. 

     In order to obtain more information on the Tamir Rice case, I googled it and found a CNN article about it. To be quite honest with you, I do not blame the officer to shoot him as he was carrying an item that looked like a gun, however, it was a gun that only dispensed pellets. But, on the contrary, with Alexander’s point that when a wallet could be mistaken for a gun the subject should be apprehended accordingly. We, as society, can reduce these tragedies by simply complying with police officers… It is not that difficult. It may be a little bit ignorant of me to say just to comply with police officers, but still it is a way to reduce the tragedy as a whole. If you feel uncomfortable complying with an officer for any reason whatsoever then you deserve to be apprehended, it’s a win or lose situation. You either harm yourself or your save yourself. Before reaching into your pocket, car console, or any other compartment tell the officer what you are doing first so he knows and can be ready. If you aren't telling the officer what you’re doing then he will just assume suspicion and get ready for whatever is about to happen. To conclude this post, I would just like to say that I am not sure if I answered the prompt correctly or not, but I just believe if you are with an officer, being questioned, or any other situation you should just comply, use your fourth amendment right if necessary, you can say no to an unwarranted search. 

Aria - 2.4.16

Personally, I do believe that this argumentative writing was somewhat valid and effective. Rodriguez spoke about the intimacy of language and how the bilingual education proposal in congress could potentially devalue the meaning of family language, or a language just spoken around the house. It could be seen as a very credible argument, however, I'm not quite sure what the opposing view could be that he could bring up in a counterargument. It's possible that the counterargument is reassuring the public or anyone affected by bilingual education that it would be beneficial if it were to become law. That is one of the only reasons that I see for a possibility of the argument not being valid, which summed up is just not addressing the counterargument. I do believe that the argument he is making is effective. He uses plenty of pathos throughout his writing by using a personal perspective and anecdotes about his life, and with subtle intermissions about explaining his current life and whatnot. It differs between a regular argumentative paper just by it having more of a personal aspect, but also for it not including all of the known criteria to a basic argumentative piece.