I think that according to Stephen Cruz, the American dream is not the glimmering dream that everyone thinks it is. Most people coming to this land, who have either crossed borders, like Cruz, or have come from across the globe. They all have one thing in common; they are all looking for a better life.
In this reading, Cruz says that there are stereotypes in this country. One of which is that Mexican people are happy to be around, but at the same time emotional. This was the case when he worked at Proctor and Gamble, and he was only allowed to interview people, and worked very hard. He had 14 job offers, and at that time, he probably thought that it was because he was smart and he earned it. He was wrong. It was not because he was smart, but I think it was because he made the company look good, and he was good just not good enough for management. This made him think that the American wasn’t fair, and businessmen weren’t fair. Was this because some people were still racist? I think yes, but I think that they are only thinking about how to get ahead. I think that this is a very fair assumption to make, since I would feel the same way if I were in his position, cheated out of any chance of success.
Later on in other jobs like Blue Cross, he soon realized that even minorities are just as bad to one another. Yet again, the management did nothing, and it was at this point when he realized that people tend to go by their own rules. I think that this is not always the case in our modern society, but that people in a business do what they can to get ahead. But, at the same time, wouldn’t he be one of these people? I think that this is a curious question, since he can be considered to be one, but at the same time, he is just like them. The only difference is their heritage.
During these jobs, his bosses kept telling him that he had the right “Ingredients” for management, if only he would “fall in line and stay within the fence.” This is going back to that stereotype that Mexicans are emotional, which I think is not very fair, since one man cannot be judged by his race. If I were him, I would’ve quit right there, since I would’ve put in the same workload as everyone else in the business.
He then worked for a consulting firm, which were said to have been saving a lot of businessmen. The main difference about this firm was that there were no minorities, but you had to work in order to get ahead. This is where he finally realized that the American dream was defined by power and fear, and the dream was not to lose. This is what drove him to get to the consulting firm, where he finally got ahead, but then left to become a professor at the University of Wisconsin. I feel that if I were in his position, I would feel his pain, not for a lack of money since he had a lot, but to find out that America still had segregation. This is not only sad, but I feel that it steals away the idea of what America should be, all because a couple of businessmen want to get ahead. What Cruz doesn’t realize is that he was living the stereotypical American dream, making $30,000-$50,000 a year, but that is not the real American dream people think of.
I agree with Cruz, but since we hardly see discrimination, it is hard to know that it exists. But this piece is the perfect example of discrimination, even though it is an outdated piece. I also think that the American dream is hard to achieve for people who have to face discrimination. But, it is harder to achieve it when they see it but have no idea how to get there.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
RA:#2 pg. 307-329/25/07
I found the reading to be quite interesting, since the author started this article off by saying that most Americans do not like using the word “class,” to describe how each class describes them and how they describe each class. I think that Mantsios, did this to indicate that there are no set classes in our society today. Is this because our nation consists of mainly middle class citizens? I think it is, and I say this because people who are born into our nation are generally born into a “wellborn,” society.
I also like how Mantsios states that most of our lower class would be considered wealthy in other countries. I think that this is true, because we as a society are more developed than other societies. Our society is not made up of rich people and poor people, and the wealthy are not exploiting the poor, sine they are similar in the way they live, since most of our upper class is considered middle class. I find this very interesting since we assume that our lower class is so poor, while they are still able to survive and live a fairly normal lifestyle than that of other people in poverty. So do classes of society really exist? I think that we are made to think that they do not, but the inevitable truth is that they always will exist, no matter how large or small each class is.
Are we brought up to think that there are no specific classes? I think we are. So, therefore the rich are not exploiting the poor, since they don’t even think that there is hardly a lower class. This is very interesting since we usually are spoon-fed the belief that there are no specific classes, which is why we believe that there are no set classes.
When politicians and commentators denies exploitation, and makes it out to be something that naturally happens. They say that we are socially diverse, but we cannot be diverse if there are no classes that we will indicate. This makes me think that the author is trying to say that the upper class tries not to step on the toes of the poor, but cannot avoid doing so, since they will always be seen as rich, when in fact that upper class of society has more power. Meanwhile we do not have that large of an upper class.
My position is in the middle class, makes me a majority, which gives me an advantage to the poor, and people of other races. But, I am also a woman, and therefore I am a minority among men. This brings me to the conclusion in which our class is mostly determined by our race, not our gender, which is why there is simultaneous discrimination. We cannot escape discrimination no matter what we do; it will always exist, even if we say it does not.
I think that this question can go tow ways, but have the same outcome. If a person takes the question as saying that the rich ignore the poor, and that that we can also take this question as the rich making the poor out to be very bad. In my personal opinion, I think that the rich ignoe the poor, which makes this a bigger issue, which is the main argument the author is trying to get across, but it can be taken both ways.
I also like how Mantsios states that most of our lower class would be considered wealthy in other countries. I think that this is true, because we as a society are more developed than other societies. Our society is not made up of rich people and poor people, and the wealthy are not exploiting the poor, sine they are similar in the way they live, since most of our upper class is considered middle class. I find this very interesting since we assume that our lower class is so poor, while they are still able to survive and live a fairly normal lifestyle than that of other people in poverty. So do classes of society really exist? I think that we are made to think that they do not, but the inevitable truth is that they always will exist, no matter how large or small each class is.
Are we brought up to think that there are no specific classes? I think we are. So, therefore the rich are not exploiting the poor, since they don’t even think that there is hardly a lower class. This is very interesting since we usually are spoon-fed the belief that there are no specific classes, which is why we believe that there are no set classes.
When politicians and commentators denies exploitation, and makes it out to be something that naturally happens. They say that we are socially diverse, but we cannot be diverse if there are no classes that we will indicate. This makes me think that the author is trying to say that the upper class tries not to step on the toes of the poor, but cannot avoid doing so, since they will always be seen as rich, when in fact that upper class of society has more power. Meanwhile we do not have that large of an upper class.
My position is in the middle class, makes me a majority, which gives me an advantage to the poor, and people of other races. But, I am also a woman, and therefore I am a minority among men. This brings me to the conclusion in which our class is mostly determined by our race, not our gender, which is why there is simultaneous discrimination. We cannot escape discrimination no matter what we do; it will always exist, even if we say it does not.
I think that this question can go tow ways, but have the same outcome. If a person takes the question as saying that the rich ignore the poor, and that that we can also take this question as the rich making the poor out to be very bad. In my personal opinion, I think that the rich ignoe the poor, which makes this a bigger issue, which is the main argument the author is trying to get across, but it can be taken both ways.
Monday, September 24, 2007
9/24/07
The argument presented in the sample essay, From “ First Place: A Healing School for Homeless Children, by Marybeth Hamilton, was a strong argument. She is basically arguing that a private school would be more beneficial than a public school.
The author first went on to state how people would oppose to this school, and why. She said that some people would be opposed to a more expensive school, rather than paying nothing to go to a public school. But, the author also says that she understands why this claim would be made, and she also said that this system would help to properly educate students, and helps to reduce the costs of welfare and crime. She acknowledges the fact that First place would be dealing with children that have problems with drugs and crime, but that by placing them in this school would help get them back in line. There is also the argument of the criticism of how the school uses its’ money in social services, instead of putting the money forward towards the school itself. Another issue that she addressed is the fact that a student may not be there for very long, and that s student will receive individual attention that is needed.
Although some people would question the idea of taking students out of a regular classroom, and might cause some alienation among the students. I think that the author presents a good stated reason, which basically states that First Place is a better school suited for children with special needs. I think that her grounds are the evidence that she has provided, which is: money, students, and how the students are taken care of. I think that she provided a good opposition. I think that the way she wrote this argument appealed to her audience, which is most likely, the parents of students. I think that the claim she was trying to get across was: communities should take more actions in their school systems.
The author first went on to state how people would oppose to this school, and why. She said that some people would be opposed to a more expensive school, rather than paying nothing to go to a public school. But, the author also says that she understands why this claim would be made, and she also said that this system would help to properly educate students, and helps to reduce the costs of welfare and crime. She acknowledges the fact that First place would be dealing with children that have problems with drugs and crime, but that by placing them in this school would help get them back in line. There is also the argument of the criticism of how the school uses its’ money in social services, instead of putting the money forward towards the school itself. Another issue that she addressed is the fact that a student may not be there for very long, and that s student will receive individual attention that is needed.
Although some people would question the idea of taking students out of a regular classroom, and might cause some alienation among the students. I think that the author presents a good stated reason, which basically states that First Place is a better school suited for children with special needs. I think that her grounds are the evidence that she has provided, which is: money, students, and how the students are taken care of. I think that she provided a good opposition. I think that the way she wrote this argument appealed to her audience, which is most likely, the parents of students. I think that the claim she was trying to get across was: communities should take more actions in their school systems.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Chapter 9 9/20/07
Some people believe that we are becoming a visual society, and I agree with this statement. When you look at how you get basic news and information, you are being sucked into an argument that you may not find morally correct, without knowing it. It is my belief that we also use visuals in power points, and movies, to focus the attention of the audience on the main point. Many fonts are used in many different ways, like Serif fonts, Sans serif fonts, and Specialty fonts.
Serif fonts are used mainly to attract the eye, since it is so easy to read. This is why you will not find it just anywhere, but mainly in the verbal parts of documents. Sans serif fonts are used for display, and are often seen in headings and logos. Specialty fonts are used for decorative effect.
Since these fonts are used in many different situations, it is my belief that since we are attracted to these different display styles we are used to seeing them in the media. I say this because, once again, we use the media in many aspects of our lives’. This is why the media uses these fonts to persuade us to side with them, and we are so used to going along with the media.
So, in an argument, a visual aid is very useful, like the one on page 178 in our textbook. This shows the different aspects of George W. Bush: him on a ranch, greeting a crowd, and delivering a speech at Mount Rushmore. I believe that these photos are supposed to convince us that George W. Bush is someone we can relate to.
Many advertisements use colors, and slogans, and many different ways of using fonts to attract the eyes of a viewer. This is why I believe that a visual argument is more persuasive, since we come across them everyday.
Serif fonts are used mainly to attract the eye, since it is so easy to read. This is why you will not find it just anywhere, but mainly in the verbal parts of documents. Sans serif fonts are used for display, and are often seen in headings and logos. Specialty fonts are used for decorative effect.
Since these fonts are used in many different situations, it is my belief that since we are attracted to these different display styles we are used to seeing them in the media. I say this because, once again, we use the media in many aspects of our lives’. This is why the media uses these fonts to persuade us to side with them, and we are so used to going along with the media.
So, in an argument, a visual aid is very useful, like the one on page 178 in our textbook. This shows the different aspects of George W. Bush: him on a ranch, greeting a crowd, and delivering a speech at Mount Rushmore. I believe that these photos are supposed to convince us that George W. Bush is someone we can relate to.
Many advertisements use colors, and slogans, and many different ways of using fonts to attract the eyes of a viewer. This is why I believe that a visual argument is more persuasive, since we come across them everyday.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Chapter 7 9/20/07
When using ethos and pathos, an author has responsibilities of making their audience more emotionally engaged. They are able to do this by making a connection with the beliefs’ of their audience, which is important in making an argument. It is very important for the author to be creditable, without this the audience would feel insecure about believing the argument of the author.
In order to appeal to ethos, and present themselves as a trustworthy and knowledgeable source they must make their statements with a sense of care for the audience. This means that they must have knowledge about the issue they are talking about, be fair and not bombard the audience, and share the assumptions of the audience and build a bridge. This allows the author to gain the respect of the audience and further engage their audience in order to have them side with their audience and get their point across in a fair and agreeable way.
They must also take into consideration about how to create pathos, and appeal to the emotions and beliefs of their audience. In doing so, the audience will be able to connect in their own way. In order to do this, the author must use concrete language and use specific details to set off positive feelings within the audience. They must also be sure to use specific examples and illustrations, so that the audience will be able to paint a picture in their mind about the argument. They also support the reasons of the author by giving vital evidence, and they give a your argument more substance and presence. Another way in which to trigger ethos is to use narratives, so that the audience can follow a story that leads up to the argument, and are very good attention grabbers. These are also very risky, in the sense that they cannot be too personal, for if they are, they can backfire on you.
I think that our government uses pathos, by using illustrations, like in trials and court cases, but they often do not use concrete language all the time. In my opinion, I believe that our government tries to create an effective ethos, but is unable to. I say this because when you look at most things you see on the news, you do not get the full story. But, in a courtroom, you are able to hear the arguments of the lawyer’s. Are they always fair? I think that most of the time they are fair in their arguments, but they are making them to just get paid. Lawyers are very knowledgeable about their topics, and know how to argue, but I personally think that they are unable to build a bridge to their audience, since they are getting paid to argue.
Most politicians do care about the issues that they bring up in political debates. They provide good evidence, and know how to appeal to their audience and know what their audience wants. They are also fair in the way they debate, as most politicians realize that they must come to an agreement at some point, but this is not the case with all politicians. In debates, they are not able to create pathos, since they are not able to use power points, but they do use these visual stimulators in other aspects of their careers like: commercials, and posters, and documentaries.
So, in conclusion I believe that there are some aspects of politics that display pathos better than ethos, and some display ethos better than pathos. It is hard to display both of these in an argument, but it is essential that you do.
In order to appeal to ethos, and present themselves as a trustworthy and knowledgeable source they must make their statements with a sense of care for the audience. This means that they must have knowledge about the issue they are talking about, be fair and not bombard the audience, and share the assumptions of the audience and build a bridge. This allows the author to gain the respect of the audience and further engage their audience in order to have them side with their audience and get their point across in a fair and agreeable way.
They must also take into consideration about how to create pathos, and appeal to the emotions and beliefs of their audience. In doing so, the audience will be able to connect in their own way. In order to do this, the author must use concrete language and use specific details to set off positive feelings within the audience. They must also be sure to use specific examples and illustrations, so that the audience will be able to paint a picture in their mind about the argument. They also support the reasons of the author by giving vital evidence, and they give a your argument more substance and presence. Another way in which to trigger ethos is to use narratives, so that the audience can follow a story that leads up to the argument, and are very good attention grabbers. These are also very risky, in the sense that they cannot be too personal, for if they are, they can backfire on you.
I think that our government uses pathos, by using illustrations, like in trials and court cases, but they often do not use concrete language all the time. In my opinion, I believe that our government tries to create an effective ethos, but is unable to. I say this because when you look at most things you see on the news, you do not get the full story. But, in a courtroom, you are able to hear the arguments of the lawyer’s. Are they always fair? I think that most of the time they are fair in their arguments, but they are making them to just get paid. Lawyers are very knowledgeable about their topics, and know how to argue, but I personally think that they are unable to build a bridge to their audience, since they are getting paid to argue.
Most politicians do care about the issues that they bring up in political debates. They provide good evidence, and know how to appeal to their audience and know what their audience wants. They are also fair in the way they debate, as most politicians realize that they must come to an agreement at some point, but this is not the case with all politicians. In debates, they are not able to create pathos, since they are not able to use power points, but they do use these visual stimulators in other aspects of their careers like: commercials, and posters, and documentaries.
So, in conclusion I believe that there are some aspects of politics that display pathos better than ethos, and some display ethos better than pathos. It is hard to display both of these in an argument, but it is essential that you do.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Pseudo argument in real world 9/19/07
In the real world, I have encountered many situations that care considered pseudo arguments. Pseudo arguments are arguments that are based on opinion by both parties, and that an argument can go on and on. A good example of this is whether dogs are better than cats; there are no facts that can really prove a statement that cannot be countered. Arguments in our government today could to some degree be considered pseudo arguments. The death penalty is a very good example of this, some people say yes the criminal deserves it, and some say no based on their own beliefs and morals. I have had many arguments about political topics, and at some point both people have to agree to disagree, seeing that most of these topics will never have an answer that they can both agree on. There are also debates on which food is better, these opinions can vary, which is because some people like spicy food, and some people like sour food. Basically any situation that really cannot be resolved, because these arguments cannot be measured since both people will have different opinions.
Chapter 4 "Pathos" 9/18/07
In the reading, the word pathos literally means "suffering" or experience." Appeal to pathos acts as a powerful rhetorical device; this is all because it is associated with emotion. This means that it appeals to the emotions of the audience, therefore allowing them to see what the writer sees. Logos and Ethos are used mainly to the credibility of the author and the logical appeal, whereas pathos is used as a "logical discourse." So by pulling on the heartstrings of the author's audience, then the author knows that the audience will make an emotional connection. This allows the audience to gain more insight into the argument, and most likely side with the author's opinion. This is why pathos is a very strong rhetorical device, since it allows the author to gain the audience’s attention. This is very important to most writers today, to appeal to their audience based on whom they are trying to get their opinion to. Most likely an author will use the shock factor to gain the attention of their reader, which is what pathos is, it just makes you stop and think the way the author does. Pathos is based on appealing to an audience, to gain their appreciation of their argument.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Reflections on AP Exams 9/16/07
I do have my worries about the AP Exams, but they are mostly very mild. I think that by the end of this semester we will all be thoroughly prepared to take on the AP Exams. When I saw the multiple choice questions, I will admit that I was thinking about how we will do this, but I realized that we will practice these and it will take time. I wish that we could do some more practice on reflections on the essays, becasue I feel like I overthink the readings. With practice I will gradually get better at this, but I think that we will all have our worries about this test, even though it is not for a grade. I just really hope I am able to get the college credits, for this year. I also think that we should get some more experience with the multiple choice, and that maybe we could spend some time in class talking about each section of the test. i really do not feel that much anxiety toward the exam, which is suprising since I tend to be nervous about tests, and exams. I feel that we will be prepared, but that I should not worry about this wuite yet, since we are already gradually learning about this exam in class, and we will be ready. This is perhaps the reason why I am not nervous, maybe just a little overwhelmed, but nothing serious.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Reflections on class discussion 9/6/07
Yesterday's class discussion brought up quite a lot of issues, which were mostly about the ethical status of torture. A question that was brought up a lot during class was, "Do we want to kill one guilty man, and take away his freedom, to save a whole group of people who are innocent?" I think that this question, will in truth never be answered, I say this because we as humans have a conscience, and we also have the capacity to make our own decisions. We also have the capacity to think through situations, unlike most creatures who do not have the ability to have free will. The point I am tring to make with this is that this question can truly never be answered, since you can't kill a life, and expect one back, you can't save someone in a situations that threaten the lives of innocent people. I like the claim that the author makes about how most mothers would kill the people who took their baby. The question that I would like to ask the author is, "When were the mothers asked these questions?" I ask this becaseu any mother would want to defend an inncoent life in which they created, adn would say that they would kill their baby's captive if they ever found them. I'm not saying that they wouldn't say this during the aftermath, but they could say this due to the fact that it is perfectly natural for a mother to say things like these in the heat of the moment. But would they regret thinking these thoughts of killing another human to save their own child? Maybe they would maybe they wouldn't. The point that I'm trying to get across is that people might think of harming one human to save others, but will they later on think that they wouldn't be any better than the criminal they thought these thoughts about? This is not just in the case of mothers, but of families who have been affected by terrorist attacks, in which they probably would have done anything to save their loved ones during the attack. But would they have thought it to be ethical to take away another person's life in exchange for inncoent lives? I think that most people would think it is ethical, based on the fact that once someone has committed a crime, that they are literally stripped of their rights, and that they also were the ones who signed up for a dangerous act of terrorism Another thought about this article is that he practically predicted that there would be a attack like 9/11,that was creepy, anyone else get
that vibe?
that vibe?
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Reading pg. 22-38 9/4/07
In this section of reading we looked at genetically modified foods, and how the media kind of sways you to go with the ideas that they are advertising. This is used to show how the advertisers want you to read this as a "Believer," also what Carl Rogers calls "Empathic listening." This basically means that you see the arument in the eyes of the author, and you see the point they are trying to get across if onlyfor a shosrt time. I think that this chapter shows good examples fo hw we use empathic listening. On pg. 1, this picture in my book shows a cartoon of a person starving on the ground reaching a bowl outward toward what supposedly looks like a typical hippie who is against genetically modified food. he is holding out a piece of corn and is saying that the person doesn't want this and is pulling this food away from a starving person, when he has no food at all. In this picture there are arrows pointing to the corn that says " Drough resistant," and another arrow points to the person saying that he is "Reason resisistant." This is just trying to be funny in a political way, while at the same time is trying to make fun of how thing are overdramatized and how we actually find these statements funny. An ad on pg. 24 is basically showing an author writing about the consequences of issues. She says in this article that genes that can come from any animal are inserted into the food that we eat to make it "gentically modified," and is kind of saying that you could be eating flounder. The result of this could be that animals could get genitcally modified food , and could carry the food to to crops and cross-polinate those crops. She is literally trying to sway us using data and the shock factor of what this could do to the environment. I think that both of these articles are a good way to get an audience's attention, and that it shows how we use empathetic listening, but how we don't show any resistance.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
reading pg. 3-14 9/3/07
The difference between implicit and explicit is very clear. An implict argument can be used in the form of a poem or many times in a short story, but it doesn't look like an argument the way that an explicit argument does. Explicit arguments are often used to sway an audience and make them see their point of view and side with their argument. People do this by using evidence supporting their idea. this could be used in petitions and in debates, or elections. On page 5, there is a very good example of an implicit poem, even though it could be used to convince an audience and could be mistaken for an explicit argument. I think that implict ideas could be used to support an explicit idea, and this could be used in our everyday lives, whether we know it or not. They are used in many presentations that we see today, and in teh poems and books that we read The author of "Dulce et Decorum Est," wanted to get her point across that war is in fact very honorable, and "that dying for one's country is sweet and fitting." We may not see this reading the poem at first glance, but that is the feeling that she wants to get across using the poetry. Figure 1.1 on page 6 shows an exampe of an implicit idea, a picture of Arabian refugees. The point of this picture was to show that a picture could also mke an implicit statement by sparking emotions, for example: if a reader were to look at this picture of refugees, they would feel bad for these people because of the way people are portrayed. These types of implicit statements are often seen adn used in newspapers, the news, and in photographs. These two kinds of arguments are very different, but they are both used to prove a point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)