In light of the recent Supreme Court case on Affirmative Action, Frank Bruni has written the op-ed "The Lie about College Diversity" for The New York Times. With the help of expert opinions, Bruni asserts that there are actually few efforts to encourage intermingling within college campuses. To counteract this, Bruni proposes that colleges take measures to promote greater community in the student body.
Bruni's claim is fairly unique among the more common, thinly veiled racist criticisms of diversity on college campuses. In order to support his claim, Bruni references the opinions and anecdotes of university presidents and students themselves. He amasses quotes from David Reingold, the dean of the college of liberal arts at Purdue University; Carol Quillen, the president of Davidson College; and Adam Weinberg, the president of Denison University. These experts, who are in close contact with the daily life of universities, either echo Bruni's claim or support his push toward more proactive colleges. They provide anecdotes about some of their own institution's efforts, such as a Seder hosted by Jewish students for international Chinese students. These expert testimonies make Bruni both a credible author and problem-solver.
The most important take-away from Bruni's use of expert testimony is that he is not alone in his concern. He is not just a lone op-ed columnist digging for a half-baked issue to discuss; rather, the experts who mirror his opinion show that they too see a problem and have a solution. Their combined forces convincingly portray the benefits of college activities for a diverse student population, and it is time that Americans listen to what they have to say.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Sunday, December 13, 2015
TOW #12 - Stiff (IRB)
Although Stiff is a much lighter read than the heavily scientific The Feminine Mystique, it is much harder to distinguish Roach's purpose. The uses of cadavers is certainly an unusual and interesting topic, but I doubt she wrote Stiff for the fun of it. To find some sense of direction, I turned to Roach's introduction. In it, she writes, "The dead of science are always strangers." After reading through several chapters, Roach's larger purpose seems to be to give credit to the dead who have aided science. Roach achieves this through her humorous tone and frank diction.
Many people try to tiptoe around death with good intentions It's been generally accepted in society that death requires sensitivity, yet Roach bucks this sensitivity in her writing. This is not to say that Roach is callous or mean in her treatment of the cadavers. Rather, she speaks frankly about their appearances (and smells). It is a shock to her readers, initially, but it allows them to become closer to the cadavers. Roach writes of a cadaver, named UM 006, in an automobile crash test, "UM 006 has a comic's timing. He waits a beat, two beats, then slips forward again" (102). This way of writing portrays UM 006 as someone who is very much alive and who has a knack for entertaining a waiting audience. And, although odd, the readers laugh along with it. They feel a sense of warmth toward UM 006, who is just trying so hard to entertain his audience. They see that UM 006, who seems like just a body used for research, was a person who belonged to someone before death -- and that personhood should still be respected.
Our sensitivity to death also distances us from it. We don't want to encroach on someone's grief, so we skirt around the fact that their beloved husband died. We don't want to be reminded that our loved ones are mortal, so we say that people pass away, not that they die. We still insist that it's a person's grandmother or father in a casket -- not just another one of the many bodies crematoriums and funeral homes see daily. All of this is done with the hopes to make death easier on the ones still alive. Yet, our carefully chosen words may cloud our perspectives on the dead. We forget how to treat them like people instead of delicate glass sculptures that may crumble when handled the wrong way. Roach's language allows the alive readers to confront the meaning and reality of death.
Many people try to tiptoe around death with good intentions It's been generally accepted in society that death requires sensitivity, yet Roach bucks this sensitivity in her writing. This is not to say that Roach is callous or mean in her treatment of the cadavers. Rather, she speaks frankly about their appearances (and smells). It is a shock to her readers, initially, but it allows them to become closer to the cadavers. Roach writes of a cadaver, named UM 006, in an automobile crash test, "UM 006 has a comic's timing. He waits a beat, two beats, then slips forward again" (102). This way of writing portrays UM 006 as someone who is very much alive and who has a knack for entertaining a waiting audience. And, although odd, the readers laugh along with it. They feel a sense of warmth toward UM 006, who is just trying so hard to entertain his audience. They see that UM 006, who seems like just a body used for research, was a person who belonged to someone before death -- and that personhood should still be respected.
Our sensitivity to death also distances us from it. We don't want to encroach on someone's grief, so we skirt around the fact that their beloved husband died. We don't want to be reminded that our loved ones are mortal, so we say that people pass away, not that they die. We still insist that it's a person's grandmother or father in a casket -- not just another one of the many bodies crematoriums and funeral homes see daily. All of this is done with the hopes to make death easier on the ones still alive. Yet, our carefully chosen words may cloud our perspectives on the dead. We forget how to treat them like people instead of delicate glass sculptures that may crumble when handled the wrong way. Roach's language allows the alive readers to confront the meaning and reality of death.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
TOW #11 - Will the U.S. Supreme Court Give a Clear Answer on Abortion? (Written)
Roe v. Wade was a landmark case by the Supreme Court that most people believe guaranteed a person's right to abortion. In actuality, the cases following Roe v. Wade - notably, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey - have muddied the lines on what a person is and isn't entitled to. Now, in 2015, many states are renewing their battle against abortion, especially in light of the recent Planned Parenthood controversy. Whole Women's Health v. Cole is the latest in legal fights on abortion. Texas lawmakers have passed legislation that claims to protect women's health, but really only raises the standards for abortion clinics to unnecessary heights - thus, forcing 75% of health care facilities to shut down in the state. (Texas is not alone in its fight: Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming have only one abortion clinic in each state.) The decision has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit in Texas and will be heard by the Supreme Court likely in the spring of 2016.
Garrett Epps, author of the article "Will the U.S. Supreme Court Give a Clear Answer on Abortion?", hopes to answer readers' questions on what the Supreme Court decision will mean for abortion by referencing various court cases and explaining their significance.
Epps acknowledges that, in the upcoming Whole Women's Health v. Cole case, the Supreme Court could decide either way without overruling the previous Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. He asserts that the Casey ruling stated that no state could place "undue burden" on a person's right to abortion - yet, the definition of "undue burden" is frustratingly vague. To provide some clearer definition for readers, he writes, "For a definition, look to the Casey plurality: 'A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion' before the fetus is viable, a stage that now means roughly 24 weeks." Although no one (perhaps not even the Supreme Court) can say for certain what an "undue burden" is, readers are now equipped with the knowledge about what previous rulings have stated. Furthermore, they are aware of how this ruling may affect and be affected by the upcoming Supreme Court case.
Garrett Epps, author of the article "Will the U.S. Supreme Court Give a Clear Answer on Abortion?", hopes to answer readers' questions on what the Supreme Court decision will mean for abortion by referencing various court cases and explaining their significance.
Epps acknowledges that, in the upcoming Whole Women's Health v. Cole case, the Supreme Court could decide either way without overruling the previous Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. He asserts that the Casey ruling stated that no state could place "undue burden" on a person's right to abortion - yet, the definition of "undue burden" is frustratingly vague. To provide some clearer definition for readers, he writes, "For a definition, look to the Casey plurality: 'A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion' before the fetus is viable, a stage that now means roughly 24 weeks." Although no one (perhaps not even the Supreme Court) can say for certain what an "undue burden" is, readers are now equipped with the knowledge about what previous rulings have stated. Furthermore, they are aware of how this ruling may affect and be affected by the upcoming Supreme Court case.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
TOW #10 - Childcare wages (Visual)
Such a battle is an admirable one, and, as such, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) understands the need for unarguable evidence to support their claim. The statistic included in the image appeals to logos and provides objective justification to their argument. When a viewer, such as a legislator, reads, "Child care providers' salaries are often in the lowest bracket -- less than $22,000 per year," they find concrete evidence of the poor treatment received by child care providers. The shock of seeing such a low amount will compel the audience to ensure child care providers receive fair and just wages.
Although the statistic is vital to the NWLC's message, the most prominent feature is the text and image above. The NWLC uses first person pronouns to appeal to a general and universally understood priority. By saying, "Our children's care is a top priority..." the NWLC creates a mood of companionship and togetherness. This grouping results in a strong desire from the audience to aid the author in their mission. It also helps make the author agreeable and trustworthy to the audience, thereby making them more receptive to the ultimate message: "They [childcare providers] deserve better."
The NWLC helps shed light on an infrequently discussed topic and presents a promising first step toward creating change.
Friday, November 13, 2015
TOW #9 - "Two-Minute Entreaty" (Written)
To my chagrin, our textbook likes to use the phrase "visual text," when I would much prefer the simple "visual." Nevertheless, if we're going to be stretching our definitions and mental boundaries, I see your visual text and raise you a text on a cup.
More specifically, this is a short piece by Anthony Doerr on Chipotle's soft drink cups. For as long as I can remember, Chipotle has printed short essays on their cups. As of now, they have a theme of "Two-Minute [insert your thing here]." As I was happily stuffing myself full of guac and beans, I was touched by Doerr's piece, "Two-Minute Entreaty." Doerr begins with a scientific reference to Earth's history, but he names his ultimate purpose at the end of his essay: to inspire others to make the most out of every moment in life.
Doerr first uses imagery to help his audience conceptualize the briefness of life. He starts, "Tattoo Earth’s 4.5-billion-year timeline onto your arm, shoulder to fingertip, and your upper arm will get nothing but geologic mayhem: meteorites, magma, acid rain. Life won’t begin until your bicep..." Although many of us and can grasp the idea that Earth is very, very, very, very old, we cannot truly understand this period of time in comparison to our own lives. The tangible imagery of a tattoo on one's arm - and the subsequent relation to points on our own bodies - helps his audience realize just how short their lives are in the entirety of Earth's history.
Nevertheless, Doerr does not want his audience to feel their lives are insignificant. Rather, he wants his audience to feel motivated to make their lives significant. He achieves this by using a juxtaposition and personal pronouns. In the conclusion of his piece, he writes:
Doerr first uses imagery to help his audience conceptualize the briefness of life. He starts, "Tattoo Earth’s 4.5-billion-year timeline onto your arm, shoulder to fingertip, and your upper arm will get nothing but geologic mayhem: meteorites, magma, acid rain. Life won’t begin until your bicep..." Although many of us and can grasp the idea that Earth is very, very, very, very old, we cannot truly understand this period of time in comparison to our own lives. The tangible imagery of a tattoo on one's arm - and the subsequent relation to points on our own bodies - helps his audience realize just how short their lives are in the entirety of Earth's history.
Nevertheless, Doerr does not want his audience to feel their lives are insignificant. Rather, he wants his audience to feel motivated to make their lives significant. He achieves this by using a juxtaposition and personal pronouns. In the conclusion of his piece, he writes:
"People say, “Who wants to feel so small? Let me eat my burrito.”Although Doerr acknowledges that his audience might feel small in comparison to the enormity of Earth, he juxtaposes this idea with the potential to be "big" - big-hearted, big-witted, big-eyed, etc. Finally, he switches from a distant, impersonal "people" to a more direct "you" to address the audience at the end. The "you" makes his directive feel more personal and, at the same time, more imperative. Rather than designating a whole group (i.e. Americans, society, etc.), he is calling on the lone reader to take advantage of their lives. Thus, Doerr effectively convinces his audience to seize every moment they can.
I say, Be big. Big-hearted, big-witted, big-eyed. See, try, love, read, make, paint, and taste everything you can while you can.
You still have some hours left. Go."
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
IRB Intro #2 - Stiff
My new IRB is Stiff by Mary Roach. I've read some of Roach's writing before in English and AP Bio, but I've never read her books in their entirety. I'm interested in being a doctor, and I chose Stiff to hone my appreciation for the many cadavers I will meet in the future. Despite medicine's obsession with SAVING LIVES, Mary Roach raises a fascinating question - to both scalpel junkies and the general public - about what happens to the dead. Her book tracks the varying uses and paths that cadavers follow, some of which are expected, some of which are bizarre.
In the past, when I have read Roach's writing, it's been enjoyable for passive reading. Roach uses humor to make light of often dire or disconcerting situations. She has a way with words that I can't quite explain; she manages to describe things in the most peculiar but accurate ways. Nevertheless, some of her writing is hard to decipher in English class. What on Earth could possibly be the deep and inspiring meaning behind writing a book about cadavers? And how exactly does a joke about a dead person's face contribute to that purpose? Although Roach is much easier to read than Friedan, it seems some of her writing will be harder to decipher. My goal is to make some headway on why Roach writes the way she does - and also to learn something, as a future doctor.
In the past, when I have read Roach's writing, it's been enjoyable for passive reading. Roach uses humor to make light of often dire or disconcerting situations. She has a way with words that I can't quite explain; she manages to describe things in the most peculiar but accurate ways. Nevertheless, some of her writing is hard to decipher in English class. What on Earth could possibly be the deep and inspiring meaning behind writing a book about cadavers? And how exactly does a joke about a dead person's face contribute to that purpose? Although Roach is much easier to read than Friedan, it seems some of her writing will be harder to decipher. My goal is to make some headway on why Roach writes the way she does - and also to learn something, as a future doctor.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
TOW #8 - The Feminine Mystique (IRB)
Throughout my reading of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, I've been intrigued by how she pulls back -- and then tears apart -- the layers of sexism in 1960's America. In each chapter, Friedan covers a specific topic and brings in various devices to support her ideas (discussed in my previous IRB post). However, at the end of each chapter, Friedan seamlessly transitions into the next topic by raising questions about how certain sexist standards came to be and their effects on American women. Unfortunately, I wasn't sure if this device had a name, or if it even was a rhetorical device. Thanks to Mr. Mulherin, learned man of history and apparently rhetorical devices, I learned that this is called the Socratic method. (What is it with ancient Greek dudes and English class?)
Friedan discusses women's insatiable search for sex and love in a chapter titled "The Sex Seekers." She makes the claim that women endlessly search for affairs and secret trysts in order to fill a void, a void which is created by a lack of identity and challenge. Toward the end of the chapter, she utilizes the Socratic method by raising several questions, "The shadow of sex without self may be dispelled momentarily in a sunny suburban dream house. But what will these childlike mothers and immature fathers do to their children, in that phantasy paradise where the pursuit of pleasure and things hides the loosening links to complex modern reality? What kind of sons and daughters are raised by girls who become mothers before they have ever faced that reality, or sever their links to it by becoming mothers?" (335-336) These questions are resolved by Friedan in the following chapter discussing a growing passivity and infantilism in America's youth.
In writing The Feminine Mystique, Friedan mainly targeted housewives in 1960's America with the purpose of providing them solidarity and a justification for their frustrated feelings. However, Friedan was also aware that the entirety of America would be criticizing her book -- especially the college presidents, psychologists, and corporations whose sexist actions she calls out. By integrating the Socratic method, Friedan appeals to logos. She progresses from not just from one aspect of sexism to another, but from one layer to another. This shows the breadth and depth of the ways in which misogyny permeates everyday life. Furthermore, the logical progression keeps her skeptics reading in a time when they were all too ready to dismiss her theses.
Friedan discusses women's insatiable search for sex and love in a chapter titled "The Sex Seekers." She makes the claim that women endlessly search for affairs and secret trysts in order to fill a void, a void which is created by a lack of identity and challenge. Toward the end of the chapter, she utilizes the Socratic method by raising several questions, "The shadow of sex without self may be dispelled momentarily in a sunny suburban dream house. But what will these childlike mothers and immature fathers do to their children, in that phantasy paradise where the pursuit of pleasure and things hides the loosening links to complex modern reality? What kind of sons and daughters are raised by girls who become mothers before they have ever faced that reality, or sever their links to it by becoming mothers?" (335-336) These questions are resolved by Friedan in the following chapter discussing a growing passivity and infantilism in America's youth.
In writing The Feminine Mystique, Friedan mainly targeted housewives in 1960's America with the purpose of providing them solidarity and a justification for their frustrated feelings. However, Friedan was also aware that the entirety of America would be criticizing her book -- especially the college presidents, psychologists, and corporations whose sexist actions she calls out. By integrating the Socratic method, Friedan appeals to logos. She progresses from not just from one aspect of sexism to another, but from one layer to another. This shows the breadth and depth of the ways in which misogyny permeates everyday life. Furthermore, the logical progression keeps her skeptics reading in a time when they were all too ready to dismiss her theses.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
TOW #7: Cecile Richards Defends Planned Parenthood (Written)
"It's just, it's a shame to think that there are people in this country who are so committed to ending women's access to both birth control, and safe and legal abortions, that they'll really resort to any means to try to entrap people, twist the truth, in order to reach their ends, but again, we believe, and why I'm here voluntarily today, is that the facts are on our side; we're proud of the health care we deliver every single year, despite the animosity by some, and we're grateful that the American people stands by Planned Parenthood, as I think the Wall Street Journal showed last night."
A few months earlier, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress released "undercover" videos, which resulted in accusations that Planned Parenthood illegally profits from fetal tissue donation. In investigations since then, the videos have been shown to be doctored and misleading. Nevertheless, that has not stopped a concerted effort from the U.S. government to shut down federal funding to Planned Parenthood. A little less than a month ago, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, faced a 5-hour-long hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The above statement is from Richards defending the organization.
In spite of the statement's length, Richards manages to use a number of rhetorical devices to convince both the House and the American people to bolster their support for Planned Parenthood in a time of unfair and misogynistic scrutiny. Richards appeals to pathos with conniving diction. The verbs "entrap" and "twist" conjure a sinister view of the Center for Medical Progress, as opposed to a simply dishonest one. She makes a point of saying that she is voluntarily at the hearing to imply that the committee's drastic concerns are unfounded and to parallel an emphasis on individuals' (mostly women's) right to choose. Finally, Richards also uses first person plural pronouns when describing Planned Parenthood to create a personal connection with the audience. It is imperative that Richards maintains transparency under such close examination, and the alternative third person would create too much distance and mistrust in the audience.
Richards also appeals to logos, albeit briefly, when she states that the organization believes the facts are on their side. Because this is a spoken defense given shortly, the audience understands that a more detailed explanation of these facts is to come. Those in the American population familiar with the background of the story will understand that some of the evidence is edited to untruthfully convey a certain point. With a mention to the Wall Street Journal, Richards also appeals to ethos. The reference to a well-known, third-party source is intended to convince the audience of Planned Parenthood's reputability. In a final appeal to pathos, Richards expands the magnitude of the hearing by saying that the American people stand by Planned Parenthood. The House and citizens listening understand that this hearing affects not just the organization, but millions of individuals.
- Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America[Transcribed from here]
A few months earlier, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress released "undercover" videos, which resulted in accusations that Planned Parenthood illegally profits from fetal tissue donation. In investigations since then, the videos have been shown to be doctored and misleading. Nevertheless, that has not stopped a concerted effort from the U.S. government to shut down federal funding to Planned Parenthood. A little less than a month ago, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, faced a 5-hour-long hearing in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The above statement is from Richards defending the organization.
In spite of the statement's length, Richards manages to use a number of rhetorical devices to convince both the House and the American people to bolster their support for Planned Parenthood in a time of unfair and misogynistic scrutiny. Richards appeals to pathos with conniving diction. The verbs "entrap" and "twist" conjure a sinister view of the Center for Medical Progress, as opposed to a simply dishonest one. She makes a point of saying that she is voluntarily at the hearing to imply that the committee's drastic concerns are unfounded and to parallel an emphasis on individuals' (mostly women's) right to choose. Finally, Richards also uses first person plural pronouns when describing Planned Parenthood to create a personal connection with the audience. It is imperative that Richards maintains transparency under such close examination, and the alternative third person would create too much distance and mistrust in the audience.
Richards also appeals to logos, albeit briefly, when she states that the organization believes the facts are on their side. Because this is a spoken defense given shortly, the audience understands that a more detailed explanation of these facts is to come. Those in the American population familiar with the background of the story will understand that some of the evidence is edited to untruthfully convey a certain point. With a mention to the Wall Street Journal, Richards also appeals to ethos. The reference to a well-known, third-party source is intended to convince the audience of Planned Parenthood's reputability. In a final appeal to pathos, Richards expands the magnitude of the hearing by saying that the American people stand by Planned Parenthood. The House and citizens listening understand that this hearing affects not just the organization, but millions of individuals.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
TOW #6: "So Relaxed -- Yet So Organized" (Visual)
Because this booklet was distributed by Wellesley and it has images specific to the college, it can be safe to infer that the purpose of the booklet is not just to aid students in the college application process, but to hint that Wellesley is the right school for their readers. The booklet is most likely directed to prospective college students, such as high school juniors and seniors.
The biggest goal for most high school students is -- well, everything. High school students dream of having good grades, spending time with friends, finding suitable careers, and making their family proud, all at the same time. Wellesley shows a great sensitivity to these goals by demonstrating their students have what readers want. It is important to note that the title first emphasizes that the students are relaxed. Even though these students are excitedly moving into accomplished positions, they are still able to have fun and enjoy free time. In the image, the three girls comfortably have their feet up and laughing with each other. The focus in this visual is not Wellesley's campus, academic programs, or financial aid. It is instead on the individual students and their futures. Only the students' first names are provided, which creates an intimate atmosphere with the reader. Students looking at the booklet will picture themselves at Wellesley, with a similar contentment in life and impressive resume. Because these things are what students want, readers will then have a positive connotation with the college. The visual primarily relies on appeals to pathos by including a small text caption and letting the image of the students speak for itself.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
TOW #5: "The Asian Advantage" (Written)
As I was merrily traversing the Internet for TOW ideas, I came across an article titled "The Asian Advantage," complete with a smiling middle-aged white man's author portrait next to it. I clicked on it, ready to hear some more pseudo-science about the Model Minority myth. Although I was pleasantly surprised, I finished the article feeling like the author, Nicholas Kristof, still had some ways to go in making his argument.
Kristof wrote this Op-Ed for the New York Times and clearly intended to reach a general, fairly educated public. The purpose of his article is to explain why Asian-Americans seem to be so much more successful than any other demographic in the United States, but also to overcome the nearsighted mindset resulting from the model minority myth that racism is "over" for Asian-Americans. For what it's worth, Kristof seemed to understand the hesitations readers like me would have toward his credibility. Plain and simple, I'm always a little nervous when a white man decides to wax poetic about race relations in the United States. To appeal to ethos, Kristof references himself in some older articles he authored on white privilege. This shows audience members that he has, at least, a basic understanding of sociological theory and the effects of white privilege in American society.
To achieve the first part of his purpose, Kristof appeals to logos. He includes numerous statistics and studies on the effects of "positive stereotyping" and education status. In a compound appeal to ethos, Kristof also quotes findings from a book on the same topic written by Chinese authors. At the end of the article, when he reminds audience members that discrimination can still be hurtful to Asian-Americans and other racial groups, he uses allusion and narrative to appeal to pathos. He writes, "Why should the success of the children of Asian doctors, nurtured by teachers, be reassuring to a black boy in Baltimore who is raised by a struggling single mom, whom society regards as a potential menace?" Kristof references the string of highly publicized and controversial deaths of black men across the U.S. (Baltimore is likely a reference to the death of Freddie Gray) Additionally, the characterization of the victims appeals to readers' sympathies. He uses the word "boy" instead of man and "struggling single mom" to mimic feelings of vulnerability and helplessness.
Although Kristof covered his research extensively and still showed surprising sensitivity toward racial issues, I still felt that his explanation of "The Asian Advantage" was lacking. His biggest faux pas was to generalize all Asian-Americans as a monolithic, homogeneous group. The references of increased wealth are mostly about East Asians (Koreans, Japanese, Chinese), the group that most white people think of as Asian anyway. Many Southeast Asians (such as Vietnamese, Thai, etc.) struggle in the United States, though this number may not be represented in statistical studies because, guess what, most people forget that Asia includes more than Korea, Japan, and China. Finally, as an Asian-American reader myself, I would have trusted Kristof's argument if he had quoted from more Asian individuals than the single book. Two lone authors cannot possibly represent all the views of Asian-Americans, who, as I've stated, are incredibly diverse and numerous. The article was a fairly interesting read, but it was still a subpar representation of the Asian-American community.
Kristof wrote this Op-Ed for the New York Times and clearly intended to reach a general, fairly educated public. The purpose of his article is to explain why Asian-Americans seem to be so much more successful than any other demographic in the United States, but also to overcome the nearsighted mindset resulting from the model minority myth that racism is "over" for Asian-Americans. For what it's worth, Kristof seemed to understand the hesitations readers like me would have toward his credibility. Plain and simple, I'm always a little nervous when a white man decides to wax poetic about race relations in the United States. To appeal to ethos, Kristof references himself in some older articles he authored on white privilege. This shows audience members that he has, at least, a basic understanding of sociological theory and the effects of white privilege in American society.
To achieve the first part of his purpose, Kristof appeals to logos. He includes numerous statistics and studies on the effects of "positive stereotyping" and education status. In a compound appeal to ethos, Kristof also quotes findings from a book on the same topic written by Chinese authors. At the end of the article, when he reminds audience members that discrimination can still be hurtful to Asian-Americans and other racial groups, he uses allusion and narrative to appeal to pathos. He writes, "Why should the success of the children of Asian doctors, nurtured by teachers, be reassuring to a black boy in Baltimore who is raised by a struggling single mom, whom society regards as a potential menace?" Kristof references the string of highly publicized and controversial deaths of black men across the U.S. (Baltimore is likely a reference to the death of Freddie Gray) Additionally, the characterization of the victims appeals to readers' sympathies. He uses the word "boy" instead of man and "struggling single mom" to mimic feelings of vulnerability and helplessness.
Although Kristof covered his research extensively and still showed surprising sensitivity toward racial issues, I still felt that his explanation of "The Asian Advantage" was lacking. His biggest faux pas was to generalize all Asian-Americans as a monolithic, homogeneous group. The references of increased wealth are mostly about East Asians (Koreans, Japanese, Chinese), the group that most white people think of as Asian anyway. Many Southeast Asians (such as Vietnamese, Thai, etc.) struggle in the United States, though this number may not be represented in statistical studies because, guess what, most people forget that Asia includes more than Korea, Japan, and China. Finally, as an Asian-American reader myself, I would have trusted Kristof's argument if he had quoted from more Asian individuals than the single book. Two lone authors cannot possibly represent all the views of Asian-Americans, who, as I've stated, are incredibly diverse and numerous. The article was a fairly interesting read, but it was still a subpar representation of the Asian-American community.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
TOW #4: The Feminine Mystique (IRB)
The most difficult part about reading The Feminine Mystique is that it was written in the 1960's for an audience living in the 1960's. Many times, I almost wished I could back to the 1960's and read Friedan's book then, so that I would feel just how enormous her impact was. For most of the book, I find myself nodding along in agreement, but I imagine that Friedan's words would have been earth-shattering to the many burdened housewives 50 years ago. Then, of course, Friedan reminds me that even professors and college presidents thought education and careers would "unsex" women, and I decide that maybe it's better to stay in 2015.
That being said, I must analyze Friedan's rhetoric with the perspective of readers in the 1960's. The people reading The Feminine Mystique when it was first published had little to no background in feminism or sociology. The mere idea that something was even wrong in society was ludicrous. Friedan had an enormous obstacle to overcome: the predispositions of her audience. So many people believed that women were happy as housewives; careers were unsuitable for women; or that women couldn't possibly be interested in anything beyond the household. For this reason, Friedan relied more heavily on appeals to logos and ethos than to pathos. (Friedan had every right to be an angry, impassioned feminist. But even more than they are today, angry, impassioned feminists were scorned in the 1960's.) Friedan includes extensive quotes from research papers, magazine editors, and housewives themselves. She weaves all of these elements together with calm and cool analysis. For example, when explaining how the fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology have limited women, she tells a hypothetical anecdote:
That being said, I must analyze Friedan's rhetoric with the perspective of readers in the 1960's. The people reading The Feminine Mystique when it was first published had little to no background in feminism or sociology. The mere idea that something was even wrong in society was ludicrous. Friedan had an enormous obstacle to overcome: the predispositions of her audience. So many people believed that women were happy as housewives; careers were unsuitable for women; or that women couldn't possibly be interested in anything beyond the household. For this reason, Friedan relied more heavily on appeals to logos and ethos than to pathos. (Friedan had every right to be an angry, impassioned feminist. But even more than they are today, angry, impassioned feminists were scorned in the 1960's.) Friedan includes extensive quotes from research papers, magazine editors, and housewives themselves. She weaves all of these elements together with calm and cool analysis. For example, when explaining how the fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology have limited women, she tells a hypothetical anecdote:
"If an old-fashioned grandfather frowned at Nora, who is studying calculus because she wants to be a physicist, and muttered, 'Woman's place is in the home,' Nora would laugh impatiently, 'Grandpa, this is 1963.' But she does not laugh at the urbane pipe-smoking professor of sociology, or the book by Margaret Mead, or the definitive two-volume reference on female sexuality, when they tell her the same thing. The complex, mysterious language of functionalism, Freudian psychology, and cultural anthropology hides from her the fact that they say this with not much more basis than grandpa" (141).Friedan's collected and blunt tone does not dramatize her findings, but presents them in a plain light. Without adornments or embellishments, readers are forced to confront her conclusions. There is no hiding behind figurative language or complex syntax. Armed with her research, it is difficult to deny Friedan's positions on the how's and why's of society.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
TOW #3 "Letters To A Young Scientist" (Written)
The book Letters To A Young Scientist is by renowned entomologist (ant biologist) and author E.O. Wilson. An excerpt from the book is titled "First Passion, Then Training." In it, E.O. Wilson uses a narrative technique to illustrate his purpose, which he outlines at the end. Wilson writes, "My confessional instead is intended to illustrate an important principle I've seen unfold in the careers of many successful scientists. It is quite simple: put passion ahead of training." Wilson directs his writing toward young high school and undergraduate students. He hopes to either inspire them to become scientists or guide them along their career paths.
However, Wilson is not entirely successful in achieving his purpose. His goal is to convince readers of the importance of passion -- especially above any technical training. At the end of the excerpt, Wilson writes, "Feel out in any way you can what you most want to do in science, or technology, or some other-science-related profession. Obey that passion as long as it lasts....Decision and hard work based on enduring passion will never fail you."
This attempt fails because Wilson is not being sensitive enough to his audience. Very few high school students feel an affinity with their childhood interests. At least, very few feel an affinity that would be strong enough to constitute a career. His advice to "feel out" potential careers is simply too vague and almost laughable. High school and undergraduate students are sometimes presented with so many options (even those only looking in the field of science) that "feeling out" different courses is impossible. Cost and time are also factors that would limit a student's ability to try on different scientific hats for fun.
It would be unwise to assume that high school students are completely jaded and cynical. They can be inspired to place passion before any other factor in choosing a career. Before that, though, they require truly inspirational reading to do so. In order to inspire his readers, Wilson required a great appeal to pathos, such as using figurative language or more descriptors in his anecdotes. Because Wilson failed to include these devices, his attempt to inspire readers fell flat.
However, Wilson is not entirely successful in achieving his purpose. His goal is to convince readers of the importance of passion -- especially above any technical training. At the end of the excerpt, Wilson writes, "Feel out in any way you can what you most want to do in science, or technology, or some other-science-related profession. Obey that passion as long as it lasts....Decision and hard work based on enduring passion will never fail you."
This attempt fails because Wilson is not being sensitive enough to his audience. Very few high school students feel an affinity with their childhood interests. At least, very few feel an affinity that would be strong enough to constitute a career. His advice to "feel out" potential careers is simply too vague and almost laughable. High school and undergraduate students are sometimes presented with so many options (even those only looking in the field of science) that "feeling out" different courses is impossible. Cost and time are also factors that would limit a student's ability to try on different scientific hats for fun.
It would be unwise to assume that high school students are completely jaded and cynical. They can be inspired to place passion before any other factor in choosing a career. Before that, though, they require truly inspirational reading to do so. In order to inspire his readers, Wilson required a great appeal to pathos, such as using figurative language or more descriptors in his anecdotes. Because Wilson failed to include these devices, his attempt to inspire readers fell flat.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
TOW #2 "It's Toasted" (Visual)
This image is an ad for cigarettes originally published in the Saturday Evening Post in 1951. The advertiser is the famous cigarette company, Lucky Strike, known for their emphasis on quality of taste. In this image, the text that readers see first is the line, "IT'S TOASTED TO TASTE BETTER!" At a time when cigarette companies were struggling to maintain their customers against numerous health warnings, Lucky Strike decided to focus on the high quality of the product. In addition to the caption, there are three images to the right showing baseball player Ted Williams enjoying himself fishing and smoking. Lucky Strike wanted to remind readers of lighthearted and fun activities, alongside which they would also be smoking. The black and white effect on the pictures also give readers a sense of nostalgia. These pictures generate an appeal to pathos: the readers associate their hobbies and happiness with Lucky Strike cigarettes.Lucky Strike also makes an appeal to ethos by including a testimony from Ted Williams. The opening line, again, links the activity of fishing to smoking. It reads, "Baseball's fabulous Ted Williams is an expert fisherman and enthusiastic Lucky smoker." Lucky Strike is assuming that their audience, which would be the general readership of the Saturday Evening Post (i.e. the general public), has at least heard of Ted Williams. He is first characterized in a way that all readers will recognize: a baseball player. More importantly, however, he is shown to a normal everyday person, who, just like readers, fishes and smokes Lucky Strike cigarettes. Because he is shown to be a normal person like everyone else, readers will trust him when he advocates for Lucky Strike cigarettes. His image takes up the majority of the page, and the focus is largely on his face. What readers can see of his clothing is, again, representative of an everyday person. He is not wearing a baseball uniform or formal clothing; instead he looks comfortable and friendly. The focus on his facial expression emphasizes his smile and eyes, which will make the advertisement feel inviting to readers.
It can be a bit odd looking back on cigarette advertisements, as the cultural attitude toward smoking has completely changed since the 50's. However, it is clear this ad contains many components which draw readers' attentions and associate a positive feeling with Lucky Strike cigarettes.
Monday, September 14, 2015
TOW #1: We Should All Be Feminists (Written)
In its early years, feminism (originally known as the suffragette movement) was vilified as an evil, demonic movement threatening to disrupt all that was good and holy within the world. While there is still plenty of opposition to the movement, feminism (now in its third wave) has come back into the public eye, in large part due to social media. A trademark of third-wave (or liberal) feminism is its desire to appeal to all. A popular mindset is that feminism is not just for women, but all people. This inclusiveness is demonstrated in speeches like Emma Watson's gender equality speech to the UN and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TEDxTalk, "We Should All Be Feminists."* An unofficial transcript of Adichie's talk can be found here.
Adichie is welcomed on stage to much applause and commands the podium with ease. This is because she holds automatic ethos; the audience already knows who she is and trusts what she has to say. At the time she gave this talk, Adichie was already a lauded author and named in the 2012 edition of TIME's 100 Most Influential People in the World. Nevertheless, Adichie understood she had to do more to win over her entire audience. The purpose of Adichie's talk was not only to explain feminism (and clear up misconceptions) to an audience seeking innovation and discussion of ideas, but to convince her audience members to actively fight against everyday sexism.
To close her talk, Adichie says, "The best feminist I know is my brother Kenny. He is also a kind, good-looking, lovely man, and he is very masculine." Adichie wants her audience to leave with the idea that men can be feminists as well. She includes anecdotes that specifically target the men in the audience. Early in her talk, Adichie says that there are many men who mean well, but simply do not believe that women face sexism anymore. To disprove this idea, she tells stories about life in Nigeria, where she is often ignored because she is a woman. This is Adichie's way of incorporating pathos into her talk. The stories are lighthearted, but the audience understands the serious implications of her experiences. She often uses humor to tease the audience for being a little sexist themselves, so as to criticize without hurting them. Most poignantly, she says about being ignored, "I feel invisible. I feel upset." Two simple sentences can convey how much sexism hurts on an individual level, let alone nationally or globally.
Adichie motivates the men in the audience to become feminists by using logos as well. She talks about toxic masculinity, a construct of the patriarchy that forces men to behave in certain ways that is harmful to themselves and others but that also reinforces how "masculine" they are. Adichie talks about the concept of "hard man" in her own culture: "We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity becomes this hard small cage and we put boys inside the cage. We teach boys to be afraid of fear. We teach boys to be afraid of weakness, of vulnerability." Adichie points out that socialization, just as it can hurt girls, can also hurt boys. Furthermore, the methods that will liberate girls from harmful socialization will also liberate boys. This is a logical argument that also uses pathos (the struggle with vulnerability) to appeal to men.
In spite of her idealistic purpose, Adichie also establishes ethos by reminding the audience that neither she, nor all feminists, are perfect. She explores her own struggle to overcome internalized sexism. She acknowledges that "gender is not an easy conversation to have." When she mentions her discussion with a black man, she points out the failure of feminism to be intersectional and include all oppressed groups (not just white women). By including these weaknesses, she strengthens her overall argument by allowing her audience room to fail while transforming themselves into better people.
*The discourse and ideas included in these speeches may not be representative of my personal views of feminism, but that's a discussion for another day.
Adichie is welcomed on stage to much applause and commands the podium with ease. This is because she holds automatic ethos; the audience already knows who she is and trusts what she has to say. At the time she gave this talk, Adichie was already a lauded author and named in the 2012 edition of TIME's 100 Most Influential People in the World. Nevertheless, Adichie understood she had to do more to win over her entire audience. The purpose of Adichie's talk was not only to explain feminism (and clear up misconceptions) to an audience seeking innovation and discussion of ideas, but to convince her audience members to actively fight against everyday sexism.
To close her talk, Adichie says, "The best feminist I know is my brother Kenny. He is also a kind, good-looking, lovely man, and he is very masculine." Adichie wants her audience to leave with the idea that men can be feminists as well. She includes anecdotes that specifically target the men in the audience. Early in her talk, Adichie says that there are many men who mean well, but simply do not believe that women face sexism anymore. To disprove this idea, she tells stories about life in Nigeria, where she is often ignored because she is a woman. This is Adichie's way of incorporating pathos into her talk. The stories are lighthearted, but the audience understands the serious implications of her experiences. She often uses humor to tease the audience for being a little sexist themselves, so as to criticize without hurting them. Most poignantly, she says about being ignored, "I feel invisible. I feel upset." Two simple sentences can convey how much sexism hurts on an individual level, let alone nationally or globally.
Adichie motivates the men in the audience to become feminists by using logos as well. She talks about toxic masculinity, a construct of the patriarchy that forces men to behave in certain ways that is harmful to themselves and others but that also reinforces how "masculine" they are. Adichie talks about the concept of "hard man" in her own culture: "We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity becomes this hard small cage and we put boys inside the cage. We teach boys to be afraid of fear. We teach boys to be afraid of weakness, of vulnerability." Adichie points out that socialization, just as it can hurt girls, can also hurt boys. Furthermore, the methods that will liberate girls from harmful socialization will also liberate boys. This is a logical argument that also uses pathos (the struggle with vulnerability) to appeal to men.
In spite of her idealistic purpose, Adichie also establishes ethos by reminding the audience that neither she, nor all feminists, are perfect. She explores her own struggle to overcome internalized sexism. She acknowledges that "gender is not an easy conversation to have." When she mentions her discussion with a black man, she points out the failure of feminism to be intersectional and include all oppressed groups (not just white women). By including these weaknesses, she strengthens her overall argument by allowing her audience room to fail while transforming themselves into better people.
*The discourse and ideas included in these speeches may not be representative of my personal views of feminism, but that's a discussion for another day.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
IRB Intro #1: The Feminine Mystique
A couple years ago, my friend handed me my birthday present that I insisted she get me. It was a white T-shirt with pink block text reading, "FEMINIST KILLJOY." Unfortunately, the shirt was way too big to wear proudly, but many people wouldn't be surprised that I own it. Most of my peers are tired of hearing me talk about social issues, but hopefully Mr. Yost and Ms. Pronko won't be by the end of the year.
Although I've learned a lot about the good, bad, and ugly of third-wave feminism (a.k.a the feminism we're currently experiencing now), I still have yet to learn about second-wave feminism (the feminism of the 1960's). There's no better place to start than The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. The book (originally intended to be a magazine article, but no magazine would publish it) discusses Friedan's research about the collective unhappiness of housewives. A quick Google search of the title reveals the words "groundbreaking," "classic," and "life-changing" in the results. I chose the book for its place as a touchstone and starting place for many modern feminists (second-wave feminism is sometimes called radical feminism; third-wave, liberal). Beyond learning, I also hope to apply much of what I have learned about sociology and sexism. I begin my reading with several questions: how has feminism changed in the last few decades? What are ways in which second-wave feminism is lacking? What are ways in which third-wave feminism is lacking? Is one better than the other? Are there issues or groups of people that feminism has ignored and continues to neglect? By the time I finish the book, I wish to have at least partial answers to these questions.
Although I've learned a lot about the good, bad, and ugly of third-wave feminism (a.k.a the feminism we're currently experiencing now), I still have yet to learn about second-wave feminism (the feminism of the 1960's). There's no better place to start than The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. The book (originally intended to be a magazine article, but no magazine would publish it) discusses Friedan's research about the collective unhappiness of housewives. A quick Google search of the title reveals the words "groundbreaking," "classic," and "life-changing" in the results. I chose the book for its place as a touchstone and starting place for many modern feminists (second-wave feminism is sometimes called radical feminism; third-wave, liberal). Beyond learning, I also hope to apply much of what I have learned about sociology and sexism. I begin my reading with several questions: how has feminism changed in the last few decades? What are ways in which second-wave feminism is lacking? What are ways in which third-wave feminism is lacking? Is one better than the other? Are there issues or groups of people that feminism has ignored and continues to neglect? By the time I finish the book, I wish to have at least partial answers to these questions.
Monday, August 17, 2015
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
Maya Angelou grew in Stamps, Arkansas, a town with a history of racism and discrimination. Angelou published 36 books, was awarded over 50 honorary doctorates, and won the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Much of Angelou's work includes subjects she experienced through her own life: racism, poverty, and abuse. "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" covers all of these subjects as they relate to her individually, as well as her family.
The narration Angelou provides is a reminder of the racism she experienced in her childhood. She dreams, "Because I was really white and because a cruel fairy stepmother, who was understandably jealous of my beauty, had turned me into a too-big Negro girl, with nappy black hair, broad feet, and a space between her teeth that would hold a number-two pencil" (343). Margeurite (Angelou's birth name) feels uncomfortably conscious of her race. More importantly, she is aware that she is supposedly inferior or less desirable than the white people surrounding her. There are numerous accounts where she feels lesser or weaker because of the racism in her town. These moments would be understandable to a black audience, for whom she is most likely writing. However, Angelou uses exemplification and contrast to demonstrate that it is possible to rise above the racism and discover one's value.
In the final scene, Momma suffers from a great deal of harassment and mockery from the young white girls. As a proxy to the audience, Margeurite feels fear and uncertainty over how to handle the situation. In contrast, Momma remains steadfast and calm. Momma triumphs over the white girls, proving to Margeurite (and the audience) that one does not have to succumb to the pressures of a racist society. Angelou characterizes Momma as an almost other-worldly being, saying, "Her face was a brown moon that shone on me. She was beautiful" (357). This contrast to Angelou's earlier description of her race shows a growth in Margeurite's acceptance of herself, in spite of the existing racism. Angelou's writing is convincing because of the emotional roots upon which it touches.
The narration Angelou provides is a reminder of the racism she experienced in her childhood. She dreams, "Because I was really white and because a cruel fairy stepmother, who was understandably jealous of my beauty, had turned me into a too-big Negro girl, with nappy black hair, broad feet, and a space between her teeth that would hold a number-two pencil" (343). Margeurite (Angelou's birth name) feels uncomfortably conscious of her race. More importantly, she is aware that she is supposedly inferior or less desirable than the white people surrounding her. There are numerous accounts where she feels lesser or weaker because of the racism in her town. These moments would be understandable to a black audience, for whom she is most likely writing. However, Angelou uses exemplification and contrast to demonstrate that it is possible to rise above the racism and discover one's value.
In the final scene, Momma suffers from a great deal of harassment and mockery from the young white girls. As a proxy to the audience, Margeurite feels fear and uncertainty over how to handle the situation. In contrast, Momma remains steadfast and calm. Momma triumphs over the white girls, proving to Margeurite (and the audience) that one does not have to succumb to the pressures of a racist society. Angelou characterizes Momma as an almost other-worldly being, saying, "Her face was a brown moon that shone on me. She was beautiful" (357). This contrast to Angelou's earlier description of her race shows a growth in Margeurite's acceptance of herself, in spite of the existing racism. Angelou's writing is convincing because of the emotional roots upon which it touches.
 |
| Racism pervades many beauty standards around the world. Eurocentric beauty standards dominate several cultures. It is not uncommon to see advertisements for skin lightening products or to see lightened skin in edited pictures. Although seemingly inconsequential, these beauty standards are the result of many long years of racism and colonialism. Photo credit |
Sunday, August 16, 2015
No Name Woman
In "No Name Woman," culture and tradition are two pervasive subjects. Kingston speaks on the ways her families would trick the gods, the traditionally round objects in her parents' homes, and the familial nature of her parents' village. Much of Kingston's life and writing has been influenced by her Chinese heritage; at the same time, the reader can recognize a struggle within Kingston to reconcile her American and Chinese identities.
As a daughter of Chinese immigrant parents, Kingston has published many non-fiction books which include subjects of Chinese and Hawaiian culture. Kingston is currently professor emerita at the University of California, Berkeley. "No Name Woman" is a recollection of Kingston's aunt, but it serves as more than a tribute--it is a rebellion.
With an unspoken agreement, Kingston's family agreed to forget the sister largely because of cultural values. Kingston writes, "Adultery, perhaps only a mistake during good times, became a crime when the village needed food" (391). In her parents' village, there was no separation between individual family units and the entire community. Because the sister had hurt the family and the entire village, it seemed justified to neglect her after death. Although Kingston seems cool toward her aunt in this passage, the essay is ultimately a rejection of her family's treatment of her aunt. Kingston disregards the punishing silence against her aunt by daring to print her story on a page. Such a piece is likely intended for individuals who also remain complicit in the erasure of victims and their suffering. To draw the reader into this rebellion, Kingston employs a narrative. Describing her aunt's labor, she writes, "At [the child's] birth the two of them had felt the same raw pain of separation, a wound that only the family pressing tight would close" (392). Such narration helps flesh out the aunt and child as actual people. No longer is her aunt an evil outcast, but a human who suffered immense pain. Readers can now empathize with the aunt and continue the rebellion Kingston has started: they can remember her story and break the silence.
(Pages 383-394)
As a daughter of Chinese immigrant parents, Kingston has published many non-fiction books which include subjects of Chinese and Hawaiian culture. Kingston is currently professor emerita at the University of California, Berkeley. "No Name Woman" is a recollection of Kingston's aunt, but it serves as more than a tribute--it is a rebellion.
With an unspoken agreement, Kingston's family agreed to forget the sister largely because of cultural values. Kingston writes, "Adultery, perhaps only a mistake during good times, became a crime when the village needed food" (391). In her parents' village, there was no separation between individual family units and the entire community. Because the sister had hurt the family and the entire village, it seemed justified to neglect her after death. Although Kingston seems cool toward her aunt in this passage, the essay is ultimately a rejection of her family's treatment of her aunt. Kingston disregards the punishing silence against her aunt by daring to print her story on a page. Such a piece is likely intended for individuals who also remain complicit in the erasure of victims and their suffering. To draw the reader into this rebellion, Kingston employs a narrative. Describing her aunt's labor, she writes, "At [the child's] birth the two of them had felt the same raw pain of separation, a wound that only the family pressing tight would close" (392). Such narration helps flesh out the aunt and child as actual people. No longer is her aunt an evil outcast, but a human who suffered immense pain. Readers can now empathize with the aunt and continue the rebellion Kingston has started: they can remember her story and break the silence.
 |
| Kingston hypothesizes that her aunt was likely pregnant as a result of a rape. However, there was no justice or sympathy for her aunt, an unfortunate parallel to today's current events. Many survivors of rape are silenced or ignored in favor of the comfortable safety of the status quo. It is the responsibility of every individual to break the silence and create change. Photo credit |
Saturday, August 15, 2015
How It Feels to Be Colored Me
In the 20th century, Zola Neale Hurston was a prominent black woman writer who rose to success with the publication of her various novels, folklore, essays, and plays. Hurston was a member of the Harlem Renaissance and a graduate of Barnard College. In the beginning of Hurston's essay, she writes, "I remember the very day that I became colored" (114). "How It Feels to Be Colored Me" includes a startling moment in a tale of childhood: the moment Hurston becomes racially conscious.
 |
| Although Hurston's experiences of racism would have differed from those in the 21st century, recent happenings in Ferguson and Baltimore are a reminder that anti-black sentiment is not yet a thing of the past. Hurston's writing still strikes a chord, even nearly a century later. Photo credit |
(Pages 114-117)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)