Class and the American Dream

After analyzing the New York Times graphic and reading The Great Gatsby, I have come to the conclusion that being born in a certain class does not mean that one can’t move up or down. This was already evident to me before I read these pieces, but now I have legitimate evidence and text-to-text connections to back up this claim.

In the graphic that we analyzed, there were many questions asked in the poll that significantly backed up this idea of being able to move up (or down) in social class. Forty-five percent of the people polled said their current class now is higher than it was when they were growing up. Forty percent also said that the likelihood of moving up from one social class to another is greater than before as well. About 80% said that it is possible to start out poor, work hard, and become rich. With all of these statistics, there is an overwhelming consistency. The people of America generally believe that social class at birth is not permanent and that one can become wealthy despite previously being poor.

The Great Gatsby also captured these ideas, especially with the character Jay Gatsby. On page 98, Fitzgerald explains, “[Gatsby’s] parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people—his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all.” Considering the fact that Gatsby became extremely wealthy and successful, this sentence truly emphasizes that one can dream to outgrow the social class of one’s parents. Furthermore, Gatsby truly put in the hard work to become rich, even though he started out poor. On page 173, Gatsby’s father shows a schedule of Gatsby’s life when he was a child. Even then, Gatsby’s day was filled with working out, working, and studying. He focused on working hard, and because of that, he gained the success that his parents never had.

Jay Gatsby and the graphic from the New York Times both showcase the truth about social classes. One can change status from birth to adulthood, and often hard work is at the heart of this transition. Wealth is not only a privilege reserved for those already experiencing wealth; it is also available to those who are poor and work hard to achieve it. If you think about it, the wealthy couldn’t have always been wealthy—they had to have started off poor at some point as well.

Say No to Robo-Readers!

             Technology may be advancing in the world that we live in today, but does that mean that our schools should adopt technology to take over the task of grading papers written by their students? Surprisingly, there are some good arguments supporting these Robo-Readers; however, I'm not a fan of having robots take over grading.  With the use of Robo-readers, the writers and teachers will experience an insufficient quality of grading and a decline in skill and uniqueness. The main problem revolves around what is chosen to be graded and what is not.
             Robo-Readers are programmed to analyze only certain aspects of writing. These e-raters have features that analyze “proportion of grammar errors,” “proportion of usage errors,” “organization and development,” and more (Source C). At first, it may seem that these features may be all that is needed to grade a paper effectively, but what about the true content? According to Michael Winerip of the New York Times, one of the biggest known problems “is that it can’t identify truth. He tells students not to waste time worrying about whether their facts are accurate, since pretty much any fact will do as long as it is incorporated into a well-structured sentence”(Source B).  Since when is it okay to only grade one half of the quality of a paper. Writing should not be only analyzed based on the fundamental writing rules; ideas, accuracy, and substance should all matter as well. Furthermore, certain stylistic elements like short sentences and short paragraphs are looked down upon as undesirable for a good paper.
             With this idea of only accepting certain styles and only grading certain aspects of writing, there is a concern with whether or not writing will excel in the future. If students’ papers are continually graded by a Robo-reader, those students will learn to write by focusing on what the robots want and not what is actually a well-written paper. Melissa Block interviewed Michael Winerip, who said, “…a lot of juice of the English language is going to disappear…you’re going to get a more and more homogenized form of writing when the joy of writing is surprise” (Source E). By creating an atmosphere in which students only write to receive good grades from the robots, the uniqueness of writing disappears.
             The use of Robo-readers may be more efficient, but it will not help our development of writing in the future. With these robots, our unique styles and skills will be cast aside, and aspects that are seemingly unimportant will be graded instead of content and accuracy. Robo-readers aren't the greatest idea, and I hope that there are some changes before we utilize them.

Map!!!

http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1665b5.jpg

                I found this map extremely intriguing because of the layout and small details included in it. The little details throughout the map allow it to become so much more than a map of the Americas; it almost becomes a story as those looking at it can tell what types of people inhabit the land and what will become of it.

The main focus of the map is the actual land which is in the very center of the whole layout. This reveals the idea that the new land was extremely important to whoever made the map. In the waters, there are numerous ships with different countries’ flags which indicate that there are settlers or explorers navigating their way through the oceans to settle on the new land. To me, it almost looks as if these ships were in a race to reach the new land. Along with the many boats, sea monsters dwell in the waters showing viewers the dangers of the unknown. Furthermore, pairs of Native Americans border the map expressing the fact that this land is “not yet English, one still the domain of its native peoples,” as Valerie Baab said in Crafting Whiteness in America. This map and quotation from Baab exceedingly represent the idea of multiple countries surrounding a land of primitive people and slowly enclosing in on their land.

The Hearing vs. the Deaf

After watching Sound and Fury, I realized how sheltered I am. I am rarely exposed to people who can't hear, and this movie really woke me up. This, of course, is because of the two main discourses in the film. These discourses were the hearing and the deaf. The movie clearly showed both sides and their arguments through the journey of deciding whether to get cochlear implants.

The people that could hear generally fought for the cochlear implants. Their main argument was based on the idea that hearing people have more opportunities in the future. They claimed that a person with a cochlear implant would have an advantage to the deaf because they could talk, hear, and still even be able to understand sign language. It was even pointed out that a deaf person would not be able to pursue a job such as a surgeon; whereas, if that person got the cochlear important, he/she would have that opportunity. The hearing also argued that because of this, the parents would technically be abusing their children by not giving them the chance. This side of the argument truly believed that getting a cochlear implant would significantly help the children's future.

The deaf people, for the most part, fought against the cochlear implants. They mainly argued that getting a cochlear implant would ruin the deaf culture. They feared that this implant would slowly kill the culture, and they wanted their children to remain part of that culture. They went even further to worry that these children with cochlear implants would be stuck between the hearing and deaf worlds, and they wouldn't have as much of a place in the world. Another worry that they had involved the idea that it wasn't a bullet-proof solution to the hearing problem. They argued, with reason, that cochlear implants didn't always help enough. Some children with cochlear implants were still unable to speak or hear as well as they had expected.

These two discourses definitely have a different view on the issue of cochlear implants. The deaf typically decide against it and consider it outrageous as it may destroy the culture. The hearing usually argue for the implant as they claim that they know what hearing is like and how great the advantage is. Both sides have reasonable arguments, and this makes the question of the implant even more difficult to decide. By exposing viewers to both discourses, the film makes even those who think they know what they think second guess themselves entirely.

Fear of Swallowing Fish Bones

One day when I was little, my dad, brother, sister, and I were eating fish that we had just caught. My dad had cooked it up in some sort of floury batter, and it was delicious. As I was eating, he warned me to make sure that I chew the fish thoroughly. Of course, I had no idea why he would say that, so I just assumed that he was joking. He quickly made it clear that he wasn't joking by telling me that any small fish bones that weren't removed when the fish were filleted could get stuck in my throat. I, then, made the mistake of asking if it was painful.

He admitted that sometimes it could be somewhat painful or at least uncomfortable. This alone worried me, but to make it worse, my brother butted in. He went on to tell me that it had happened to him once. He described how painful it was with, in my eyes, excrutiating details (they probably weren't that great; I was just young and innocent and believed anything--even if he said he had caught the biggest fish ever in the history of everything but let it go). He said that it hurt for days. I then asked him how I was unaware of this. He answered with the big brother response of something like "I hid it from you because I didn't want to scare you." It was too late for that though. Even when he admitted that he made it all up, I still could not forget my new fear.

After I found out that he was joking, I still couldn't shake the fear that someday I would swallow a fish bone, it would get stuck in my throat, and it would hurt like never before. In order to avoid this inevitable future, I have always partaken in the art of careful chewing of fish. Whether it is fresh caught fish or store bought fish, I always chew one bite for what seems like ten hours. I chew it until I'm am absolutely positive that my throat will not suffer as my brother had once pretended his had. Because of my seemingly silly fear, I will always have extreme caution, and hopefully, I will never have to face my fear.

A Semiotic Analysis of a Pencil

When I think of a pencil, I think of the typical number 2 pencil. The one with the orange-yellow surface, a sharp tip, and a pink eraser on the end. The kind that teachers always give to us if we don't have a pencil for standardized testing. We all know what these writing utensils are used for, and we know that they are an important object for the process of recording. My question is: does this simple artifact of our culture reveal something much more meaningful than what would be expected? In my opinion, there is a solid yes to this question.

As I eluded to earlier, pencils reveal our need to record ideas, names, lists, etc. It's a way for us to remember what we would otherwise lose in our overfilled filing cabinet of a brain. While being able to record what we need to remember, we can also change what needs changing with the nifty little eraser on the end of the pencil. These pencils not only combat our forgetfulness, but they also allow us to back up our caprices (vocab word!!!! It means "tendency to change one's mind without apparent or adequate motive"). So basically what I am saying here is that our culture is linked with the need to record and change. We can't just rely in a utensil that will make what we are saying permanent. Our culture requires adjustment.

I also noticed that there are times when pencils are thrown aside for....pens. Sometimes, pencils aren't used because people don't want there to be a chance for something to be erased or changed. For example, when doing experiments and recording in a lab notebook, one should always use a pen because a pencil allows for things to be changed or erased. If a pencil is used, the experiment isn't as valid because bad results could've easily been hidden by erasing what isn't desired. The fact that a pencil isn't always welcome in our society for reasons like this shows that our culture may have a little dishonesty in it. Because of the fact that we have to take these precautions and follow these rules, it shows that there are times when lies come before honesty.

Pencils play a role in our culture by allowing our society to remember, forget, modify, and lie. How else are pencils connected to our culture? What would we be like without pencils, pens, or anything else similar to these objects?

Obama vs. The Others

Looking at the words used in President Barack Obama's inaugural address, a few words instantly stuck out to me--men, women, and prosperity. Both men and women were both used four times, and prosperity was used three. I know this doesn't seem very important since they weren't used very often in the whole scheme of the address, but I was, nonetheless, able to make some substantial observations based on Obama's and the rest of the presidents' word choice.

Throughout Obama's address, he always said the phrase "men and women." When I say always, I mean he literally never addressed only one sex. At this time in history, this may seem normal and even expected, but it wasn't always like this. Instead of comparing Obama's word choice to a specific president, I chose to compare him to all of the past presidents. By clicking on the word in the word cloud in "Inaugural Words: 1789 to the Present" from New York Times, I was able to see how often the other presidents used the word. According to that information, the first time women was actually used in an inaugural address was by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Even though I know and understand that women weren't considered to be equal to men during earlier times, this finding still shocked me. This really emphasized the idea that "back in the day" women were inferior to men. This choice of using--or not using--these words serves as a perfect reminder of how our society has changed over the years with equality and freedom.

As I said before, I also noticed that the word prosperity was used. This would have never stuck out to me if I hadn't clicked on the word itself. By doing this, I was able to see that the usage of prosperity has declined quite a bit. Over time, this word was used in 33 different inaugural addresses (if I counted right) out of the 56 total; however, over the last 15 inaugural addresses, the word has only been used in 5 of those addresses. This may seem to hold little importance, but the truth is that prosperity was used way more often earlier on.

My take on this is that prosperity used to hold more weight than it has in the recent years. I think in the earlier years, when America was growing and uniting, prosperity was an important goal. Perhaps, maybe the reason the word hasn't been used as much is because there are other more important goals of the nation and people today like wars, jobs, etc. I am not saying that during the last 15 inaugural addresses the president and our nation did not want success. I am just bringing forth the idea that maybe this idea of success isn't in the front of our minds anymore. I think Obama may have chosen to use this word to remind America of this important goal, and he may even hope to spark a drive for even better prosperity. His usage of this word shows that sometimes looking back at old goals is actually a good start for a step forward in an unsure economy.

I guess to sum it all up, Obama has used both different and similar words to what has been used in the past. He has even strayed from the pack of presidents of the current time to use language of presidents long ago. The language used now and then is a huge indication for the social, economic, political, national, and even world issues that play a role in our nation.