Eng-112; The Conclusion

From past to present years, social justice and racial equality have been big issues for me.  How many times have you said the Pledge of Allegiance?  The last sentence states, “One nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all.”  I have heard and recited that sentence so many times, sometimes without being conscious of the meaning of the words.  We are one society under God, and we state that there is Liberty and Justice for ALL.  But is there Liberty and Justice, the same Justice, for all of us?  To some of us those are just words put together to make up a sentence, but not the reality of our society.

After doing some research and a lot of reading on the topic of Social Justice, and Racial Equality, I doubt that our society will ever be totally equal; person to person or group to group.  Our society has made progress since the “The Rosewood Story”, which was about a small black community in Florida that was burned out and completely destroyed, by white vigilantes.  And the Marcus Harvey era, pushed for more racial equality.  While researching social justice and racial equality, I remembered the crime of Susan Smith in South Carolina.  I thought of how she so easily lied and accused a black man of carjacking her vehicle and kidnapping her two young boys.  I also thought of how easy it was for the Sheriff and the local authorities to believe the story she gave, without doubt or question.  The community immediately went on a man-hunt for a black male, to later find that Smith’s story was a lie, and that she had killed her own children.  In our society it seems to be very conceivable that a black man could be guilty of the lowliest of crimes, which is stereotyping, which should be a social crime.  Other examples of social injustice and racial inequality are in the movie, “A Time to Kill”, and a poem written by Marcus Garvey; “The Dividing Line”, and also an editorial by Amanda Brown; “International Justice for All”.

I believe that some people and groups have learned not to judge without knowing, and they realized that white people and black people have the “same” rights under the law.  I think that our society as a group of people is getting closer to having social justice and racial equality.  But we (the races) are NOT equal…yet!

My question does not have a direct answer at this time, and

maybe it never will.  As a nation we had made some progress, but for

the future, our society will need to change, traditions need to change,

and people need to change, in order to have social justice and racial

equality.

Works cited:

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm413131.html

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/smith/lie_6.html?print=yes

Eng-112; Weblog 6: Source 3

Social Justice:  Editorial

International justice for all 

When researching “Social Justice” I found this editorial written by Amanda Brown on November 8, 2002.  

 

In the editorial Brown claims that during the twentieth century, wars and genocides orchestrated by small groups, killed millions.  Due to improper international justice systems these crimes sometimes went unpunished.  Hope was restored after the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 1998, which was a permanent international court.  The ICC is responsible for investigation and prosecution over individual states for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.  The need for the ICC increased after World War II.

 

Brown writes that “most criminals take part in crimes against humanity knowing that they will likely never be brought to justice.  The establishment of the International Criminal Court represents the end of impunity for such heinous crimes.”

 

This editorial was interesting to me, because it discussed prosecution for crimes against humanity.  Punishment for social injustice makes my ears perk-up, similar to a puppy when he hears a sound.  I have heard of many instances of individuals being the target of social injustice, and the justice system failed them.  I’m glad to know that the ICC is in place to investigate, and prosecute, so that people can have “justice for all”.

 

Through my search I also found Amanda Brown’s “Final Internship Report”, where Brown had the opportunity to intern with Barack Obama, the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois, who is our current President elect.

 

I read the entire report, but what I found the most interesting was what Brown said at the very end.

 

“If you asked me six months ago what I want to do with my life, I would have answered, “One day, I want to become a Senator for the United States of America. I want to make America a land of opportunity, equality, and freedom.” And, my answer today is

different; I still want to make America a better place for all Americans, but I want to lead a revolution for social justice to effect this change.”

  

http://www.onlinedemocracy.ca/fear_less/social%20justice/edbrown2.html

 

http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/assets/pdf/browna.pdf.

 

Eng-112; Weblog 5: Source 2

A Poem: The Dividing Line, by Marcus Garvey

Marcus Garvey, who was a well-known black leader through his public speeches and his newspaper “Negro World”, also wrote poems.  One of Garvey’s poems “The Dividing Line” (http://www.marcusgarvey.com/wmview.php?ArtID=23 ) caught my attention as I was researching “social justice”, or should I say “social injustice”.

Garvey states there’s a “dividing” line that separates the whites from the blacks.  He further illustrates the separation of the races by “…patch a broken fence between”.  Garvey tells us that for peace and happiness, it’s best to keep the groups separate.  Garvey compares our lives to that of angels, that we are separated not due to superiority, but to prevent conflict, and trouble.  He insists that we should follow this “human rule” and not treat one another in a lowly manner.  Garvey then compares justice to charity, and states that it should be given to everyone.  Garvey spells out that by being loving and peaceful that society would be kind, and the whites and the blacks would have a better relationship.

When I read the title of this poem, it made me think.  The word “divide” means to separate or segregation, and when I see the word “line” I think of one side or the other side, or the beginning or end.  I feel that through the generations there has been a line between the white and black race.  I don’t like it or agree with it, but the division is there even when people don’t admit it.  In Garvey’s illustration when he uses a patched broken fence, I interpret that to mean that the “dividing” fence has been there so long, and even though it had been broken; it’s been patched up to continue “dividing”.  Further in the poem, I did get confused, when Garvey talks about keeping the races separate to prevent conflict, and states that we all should follow this “rule”.  He also writes that we should be peaceful and loving, and justice is for everyone, and all of this will give the races a better relationship.  I agree that there is a “dividing” line, and I would like to see that erased.  I also agree that the races should be peaceful and loving to each other.  But I do not agree, that we should remain separate, and not “bother” one another.  I feel we can and should learn each other as individuals and as different races, and be able to mix the groups of people and races.

Works Cited.

Garvey, Marcus. Marcus Garvey – The Dividing Line – Poems. Ed. Webmaster. 2004. 6 December 2008 <http://www.marcusgarvey.com/wmview.php?ArtID=23>.

Eng-112; Weblog 4: Source 1

The Movie; “A Time To Kill” 

In an essay written on Essayinfo.com I found the summary of a movie, “A Time to Kill”.  This movie was set in the American South, in Mississippi, which through tradition had racial tension between the whites and the blacks.  This movie begins with a young black girl, Tanya Hailey, being raped and tortured by two white men.  In vengeance to his daughter’s assault, Carl Lee Hailey shot and killed the two men.  Carl Lee was then charged with murder, and would have to face a legal system of the South, that was not partial to blacks.  Carl Lee was given a young white lawyer named Jake Brigance.  Jake knew that most white southerners didn’t think of black southerners as their equal, but he did hope that in the courtroom they would be treated fairly.  The story continues with tension in the small community in Mississippi, “as white and black, poor and privileged take a stand for what they believe in.”  Controversy in the community arises when the Ku Klux Klan arrive on the scene, and in opposition the NAACP appear.  Carl Lee and Jake have to settle their racial differences, and learn to believe in each other, and realize they both are working towards the same cause.  It appears that the partial jury is not favoring a “not guilty” verdict for Carl Lee.  In a final plea to the jury, Jake asked them to close their eyes and imagine this:  “Can you see her?  Her raped, beaten, broken body, soaked in their urine, soaked in their semen, soaked in her blood, left to die.  Can you see her? I want you to picture that little girl.  Now imagine she’s white.”  The jury gave a “not guilty” verdict.

 

I believe that interracial relationships, segregation, and social equality are the mechanics of this movie.  When I think of social injustice, this movie, “A Time to Kill” came to my mind.  I don’t believe in assault, killing or murder of another individual, but I do believe in equal justice.  I think that Carl Lee felt that the two men would not be punished to the full degree of the law, especially when they were not held on a bail.  While watching the movie, I couldn’t believe it when the two men were not held on bond, and the matter seemed to be treated so lightly, as if the men had stole candy from a store, instead of raping a helpless little girl.  In the movie, “A Time to Kill”, it showed how black people were thought of as less than second class.  At first Carl Lee didn’t believe that his appointed lawyer was on his side.  The turning point in the movie was when the two men of different races, learned to trust and believe in each other.  Carl Lee and Jake were both fathers with daughters, and Jake had to put himself in the “shoes” of Carl Lee, and imaging how he would feel if his daughter was assaulted.  At the end of the movie, Jake, his wife and daughter arrived at a family gathering with Carl Lee’s family.  The movie illustrated racial injustice in our society.  This movie was very well produced, and it left me with the feeling that maybe one day the human race will find social justice for all.

http://essayinfo.com/sample/essay/39

© Essay Info – Essay Writing Center. All rights reserved. Contact us at admin (at) essayinfo.com.

Works Cited.

Essay Info :: A Time To Kill. 6 December 2008 <http://essayinfo.com/sample/essay/39>.

Eng-112; Weblog 3: Their Analogy, My Analogy

Their Analogy, My Analogy

 

Peter Singer wrote an article in the New York Times Magazine, titled “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, which he used situations from a film (Central Station) and a book (Living High and Letting Die) to persuade his readers to give funds to save children and people in need.  Singer compares Dora in the film, to Bob in the book and the choices they both made concerning saving the life of a child.  Singer states that “we” the readers have a choice to make, whether to send money to save a child or let them die.  Singer restates the book written by Peter Unger, “Living High and Letting Die”, where Unger used experts to calculate that $200 in donations could save a child’s life.  Unger also states how the funds can easily be donated.  Singer believes that $200 is a remedial amount, and that people should donate all amounts over what is necessary to sustain their basic needs; no luxuries.

 

In an essay written by Greg Schaefer, “Singer’s not-so Persuasive Solution to World Poverty”, Schaefer restates the article written by Peter Singer.  Schaefer summaries what Singer was relaying to his readers.  Schaefer also describes Singer as a “utilitarian philosopher”.  Schaefer interprets Singer’s writing and his use of the two examples to persuade people to want to give a donation.  Initially Schaefer felt compelled to give $200, which seemed like a small sacrifice to save a child.  But after reading the entire article by Singer, Schaefer felt that Singer’s demand was too large.  Schaefer insists that if Singer had limited his argument to $200, instead of demanding people to give all of their extra money, then maybe Singer would have the “Solution to World Poverty”.

 

I feel that Singer used the two examples in his article to make his readers feel guilty, so that they ultimately would give a donation.  Also Singer used expert calculations to show “us” his readers what small sacrifice we could make to save a life; $200.  At that point, Singer had captured our attention, and convinced us to give.  Singer went on in his article to demand people to give all of their extra money to organizations to help others, with no real explanation of why we should give, which is too great of a sacrifice for most people.  I have to agree with Schaefer, that Singer’s solution to poverty was too extreme.  In Schaefer’s essay he conveys my thoughts parallel.  I agree with Schaefer that while I was reading Singer’s article my emotions were up and down; from being irritated, to persuaded, to unsure.  In my experience with fundraising, I have received more donations when I asked for a “reasonable” amount, verses asking for an “impractical” amount and getting an instant decline.  I believe it’s better to overcome the small obstacles, towards achieving the larger goals, than to be stagnant.

Eng-112: Weblog 2: What do I want to know?

What I want to know…what I wonder about.

 

I wonder about my future life.

I’m puzzled by the different religions, and wonder does each have a different God?

I doubt that society will ever be equal; person to person or group to group.

I’m bothered by people who don’t have a conscience.

I’m sad that death comes too soon for most of us.

I’m angry about mistreatment of individuals without a cause.

I’ve always thought that we should treat people, how we want to be treated.

I’m surprised by how small the world really is.

I’m interested in the lifestyles of other countries.

I wish I could travel more.

I worry about the future for my son.

I’m afraid that all my dreams won’t come true.

 

Society…will we ever be equal?

 

I doubt that society will ever be equal; person to person or group to group.  From past to present years equality has been a topic.  “…and justice for all.”, I hear that a lot, and I feel in most cases those are just words put together with no real meaning.

 

There have been several occasions when I’ve applied for internal positions at work, and knew I was more qualified, but was not chosen for the position.  And what was more insulting to me, was when I was then asked to train the “chosen one”.  For some reason, other than skill, I didn’t fit the profile of the position.  Maybe it was the color of my skin, or possibly my dress size.

 

Prejudice comes in many forms, and I experienced it for myself.  Before I lose weight, I seemed to blend in with background, along with the pictures on the wall.  After I lost weight, I was included in conversations, and my opinion was requested.

 

Now-a-days I believe that society is more prejudice to body-size than to skin color.  Inequality comes in all types of packages; sometimes it shows by which college you graduated from, or the neighborhood you reside in.  Sometimes I believe that people as a group, don’t even realize their behavior.  These groups are a “click”, and to join the “click” you must look, act and think like the rest of the group.

 

There are some who think people are equal, and we all have the same rights.  Each of us is allowed to eat at the same restaurant, and we all can sit in any available seat on the bus.  I could make a long list that states how we as people and a society are supposed to be equal.  And I can also give an illustration of instances of inequality.  Here is a great example.  I took my son and his friend to dinner; we were seated quickly with hardly any wait time.  However, it took forever for us to receive our order.  Others who were seated after us, they were now eating.  The manager noticed my table waiting, and came over to ask had our order been taken, and he apologized.  Again the manager walked by, and we still didn’t have our food, and once we finally received our food, he told us there would not be any charge for the dinner.  It makes me wonder, was it because of the part of town we were in (there were no other African Americans in the place), or was it because we were not “regulars” to this eatery?  Neither of those reasons should matter, because we were paying customers just like the other people in the restaurant.  Why can’t we each be accepted for who we are?

 

Society…will we ever be equal?  An extended look.

 

Society…will we ever be equal?  I have wondered about the answer to that question for a long time, since when I was in second grade.

 

My parents moved me and my siblings to a new house and new neighbor hood, half-way through my second year of elementary school.  Our family was the only people of color that lived on my street or in my neighborhood for that matter.  It didn’t matter to me or my brothers and sisters who we played with or went to school with, we just wanted to have friends.  Well it mattered to the parents that lived on our street, some of them told their children not to play with the “black” children that lived in the house at the beginning of the street.  And you know how children can be…that said exactly what their parents had told them, word for word.  “My mom and dad told me not to play with you, because you are “black”.  Remembering back to those times, it was very hurtful to hear those words.  As a child, I didn’t understand why the parents or the children treated us so differently.  I wanted to be treated like the other kids.  As I grew up, I realized that it wasn’t the kids fault how they treated me and my siblings, it was their parents fault.  As children we learn from our parents—the adults, and because the parents had a prejudice attitude they instilled this attitude in their children.  Some of the kids didn’t know why they didn’t like us; they learned to dislike for no cause.

 

I remember our house being “egged”, and also “paper rolled”, by the kids in the neighborhood, and the police dismissed it as a prank.  Also, my father’s truck had fishing equipment stolen from it, and we’ve had weird items left at our front door.  I believe the neighbors were trying to send my family a message; that we were not welcome in “their” neighborhood.  Even the police, seemed to behave casual, as me and my family were being harassed.  Finally some of the families moved out of our neighborhood.

 

Forty years later, my parents still live on the same street.  Most, if not all, of the original families have moved on, or deceased.  At the present time there are no problems with the neighbors on my parent’s street.

 

Occasionally I think back over the past, and it still puzzles me.  My parents didn’t teach us to dislike the children on our street, even if they were a different color and nationality; our parents just wanted us to play and not cause trouble.  I believe that some people and groups have changed over the years, and we as a group of people are getting closer to be equal, but we are NOT equal…yet.

Eng-112; Weblog 1: What do I believe?

I believe that…

 

I believe that people are habitual creatures.

I believe that society is prejudice.

I believe that government has power.

I believe that justice is in each individual.

I believe that knowledge is power.

I believe that science is the unknown.

I believe that reality is the truth.

I believe that life is a gift.

I believe that happiness can be simple and also complex.

I believe that goodness is a trait.

I believe that death is sad, but also rejoicing.

I believe that God does exist, and is most powerful.

 

People, the Habitual Creatures

 

I believe that people are habitual creatures.  Probably before I was born, my mother would wake up in the morning, take a bath, eat breakfast, then at mid-day she would eat lunch, later have dinner, and lastly take a bath and retire to bed.  When I was born, that same routine that she had made a habit for herself soon became the routine that she used for me.  And when I became old enough to maneuver to myself, I began to follow the same routine, which became a habit.  I believe that if a person does the same thing day after day, then it’s habitual.  People are the civilized creatures, while I believe we are much like the animal creatures who are not supposed to be civilized.  Have you ever watched the “Animal” channel on television?  I have watched it on occasion, and have noticed how much we as humans are much like the animals.  Most animals live in groups, and have a family unit; a male, female, and babies.  The animals have a time to sleep, and a time to eat, and a time to hunt, and time to bath.  Much like us people, animals too have their habits.  I believe that some of our habits are the similar, and the difference our habits and the animal habits is that we are supposed to be civilized, and have intelligence.  When people live their lives daily and have routine events, which are habits; our habits become natural as breathing.  Even when there is a change in our lives that upsets us, after a reform to the change over and over again, it becomes a habit.  Some people try to change their habit, through reinforcement, but sometime realize that the habit it too hard to change, and they easily revert back to the original habit.  When I was young, if my mother noticed that I was accruing a “bad” habit, she would quickly address the matter, to stop the habit before it became a learned behavior-which sometimes is almost impossible to deter.  I believe that I should be careful of what I say, and what I do on a regular basis.  If I continue to say and do negative things, then it will become a habit, and will feel natural to continue to doing.  I always try to follow the rules, and not deliberately to be deceptive.  I believe that how I got the nick-name of “Miss Goodie-Goody”.  I believe that if you do anything long enough if will become a “natural” habit.

Habits can Change

 

I’m sure there are people who believe that we as human creatures are not habitual.  Because people are the civilized animal, we should be able to control our thoughts and behavior, and not form habits.  People should be able to do a certain action today, and another action tomorrow, and the next day do something else different.  People have a brain that is intelligent, and can make choices as situations arise.  Habits can be changed, anything is possible.  If for instance an alcoholic is admitted in an institution for rehabilitation, with reinforcement, that individual can break the habit of drinking alcohol.  So I can see where a habit can be broken, but I believe that it takes another habit, to unlearn the original habit.  So we can change one habit, for another habit, but that still makes people habitual.

 

 

 

 

 

Eng-111; Reflection 2: Why I Write

Why I Write

George Orwell conveys that there are four great motives for writing prose, and he defines them as: sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse and political purpose.

I’m not the best or worst writer. I feel there is always room for improvement in my writing, and I’m open for constructive criticism. I know that I don’t write for “sheer egoism” or “aesthetic enthusiasm”. Although I attempt to be conscious of my words and phrases, and try to convey my thoughts in a clear manner. If I were to use the interpretations of Orwell, my motives for writing would be for historical impulse and political purpose. My motive for writing is not to persuade, but to inform the reader of my opinion, allowing them to agree or disagree.

I write to explain the facts as I know them to be. I write to review, to remember, and to comprehend what I’ve learned. I write to provide a better understanding of what I’m trying to say. I write to put down in words, what I’m thinking about. I write to express my inner thoughts, when I can’t relay those thoughts verbally. I write to release my stress and tension, and I believe it’s a better way to vent. I write to communicate to my clients. I write to note items to remember. I think I write more out of necessity, rather than desire. If I had the choice, I’d choose to speak my words, and not write them.

Eng-111; Weblog 4: Fish and Brooke Say / I Say

On May 31, 2005, in the New York Times, there was an essay written by Stanley Fish, a dean emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Fish titled his essay, “Devoid of Content”, where he gave his opinion of “content” being taught in the American English high school and college classes. Fish made a statement about graduating students, “…most of them utterly unable to write a clear and coherent English sentence.” Fish went on to say, that American composition courses emphasized on content and not form, which Fish believes is wrong. In the words of Fish, “Content…it should be banished from the classroom.” Fish was true to his conviction when he wrote, “Form is the way.”

In response to Fish’s essay, Assistant Professor Collin Brooke wrote a blog “Fish in a Barrel”. Brooke declares in response to Fish’s statement, that most graduates are unable to write an articulate sentence, is “…that’s a load of crap”. Brooke feels that Fish is not qualified to make the generalization of “most composition courses”; Fish has only chaired at three colleges. Brooke feels that it’s “insulting to every one of us who teaches writing to imply that we’re incapable of teaching form in the context of actual writing.”

After reading the essay by Fish, and the blog written by Brooke, I have to agree with both of the writers’ comments, but mostly with Brooke. I believe that in order to be a good writer, the skill of “form” needs to be learned. Form is needed to structure and organize the words of the writer. However I would not suggest that “content” be banished. I believe that form, as well as content should be taught in the English composition courses; one without the other would be a group of words with no organization. I believe that writing should be a natural flow of thoughts translated into words, and if too much attention is given to form, then the real content may be lost.

Eng-111; Weblog 3: Bloom & Almond Say / I Say

 

Yale Professor Harold Bloom states in his article “Dumbing down American readers” that the National Book Foundation’s annual award for “distinguished contribution” should not have been given to Stephen King.  Bloom feels that this award should be reserved for novelists like Saul Bellow, Philip Roth, and to Arthur Miller a playwright.  Bloom describes King as “an immensely inadequate writer” on all bases.

 

In remarks to Blooms article, writer Steve Almond states in his column “The Bloom Is Off The Mark” that he doesn’t totally disagree with Bloom.  Almond does disagree with Blooms negative expressions “against writers he deems inferior”, rather than “celebrating the writers (and the ideas) he admires”.  Almond also restates that Bloom informed us that “Today there are four living American novelists”.  Almond was surprised that Bloom didn’t mention, Toni Morrison, Nadine Gordimer, Alice McDermott, John Updike, etc, the great writers of today.

 

I agree with Steve Almond, that Bloom was harsh in the way he tried to present his point of view, concerning the annual award given by the National Book Foundation.  Bloom’s opinion was negative criticism; it was as though Bloom was attacking King in a personal way.  Bloom had nothing positive to say about King as a writer, other than “…the commercial value of his books, which sell in the millions…”. One thought that came to my mind after that statement by Bloom, was that maybe Bloom was envious of King.  In my opinion, books that sell are getting the attention of the public and holding their interest; which I would consider “great” books.  Bloom should be able to acknowledge King for his accomplishment, of using his imagination to reach a wide audience.  Bloom didn’t think that King should have received the annual award for “distinguished contribution”, but Bloom never stated “who” in his opinion should have won.  There must be a writer of modern day, who’s competent of this award.