Classic?

The Scarlet Letter, written by Nathaniel Hawthorne in 1850, is a very well known story. Students in high schools all over have read and discussed this story for years. This book is considered to be a classic. One of the main characteristics of a classic novel is the fact that it is very universal and can connect with readers from all generations. The Scarlet Letter definitely has a universal theme and connects with readers of al ages. I think that The Scarlet Letter is a classic and should continue to be considered so.

When I first started to read The Scarlet Letter I thought that it was going to be very hard to understand and connect with because of the time period in which it was written. Surprisingly, I could understand it very well and was even interested by the story. The fact that a teenager in 2010, who doesn’t read books unless she has to, can read a book written in 1850 and actually enjoy it proves the universality of The Scarlet Letter. Even though the culture and customs of the 1800’s were far different than they are now, Hawthorne did a great job of communicating the emotions and situations of the characters to connect with the reader more. Today, adultery is almost no big deal to society. In the 1800’s, people, like Hester Prynne, were put to public shame and ostracized for committing adultery. Even though there is really no connection between the way society used to deal with adultery and the way it is dealt with now, the reader can still connect with the way Hester feels alone and hopeless. The reader could also connect with Mr. Dimmesdale’s situation with his hidden sin and double standards. The Scarlet Letter is a story worth reading. It may contain words that are difficult to understand, or societal issues that are somewhat irrelevant to today, but each character helps connect with the reader of any generation. The Scarlet Letter, which is over 100 years old, proves itself to be a classic

The Scarlet Letter remains

The very last sentence in The Scarlet Letter, which was written by Nathaniel Hawthorne, says this, “So somber it is and relieved only by one ever-glowing point of light gloomier than the shadow: - ‘ON A FIELD, SABLE, THE LETTER A, GULES.’” This sentence is a description if what symbol can be found on the grave of Hester Prynne. The tombstone on the grave of Hester Prynne bears the same scarlet letter that Hester bore on her bosom most of her life. This statement seems to say that amongst the darkness and gloominess of the grave, there is one small ray of light glowing. The glowing comes from a bright red letter A; the scarlet letter.

This quote is significant to the life of Hester Prynne in looking at the legacy she left behind. Looking at the fact that Hester bore the burning of the scarlet letter for many years on Earth as well as when she went to the grave, helps one to see that the choices a person makes affects him/her for the rest of his/her life and possibly longer. Most people want to leave a legacy of some kind when they leave and in Hester’s case, she will forever be known as an adulterer. When people go to visit Hester’s grave, they will not see a legacy of how well she raised her daughter, or of the love she had for others, or even her great skill with the needle, they will only see the scarlet letter and therefore remember her for being an adulterer. Hester’s life could serve as an example for generations to come to see how important it is to make wise decisions. Although Hester was able to help many people through rough times and offer counseling to people who made bad mistakes as well, she will not be remembered for her counseling or for her help. The only thing remembered about her is symbolized by a burning, glowing scarlet letter A.

Reverend Dimmesdale's misery

In the book, The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, it is discovered that Hester Prynne had an affair with the highly respected Reverend Dimmesdale. Mr. Dimmesdale, after hiding his sin from everyone for almost seven years, makes this statement to Hester, “ But, as matters stand with my soul, whatever of good capacity there originally was in me, all of God’s gifts that were the choicest have become the ministers of spiritual torment. Hester, I am most miserable!” The Reverend was basically saying that because he typically had a clear conscience, and constantly strove for perfection, this one deep hidden sin was tearing him apart. He even mentions that if he was an atheist and constantly sinned, this one sin of adultery would not be a big deal to him and he would be able to just brush it off, but since he was a pure man, the guilt of this sin was unbearable.

When Arthur Dimmesdale said this, he allowed the reader to get a deeper understanding of the way he really felt on the inside. None of the townspeople had any idea that the reverend, who they adored, had the most detestable of sins hidden within his heart. Every time he gave a sermon he continued teaching and advising people with a mask of purity on. The people almost worshipped the ground he walked on and yet he wasn’t any less of a sinner than they. Even though the Reverend had the people fooled, he could not fool himself. The sin that was hidden in his heard tortured him day after day and never gave him rest. He was even physically ill because of the filthiness of his hidden sin. Dimmesdale was absolutely miserable because he was trying to live with double standards, being one person in one setting and one person in another setting. Once he realizes that he has to confess this sin, and starts to plan on the day he will do it, he had already caused himself to suffer for over seven years. If Reverend Dimmesdale would have confessed the sin right away, although people would look at him in the same way they did Hester, he would have been much better off; he wouldn’t have been half as miserable.

Pearl's Big Question

One of the most important statements contained in The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, was a statement made Pearl, Hester Prynne’s daughter. It is quoted, “’Mother,’ said she, ‘what does the scarlet letter mean?’” This is the first time in the story that Pearl actually questions her mother about the scarlet letter embroidered on her bosom. Many times before, when Pearl was much younger, she would stare at the scarlet letter in awe and wonder. At infancy, she obviously could not talk so no words would come for her to ask her mother. Instead, she constantly gazed upon the letter with a look that asked the question for her. Fortunately for Hester, she didn’t have to answer Pearl when no direct question was asked.

When Pearl was old enough, she finally asked her mom what the letter meant that she had marveled at upon her mother for all of her life. Hester was reluctant to answer and never actually gave Pearl a clear meaning of what the Letter represents. This question that Pearl asked was most likely a question dreaded by her mother for many years. Hester had to have known that Pearl would one day ask about the letter and have to be faced with the purpose and proof of her own existence. This quote is almost like the foundation of the whole story. Hester knew exactly what the letter meant because it haunted her day after day with regret and shame. If Pearl were to find out what the letter actually represented, it could possibly wreck her whole life. At this point in the story, Pearl doesn’t know that she is a child of the most disgusting sin. If Hester comes to the point where she has no other choice but to tell Pearl the true meaning of the Letter, Pearl could be changed forever; she could end up having hatred toward her mother and never speaking to her again. Hester was aware of what the outcome could be if Pearl found out the true meaning of the scarlet letter and she feared that very outcome. If Hester lost Pearl, she would have no one.

The Outside Appearance

In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Mr. Dimmesdale makes the statement, “So, to their own unutterable torment, they go about among their fellow-creatures, looking pure as new-fallen snow; while their hearts are all speckled and spotted with iniquity of which they cannot rid themselves.” Mr. Dimmesdale made this statement while he and Roger Chillingworth were discussing the possible cause of his illness. Dimmesdale thought that the reason he was sick was because of the sins hidden deep in his heart. He really wanted to confess the sin but since he was the reverend and was revered by the people he felt like he could not. Even when he tried to open his mouth and let the words pour out, nothing would come. So, Reverend Dimmesdale lived with a secret hidden in his heart that made his life miserable and caused him physical illness.

When Mr. Dimmesdale said this, he was referring to the deep sins and secrets that people can hide within their hearts without anyone knowing it. People can live having the appearance of being pure while their hearts are defiled with great wickedness. This statement is important to the whole story because there are many characters within the story that all appear one way on the outside but on the inside they are completely different. Mr. Dimmesdale was the reverend who people thought of as pure and righteous but he had hidden in his heart a sin worthy of death. He was an adulterer and yet on the outside people viewed him as being so holy that the ground on which his feet walked was considered holy. Roger Chillingworth also appeared to be a normal physician who was new to the town, but in actuality, he was Hester Prynne’s former husband. No one could tell that Roger even knew Hester but he had the secret hidden in his heart. These are just two of the characters from the story that have hidden secrets that the reader knows of. Based on the quote stated above, one cannot know the things hidden in a person’s heart. A person cannot be defined by what they appear to be on the outside. Who knows, there could be many other characters in The Scarlet Letter who have secrets that are unknown to the reader just like the ones stated above.

Pearl brings happiness and torture

In the book The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Hester Prynne makes the statement, “She is my happiness!-she is my torture, none the less! Pearl keeps me here in life! Pearl punishes me too!”(98) When Hester said this, she was referring to the range of emotions that her daughter, Pearl, brings to her life. Although Hester loves to watch Pearl play and have fun in pure innocence, Pearl is also a constant reminder of the sin and adultery that Hester committed. Although Pearl causes so much grief and torture to her mother, Hester could not live without her daughter; Pearl is her everything.
This quote is significant in understanding the character of Hester Prynne. Hester is very ashamed of what she did and is constantly faced with the guilt of it. It is bad enough that there is a constant reminder of her fall embroidered on her clothing, but Pearl is a living reminder that can look her mother in the eyes and pierce her to the heart. Hester viewed Pearl as a wonderful blessing from God as well as a type of punishment for her sin. She loved her Pearl dearly but it hurt her to see that she had bore a child into a disgraceful place in life.
It was a lose-lose situation for the officials who wanted to take Pearl from Hester’s guidance. If they took Pearl away, Hester would be very upset as it would be a form of punishment. However, when Pearl was with Hester, the punishment was just as harsh. It is very important to see that because of Hester’s sin, the greatest thing in her life also turns out to be the most terrifying. I personally believe that Pearl was the greatest punishment that Hester would ever receive, but without Pearl in Hester’s life, she probably would not make it through.

Quote from chapter 5 of The Scarlet Letter

In the book The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the statement is made, “Women derive a pleasure, incomprehensible to the other sex, from the delicate toil of the needle.” (78) The chapter in which this statement can be found describes Hester Prynne’s love for the art of needlework. It is explained that Hester makes a living by doing needle work on many cloths and robes etc. for many people in the town by which she lived. It is also implied that she is very good at needle work and made some beautiful clothing. The quote stated above describes how women find a sense of peace and pleasure from working with needles.
I think this quote is basically saying that although working with needles can be a very tedious and maybe even frustrating job, women find pleasure in it. The quote also mentions that this concept cannot be understood by men. Therefore, the tedious job of needlework is not a pleasurable job in general, but is only pleasurable for women. I think the reason that women appreciate and enjoy needlework is because women appreciate clothing and their appearance more than men do in most cases. It is enjoyable for women because by hand crafting materials together and making designs on clothing they are playing a part in creating the beauty of clothing and adornment.
This quote is significant to this book because it describes a way in which Hester can get some kind of relief from all the guilt and shame that terrorizes her. Although while she was on the pedestal she appeared to be almost unaffected by the scarlet letter of shame on her garment, it burned to the depths of her heart and her shame and guilt grew stronger every day. The needlework which occupied much of her lonely life gave her a sense of joy. It seems like Hester almost feels guilty for being able to do the needlework because she doesn’t think that she deserves to enjoy anything anymore. I think that the needle work that she does will play a big role in helping her cope and get through life.

Scarlet Letter

In the article, “The Status and Role of Women,” found in the book The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the role that women play in society is discussed. This article includes four different documentary excerpts that give an overview of where women ranked socially and what role they played in society. A common theme throughout all of the excerpts was that in America, women are considered equal with men in everything. It is very interesting how the role of women in society has changed over time.
In Biblical times, women did not take part in society as much as the men did. They were quiet in church, and stayed home to take care of things rather than participate in work. For a long time women were just supposed to stay home while the husband provided support for the family. Women also did not have much of a say in political issues or in the government. In the early 1900’s women finally earned the right to vote. They had gone hundreds of years having no say in the government and finally they had moved up one more step in society. More recently I have noticed more and more women involved in jobs like construction work and semi truck driving which are jobs intended to be for men. This shows that the line socially separating men from women has become less and less distinct over time. There have also been a lot more women involved in government and political affairs. The most recent example that comes to mind is Hillary Clinton running for president. It was a huge deal for a woman to even attempt to be placed in such a big leadership role in America, but at the same time, it was okay. Women have risen higher socially compared to men over the last one hundred years.
I think it is good that women have proved themselves capable of doing the things that only men have done for so long. I sometimes get offended when people make sexist comments that make women seem inferior to men. The way I look at it, there are certain things that are only for women and certain things that are only for men. Things like hard labor, tough jobs and dangerous jobs are typically things that fit the genetic make-up and capabilities of men. Women should not feel like they have to do these “manly jobs” to simply prove that they can. Women and men were made differently and are good at different things. I do believe that men and women are equal but on different levels. Men are better at tough physical jobs while women are better at things such as bearing children and taking care of household things. Just because it may seem like the jobs that men have are the more important ones to society, without women around to do the things they are good at, things would probably be very hectic.

"Adultery"

In the book “The Scarlet Letter,” by Nathaniel Hawthore, there is a section that discusses adultery laws in the colonies of Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth in the 1600’s. All of the laws that were created stated that adultery is punishable by death. Although the law stated that an adulterer should be put to death, many times people got away with being whipped severely and being banished from that colony. Today, death as a punishment seems so harsh and unrealistic. In the 1600’s, people held more firmly to the law of God which states that adulterers should be put to death. So what has happened over time that makes adultery much less of a deal than it was 400 years ago? Is it right to be more lenient now or should adulterers be put to death even today?
Today, adultery isn’t such a huge deal. If a spouse is caught having an affair, usually the married couple ends up getting a divorce and that’s it; there is no punishment by law on the adulterer. As soon as I started reading this passage, I thought of the situation that Tiger Woods recently found himself in. He had an affair with more than ten women and no punishment was given to him except humiliation from the media and possible separation from his wife. I don’t even think it crossed anyone’s mind that he should be put to death for such an act. However, if this were the 1600’s, Tiger Woods would be on trial and possibly be sentenced to death.
Although I do not think that anyone should be killed for committing adultery, I think it should be punished by law somehow. When a man and a woman get married, it is a legal covenant between the two where they promise to be faithful to one another. When one of the two breaks that covenant by committing adultery, it is almost like breaking a law since marriage is a legal thing. Society has compromised many standards and laws over the years including whether or not adultery is a big deal. I do not think it is right and I believe there should be some sort of legal punishment for the act.

“Surfin’ the Louvre”

In the writing “Surfin’ the Louvre” Elizabeth Larsen describes her experience with online museum websites. She talked about how she experienced many different paintings and sculptures from many different museums all over the world. Throughout the writing Larsen takes the reader on a tour of three or four different museums starting in Italy and going all the way to Japan. She also mentioned the fact that she does not require every symphony she listens to, to be live. This made me ask, “Is it more beneficial to physically experience a museum, or are online exhibits just the same as seeing them in person?” I believe that it is more beneficial to actually experience a museum in person rather than online.
Larsen makes a good point by describing the vast majority of museums she visited in a short amount of time. By visiting the museums online, she could go to many different exhibits that are hundreds of miles away from each other within a few minutes. I think that it is important to actually visit museums in person. There are many things that a simple picture or video on a website cannot capture that one could see in person. There are many different angles and ways to look at art and with a picture they cannot all be captured. Also artwork has texture and color. With a picture a person cannot fully grasp the whole experience of a piece of art (angles, texture and color) like one could looking at the artwork live.
Although experiencing artwork in person is far better, one does not always have the opportunity to go to many different museums to experience it all. It is good that museum websites have updated and are allowing people to view the work online and get that much of an experience. It is also convenient to be able to go to more than just one museum in a day online. If a person was given the choice between actually visiting a museum and going online, it would benefit them more by going. Seeing a piece of art live is a completely different experience than viewing the work online.

"Coming Home"

The writing “Coming Home” found in the book “The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers” on page 259 describes a sad war story of one man who became a prisoner of war for six years. This man, named Robert Stirm, was finally reunited with his family after spending six years in a North Vietnamese prison camp. The article discusses a photo taken by a nearby journalist and how the photo captures the awesome moment when this man and his family were reunited. However, toward the end of the writing it is stated that this man and his wife ended up getting a divorce a year later. It makes me wonder if the war was a main cause for this divorce. Since the wife could not see her husband for such a long time their relationship grew farther apart and caused a divorce. War can have a negative effect on families.

The concept of war never really made sense to me. Countries fight with each other in order to get on peaceful terms with one another. This is at least the way most countries make it appear. I think the reason for war is selfish. One country wants to be better than the other so they try to prove that by trying to kill more of the opposing country. When government leaders declare war, I wonder if they think about families of the soldiers and how they might be affected. It is important for them to be concerned about the country as a whole, but families and citizens are what make up a country. If war is destroying and tearing apart families, is that bettering the country? In a lot of cases war may not affect a family as bad as it did the Stirn family, but it still makes it hard for families to grow together if one member is gone at war for years. I understand that countries have to defend themselves and sometimes war is the only option. When a country just decides to go to war for no good reason, it is selfish, ignorant, and it tears apart families.

The Homeless and their Children

The writing “The Homeless and their Children” by Jonathan Kozol describes one families way of life in the Martinique Hotel in New York City. This is a hotel that houses around four hundred homeless families. When I first started to read this writing, my first impression of the hotel was a good one. I thought, “Wow that is very nice of that city to have a whole hotel for homeless people to stay.” As I read on my opinion soon changed.

The family described in this writing contains a mother and four children. One of her children is very sick with lead poisoning. This woman does not have a job but is on welfare. She has to pay 1500 dollars every two weeks to stay in this hotel for the homeless. This is outrageous. There is no way that the condition that this woman and her family are living in is worth even half of 1500 dollars. To get a picture in your head, the woman’s room is described as having pools of sewage on the floor, a radiator with a broken valve, a very unstable crib for the baby, and horrible lighting. All the room contains is two chairs, a fridge and a T.V that doesn’t work. By the time the writing had described all this I was thinking to myself, “This woman might be better off living on the street.”

Sometimes cities or organizations are not what they appear to be. Although it looks like something nice is being done for someone, the situation is not as grand as it is cut out to be. There is something seriously wrong with this picture. If someone wants to make an effort to help someone, that’s great, but they should truly help them and try their best to get that person back on their feet. In this woman’s case, this hotel where she was staying was more of a burden to her than it was a help. What is the point of even having an organization like that if it is not going to help anyone? To me it seems as if this city was just in it for the money. The hotel described in this story overcharged this woman for her room and never even made an effort to improve her living conditions. Organizations like the Martinique Hotel should really be ashamed of themselves. They are not helping anyone and would be better off shut down.

Immigrants "stealing" jobs

In the writing, “Do Americans Really want Jobs” Rueben Navarrette discusses the issue of Americans who don’t want to do a certain job until an illegal immigrant takes the job. I find this to be very true in a lot of cases. There are many Americans who complain about their jobs, are lazy with their jobs, and also very picky about their jobs. If a job requires too much physical labor and is not exactly what a person wants, many times he/she will deny the job and search for a “better” one. However, if an illegal immigrant happens to get one of these “throw away” jobs all of a sudden people are offended and upset about a job that they didn’t want in the first place. So what is the issue here? Is it that illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs? Or is it that Americans tend to be picky, selfish, and greedy?

I have experienced in the workplace situations where people just don’t want to work. They do it so they can get paid but they don’t work very hard at it and sometimes decide not to show up or they come in late. Often times a person will quit a job because they don’t like it or it was “too hard on them.” I think that illegal immigrants should be allowed to take these “throw away jobs” if they choose to. It is just wrong for an American to dispose of a job and when someone wants to take it the American suddenly wants it back. This is no different than a person throwing away a hamburger and when a homeless person digs it out of the trash to eat it the person suddenly wants it back. Americans are just greedy with their jobs. If an immigrant wants to take an unwanted job, legal or illegal, I think they have every right to. Americans have no place to complain about illegal immigrants “stealing” their jobs because in all actuality, they are just digging those jobs out of the trash.

Grade Inflation

The article “Thousands of students victims of ‘grade inflation’” by Nancy Mitchell explores the idea of many schools being under the influence of grade inflation. The main argument in this article is that many students are not truly earning their good grades; they are victims of grade inflation. A good way to describe this grade inflation is that students are not challenged and are just given good grades for getting work done. In some cases, students who put a lot of effort in their work but don’t meet the teacher’s standards are still given good grades for their effort. So when we step back and look at it, one group of students get an A for meeting all the standards and putting up no effort and another group get an A for trying really hard but not meeting the standards.

In some ways I agree that grade inflation is bad. In my own life I have experienced this in a negative way. A couple other students and I were chosen to go to a math contest at a local school. We were chosen because we were in the hardest class in our school (calculus) and we all had an A in the class. Honestly it wasn’t too hard for me to get that A. Since this was calculus I did have to give more effort than I did in other classes to obtain good grades. There were, however, students who were trying way harder than I in this class and were struggling to keep a C. When we went to the math contest and faced other schools in a contest, I honestly felt like the dumbest person in the room. There were students there who knew so much more than I did and I didn’t understand why since I came from the top class at my own school. I believe it was because of grade inflation. In the article, a student’s school tried to fix its grade inflation and when it did, her GPA went from a 4.0 to 3.4. It was simply because now she had to work harder to get better grades. She admitted that although her GPA was lower she felt smarter. I wonder if the same thing would happen to me if our school tried to fix the inflation. My GPA probably would drop but I think it would be worth it. I would be able to truly learn and be more knowledgeable about things instead of being seemingly smart on paper.

“Cesar Chavez Saved My Life”

In the writing, “Cesar Chavez Saved My Life”, by Daniel Alejandrez, the story is told of Daniel’s childhood. He describes how he experienced discrimination toward him and his family because they were immigrants. He describes the hate that was built up in him and the actions that sprang from this hate. Although this man ended up using his experience to help others, there are people who, when they go through hard situations, spend the rest of their life living in the pain, anger and hatred that they experienced.

Sometimes we come across people in life who are always mad at everyone, always sad about everything, or who have a burning hatred toward people in general. Why do people act that way? After reading this writing and listening to the experience of Daniel Alejandrez, I realized that a lot of the time this hatred and anger comes from past experiences. Daniel was being pushed around and treated like nothing by people who thought that they were better than him and as a result hatred formed in him. This hatred caused him to stab, shoot and almost kill people by the age of 17. I see teens at school sometimes who act as if they hate the world. Could it be that they have a pretty bad home life and feel like they have to treat everyone else the same way that they are treated at home? It is so easy to pass judgment and just assume they “woke up on the wrong side of the bed.” Although I do believe that it is ones choice as to whether or not he/she hates the world or not, some people need help identifying the hatred and getting rid of it.

Daniel ended up breaking free from his hatred because of something he heard Cesar Chavez say. What if he would have never heard the words that inspired him to stand up for himself without violence and help others do the same? Maybe he would have ended up actually killing someone and spending the rest if his miserable life in prison. When we pass by people at school who hate us or are angry at us we need to try to reach out to them. Instead of smarting back to them when they say something rude we should try to love them. I know it might sound hard and a little cliché but if all they get in their whole life hate, anger, and slander, they will never see what it means to love someone. When we see people who look like they really do not want to hear what we have to say, we should speak up anyway. They could be just like Daniel Alejandrez, needing that one word of inspiration to change their life forever.

"That Parent-Child Conversation is Becoming Instant and Online"

In the article, “That Parent-Child Conversation Is Becoming Instant, and Online” John Swartz discusses the topic of families communicating through instant messaging. Many times the comment is made that it is easier for parents to talk to their teenagers because the teens are more open to listen because there is no face to face communication. They say that it is less intense because the two are not looking eye to eye and it causes teens to open up more. I do agree that it probably is easier to talk to teens this way but I think that this also causes people to have slower social skills when talking to people face to face.

If instant messaging is used every time a child needs to talk about something serious to his/her parent, they will probably have problems trying to have any serious conversation directly with people as they grow up. For example, a person has never had to talk to someone directly about a serious issue; something comes up at work where their boss confronts them about something serious or needs to talk and they have never been pushed out of that comfort zone so they do not know what to do. They can’t just pull out their computer or phone and say “well let me text you what I want t say.” People need to be pushed out of their comfort zones to where they can take on any situation face to face. It seems as if the instant messaging has been used as a way out for a person’s cowardly attitude. If someone has something to say they should be able to say it to a persons face.

There is one part in the article where a parent says it is just easier to get more out of her kids through instant messaging. Although this might be true, I think she should still make an effort to push her kids to talk face to face. I am not saying instant messaging is bad but in some ways it takes away from the intensity and reality of a relationship. Talking face to face with a person grows a relationship more than talking over instant messaging whether a person says more through IM or not. I have a personal experience with this issue. I had a friend that I actually met by texting. We would text for hours every day. Once I saw him in person it was really awkward and I felt like I did not know the person at all. Instant messaging, although it can be convenient, takes away from the strength of relationships.

"Who's a looter?"

“Who’s a Looter?”
This article by Tania Ralli shows two different pictures both taken of hurricane Katrina survivors. One picture shows a young black man carrying food and pop with a caption underneath that suggests he was looting a grocery store. The second picture shows a white couple also carrying food and drink but the caption under this photo says they found bread and water. When I started reading this article, I immediately agreed with the bloggers who thought that the difference between the two captions was a purposefully made racial statement. To me, the young black man and the white couple were doing the exact same thing; they were both in the middle of a crisis and were doing what they could to get the resources they needed to survive. It is kind of ironic that the caption under the black man had more of a negative vibe to it than the caption under the picture of the white couple. As I continued to read, I realized that the two photos came from completely different agencies. I then agreed that the negative statement under the picture of the black man probably wasn’t meant to come across the way it did when compared to the same type of photo from another agency. The two agencies claim to have different standards on how they write their captions, which makes the incident seem even more unintentional.
Many times things that are not truly racial issues tend to be portrayed as racial issues by critics and/or society. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes certain situations are racial issues and need to be dealt with, but I’m not sure that is the case here with this article. This article controversy reminds me of that shooting that happened in Lima a year or so ago. There was a somewhat of a huge uproar about whether it was a racial issue or not. I never saw it as a racial issue and I know many people, black and white, who felt the same way. At times, a situation is what you make it out to be. Would there be the same level of questioning with these photos if the caption under the white couple claimed that they were looting, and the caption under the black man had more of a positive connotation? I think sometimes people make a big deal out of something that is not intended to be such a big deal. I think it would be awesome if people could just see people as people; not white or black or Mexican or any other ethnicity. If people could look at one another through a colorless lens, I think the world would be a very different place.

"Land of the Lion King"

The author of the story “All is not well in ‘Land of the Lion King’” seemed to have really misunderstood the children’s movie. The main point in her story is that Disney purposefully made it so that certain animals would have a certain status in the story. For example, hyenas with their dark fur and “ghetto” habitat are seen as the “bad guys” in the movie. Lazarus is proposing that the “Lion King” has a negative underlying message of stereotypes. I am saying that Margaret Lazarus looked too far into detail in this children’s movie.

First of all, Lazarus makes reference to the hyenas as being “dark-mostly black” she says. She also points out the fact that the voice for one of the hyenas is played by Whoopie Goldberg with inner-city dialect. Lazarus refers to the place where the hyenas live as “clearly the ghetto.” When you think of hyenas you don’t think of sunshine, happiness and bright colors. Hyenas are not pretty animals; they don’t live in nice looking territories so why would “The Lion King” producers make them that way. They made them exactly as they should be represented. She also states the fact that in the movie they are black or else really dark. I looked at pictures on the internet of hyenas and no, most of them are not black. However, I think that Disney pictured them this way because they are like the “bad guys” in the movie. Typically when a person thinks of bad or evil they picture darker colors. I don’t think it has anything to do with underlying stereotypes of people.

She also mentions that Scar has a seemingly gay caricature; to who? I have not once noticed him and being gay. I think Margaret looked too deep into this children’s story and tried to make it something that it is not. I don’t think I have ever heard one black person mention the fact that they were offended by the hyenas in the movie “The Lion King.” I still see “The Lion King” as a good, worth-watching movie.

"The Struggle to be an All-American Girl"

The writing by Elizabeth Wong called “The Struggle to be an All-American Girl” describes one girl’s struggle with her own natural heritage. The girl’s mother wants her to learn the Chinese language while she, the young girl, would rather be playing on the playground with the rest of the students in public school. The issue, however, is not that she wants to play instead of learn; it is more that she is almost ashamed of the Chinese culture and language and doesn’t want to learn it. Although it may have been unnecessary for the mother to force the 10 year old to learn the difficult Chinese language, the girl should not be ashamed of her own heritage.

Whether the girl likes it or not, she is Chinese. It is good for her to learn more about where she originated from and the culture of her ancestors. I am not saying that she has to like her culture over the American culture, but she should not be ashamed of it. That is who she really is. She should be proud of who she was made to be. Although at the time she would rather be playing with other American children than learning the Chinese language, I think that it is very important for her to learn the language. I think that as she grows older, the girl will realize that it was a good decision to sacrifice some playing time in order to learn more about the culture she originates from. There could end up being a situation in the future where she has to communicate or connect with an ancestor of hers and her previous knowledge of the culture and language would help her do so. Also, the fact that she is Chinese by blood means that it is very important for her to know more about who she really is. There are many people today who do not know anything about whom their ancestors are or where they come from. Elizabeth actually has an awesome opportunity in front of her to be knowledgeable about her own culture where many people are not. I think in the long run, Elizabeth will be grateful that she took the classes about the Chinese language and culture.