Learning to Read

I am amazed on how intelligent Malcolm X was when he was in jail. When he was in jail he did a lot of reading and was surprised on how little the black history section was. This reminded me of Cheney's article about how women's history is not a major focus in some history text books. Why do American's only focus on the White man? To this day every time I even open up a U.S. history text book and look for the Japanese internment section I am disappointed to see it is only a small paragraph long and the rest is on the bombing of Hiroshima and the war. Japanese internment is a very important part of my heritage and I hope for text books to elaborate on this issue. If textbooks would willingly print out a longer section for the Japanese internment it would educate the younger generation of our mistakes. It seems to me that the White man is embarrassed for his error and just wants to forget it all together.

The Case Against College

I did like this article it was a bit of a relief that there are parents out there who are more understanding about what their child wants to do. My parents have both graduated from Long Beach (woohoo!) and being the typical Asian parents, they have both encouraged me to continue onto college. My parents encouragement to go to college was only a small part of why I am here. For me, I wanted to go, I wanted to get a higher degree of learning. I want to be among intelligent peers and I want to be able to voice my own opinion. And going to a JC was no option, I wanted to get into a four year college. The mentality I kept to get to a four year helped me achieve my goal. Plus I was in all AP course to help prepare myself to what the workload might be like in a college class. And also a main determining factor to me continuing my education was my friends. Most of my friends were continuing onto a four year and it was that extra push to help me get to where I am. I didn't want to be the one friend who didn't apply to schools or didn't make it. I wanted to be as successful as they are. I like the fact that Lee also acknowledged the fact that school isn't only to just get a good job. Going to college we're suppose to enjoy the moment, this is our first few steps into adulthood. We have reached a new way of learning where we get more leeway on our work, we are able to fully express ourselves .

What are Homosexuals For?

I found this article to be very interesting because currently this is the topic my friend and I have been discussing. My friend is questioning her sexuality right now and she comes to me to talk about the problems she faces since none of my other friends don't really tolerate homosexual people. And it pisses me off that my best friend would cut off all ties with my friend if she decides shes a lesbian. It hurts me that my best friend could say such a thing, shes known my friend for over 5 years and yet she'd do something like that. I wish people would see through sexual preference and focus on the kind of person they are. I would not give up my friend for the world, she is a kind and thoughtful person and I love talking to her. I believe that you are born with the kind of people you prefer, you can't change who you are more attracted to. Say you are a homosexual but deny it and force yourself to marry someone of the opposite sex. You'll be living a lie for the rest of your life and you might be unhappy as well. I've watched show on whole families being broken up: wife, husband, and kids because the person decided to come out. I don't think I could live a life of lies, you fall in love with whoever will love you back. Love is love. Why marry someone when you cannot fully love them back. If I was in a situation where I had either the choice of being with a guy who was rude and mean to me or a girl who was my significant other and there was no one else I could choose, I would probably choose the girl. In today's world I do see a very positive shift towards the LGBT community which I am extremely happy about. This whole issue on homosexuality is almost like integration of races in my opinion, we are getting one step closer to total tolerance. And I can see in the near future that there will be a huge movement towards tolerance of the LGBT community.

Miss America Beauty Queen

Reading this totally reminded me of Miss Congeniality, one of my all time favorite movies. I saw so many similarities from this, like how only the seemingly perfect girls get nominated for these beauty pageants and how they are suppose to be "scholarship" based. But picking a winner only based on looks is a bit questionable to me. Training your whole life on just being beautiful just seems wrong, but my mom said only the beautiful people ever get picked on jobs. It's a horrible truth and we as a society need to look past the beautiful people and focus on the truly talented. Of course this will be a difficult transition if we even ever think of considering that seeing as we are a nation who treat our celebrities like royalty. The media also fuels the bad image the Miss America Pageant gets all because sex sells more than brains. Today's media is filled with sex, sex, sex, and drugs. The only reason why we keep the infamous swimsuit portion is to keep the ratings up. Even though Miss America is considered a scholarship foundation they focus on the minimal effort on education. It would be interesting to see the actual questioning which got the girls into the finals. We would be seeing strong, intelligent, and beautiful women answering questions. Young girls will see and have better role models who are actually book smart, morally stable, and beautiful on the inside and out. Kate Shindle describes how winning Miss America gave her the opportunity to use her brains and help our people in need. I partly see this as a publicity stunt she is able to do those kind of things because she is the winner and deemed beautiful. Her face will be seen on magazines there are probably thousands of people doing the same thing Shindle is doing but aren't published in a magazine. With Shindle's face on magazines and media not only does she get money for it but the pageant also gets money.

One Nation Slightly Divisible

This article was very long but interesting, David Brooks talks about the difference between the north and the south. The basic message I got from this was that the north was urban and fast paced and the south was rural and slow paced. Reading this I immediately thought of Nicolas Sparks' A Walk to Remember, setting a tiny southern town with churches dotted throughout the area, down to earth white people who knew everyone there. In the cities we seem to be moving so fast we forget to take time out for ourselves to smell the flowers. For me my weekends are as packed as my weekdays, there are things to do and people to see. I am hardly at home anymore. And that is what Brooks is trying to get across that in the south people enjoy themselves without a deadline. They are there for their families and enjoying the moment, careers aren't as important as they are in the north. And when I further read about Brooks comparing the likes and dislikes of the north and south, it reminded me of the Blue Collar Comedy Troupe and all their jokes on Nascar, outdoor sports, long sleeved shirts with the sleeves cut off. Speaking of guys with sleeveless shirts, Brooks writes about the difference in men between the north and south which I found interesting. Since the south is more laid back than urban north the way men seem to dress is more laid back and well, rugged. Guys who work in office building in the big cities are expected to be more clean cut and dressed in suits. And the modest style of dress the southern men take upon also reflect on their homes. The wealthy northern families soup up their homes to see who can have the biggest driveways or extra bedrooms. But in the south, an area that is very devoted to God, most of their profits go to the church and the community. I feel that in the city people are more greedy and love to show off their newest piece of technology but in the south they take pride in their own community. What was really interesting was when Brooks stated that in a time of need, even though the north and south are as different as triangles and squares, we are able to unite and help out our country. As Americans we have been noted to be very patriotic and when 911 struck, American flags seemed to pop out of American soil. We all were pro-war we wanted to punish those who have harmed us and as united Americans we think alike. Americans are notoriously known to stick their heads into conflict without realizing the entire story. Once again our nation was divided after the war on terror began. The north and south separated on political views, the south being proud republicans still wanted war and the north saw that our social problems weren't resolving because our tax dollars were being spent on the war and wanted out. Towards the end Brooks acknowledges America as a cafeteria nation, that each region of our country has its own unique quality. Or that America is like a big high school filled with cliques, we all go to the same school and we all have school pride but individually we are different. This made me think about California, even we are split up into "SoCal" and "NorCal" it's interesting to see the difference between these two regions. We are very different on lifestyle, type of people, and dialect but ultimately we are still Californians and still Americans. And in the end of Brooks' article I was a bit confused he kept switching sides on what region he favored more. It seemed at the beginning of his article Brooks' glorified the south and in the end the north was the better region.

Letter to America

I really liked this one not because it was short, but it really captured my attention to the nostalgia of the older days. I am amazed at how Margret Atwood captures the attention of the American audience by relating to familiar things of the past like "Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, the Andrew's Sisters, and Elvis." Atwood grew up in America but eventually moved to Canada and saw the changes America had made in the following years. Since Canada is like our sister country and because she was once American she gently but sternly brings up the problems Americans have issues with. Atwood recognizes the fact that America does tend to poke their noses in other countries too often enough to forget to care about our own people. "You have always wanted to be a city upon a hill a light to all nations..." The city on the hill phrase has been used since the colonization, it is the basis of how our country came to be, Atwood greatly respects America for that in the past in the time where we graciously accepted all. In a way I think Atwood's vision of America is too old fashioned, even in her childhood there were still social problems but she failed to recognized that aspect. With time America needs to evolve, as a country we cannot stay in the same state of mind, even our constitution does not fit in today's society. For example the right to bear arms, what does that mean in today's society? That we are allowed to all carry bazookas and large guns? That amendment just doesn't fit in our society, back then it was a necessity to carry a weapon around and even still it was a non-accurate rifle. Atwood also brings up the subject on our economy, America is plunged into a very large debt that grows and grows as we speak. Atwood addresses this problem because it gets personal, America and Canada are major trading countries with one and another. If the American market fails again Canada and the whole world's market will crash like it did in the 1930's. In the end Atwood does not leave us in utter despair, instead she leaves an open door to us. She makes a reference to King Arthur not being dead, but sleeping in a cave and she gives us a tip to our nation that to once restore our former glory we must dig deep into our past to find the answer. This could mean taking the back seat from the fast paced lifestyle we leave can be beneficial to our country. But also this once again proves Atwood still keeps an old fashioned mind that the old days were the better days.

Crimes against humanity

In Ward Churchill's article he spoke out against teams racially acknowledging their mascots like the Redskins for example. What I felt did not fit was that Churchill seemed to take out all his anger against the white man about having teams racially named after the Indians. "First, as a counterpart to the Redskins, we need an NFL team called the 'Niggers'..." I felt like this was uncalled for, two wrongs do not make a right. Churchill should not have pawned off a racial slur onto another ethic group. When I see the name Redskins, I do not see the name in a negative manner, rather I see a heroic chief, gallantly riding off into battle. Just like the football team does, why do we name our sports teams after groups like the vikings, patriots, chiefs, or even fighting Irish? I think that we people value the euphemistic thought of these strong brave men. Most of us know that the vikings were blood thirsty pirates and not all Indians are savages. Churchill really takes the team name Redskins too personally! Also what mostly will get in the way of changing a popular teams name and mascot are the fans. Remember back when the Anaheim Angels changed their name to the Los Angles Angels of Anaheim? There was a huge uproar among fans, hardcore fans value the proud history behind the name and the traditions. The tomahawk chop, even though it's racially deeming it still has some historic and traditional value among die hard fans. And with the hockey team the Ducks, when Disney traded over its ownership to the new owner. He wanted to change their mascot, the awesomely cool Wildwing and I remember fans didn't want to give up that mascot. And to this day because of the fans Wildwing still leads the Ducks on. I know racism is wrong and a very sensitive topic but in one of my favorite musicals called "Avenue Q" there is this song called "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist". The lyrics are really true, racism will always be there although it might not be as extreme as it once was. There's a part of the song that goes, "Everyone's a little bit racist it's true, but everyone's about as racist as you, if we all could just admit, that we are racist a little bit, and everyone stop being so PC, maybe we could live in harmony!" Today it's more of a playful banter that we learn to live with. Maybe if the Redskins' mascot got a makeover Churchill will look at it as an honor.

For those of you who would like to listen to the song here it is! (:
Everyone's a Little Bit Racist-Avenue Q

arranged marriage in india

I find arranged marriages to be really old fashioned, my Great-Grandpa even didn't agree with it. He was suppose to marry my Great-Grandma's sister but ended up not, obviously. He claimed "She wasn't pretty enough." But in today's society where getting a stable career set up before marriage and with rising housing costs maybe letting mom and dad be matchmaker is a good thing. One part in every teen girl's stresses, boys is on the list and now since competition of colleges is rising dealing with boy drama can put a girl on the edge. Most girls when we have boy trouble we go to mom and when we find a boy we like we get approval from mom. Why not cut out the middle man and let mom pick for you? Then we are able to focus on our careers and financial futures. And for all you hopeless romantics, sometimes love doesn't work out how we hope it would. Now in days we have to think about finances, the cost of living has greatly increased, college tuition has gone up, and now we have to think about our children's future. The one advice my mom has given me on love is, "Don't marry for love, marry for money. Don't make the mistake I made." In a way I don't agree with it, I still hold on to the hopeless romantic. I hope to find someone I fell in love with and has money to support himself. But realistically, we now have to focus on our careers and finances.

Shakespeare in the Bush

After reading Laura Bohannan's article I found similarities to the Lion King. As some of you know Disney's Lion King was a remake of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Which uncannily fits in with this story, Laura is in Africa retelling the story of Hamlet to the tribesmen. What she finds out are that the shocking, taboo, and important themes of Hamlet are accepted traditions in their tribal society. She is shocked in that they can equally relate in their own special way even though her friend told her that anyone can understand Shakespeare in the way it's originally written. Her friend was wrong, Laura was lost in translation. What Laura needed to learn from this experience was to be open minded to different cultures and see that not everyone is the same. Luckily she was entertaining a kind audience who have seemed to embrace the western culture of life and giving her a lesson on tribal customs as well.

No Name Women

All in all I just have to say this, THANK GOODNESS I LIVE IN AMERICA! Universally, adultery is seen as a horrible thing you can do, but in western culture we see it not in a punishable act by mob, unlike other cultures around the world. I know in Asian cultures it's all about honor to your family and your family is the most important thing To do something to give your family a bad name, well it's not good. For example, in the Japanese community everyone seems to know each other and say if a teen gets caught doing drugs, the word gets spread like wildfire. Your parents are embarrassed at you because they are now known are the parents who didn't raise you right. I've heard of stories where an Asian person has forgotten of their relatives because they have done something to shame the family. But aside of Kingston's lost aunt, I can sympathize with her aunt. She was a women who was left all alone and with a low self esteem, no wonder she started to sleep around it made her feel important. And when she found out she was pregnant, she probably finally felt important for once and that someone would finally love her. Until the town rebutted against Kingston's aunt and her "demon child" she decides to kill herself. Kingston's aunt must have figured that she could never live a life with a bastard child and would never make it out on her own if she moved out. Again, in Asian culture family plays a very important role without her family she would never survive. The whole scene of the mob destroying her aunt's family home and wearing masks reminded me of the Ku Klux Klan and how they evoked fear to discourage an unwanted behavior. By doing this act, the villagers could be sending a message to all the young women in the town to not do the same thing Kingston's aunt did. What really upset me was the fact that the man who impregnated Kingston's aunt initiated the mob. It upsets me when it is equally the man's fault as it is for her aunt! A man cannot be a coward when it comes to the welfare of his child! How can you be so insensitive to the mother of your child?

A Tale of Two Divorces

This article was very interesting, I felt so much pity for Anne Roiphe's mother. To live a life of unhappy marriage must have been hell. Given that in that time, divorce was still considered to be a taboo and also woman's rights were still in their developing stage. Roiphe's mother didn't seem to have a very high self esteem either, she treated her children like they were her friends instead of mothering them and she let her husband verbally abuse her. Luckily for Roiphe, she was able to learn from her mother's mistake and divorce her husband who she thought was nothing like her father but in the end being exactly like him. And in respect for the Spice Girls I have to say...
GIRL POWER! Roiphe had much more self confidence in herself to be able to leave her ex-husband unlike her mother did. Women today have more rights and are more self confident in themselves thanks to careers. We are a different breed of women, the working woman. Housewives still exist but their numbers are diminishing. Women are not seen as the primary and sole caretakers of the home and children, men now in days are stepping up and taking care of the home. And unlike back then, today divorce has become so widely accepted but has risen a new problem. Broken families and messed up love lives. Our society needs to learn not to rush into things. As Americans we seem to have a problem with rushing into things to quickly, like the war. We need to slow down and not rush into something as important as marriage. Marriage isn't all about love anymore, with rising costs of living the meaning of marriage now means a financial partnership as well. Also the media is to blame, young girls look up to people like Britney Spears, who was shown getting married in Vegas randomly and divorced a few hours later. What is this teaching our youth? Marriage should be seen as a sacred and cherished thing, not something you can easily throw away.

Shop like a man -Paco Underhill

This essay I felt was so true about men and their shopping habits. Whenever I go grocery shopping with my dad he never brings a gigantic list or coupons verses when I go with my mom. We also just kind of meander through the aisles picking random things mainly junk food. But when I go with my mom it's game time, she gives my brother and I 10 different things to grab then meet up in one area. Even going clothing shopping varies my brother and my dad dread going clothes shopping. My brother gets really cranky and puts on his "whatever" mood. And we go in and out of the store in a blink of an eye. However, shopping with my mom or my friends is a longer and slower process. We like to try on like 50 things at once and browse around window shopping. Even if I don't have any extra cash to blow my friends and I like to walk around the mall every Friday after school. It's almost become our ritual. Underhill wrote that when women shop with men they take even less time verses shopping with their kids. That is so true, when I was little my mom used to take forever in the Coach store debating whether or not to get a purse. My brother and I had the look of "just shoot me" during those 4 long hours. But, when I shop with a guy, if it's my dad or a friend I tend to take even less time or all together I don't go into that particular store because I feel bad about them being bored. Underhill in his essay brings up ideas of how he would change the shopping experience to make it more appealing to guys. Stores are already picking up on this concept, like Macy's for example. In front of the woman's dressing room they have special monitors displaying a sports game. They also have a couch to sit on and a foozeball table to play a pick up game. Then he goes on and on about how fathers are actively taking a role in bringing their children to the mall and grocery store.

Guys vs. Men - Dave Barry

I felt like this whole essay backs up the saying, "boys will be boys." Cut guys some slack because they aren't true "men" yet. And that guys are expected to act stupid and on impulse. Men are the guys that women idolize. Guys idolize being the manliest men or being able to burp the loudest. I liked the fact that Barry used situations that I am all too familiar with. Girls, how many times have you seen your guy friends do something stupid? Or when they completely ignore you for something like sports or computer games? Or you have that friend who is a complete Neanderthal? But some parts Barry seemed to generalized together all women, not all women like arranging furniture! I would rather have a really powerful computer that I have no idea of using. And I guilty as charged with doing an act that is totally stupid, like drinking a shot of hot sauce because I was dared. Which I did suffer miserably for. I found that the guys reviewing Barry's essay turned out to be funnier than what Barry was writing. Barry was trying way too hard to come across as funny and casual. The whole issue on how its okay for guys to cheat because it's in their genetics was so stupid. I laughed my butt off when I saw the offside comment, "I wonder if his wife read this?" (page 408) Guys to an extent are like dogs but cheating on their partner is morally wrong, unless it's something on the page as Halo 3 then that can't be helped.

edit//
Sorry guys, I posted this like a week ago before we knew what the assignment was. And I was quite satisfied with myself of the blog up there. So here is my comparison.

Barry's essay was very enjoyable to read because his style of writing was very laid back, personal and humorous. On the other hand a writer like Mary Pipher, in her essay it was very formal and serious. Both writers did take typical sterotypes of both sexes but Pipher seemed to put down the females claiming that they weren't as intelligent as men. Barry does do the same thing but it was mostly to take a piss out of the faults men do have. Pipher really focused on the fact that females had a low self esteem which then affects their confidence and intelligence. Pipher, lets just say was literally putting down womens' intelligence and Barry was just lightly joking upon guys' stupidity.

Academic Selves

I did not like what Pipher wrote about at all. I disagree that girls are less intelligent than boys, the girls in my classes were alway the outspoken and smarter ones. Maybe Pipher's classroom experience was different than mine, but she seemed to be putting down girls' intelligence as a whole. She's generalizing that all girls aren' as confident and intelligent as boys are and I don't think that's true. Reading this essay insulted me, never in my life I put becoming popular in front of my studies. That is so stupid to put something like that in front of your education. Pipher seemed old fashioned, she is stuck thinking that women are only housewives who are dainty. But today's girls aren't; Pipher left out that there are some women who do make it as doctors. Statistics show that more and more women today are going to college. They are getting their degrees and they are having very successful careers. On a personal level, more of my female friends pursued in the more complex classes and moved on to going to college. Pipher only focused on the girls with low self esteem and claimed her findings as the whole population of girls. These girls shes focused on seemed like the type of girl who is not involved in any extracurricular activity that builds confidence. Why do you think our society has something called Girl Scouts? Their motto clearly states that Girl Scouts is there to create strong girls. Girl Scouts has definitely helped create stronger and more confident women today.

English 99 - Frank Gannon

Once again I would like to thank you for assigning a very short reading. And surprisingly I enjoyed this one! I think it's because I relate.

What I liked about this essay was when Gannon was listing the different types of groups in his English 99 class. I found that factor so true, even in our own English 100 class I notice we all have our own groups we associate with. And it was interesting reading the different styles of their writing, like the bored girls wrote about boys and clothes. The jocks wrote about partying and hot girls, and the Refugees wrote about their home town and the hardships. Even the writing topics between me and my best friend vary drastically. Last year in AP English 4 we had to write a practice essay for the UC's application free response essay. I wrote closely to the bored girls' and jocks' topics. On the other hand my best friend wrote about moving to the U.S.from Vietnam. And I realize that we have this barrier of different lifestyles, I was born here on U.S. soil and my best friend immigrated to the U.S. when she was seven. My life is nothing like hers, mine even might seem boring and I think Gannon thought the same about the bored girls' and jocks' essays.
I felt that Gannon was trying too hard to put up the image of a Professor. He had the look of a professor down but he didn't have the motive to teach this class. Gannon was expecting to teach the smarter bunch, he wanted to read amazing quality papers not papers written in "see spot run" form. English 99 as Gannon described it "was there so that the college could get some money from these kids before they flunked out or quit." -page 215
The college already has a bad image of this class and Gannon didn't do anything to turn it around. On page 217 Gannon stated how you learn how to write well, "You don't learn it, you learn how to do it." I do agree with it, but I thought that Gannon was being hypocritical in that he failed to help correct his students grammatical errors. Is Gannon teaching his students like Mori's Japanese teachers? Tough love? At the end of this essay I was very disappointed in Gannon, he just gave up and he was biased to the Refugees. The Refugees' papers really struck Gannon hard and he passed most of them. But he failed to teach them the basic grammatical skills they need to succeed in English 101. The basic concept of English 99 was to get the students ready for English 101. -Page 217
That part really upset me and I was glad in the end that he was fired. A teacher is there to help students to succeed in anyway possible.

Learning in the Key of Life - Jon Spayde

One thing I know for sure is that in today's society the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It's hard for the poor to make it if they do not get a formal education. Spayde introduces this problem in the beginning of his essay. He infers that education closely resembles class which I agree with. Usually when we hear about someone dropping out of high school in today's society it is frowned down upon, just like the rich man frowning upon a homeless man. Another example would be comparing Masters Degrees to Lamborghini's. Spayde introduces other author's personal views on education. I found it hard to understand Shorris' point of view particularly because I grew up in a well to do neighborhood and attended a decent high school. The humanities I felt have always been present in my educational career and it's hard to think of life without them. But I do agree with Shorris' point on the humanities make you rich in terms of life, last year I took AP Art History. Yes, it's not a class that will help me find the cure for AIDS but it made me feel much more cultured. I feel more refined that I know of the great art works of the masters. A journalist named Miles Harvey stated that we do not have enough time in our lives to learn about all forms of great literature. He made a point which I think is true, Americans would rather have an extra day off, than to learn about another great writer. Schools today add to the curriculum for example the choice of only one great author. I disagree with that, I think in education we, the students should be getting the whole deal. If two authors are as important but we only are taught one, then we are getting the short end of the stick. Teens will never know how great that author is. Personally I would have not known about them unless we read them in class. Spayde questions Harvey's statement with the fact that people truly learn if they have a natural interest in the subject. Students can find Shakespeare hard to follow because they have a lack of interest. As a student, I partially agree with Spayde's rebuttal, it is much harder to read and understand literature like Shakespeare. Shakespeare and Morrison is nothing like Harry Potter. With Harry Potter I finish a book in a day and I don't have to reread any sections to understand fully. Shakespeare it's the opposite, I struggle with the language and it's more intellectual composition. What I disagree with Spayde is that some novels that I have utterly despised have helped me with my writing and opened my mind to new horizons. Last year I was forced to read The Heart of Darkness which I HATED. It was too complicated and dull for me, but I am glad I read it. I feel more cultured in that I can alliterate to that novel in my writing and I understand in the media when it is mentioned. The Heart of Darkness also made me realized how corrupt society can be, it was like a warning on what the consequences are and how we can better ourselves.

School -Kyoko Mori

Mori starts off her essay with something I am very familiar with. If you don't get the highest grades, get into the good classes, pass all the exams, or go to college you are a failure. I'm sure most Asian teens get that at home. But she moved on to something that surprised me, Japanese students don't get a second chance. I knew the Japanese school system was strict but not that strict! Mori, made me realize that we take our education system for granted. Mori explains to the us that yes, in Japan they have a type of junior college but if the student is unable to get accepted into a college they give up all hope. Here in the US you can stay as long as you like in junior college and we have councilors to help us step by step to transfer to a better University. Many of my high school teachers told my class that they screwed up their life in college but were able to rebound later in life. That type of story for the most part gave our class the message that anything is possible. That we can take a bad experience and turn it around. Some of the most influential teachers I've had in my life went through something like that. She also writes that middle aged adults in the US have the ability to go back to school if they are unhappy with their previous occupation. Japanese middle aged adults do not have this opportunity; they are expected to suck it up and deal with it. The one thing Mori stresses on is that Japanese teachers never taught how to write. All they did was criticize the student that their punctuation was off or overall they're essay was horrible. Here in the US, teachers take the time out to point out why that sentence was awkward or at least put at the bottom of our essays "Talk to me about this after class." This is one thing I know that I've taken for granted. I had no idea that there was a way to write. It has all been fed to me subconsiously, after I've read this essay it's had for me to think that in Japan creativity is something they value less. She also describes that her Japaneses teachers in high school made her write about black and white topics. Prose, plot, themes, characters, and rhetoric on a book. For those who have survived the AP English classes this might sound familiar. This was the kind of topics I had to write in high school and why? To prepare for the AP test. I was lucky to have an AP teacher last year who acknowledged us to write what we are thinking about. He wanted us to keep the concept that writing was an art form. My AP teacher was very liberal and he would complain that our educational system was transitioning to numbers and grades. That art will soon be lost. Most of the art that the Japanese do learn are the real traditional things like ikebana. I'm Japanese and I know that the traditional arts are really hard and they follow a strict code. If you do something wrong it's thrown away and you're screamed at. Who wants to learn in those conditions? The Japanese educational system that Mori describes seems to be already in the direction that our educational system may head in the future. The thought that the American education system may move in that direction is one of my biggest fears. The impression that Mori gave me about the Japanese educational system was that students were like robots. They are taught a specific task and it's their job to repeat it until it's perfect. Robots don't ask questions, humans ask questions. Mori writes that the students are suppose to respect the "sensei" and that the sensei is God. Nobody defies God. I was always taught that asking questions was a good thing, that there was no bad question. Teachers here don't scream and shout at a student who questions their lesson unlike their Japanese counterparts. I was quite shocked that Mori's friends did not like it when their teacher wrote that their paper was awkward but they had a good voice. Personally, I have always enjoyed a response for that it made me feel less like a failure. That I had the potential in me to write an amazing paper. Americans truly take our educational system for granted. We are lucky to have teachers who are willing to take time out of their busy days to explain what we did wrong and teach us how we can improve ourselves. Why do you think our professors have office hours? I'm glad we don't have such strict guide lines in writing and in our lifestyles. But I am still fearful that the American educational system will shift to what the Japanese already have. Who wants to live in a world where you are just a number and not seen as a person. After all, technologically the Japanese are a few years ahead of us.

Football Is a Sucker's Game

Universities and getting so much money from football games because the attendance is so high. Season tickets for football at UCLA are ridiculous, my friend has to pay extra for it because it's not included in the tuition! And now that I think about it, they get a ton of money off of merchandise too, everywhere I turn you can buy UCLA or USC merchandise. I heard in Japan UCLA has its own store to sell shirts and sweatshirts bearing its name. My own high school sells this crap at the grocery store. And yet, does tuition decline? No, the university is putting more and more of that money back into the sport to improve its stadium! And once they have a fancy new stadium but a bad team. What do they do? They bribe an even worse team to lose! I've always seen college football and professional sports full of corruption. Why should a professional football player get paid so much for getting beat up on the field? Verses a life saving doctor or the common teacher who spreads knowledge to all. Have you ever watched MTV Cribs? I find it appalling when a sports figure is featured on the show; they have so much money that they invest in some of the most ridiculous things. Sokolove mentions that some coaches make about 2 million a year for doing almost nothing. On page 127 Sokolove writes that a university president resigned after mentioning that he raised a basketball player's GPA. If the school suspends the team's star player, fans will get mad. People will stop coming to games and thus the school will lose money. The world of college sports is full of corruption, schools just want the money and the recognition that their school is the best. I believe that the universities have lost the notion that sports is about enjoying the moment. They see it as one huge marketing scam. And then you look at the die hard fans, they go because they love the sport and are suckered into dishing out the cash. Marketing doesn't just stop at selling items but has expanded to young children dreaming of going to that particular university just for the team. I asked my younger brother what school he dreams of going to and he answered, "USC." I asked him why he wants to go there, why not UCLA? And he replied, "Because USC has a better football team." I didn't agree with that answer. There are many different schools that aren't publicized at all and still are great schools! I think it's wrong that schools like U.S.F. to add a football team to get more publicity. This will just lead to more corruption in our society.
"Football is the S.U.V. of the college campus: aggressively big, resource-guzzling, lots and lots of fun and potentially destructive of everything around it." -page 145
This is so true from my personal experience in high school. Basically our football team sucked ass. We lost almost every single game and our team was filled with a bunch of morons. And yet they got all the luxuries from huge pep-rallies, new equipment every year, crowds at games, and now selling merchandise at local grocery stores. I find this ridiculous! I used to run on a number 1 ranked cross country team and we never got the royal treatment football had. I saw this as unfair, why should a team that sucks and is full of corruption get brand new equipment? And a team that actually wins gets the hand-me downs? I always saw the cross country team as the underdogs of the sporting world at my high school. We were a bunch of super hard working, decent people but we never got nice stuff like football did. It was always a dream of my friends and I to get an all-weather track. It took 4 years, but now my high school is getting one, after i graduated.

Politics in the Schoolroom

When this essay first started out I was appalled that a fourth grade teacher would tell her students that Columbus was a greedy and a murderer. I don't believe that children should hear about these true and dirty facts, but I feel that as they reach high school they are more mature and can handle what Columbus actually did. What child wants to hear that their hero has been a lie? Personally, i would feel crushed and perhaps speak out against this teacher. Who wants their child to learn words like "genocide, holocaust, or annihilate?" Yes, in a way it will give children the idea that, nobody is perfect and perhaps give them the insight of keeping an open mind. But in our strong Christian society what parent would allow this? This situation can also lead to a bad impact, a naiive child will learn about the dark side of Columbus and perhaps may think, "Columbus was able to gain all this power by killing innocent people but still is regarded as a hero, I want to be just like him!" We have enough corruption in the media to influence young minds, now history is going to strike the young. Why do Americans criticize the Western culture? I think that we, Americans only do this to describe our own past. Well more of the White European side, have we forgotten that America consists of multiple cultures? In U.S. History books America was known as the "Giant Melting Pot" when all the immigrants came to America and ditched their own culture to blend in. There are hardly any long chapters in U.S. History about the Japanese Americans, I always felt so disappointed when we got to that chapter. I felt that a part of my heritage was missing. Truly, America doesn't stand for a "tossed salad" but a giant melting pot where the European heritage masks out everything. Learning one after another, of a corrupt White European man gets to be really boring. But when I read about an African or Aztec corrupt man, my attention increases by tenfold. Cheney writes that the standards for teaching about the Aztecs includes, architecture, labor systems, and agriculture. But ignores the fact that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifices. Why are American authors doing this? Are we trying to be more politically correct? Why can't we accept that other cultures have their own faults too? If we were to include the faults of other cultures it would bring us to the fact that yes, other people like us make mistakes.

On page 270, Cheney makes a great point; she writes that a fifth and sixth grade standard is to read a book about a Japanese girl who died of radiation due to the atomic bombs which the U.S. created. But, the standard fails to include the events that lead up to this sad story. Just like Columbus, what are we teaching our youth? What are they thinking about this? Cheney, believes that they will come to realize that their own country is horrible for harming the innocent. Where is the American pride? Nowhere to be found. Surprisingly Cheney supports a more grim and true version of history than a more happier one. But why should we allow the dark and dirty version of history when most high schools will not allow rated R films? I see no difference in either, most rated R films present the facts better than a textbook would.

Cheney congratulates the accomplishments that women have achieved in this era. More women today have ditched the housewife status and evolved into educated powerful women. Recent studies from the AAUW show that girls are more prone to think about colleges than boys. And that more girls enroll into college. There is a larger female population even here on campus! At one time most textbooks failed to include some important women of our time, the AAUW found this discrimitory. Now the AAUW reports that textbooks are starting to integrate female history into textbooks. HIStory no more, now is the time for HERstory!

But once again, Cheney cites that authors fail to include the whole story. Researchers at Smith College discovered that recent textbooks did include women but were more in favor of them. The textbooks failed to acknowledge some of the faults that historical women dealt with.