# 11 p.371 question 6

Stephen Cruz was a very successful man who truly believed, or at least wanted to, in the American Dream.  Though he was a minority, he still managed to get jobs in the 1960's which he knew had a lot to do with the Civil Rights Act, but also believed it was because of his vast abilities.  As he climbed up the economic ladder, he realized that a lot of what goes on in the work force when dealing with who gets hired or fired, has a lot to do with racism.  Cruz, even with his optimistic personality, left his job where he was making fifty thousand dollars because he could no longer be "disillusioned", he couldn't work for people obsessed with their image and money because he knew he'd turn into them.

Cruz's situation is somewhat similar to that of Richard Rodriguez, who became so obsessed with his education and being the smartest, that he forgot about his family and his culture and left them behind.  Rodriguez eventually realized that being book smart isn't everything; you need your family, you need to stay connected to your heritage while venturing into other worlds, you can't bury yourself in books and hide from those you love.  After spending time studying in London Rodriguez returned home to be with his family.

Cruz is similar to Mike Rose because they are both very optimistic people.  They both knew that they weren't always in the best situations, but they made the best of it, tried to have faith in others, and made the right decisions for themselves.  They may have been stuck working with people who didn't care as much as they did, who didn't treat others with respect, but they found ways around it and in the end both of their situations worked out for them.

Gary Soto and Cruz both desired to have The American Dream more than anything and were willing to work for it no matter what it took.  The difference is that Soto wanted to be like the white sitcom families he saw on TV and Cruz just wanted to be respected in the work force for who he was by his white employers.  They both learned that the American Dream is somewhat of a myth and that they are actually more fortunate than they thought they were. 

"Class in America - 2006" Blog #10

I don't think this essay suggests in any way shape or form that the wealthy are exploiting the poor.  I can see how one could argue that it sort of assumes it, but it doesn't openly state that the wealthy are using the poor for their own benefits.  One interpretation of the information that the author provides is that our society still has a lot of racism and sexism.  Basically if you're a female and you're not white then you're more likely to be poor than anyone else.  Opportunities for success highly depends on your gender, race, and the class you're born into.  I agree that in order to change this we would have to reverse our current trends and create policies that decrease the income gaps.

"Horatio Alger" by Harlon L. Dalton - Response

I found Dalton's claims that American society is far from operating as a strictly merit based system to be persuasive.  He based most of his theory on the Horatio Alger myth.  He stated that the myth "conveys three basic messages: 1. each of us is judged solely on his or her merits; 2. we each have a fair opportunity to develop those merits; and 3. ultimately, merit will out" (272-273).  Dalton gave several examples to prove that he believes that each of these messages are false.  He stated that if everything is really about merit, then that means it's not at all based on "pedigree, race, class background, gender, national origin, [or] sexual orientation" (273).  And if you believe in the myth of Horatio Alger then maybe you believe that that is true; but all of those factors play a huge role in our lives when determining how successful we can be. 

I found that one of his most interesting and persuading examples was when he was discussing racial discrimination, specifically about black people.  He described a situation where a student asked him how to deal with the fact that one of her professors had written a recommendation for her in which he called her "the best Black student to have ever taken his class" (273).  Because of her race there was a stereotypical view that she's not as smart, but she was very smart.  So why can't she just be the best student and not the best black student?

I did find Dalton's excerpt to be persuasive and thought that he proved his points well.  However, I do believe that hard work and perseverance can definitely get you places, no matter who you are.  All odds regarding race, background, and everything listed above will always be against you or for you, but you have to be able to look past that and decided what being successful means to you and work for it.

"The Lesson" by Toni Cade Bambara - Response

In "The Lesson", by Bambara, the main character Sylvia and her best buddy Sugar are good friends.  Sylvia can be a bully sometimes and is somewhat controlling, but they have each others' backs and do everything together.  They are both young black girls growing up in Harlem in poverty stricken families.  Due to their living situations they don't spend a lot of time at home and are therefore always looking out for each other.  Their school teacher, Miss Moore, decided to take them on a field trip to the city to go to F. A. O. Shwarz, a very expensive toy shop and tourist attraction.  She wanted them to realize that there are very wealthy people who can afford to buy a $1000 toy not that far away from where they live.  She wanted them to think about the lives that those people lead and how it isn't fair at all that they are so poor and don't have an "equal crack at the dough" (270).  Sugar understands this concept and speaks out about it to to her teacher and classmates and exclaims that "this is not much of a democracy if you ask me" (270).  Sylvia becomes very angry at Sugar for saying that, for giving into the lesson that their teacher wanted them to learn, for admitting out loud how less fortunate they are, for being right, for maybe wanting to do something about it. 

Sylvia and Sugar are similar to Teresa and the narrator of Para Teresa from "Para Teresa".  Although Teresa and the narrator aren't friends, they are also from the same ethnic and economic backgrounds, and they attend the same school like Sylvia and Sugar did.  Just like Sylvia, Teresa is a bully.  They are both ignorant, they both decided to accept that what they have in life is all they have and that they won't amount to anything better.  They are both scared; scared to stand out, scared to try harder, scared to be better because society tells them they can't be.  Sugar and the narrator of "Para Teresa" see the bigger picture.  They know that if they work hard for themselves and for their families, they could make it somewhere and live a better life.  They are more optimistic and don't let the bullying of their peers get to them.  They want to succeed to the best of their abilities and they aren't afraid.  They are the role models for Sylvia and Teresa.

Malcom X Experiment

After reading "Learning to Read" by Malcom X, I felt inspired to read even more and look deeper into what I read. It's truly amazing how he educated himself in a jail library.  His speech, handwriting, and language all improved significantly.  The assignment we were asked to do after reading this passage from his autobiography was to go to a random page in a dictionary, read it, and follow up on any words we don't know by consulting an encyclopedia.  Unfortunately, I'm dealing with painful shin splints and really didn't want to walk all the way to the library.  So I flipped to a random page in "Rereading America", the book assigned for the writing class, read and looked up a few words that I didn't know the meaning of.  The page that I happened to turn to mentioned Yosemite Canyon, a canyon I have heard of but don't know anything about.  I went online and looked up where it is and descriptions of the atmosphere, the water, and the geology of the area.  I learned something.  Not something I'm super interested in so I doubt I'll retain the facts I read for very long, but still I learned something new and all on my own during my own time.

There are definitely benefits to an unsystematic self-education.  For starters it's very open and you're free to look up and learn about what interests you and to continue to follow those interests.  And if there is a certain subject, like science, that you enjoy, you can spend more time deepening your knowledge of that subject.  Self-education also provides a stress free environment where you don't have to feel pressured to be perfect or get something done by a specific date.  And when you are less stressed, it is easier to retain new information and enjoy learning it.  However, an unsystematic education also has its drawbacks.  When learning new information and concepts it's good to be able to discuss it with others, especially people who are experts in the field.  That's why it's good to have a teacher and classmates, or other aspiring learners, to be educated with.  Also, school systems make sure that all students are well versed in all subjects so that they can be versatile and have skills that will help them in whatever truly interests them.  Both unsystematic and systematic education have their pros and cons, so maybe combining aspects from the two would better serve students today.

"The Achievement of Desire" and "Para Teresa" - Response

Richard Rodriguez, author of "The Achievement of Desire", and Ines Hernandez-Avila, author of "Para Teresa", had very different attitudes towards school and family when they were children.  They both did very well and succeeded in school, but they were motivated in different ways.

Rodriguez separated his home life and his school life at a very young age.  He was inspired, at first, by his older siblings who were good students to do well in school, but then he became obsessed, in a way, with becoming smarter.  He was a very eager and anxious student, and once he realized that his parents could not help him with his homework and that he found himself correcting their grammar from time to time, he became ashamed of them.  He started to completely ignore his family at home and would spend all of his time reading books.  He was inspired by his teachers to constantly strive to be better and he was inspired by his parents' lack of education to strive to be smarter.  What he eventually realized though was that he had lost his sense of family and his sense of culture.  School changed him.  Years later, after going to school in London, he decided to return home to his family to be with them.

Hernandez-Avila worked very hard in school, and was made fun of and questioned by her Chicana peers as to why she tried so hard to be a good student.  Her peers asked her why she thought she was so great and if her goal was to be a teacher's pet, but she simply stated that she did "nothing for the teachers" (208), she did it for her family.  She was motivated by her desire to prove to her school that she was not inferior, but equal.  She wanted to work hard to represent her parents and grand-parents who worked so hard and supported everything she did.  However, she understood the viewpoint of her Chicana peers who were against the system because she knew they were scared and grew up thinking they must not conform to the 'others'. 

Both Rodriguez and Hernandez-Avila felt cultural tensions between their lives at home and at school.  The difference is that Rodriguez became so involved in his schooling, that he separated himself from his family and lost the sense of culture he had before he started school and Hernandez-Avila worked just as hard so that she could represent her culture and her family.  The same amount of work led them in very different directions because of their personal motivators. 

"I Just Wanna Be Average" and "Idiot Nation" Response

Michael Moore, author of "Idiot Nation", said "even if there are two hundred million stone-cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who'll get what I'm saying - and that's still more than the populations of the United Kingdom and Iceland combined!" (128).   Moore argues that the American people lack intelligence because they don't read enough and aren't taught history in school.  He repeatedly says that they are ignorant, especially political figures, because they complain about children not doing well in school but they don't support the school system with up to date books and certified teachers.  This explains the attitudes of Mike Rose's friends in "I Just Wanna Be Average" because they know that they aren't receiving a good education and therefore aren't likely to get high paying jobs when they graduate, so they don't feel like trying.  They just want to blend in, be average, get by, and move on.  They accepted that they were placed in a very low level curriculum where the teachers barely even know what they are doing and are not the least bit inspiring.  I think today there is this new idea of being successful and being intellectual; they aren't necessarily related.  This makes it so that a lot of American teens are okay with being intellectually average because they can still strive to be a reality TV show host or a movie star or a salesperson.  I think that the school system today has become so convoluted in the way that they separate students into groups depending on whether they are "smart" or "dumb" because it has led to students not learning anything interesting or useful that will help them exercise and expand their minds as well as help them to succeed in life.  Being okay with being "average" shouldn't be acceptable.  We need to strive to be the best people we can be and the school system needs to support that.

"Against School" by John Taylor Gatto - Response

"School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children" (154).  This statement is what really stood out to me in Gatto's article.  He truly believes that our forced school system has a lot less to do with education and more to do with making sure that we are trained to become an obedient labor force that can't think for ourselves.  After reading this article several times, it dawned on me that Gatto is right and I agree with what he had to say.

According to Gatto, there are six unstated purposes of public schools. 
1. The adjustive or adaptive function
We go to school to learn how to react a certain way to authority and do exactly what we are told.  This takes away from our critical judgement/thinking and causes us to believe that it doesn't matter if we are learning something interesting or not as long as we're doing something.
2. The integrating function
Schools conform children to make them all alike.  They make sure that they dress and speak similarly, taking away from their individuality.  This makes all of the children more "predictable" which makes it easy for those who wish to manipulate a large labor force.
3. The diagnostic and directive function
Students' "permanent records" determine their proper social role.
4. The differentiating function
After their social role has been determined, children are trained to be successful only as far as their social role merits, and not any further.  So if you're a "bad kid" with a not so great permanent record, and say you struggle with math, you'll most likely be placed in the lowest level math class.  Then within that class you won't be challenged or pushed, you'll be taught just enough to get by at that level.
5. The selective function
 This refers to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races".  Schools categorize students into groups.  The ones that are "unfit" receive punishments and poor grades enough that their peers see them as worthless, inferior, or not worth their time as far as forming relationships of any kind goes.  From first grade onwards, teachers have made it so that the good kids are recognized and make it out of school and the bad ones get washed down the drain.
6. The propaedeutic function
This is in place so that a small group of the children will learn to become the next generation of "caretakers".  They will be taught how to manage the forced school system and how to watch over a population of dumbed down people so that large corporations and the government can "proceed unchallenged" (153).

It's weird, and somewhat challenging, to take a step back from everything, everything I've learned from grades K-12, and really examine the system as a whole.  Gatto asks in his article if school is even necessary.  And by school he doesn't mean education, of course education is necessary, but is forced schooling for 12-13 years really necessary?  Probably not.  But this is the norm, this is what we are used to.  Going to school for 9 months a year, 6 hours a day, 5 days a week.  That's normal.  And when I thought about it, from day one I learned how to react and respond to authorities in what is considered the socially accepted, appropriate way.  And we just accept it, I accepted that that is how I am supposed to act and I never questioned it.  And that's sort of what they want, they don't want us to question what we are taught.  Just accept it, regurgitate, get a good grade, and move on.  Now to be honest, I enjoyed most of my school years, especially high school.  I liked most of my teachers and made a lot of life long friendships with my peers.  I took more interesting courses as I got older and through those classes I was able to discover what I'm interested in and what I'm passionate about.  And all of those positive things could still have happened without all of the strict and sometimes bizarre rules that my school enforced.  Our society is so used to the public school system and it is so engrained in our brains as being something that is necessary that I don't think we'd be capable of getting rid of it or changing it drastically.  But small changes should definitely be made, such as giving students more freedom to think for themselves and express themselves, and then we can go from there.  We should still go to school, but as Gatto stated we should be able to "manage [ourselves]" (155).