Martin Espada Essay

Martin Espada is a Spanish poet whose main themes are discrimination and racism towards the Spanish. In his first poem, "Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877" shows a description of the ecstasy of  white man crowd at two Spanish men being lynched. The second poem, "The New Bathroom policy at English High School", the Spanish language is banned in a bathroom because someone does not know the language. In "The Revolutionary Spanish Lesson", a protest is held out of rage due to not being recognized. These poems all contain a discriminatory theme, and the opinion on discrimination is the same in all the poems; they are not supporting discrimination.
   First of all, his poem "Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877" had an extreme focus on discrimination. The poem is about exactly what the title says. The poem states, "remain the faces of the lynching party...a high collar boy smirking, some peering from the shade of bowler hats, but all crowding to get into the photograph." This means that everyone was trying to take a photo with the two dead Mexicanos. This describes how excited and amused the people are now that Mexicanos were dead. Very discriminatory, because it shows how no one cares about two dead men if they're Spanish. This is very unfair, and cannot have any theme and opinion other than being anti-discrimination.
    The second poem, "The New Bathroom Policy at English High School", is also a discriminatory work. The poem states, "So he decides to ban Spanish/ from the bathrooms/ now he can relax." This poem and quote illustrate a lack of confidence in people that others cannot understand. This also proves that unless people know exactly what is being said by anyone, they will not trust that person. These two pieces of evidence show that people will forbid others from being who their are for their own satisfaction and integrity. Espada wants you to feel disgusted at this behavior, because it is selfish and fearful, and goes against years of promises and history of the U.S., which is not keeping it's promise of letting everyone live in it equally.
  The third poem, "The Revolutionary Spanish Lesson" is also discriminatory. The poem shows extreme disrespect because people will not pronounce foreign names correctly, and having to pay for it. The poem states, "Whenever my name is mispronounced, I want to buy a toy pistol......hijack a busload of Republican tourists in Wisconsin, force them to chat anti-American slogans in Spanish,", showing him getting angry at the people who mispronounced his name and made his life a hell. This poem is more about the justice in the Spanish man's eyes, because it seems as though he thinks of himself getting his revenge on the people who sought to segregate him. This poem is very discriminatory because it shows how the tables were turned, when people who don't like Spanish are forced to say anti-America slogans in Spanish. This poem has a deeper meaning than just a mispronounced name, but that meaning is still as discriminatory.
  These three poems all have their own ways of expressing their opinion on discrimination. Regardless, what the author tries to get you to take away from this is the same in each poem. The discrimination shown in these poems can be described in today’s light given all the recent events having to do with racism and discrimination. Discrimination is shown in a very negative light in every poem, and the techniques the author used are all very moving. They make you think of discrimination as a hideous thing.

Upfront Essay

The gaokao is China's college entrance exam, and 9 million teenagers take itannually. If you pass the gaokao, you get into college, but if you don't, it's manual labor in a factory or construction site for you. The gaokao is the only thing that lets you get into college, no other factors are even looked at for even a few seconds. This pressures the students beyond belief, and it is very unfair and a very bad idea to have so much riding on a single test for so many students.
  First, the gaokao is too pressurizing. In China, more people commit suicide when the time for the gaokao draws nearer. This shows how people show a drastic increase in anxiety around the time of the exam. The article says, "...shocking photograph online: a classroom full of students hooked up to intravenous drips to give them the strength to keep studying." That's unbelievable. The gaokao puts so much anxiety on kids that they decide to be fed through tubes. A test that induces that much stress is almost unthinkable. It certainly brings the effect of the gaokao into light. So, the point is that the gaokao puts too much stress on the students, and there is not a doubt why, when the gaokao drives people to commiting suicide
   Second of all, the gaokao is treated so importantly, even for a college entrance exam. In Maotanchang, there are many strict laws in place so that teens can do nothing except study. There is no dating, no computers, and no electricity at all. One student regards, "There's nothing to do but study." Maotanchang has very long school days, and very harsh rules. People in China are arguing against the test. It is taking away modern life in place for an anxiety-inducing test, which is not ethical.
Third, the gaokao is too important to pass, for teachers and students. If the students don't pass the exam, then teachers in China will lose their job security. That's not fair at all, because the teachers should not have everything riding on a test score. Because of this, the teachers have to dole out severe punishments for bad grades just to keep their rep up. This kind of procedure for training kids to get high test scores is not good, because it would only teach them to be intimidated and get punished. That is not what gives kids high grades, and the teachers should not have to force the kids to get good grades.
IN conclusion, the gaokao is an unfair way to judge if kids get into college. If there is so much riding on one exam, it will cause too much stress on the kids.

Book Club Essay

There are a lot of things in reality that don't make sense to people. In "Alice in Wonderland" by Louis Carroll, Alice enters Wonderland. A world where out of the ordinary and sensible are mixed. In Wonderland, animals talk, cats disappear, and cardboard and other everyday objects have sentience. Alice has to deal with this, and she also has to confront the fact that justice system in this world is completely distorted, almost nonexistent.
 First of all, in Wonderland, the Queen and King are very cruel to their subjects. The queen, during her and Alice's croquet game, she was screaming "Off with his head!...off with her head!" This shows that the queen has no regard for the lives of people in Wonderland. The King is not any better. At the same time, he says, with an eager, maybe even ecstatic tone, "I'll get the executioner." It is probably shocking to Alice at how abusive the Queen is of her power. The Queen also seems to prohibit free speech . When Alice was about to insult the Queen, Alice changed her mind when she saw the Queen watching her. This shows how the Queen is like a dictator that does not like not knowing what other people are saying, so she haunts people and threatens them if they insult her.
  Also, the Queen and King have no regard for justice, and make up rules so people cannot speak in trials if they do not them to. The Queen also, during the trial of the Knave of Hearts, only wanted him to die because she thought that hearing the verdict was tedious, and it was less of a hassle if he was sentenced first. During the trial, the King did not want Alice to speak, and made up a rule so the trial could be over quickly. This shows that the King and Queen are very non caring about justice.
  The King and Queen are not very good people. They are power abusers, and do not care for anyone but themselves. They are the embodiment of a corrupt justice system.

Letter to Ms. Berner

Dear Mrs. Berner,
  It’s impossible to deny that books are getting darker and darker every year. It’s also impossible to deny that book banning is becoming a more frequent action. In the past 3 years, there have been over 1000 books that were banned or challenged. WHy do people ban books? To keep mature content out of the hands of children, or because parents complain about the themes it holds. A perfect example is the “Harry Potter” series, with it’s themes of witchcraft and racism. It may be in good intentions, but it is still wrong to ban books.

Banning books takes away choice. The kids should have the right to choose what they read. However, banning books takes away that option. Kids need to have freedom to read what they want. When we take that away, we are taking their freedoms away. Is that what we had in mind when these books were banned? No. We were concerned for the children. The people thought the children would be safe if they were ignorant to all the problems facing the world. Authors and editors also think this is wrong. The editor for “Inexcusable” states “I don’t, as a rule, like to do this on young adult books. I dont like to compromise on how kids really talk. I don’t want to acknowledge those f-ing gatekeepers.” It is not appropriate to choose what kids read. The decision is always left up to the individual. But book banning leaves the decision up to the banner, which is wrong.

 These books don’t necessarily have a negative effect. Meghan Cox Gurdon states that “Reading about homicide doesn’t turn a man into a murderer; reading about cheating on exams won’t make a kid break the honor code.” Some people agree with her view, and even say that it is helpful. One teenage blogger says that we can’t “shut them out from the outlet of experiencing difficult events and feelings.” It’s true. Kids cannot remain ignorant to all the challenges in life, and that is what banning books is doing. Kids who do not read YA books are oblivious to the challenges and dangers surrounding them. These books teach children and teenagers alike many valuable lessons about life. They can be harsh and heartbreaking, but they are an important step in teaching our children. We can’t deprive them of these lessons. These are not supposed to be happy books. They are supposed to teach and help people, especially the people who can relate, like victims of drug abuse and child abuse. Ellen Hopkins, The author of Glass, Crank, Burned, and other drug abuse books says that during a book signing, a girl who mirrored the girl in her books came up to her, explaining her story after reading “Crank”. “That book turned her around”, Ellen Hopkins states. Is it really right to ban books after seeing the positive effect they have had on the people who have read them? That will create more problems for lost teenagers who need help.

Third, are people really banning books to help kids, or do they feel contempt toward the books and ban them for personal reasons? J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series was banned in a Catholic School for it’s themes of witchcraft and occults. But Deborah Caldwell says “There are others who say the books model disrespect for adults.” There are no reasons to ban books on the grounds of disrespect. That’s selfish and proves that people ban books for personal reasons. It was also done without consultation. You should hear everyone’s opinion before a book is banned. Rick Hudson, who sends his kids to the school says “I am upset it was done without talking to anyone about it.” This brings the motives of the banning into question. It is not fair to ban books like that without giving anyone forewarning. That does not give the reader’s parents a voice in the banning. VERY unfair, indeed.

 Despite all this, book banning does have it’s positives. There is much mature content in books, some which should not fall into the hands of young readers. In the article Looking at “Flowers in the Attic” by V.C. Andrews, with it’s themes of incest, you should have no problem seeing why that book was banned. It was banned with the children’s best interests at heart. But it’s not like the Internet does not have mature content as well. According to Sherman Alexie, author of “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian, “There’s nothing in book that even pales to what kids can find on the Internet.” The real problem may not be the books themselves, but the people who choose to read them. We can’t really say that all book banning is bad, but it’s fair to say that the banners are not looking at the issue carefully enough, so they do not comprehend everything surrounding the issues.

 It is not like all books are appropriate for children. But it is safe to say that it is not up to the adults to decide what children can and can’t read. That is not what literature was made for. People against YA books need to think about that the next time they swoop down, looking for their next book to take as prey.

Sincerely,

Michael Norton