Nineteen Thirty Seven

In Nineteen Thirty Seven by Edwidge Danticat tells a story about a mother and a daughter going through a rough time. The mother, Manman, is in prison because she is suspected of being some kind of witch and criminal (Danticat 39). The daughter, Josephine, goes to visit her mother about once a week and tells about their past. Throughout the story, Josephine takes her mother the Madonna, a little statue that means a lot to the both of them. I found the Madonna to be very interesting because it seems to play a big role of both of these characters lives. Josephine takes the Madonna to her mother everytime she visits her and every time, Manman holds it close to her chest for the entire time Josephine is there. Another reason it seemed important was because when the lady visits Josephine to tell her of her mothers death, one of the questions that is asked to the woman is about the Madonna which indicates that the woman who visited the river along with Manman and Josephine know about it as well. To me, I think the Madonna symbolizes hope and safety to Manman. When Manman knows that she is dying, the last visit that Josephine makes to the prison, she tells her daughter to keep the Madonna “when [she is] completely gone” because she believes that “maybe [Josephine] will have someone to take [her] place” (Danticat 43). Manman is depending on the Madonna to watch over Josephine when she’s gone and to keep her safe as well. I found it very interesting that it would be and item of religious worth. I think even though the Haitian woman were treated poorly, they still found a way to believe in something other than reality, something good. 

Danticat, Edwidge. Krik? Krak!. NY: Vintage Books, 1995. 31-49. Print.

Landscape, Memory and Survival in the Fiction

    In “Landscape, Memory and Survival in the Fiction of Edwidge Danticat,” Elvira Pulitano talks about an assortment of writings by Edwidge Danticat and what each writing represents. Pulitano explains that most of Danticat’s writing is about the trials and horrendous experiences on the islands. Danticat also focuses a lot on her home, Haiti, in her writing as well. Danticat talks about all the horrible things that Haitians have had to endure throughout the years. Pulitano uses many different stories by Danticat and other Haitian authors to explain the ideas of borders and how they affect the people who live on them. I think by reading this journal, I will better understand Danticat’s Krik? Krak! because now I have a better understanding of Danticat and the ideas that encompass her writings. Pulitano references on story from Krik? Krak! in particular, Nineteen Thirty-Seven. It talks about the events that happen in the story and how these events affect the protagonist and her view of “history”. By reading this, I will be able to fully comprehend what the author was trying to say in Nineteen Thirty- Seven and the message she was trying to convey. Throughout the article, readers gain a better understanding of Danticat and why she writes about what she does.


Pulitano, Elvira. “Landscape, Memory and Survival in the Fiction of Edwidge Danticat.” Anthurium:  A Caribbean Studies Journal 6.2 (2008): 1-20. Web.

"Toughest Indian In the World"

“The Toughest Indian in the World” by Sherman Alexie, the author uses metaphors such as salmon and the “toughest indian in the world” (29). Alexie uses the salmon when the narrator is talking about his dad. He says that his “father never taught [him] about hope” (21). I think what the narrator’s father was trying to say was that they can’t show hope because that makes them vulnerable if they are let down.  It’s better to be tough and strong than emotionally weak. That’s where the “toughest indian in the world” comes in because even though the author uses the phrase to describe the actual fighters, I think the narrator could very well be “the toughest indian in the world” because he was taught to not be emotionally fragile. He was always taught that he had to be tougher than the white men in the white world he lives in. He learned, from his father, “to be silent in the presence of white people” because they wanted them just to go away (22). I think the whole story has to do with the fact that the Indians live in a white world where they have to assimilate to white customs. The whole point of the story is that the narrator feels lost in the white world. At the end, when he “[traveled] upriver toward the place where [he] was born…”, he’s finding his way back to his culture (34).

Alexie, Sherman. The Toughest Indian in the World. First Edition. New York: Grove/Atlantic, Inc., 2000. 21-34. Print.

Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset- Hans Rosling

In the lecture, “Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset” Hans Rosling uses his own data to challenge different myths about the “Developing World” and why they should be challenged. 

Rosling’s students had preconceptions about “we” and “them”, which in their words meant the Western World and the Developing World. They said that they learned it in college. THe students basically said that the larger your family, the shorter your life expectancy and visa versa. When Rosling separates all the regions into countries, Africa seems to all the stay around the same place, poor. As for the other countries, most of them seem to be spread out along the chart. And then you have the U.S. and that tends to stay at the top of the chart. When he zeros in on specific countries like that, the results change dramatically because the different countries have different advancements and such. Money, of course, has everything to do with this. All of the data that Rosling is exhibiting helps challenge assumptions such as the fact that war is the cause of disease. It’s necessary to challenge them because things aren’t always what they seem. To make something better, we must first understand everything about it, even what we all think may be true. When good data is collected, we are more able to understand what it is that we are studying. 

Rosling ends by saying that the world isn’t one of the “western world” and the “developing world” but more so of a converging world except for the bottom billion. The bottom billion is just as poor as they’ve always been.

Rosling, Hans. “Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset.” TED Talks, 2009. Web. 

"Class"- Sherman Alexie

In Class by Sherman Alexie, I chose to focus on Edgar Eagle Runner, the main character in the story. This character is very observant, to an almost crazy stage. He notices every detail about every room he’s in, every place he’s gone, and everything he’s done. First off, when Eagle Runner is talking about how he met his wife, he mentions that “she was the tenth most attractive white woman in the room” which exhibits the fact that he payed close attention to everyone who was in the room especially to have noticed that she was the tenth (Alexie 37). Another thing he mentions, with great detail, later in the story is all the things he did in the first two years of his marriage with his wife such as “thirty-seven cocktail parties, eighteen weddings, one divorce, seven Christmas parties, two New Year’s Eve parties…” (Alexie 42). It seems to me that Eagle Runner pays so much attention to detail because he’s just bored with his life. He’s an American Indian but he’s a lawyer and he’s upper class, or at least he pretends to be. He doesn’t necessarily live his life to enjoy it but more because he has to. It seems that he just goes though the motions of living day after day. He seems to have lost who he is in his attempt to live his boring, non eventful life. The attention to detail of the character sort of contradicts the lack of detail in his everyday life. 

Alexie, Sherman. The Toughest Indian In the World. 1st ed. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1966. 35-56. Print.

Responding to Student Writing

In “Responding to Student Writing” by Nancy Sommers, she talks about the importance teacher’s comments on students writings and how they need to encourage revising. Another thing that Sommers touches on is that most teachers write vague comments that could pertain to anyone’s paper and because of that students tend to get confused on what they're supposed to do to their paper. Sommer’s main argument is that comments from the teacher are supposed to help “show [the students] through [the teachers] comments why new choices would positively change their texts” for the better (346). 

Comments are important for writers because it shows some kind of guidance for the paper and it also gives the writer a view from the reader’s standpoint. Comments help the writer to see questionable composition that they are otherwise blind to. Sommers thinks that teachers tend to take the text away from the student in a sense that they stop focussing on what the teacher wants them to fix rather than continuing to think about what their purpose was in the first place. Sommers calls this appropriating the text. I would definitely agree with Sommers on this point because I’ve been in the situation where the teacher gave me very vague instructions. It’s sort of like a guessing game and by that time, I was focused on fixing what I was told to fix that I didn’t even realize what I was writing about anymore. 

Sommers states that teachers always correct grammar and give generic comments more than anything and that they aren’t useful in any way. Every paper and writer is different and using generic comments such as “needs thesis statement” or “use more detail” doesn’t help a student much because it could mean anything. As for spending time on grammar, it’s also a waste of time especially if it’s just the first draft. Sommers says that teachers need to start giving comments that are appropriate for the text that the student is writing. If it’s the first draft, there’s no need to spend time on grammar because that sentence that was supposed to be fixed might not even be in the paper at the end. 

I would say that I have to agree with Sommers in all points that she makes because I’ve written papers before and I’ve gotten comments from teachers and they do all of the things that Sommers says are not the best way to comment. I relate to being confused by the vague comments teachers leave and it’s not helpful at all. 

Sommers, Nancy. “Responding to Student Writing.” College Composition and Communication 33.2 (1982): 148-156. Web. 

Lea Ramsdell

In “Language and Identity Politics: The Linguistic Autobiographies of Latinos in the United States,” by Lea Ramsdell, she talks about three different autobiographies by Richard Rodriguez, Ariel Dorfman and Gloria Anzaldua and how their views on their different language differ from one another. Ramsdell states the differences in how each author feels differently about their multilingual cultures. Ramsdell states that “Language is identity and identity is political in the beginning of her essay. The way I understood it was that our language, the way each of us speak, is a part of who we are. Our language defines a big part of our identity and depending one how we speak, we are all categorized in different groups and different classes as well. People who speak the same language, tend to have the same ideas and think similarly to each other therefore, our languages and identities become political.

In all three of these autobiographies, language probably plays the main role. Every one of these authors main objective was that their linguistic background had an impact on their life and made them who they are as people. For all three of the authors, language defines who they are as people. Whether they want to be viewed as Spanish speaking Americans or English speaking Chicanos, language characterizes their originality. 

Rodriguez was, in a way, forced into speaking English. His first language was Spanish and when his parents forced him to speak only English, he was a bit upset. For him, English and Spanish were on “opposite poles” (Ramsdell 169) and they couldn’t be combined. Each language meant something different to him. As for Dorfman, he sees each language as “competing for his loyalty” (Ramsdell 169). Dorfman thinks of each language as two languages that don’t go together. He wrote the same book twice, once in English and once in Spanish, which shows the respect he has for both languages. Then, you have Anzaldua who’s opinion is the exact opposite that both of the other two authors. She wanted to speak both languages and she didn’t care what anyone would say. Anzaldua’s relationship with her language is that she loves it and to her, it’s who she is. She doesn’t want to get rid of either side of it. Rodriguez and Dorfman both believe that it’s one or the other. Spanish and English are completely different and it can’t be both of them. Anzladua, on the other hand, believes that she can have both languages and use them simultaniously because she is both of them. Both languages describe who she is as a person and she can’t bear the idea of having to separate them. 

I would say that I agree with Ramsdell because language is who we are. Slang and proper language all define us at people. The way one speaks also defines where they came from, their cultural background, and those who speak similarly, think similarly and have the same morals and ideas. Language is also political in that sense. Again, the political side of language goes back to discourse communities and how each community has a different way of speaking and interacting with each other. 

Ramsdell, Lea. “Language and Identity Politics: The Linguistic Autobiographies of Latinos in the United States.” Journal of Modern Literature 28.1 (2004): 166-76. Web.