Separate is not Equal

Since the beginning of the our course, I knew that there were always at least two different American Dreams. One that is based on materialistic ideas and another based on belief in abstract concepts such as peace, love, and togetherness. Reading Walter Fisher helped me realized that that type of American Dream is called the moralistic type. However upon doing research for the current project, I’ve come to realize that not everyone gets the option to choose which dream they want to pursue because of segregation.

I know when most of us hear or think of the word segregation, we think of history and how that term is supposed to be ancient, outdated, and terminated. However many would find it shocking to believe that it still exists today right in front of our very faces. It is happening to minority groups, but more specifically the African American and Hispanic communities. I am focusing my essay on how segregation in society today affects the pursuit of the American Dream for minority groups.

So what exactly does segregation in modern society look like today? A prime example of this would be in residential communities. Historian and sociologist James Loewen discusses segregation in residential communities and how it shapes the American Dream for blacks and whites in his article “Dreaming in Black and White”. Blacks are grouped into one neighborhood, whites are grouped into another neighborhood and that is the area with the better resources and services. One of Loewen’s claims include that it is more likely that African Americans receive inferior public services such as education and health care as a result of residential segregation (68). Because of the lack of resources given to African Americans in these substandard neighborhoods, they are not being provided with the necessary resources to achieve their dreams such as for starters good health and better education and are forced to live this mediocre lifestyle.   

Loewen adds that racism is still present in society and is in fact a “a central part of it” (71). He concludes that as a result, African American families pursuing the American Dream will face “special obstacles” (68).  Law professor Sheryll Cashin supports Loewen’s claims by adding to the claim that segregation is everywhere in society.  Cashin weighs in on segregation with children. She writes that typically blacks and hispanics are placed into high-poverty and white students are “becoming more and more isolated” as a result of suburbanization. Black and hispanic children are receiving inferior education and therefore not receiving the same if not better opportunities white children are receiving.

Of course this is not referring to the entire black, hispanic, and white population but numbers speak truth. According to the US Census Bureau, nearly 50% of the poverty comes from a combination of blacks and Hispanics.  In every state, blacks and Hispanics have the highest poverty rating with white populations falling below 10%. I believe for the most part this is a result of discrimination, racism, and segregation.

In all, the lack of resources and services given to minority groups are a result of segregation in our current society. Because of this, minority groups are not able to reach their highest potential and have to settle with what's given to them. Research done by professors like Loewen and Cashin has concluded that rooted and present day racism is a prominent drive for modern day segregation and that it’s only getting worse. I’ve concluded that segregation is clearly not preventable. It happened in the early twentieth century and was thought to be abolished but it still persists in the twenty first century. However, I believe having more diversity in the local, state, and national government is imperative and could possibly lead to segregation being terminated.

One For All and All For One?

                                                      

I remember in one of our previous blogs, we had to define what we believed was the definition of the American Dream. I came to the conclusion that there are two Americans Dreams, one being materialistic and, I defined it as abstract because I couldn't think of better definition at 11pm. I brought up how most Americans are obsessed with achieving individual wealth and success and then there are some that believe the American Dream consists of being concerned with others, that they practice Noam Chomsky’s principle of “solidarity”. Clearly, I was not the first one to come to this conclusion. Walter Fisher claims that there are two different American Dreams: a materialistic and moralistic.

Fisher makes the claim that both of these types of dreams are considered myths but “without dreams or myths, a man or nation is without a past, present, or future.” I believe Fisher meant that dreams and myths shape the way people view society and the world as a whole. Each of these myths have power in shaping our society.

The materialistic myth consists of the idea of that individual worth ethic and self reliance provides you with success. Fisher says that “the myth is not believed by those who have tried to live by it and found in practice that it is flawed by favoritism and corruption.” I find this true in society today because many individuals do not live or possess the same experiences in life and depending on the life experiences an individual can succeed or fail. Life’s just not fair. For instance, favoritism in the workplace can come in the form of prejudice, discrimination or sexism and can set someone back from achieving their materialistic dream. In addition, a good example of corruption would be if for instance a son got a CEO position over someone who has worked hard to get that position just because their father created the company.

The moralistic myth “serves to inspire cooperative efforts to benefit those who are less fortunate than others”. Because the moralistic myth is meant to bring about unity and take in the opinions of society as a whole, this type of dream is more appealing to others. It is natural for most common people to put the needs of others at the same level as needs for themselves. It is human nature to care for one another. However, Fisher also adds that “in order to be moved by moralistic appeals, one must condemn himself in some way or another.” I found this claim to be evident in today’s society as well. Fisher uses the example of McGovern showing how immoral the Vietnam War is by making his followers realize their guilt for allowing it to continue. Today, for instance, many people are supporting the victims of the recent terrorists attack because they feel some kind of guilt for allowing it to happen.

Fisher allowed me to understand that both of these types of American Dreams are necessary to have; they balance out each other. In order to have a realistic goal, a balance of the qualities of both types of dreams such as self reliance and compassion for other.

Is What We Value Really All That Valuable?

Growing up, I would watch the news or see on tv show stereotypes Americans follow and would mock them or talk down about them for it. It wasn't until I got older when I realized that I fit into a lot of these American stereotypes as well. Gary Althen discusses some of these stereotypical values such as competition and materialism in “American Values and Assumptions”, a chapter in the his book American Ways: A Guide for Foreigners in the United States.

I don't know about you all, but I am obsessed with ‘90s television shows and one of my favorites was The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. If you know this show, you know Carlton and Will are always in competition with each other and the outcome is always bad. For instance, when Will and Carlton were competing for the spotlight on the basketball team in Season 2, Carlton got jealous and costed the team the winning shot.

Although Alten tells his readers, “it is also obvious in schools and extracurricular activities for children, where games and contests are assumed to be desirable and beneficial” he goes on to prove that they end up being alone because they spend the majority of their lives comparing themselves to others who are better than they are in a particular area (8). Carlton, left alone in the gym after losing the game, admits to Will that he basically spends his time comparing himself to Will. It is human nature to want to compare yourself to those who are better than you but many people forget to not dwell on the idea of being someone else.

Another example of competition is evident in school. There is always the really smart kids who always strive for straight A’s and who are only concerned with their grades. I’ve noticed that a lot of the times, those kids don’t have many friends or isolate themselves from everyone else. I recently did this when I was preparing for my speech in my communication class. I isolated myself from all of my suitemates and only focused on my speech and I missed out on my opportunity to go to the mall that weekend and just have overall fun with them. I did well on the assignment, receiving a high A, yet I was bummed that I missed out on the fun. Alten concludes the competition section saying, “People who are competing with others are essentially alone, trying to maintain their superiority and, implicitly, their separateness from others” (8). I believe Alten is trying to show the readers that competition is good to an extent, meaning it shouldn’t drive you to loneliness and cause you to miss out on life opportunities.

A value that has a profound presence in society is materialism. Everywhere I go, I see Supreme, Nike, Pink, Thrasher or Ray Bans. It is so present in California culture and walking around you feel the need to conform to this materialistic culture. I hate to say it but I’m guilty of it and kind of ashamed. The argument that Alten says most Americans believe is that it's a good thing to be able to possess more materials; that it shows some measure of success (12). However, I do not agree with this American value. I don't think it should be considered a value. Yes, it is nice to have nice things but to make others feel as if they are not socially accepted because they value materialism is just ignorant.

Thonney's Got the Keys, Keys, Keys For Successful Academic Writing

Going into this reading, truthfully, I wasn't thrilled. I expected to be super confused and afraid of the truths Teresa Thonney had in regards to first year students writing mistakes and just the fact that it is an academic journal article. I can't be the only one that cringes when I hear those words. Fortunately, I’m glad that my expectations were not met. I really enjoyed reading this!

One thing I enjoyed reading about Thonney’s article was how direct it was. For instance I liked how, even though her introduction was not very interesting or did not provide any sort of anecdote, I appreciate how she got straight to the point by clearly stating her argument. I am aware that Thonney isn't addressing first years as her primary audience so she shouldn't be necessarily impressing me with her introduction but her writing style did remind me of how I’ve been writing essays all my high school years, mainly timed or in class. When I would write to my primary audience, my teacher, I also got straight to the point and did not have a formal introduction with an attention gainer or an anecdote. Thonney mentioned that writing concisely is a form of academic  writers adopting a voice of authority.

I also found it interesting how Thonney wrote about the need for academic writers to respond to what others say about their topic. She discusses how writers need to join a conversation to show how they understand their readers concerns and just use previous research to support their argument. I couldn't help but think of what Rebecca Jones wrote about the what a good argument should consist of. Jones argued that good arguments should not be limited and one sided but that both pro and con should be open to each other’s claims.

Thonney seems to supports Jones’ argument by telling her audience that academic writers acknowledge that others might disagree with the position they’ve taken.  Thonney says that using hedges allows the writer to sound less opinionated in their writing. Personally, I have never noticed the significance of those words and how they can alter the meaning of the entire sentence. I really like this strategy because it gives critics less room to talk negatively about your argument.

While telling her audience the effects of writing concisely, Thonney also define the term lexical words as meaning-carrying words. I’ve always used these words in writing but I never knew they were called something bizarre like lexical words! I just always thought I was shortening my sentence to make it concise. I never knew there was a name for this process. It’s great to know that I was doing this before I knew what the actual term was. In addition, I like how Thonney proves how common lexical words are in various texts such as in scholarly journals and cell biology.

Thonney uses plenty of rhetorical strategies such as exemplification, compare and contrast, and authorities and big names to demonstrate to her readers how vital her conventions are in order for first year students to succeed in academic writing. Her strategies help establish her credibility as an author as well evoke ethos in her readers.

Since When Did Caring For Others Become "Dangerous"?

You know how most parents always raised you to believe that caring for others was imperative natural, and necessary? I wonder if rich and powerful families were raised to think otherwise?

Chomsky makes the claim that policy formation is based on the principle of solidarity (66). He goes on to define solidarity as “caring for others” (66). In addition he uses social security and public education as examples of policy formation.  I believe him choosing these two examples is ethos because he’s using two major and well known programs to gain the reader's attention. Also, these programs are large and a majority of American citizens have a connection to these programs one way or another. For instance, millions of families are affected by the public education policy as long as their children are in school. Therefore by Chomsky mentioning them, it causes the readers to pay more attention to his claim because they will realize, “hey this may pertain to me at one point or another!”

Now that he has the reader’s attention, he goes on to discuss how solidarity does not pertain to the rich since they believe so much in the idea of individualism. The rich are angered by the fact that their taxes is going towards a program that is not benefiting them in any way but only feeding the mouths of another family. Unfortunately, they see it only as paying for another person’s means of living. Therefore they tear it down by defunding the program causing the people to find another means of living. I don't really understand how this idea seems plausible since most programs are funded by the rich, won’t Congress just create another policy similar to Social Security to fulfill the majorities needs?

It is ironic that Chomsky begins Principle #5 by saying how dangerous solidarity is because society has taught us that caring for others is beneficial and that you willl be rewarded for doing so. Yet, “from the view of the masters, you’re only supposed to care for yourself, not about other people.” He goes on to say that this is much easier for the rich and powerful to complete but hard for everyone else. The statement, “it’s taken a lot of effort to drive these basic human emotions out of people’s heads” suggests that the rich never had human emotions since it was so easy to let them go.

Overall Chomsky was arguing how our founding fathers built this country to stand on individualism and to not be dependent on others, that everyone should be in charge of how they construct their lives. However, this rule did not apply to every American, especially back then. This idea only pertains to the elite, rich and powerful: people who have status included with their name. Here Chomsky uses logos to relate to the readers. Our class, his current audience, is not apart of the rich and powerful so we find it logical to believe that it isn't possible for the rich to feel real human emotions, solidarity, towards people like us.   

When Did It All Go Wrong???

Do you ever feel like a plastic bag, drifting through the wind, questioning the very foundation the American Dream was built upon? Me too and apparently Chomsky does too!

Chomsky uses the introduction to break down the American Dream by defining democracy. I remember learning about the definition of democracy and the various types in my AP Government class and comparing it to today's type of government. Of course it's no where the same as it was back then. I like how Chomsky confirms this. Chomsky describes pure democracy as putting “power into the hands of the general population” and “taking it away from the privileged and the powerful. It’s a principle of concentration of wealth and power.” So whenever the rich got too rich, the less privileged would  intervene and take over their land. This idea of this pure democracy has changed over time due to the “concentration of wealth yielding to the concentration of power”.

Chomsky is making it known that the wealthy have had a considerably large “amount of control over policy”. Based on this claim, it can be concluded that due to rich and wealthy getting more wealthier and creating and control policies to fit their needs, the dreams and needs of a majority of Americans are left ignored.

Chomsky claimed that the wealthy have always had control over policy (15). He quotes Adam Smith and uses the example of how the Senate used to be only elected by the wealthy, higher class individuals, legislatures. This system did not allow for the opinion of the majority of American citizens and therefore policies were not fit to satisfy groups that dominated the population such as women and minorities. Therefore, it was not truly the way democracy was supposed to be executed.

Today, the Senate is elected by the public and a majority of the policies are largely shaped by the opinions of the public. Yet still a majority of Americans still have difficulty in getting their opinions to the government. Especially since most of these policies change once each party leaves the office. For instance, immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are not having their opinions taken into account. Due to the ending of this program, many Americans are not being allowed to live their American Dream, materialistic and abstract while others can: a very accurate representation of inequality.

Inequality can lead to many unfortunate consequences on a society, as Chomsky explained. Chomsky tells us that inequality “has a corrosive, harmful effect on social relations, on consciousness, and on human life”. From this I realized that it's very clear in society. Inequality has always been around but seems to have gained recent attention in the media, anywhere from immigrants right to #blacklivesmatter. I believe Chomsky is trying to demonstrate that as long as inequality is prominent in our society, the American Dream will be delayed.

Because inequality is an aspect of society that does not go away, Chomsky is showing us that it is virtually impossible to achieve the American Dream. The more people are trying to convince others that inequality isn't present or we are living in a pure democracy, the more we’re straying away from the aspect of the dream by being ignorant to the fact that inequality is present and we do not live in a pure democracy. We never have. Perhaps once people realize this, steps towards achieving the American Dream can be reached.

Compromise is Key

There is this restaurant in my hometown called Jack’s Urban Eats and they're are pretty well known for their Urban Fries and chicken strips. With these chicken strips, you get only two choices of sauce: ranch and barbecue. I hate that so much. There are so many other varieties of sauces out there and they just limit our choice to ranch and freaking barbecue sauce! Where’s my sweet and sour, honey mustard, KETCHUP??? I actually don't like ketchup that much, but you all get the picture. The limited choices of sauces at this restaurant is similar to the problem Jones addressed in her essay Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic concerning the restricted viewing of arguments.

As Jones noted, arguments have been limited to a “this or that” set up and because of this there leaves a lot of ignorance in between. Jones says that “while many pro and con arguments are valid, they can...shut down the very purpose of having an argument: the possibility that you might change your mind.” After reading that, i did one of those “it all makes sense now”.  A little after this statement, Jones provided examples of relevant topics today such as gun control, cap and trade, and free universal healthcare and asked her audience to find a compromise in between. Most of these political speeches present issues that are relative in today’s society but are “this or that”. You are either for or against gun control for instance. Popular media and higher officials have been falsely leading people into following this way of arguing and making it seem like that is the best and only way to stand for something.

Towards the end of her introduction, Jones reassures us that it is okay to compromise and have believe in both pro and con. It's okay to believe that guns are bad but are okay to have after having a background check and other tests. In fact, this is the right way to have an argument. Jones defines argument as “multiple and complex” and  “can be logical, rational, emotional, fruitful, useful, and even enjoyable.” And that makes complete sense. If everything you try to argue for is this or that, you’re never thinking in a logical and realistic way.

Jones mentions how everyone in America comes from different background and are diverse in terms of social class, economic status, and political views therefore there could never be “pro or con”. In argumentative writing, we are taught to offer counterarguments for each point and I believe that's a possible solution to the “this or that” problem. It allows people to take a step back and open up their perspective on the topic.

America was founded as a free, democratic nation after escaping from a monocratic regime. In a monarchy, we learn from history that there is not room for everyone’s opinion and we could imagine that for the most part many arguments were very “this or that”. So it doesn't make sense that American citizens would allow that to occur in their country, yet it has been for centuries. It would make sense for compromise in arguments or debates to happen.

Yes, argument is popular and necessary in life however arguing logically through the use of counterarguments is necessary and perhaps allows for more fluid and compromising results.

Dream A Better Dream

In John Kenneth White and Sandra L. Hanson’s introduction The Making of the American Dream, a truth that appears consistent throughout the text and history is this shift from a materialistic American Dream towards a more abstract idea of an American Dream. When I describe a materialistic dream, I am referring to something that can be physically attained such as money, a house, or a car. When I describe an abstract dream, I am referring to an intangible idea such as unity, freedom, or simply happiness.

White and Hanson included a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831 that he proclaimed Americans had, “acquired or retained sufficient education and fortune to satisfy their own wants....they owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands”. White and Hanson assessed that the opinions Tocqueville had are what “give the American Dream its staying power”: this idea of a materialistic American Dream. Although the historical context of the situation is completely different from that of today, some of Tocqueville’s statement I find agreeable. I agree that Americans should FIRST establish themselves as an individual in society by satisfying their materialistic needs, needs they know they NEED to flourish in the economy. I do not necessarily believe they should “imagine their whole destiny in their hands”. Of course in order to achieve an American Dream you’re going to need assistance or guidance in some way.

In addition to that, once your dream is achieved, you should figure out ways to help others achieve their dreams. The cycle should keep repeating to ensure that all individuals reached their optimum.

Based on the reading, it seem later in history, in times of turmoil and nation frenzy, materialistic dreams turned into abstract dreams. White and Hanson wrote that the American Dream “represents a state of mind...an enduring optimism” that can be used to “build a great nation”. Instead of following Tocqueville’s observation of American’s being selfish, the dream had now become not just a single dream for said individual but a dream that could benefit everyone. It seems as if it takes America almost being in shambles for the people in it to get WOKE.

During the Great Depression, material items were stationary and not easily available and so Americans could only hold on to these abstract concepts of hope and optimism. My great grandmother was around 10 during the years of the Depression and she would tell stories of how while her family didn't have much to hold call “theirs”, her parents had the utmost of faith and would continuously root positivity and optimism into her brain. She told how she would be so confused as to why her family was so positive about the situation when they were clearly poor and not living their dream. Her parents would tell her, “well what else can we do, we have to keep going”.

Overall, the concept of the American Dream has changed over the years from being one based on materialistic principles to abstract ones due to the constant societal changes. The abstract dream of unity and optimum has been used to bring about bountiful changes that have led to prosperity in the U.S such as inalienable rights being given back to Mexican and African Americans during the Civil Rights as well as women receiving more respect and rights in the workforce. If this trend continues, the American Dream will become faster to achieve.

American Daydream?

Let’s dissect the phrase ‘The American Dream’. According to Merriam Webster, an American is a native or inhabitant of North or South America. So basically someone that lives in those two continents. Dreams as defined by Merriam Webster are "a series of thoughts, images, or emotions that occur during sleep and especially during REM sleep- similar to a daydream".  Many believe that dreams are formed from some real events that occur in life but are a majority fiction. So put those two together and you get the American (North or South) inhabitant who thinks about fictional outcomes.

Brown defines America as being a “complex and unequal country”. Based on his definition, it seems as if it is inevitable to attain The American Dream if the country that was built on unity and equality only keeps you from striving towards your goal.

Lisa Weah’s American Dream is for America to uphold their declaration of creating unity and equality as well as promising life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Her ancestors, like mine, did not receive these promises from our founding fathers until almost a century later. Still, these principles are not fully implemented in society today as found in several discrimination cases such as police brutality and recent hate crimes against ethnic groups. Because of the many setbacks America has taken in achieving these goals, Weah’s dream of a “happy and together” American society is highly unlikely.

Aveonte Willingham admits his dream of helping all of the needy and poor by putting them in sanctuaries is cliche. He has an excuse because he is young and naive. His answer reminds me of when little kids tell their parents if they could do one thing they would end world hunger or have world peace. Of course if that could happen, sure, that would be amazing but unfortunately, America  is a “complex and unequal country”.

Everyone having advocacy on their side is what Olivia Chelko-Long wants as her dream. Advocacy for various groups around the country has been in action such as with farmers rights, LGBTQ rights, Black Lives Matter, and children with fatal illnesses. However, it seems these issues do not reach the government branches rapid enough and are not valued as a high enough priority. It takes a major incident, such as a death, for something to be done.  Similar to Weah, Long’s dream has taken part in our society in some form, however has not taken a major enough role for justice to be served.

What I like about Kaitlynn Cates dream is that it’s realistic and can make significant change in their lives. Cates is living her dream already by simply just keeping herself mentally and physically healthy after her tragedy from the Boston Marathon. However, tragedy and failure can occur over and over again and disrupt or even ruin the American dream. But the difference between Cates dream and the previous individual’s is that her dream is in her control and she doesn't have to depend on everyone else to make her dream a reality.

After reading this most would believe I don’t have an American Dream because I seem super pessimistic and doubtful about a majority of others. Your dream is YOUR DREAM. I only believe that your American Dream should be based on your situation and your life and to not factor in the whole world. Once everyone begins to work on bettering themselves, we could get past just an American Dream but finally have an American Reality that we all would enjoy living in.