Home to Harlem and being an outsider.

With in the first couple pages of the novel, we learn that Jake is a well traveled man. When he comes back to Harlem, he is called out multiple times for the habits that he has picked up over seas, like what he wears and what he drinks. These differences tend to set him out from everyone else, but at the same time, he constantly like, Harlem, England, and France together making them seem like the same place with the same problem. This is evident on page 34 when he says
"The same in France, the same in England, the same in Harlem. White against white and black against white and yellow about black and brown. We's all just crazy-dog mad."
Is Jake an outsider in Harlem or do his travels and experiences make him a man of the world. 

The N Word versus "darky"

I thought it was interesting how on page five of "Home to Harlem" the narrator describes that the N word and "darky" are two very different things. "When a Yankee said 'nigger' he meant hatred for Negroes, whereas when he said 'darky' he meant friendly contempt. He preferred white folks' hatred to their friendly contempt". If I'm understanding correctly, when white people used the N word they were being cruel to a black person's face and not trying to hide their hatred. However, when they used the word "darky" it was as if they were being falsely kind like they were being courteous enough to not call you the N word but they still had to call you something other than your name. But I thought the most interesting part was the last sentence, that he preferred their meanness to their friendly contempt...like he thought it was actually meaner to be called "darky" than "nigger" because at least if a white person went ahead and used the N word then they weren't trying to hide their hatred. What do you think about this passage? And what do you think the narrator means by he/she prefers hatred over friendly contempt?

Kelsey Pape's Blog Post

Poor Papa?

I was really happy to see Sara reach her goal and become a teacher, gaining independence from her overbearing father. I was really under the impression that things were not going to turn out as well as they did because things seemed to look so grim throughout the whole story. I was also glad to see that she did not completely abandon her heritage by returning to her father. Although I must say her father does not deserve her sympathy. As terrible as it sounds, I was kind of glad to see him so miserable. He was in need of a good dose of karma. He finds it completely unacceptable that his family turns their back on traditions and their heritage, but yet he seems perfectly fine to turn his back on his family by remarrying so quickly and spending all the money he gained from his wife's death on Mrs. Feinstein after marrying her. The only redeeming moments for Mr. Smolinsky are when he recognizes that Sara has a similar mind to him and when he tells off his new wife when she refers to the late Mrs. Smolinsky, exclaiming, "Evil thing! Don't dare take the saint's name in your evil mouth. You're not worth to speak her name." Evil with these brief likeable moments of character shown by Mr. Smolinsky I still find his actions unforgivable and find it a bit sad that she will have to deal with him interfering with her new way of life that he does not approve of.

Do you think that Sara should have gone back to her father? Do you think that having her father living with her will rebuild a stronger connection to her roots?

The Love of Colour in Me

                The article The Love of Color in me critically analyzes the Anzia Yierzierska novel.  Most of the setting for the novel The Bread Giver takes place in the early 20^th centry in New York tenements. During the turn of the century, there was antisemitism that was built out of discontent towards the growing Jewish population.  Also, the reader can take notice that once the Smolinsky family start to get more income there is the feeling to “dress nicer” and want more, thus assimilating into the American culture. Connecting this with the times, many Jews (with typically having darker hair, darker skin tones) were considered to be part of an ethnic group aside from caucasion. Apart from that assertion, many people would drop Jewish names and adopt more American names  Taking the time and setting into considertation,what the critical article touches  on, simplified, is the use of the adjectives “dark” and “black” throughout the novel. Whether it is the dirt in the house, or the situations they are put in, these words are used with negative connotations. The reasoning behind this subconcious use of these particular adjectives was analyzed by the author of the critical article as a way for Jews overall to seperate for what is considered negative in America... “Blackness.” My question is, what do you make of this analysis?

Bread Givers and Romance

A common issue that is shown in Bread Givers is the struggle in the immigrant Jewish household for women to obtain their independence, both romantically and financially.  According to the text, the patriarch of the immigrant Jewish family has the final say in where money goes and who his children are allowed to become romantically involved with.  This is especially true with daughters.  The daughters of the family are required to earn wages and contribute to the financial health of the family, and the father seems to use this as leverage to keep the women under his "control".  Do you, as the reader, believe such a system creates a stronger familial connection or inhibits one?

Value Scale of Women in Bread Givers

With the mother and each of the sisters you get a value scale of separation from the Old World traditions and the idea that women should have equal responsibility and choices as men. The mother sees that she is being oppressed but doesn't do anything to change that, Bessie is too loyal to her family to change her life, Mashah is too into her own gain to strive for equality, Fania is too wrapped up in the unfairness, and so it is left to the youngest to actually do something about the inequality. Sara is the only one that needs the equality to the point of risking what she knows for the unknown. She is willing to accept the US's culture and ideas over her traditional Jewish ones and so she assimilates and thrives more than her family. If you were in the same situation would you take the role of the mother, one of the older sisters, or Sara? I would like to think that I would be like Sara.

PERSEPOLIS

 Persepolis, originially an autobiographical graphic-novel series by Marjane Satrapi, focuses on her childhood during the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The series was eventually adapted into an animated film. Throughout the film, Marjane struggles to find and assert her individuality, even in defiance of the beliefs of her own culture.

There are many similarities between this story and that of Sara. I've placed a link to the trailer below, as well as a link to the official site for the film.


My main question for this novel is simply this:


What message is conveyed by the ending of the novel? Is Sara successful in her attempts to "break away" from the tyranny of her father? Has she failed? Was it ever possible?



http://vimeo.com/392358


http://www.sonyclassics.com/persepolis/main.html

College - Bread Givers

The chapter about Sara attending college was one of my favorite parts of the book. When she first arrives she is amazed at the large (to her) houses and happy, smiling town inhabitants. For the first time she is able to see people her own age in a completely different light. These students most likely had healthy home lives and parents that encourage their education. This is something that Sara has never known. Every decision she makes in order to better herself she must make alone, and fight alone. These other kids don't have to work as hard as she does, and probably don't have ironing jobs in order to support themselves.

"They had none of that terrible fight for bread and rent that I always saw in New York people's eyes. Their faces were not worn with the hunger for things they could never have in their lives. There was in them that sure, settled look of those who belong to the world in which they were born."

For Sara, she has never experienced this kind of belonging. I think this observation that she notices begins her down the next four year track of coming into her own. She has to struggle, as she always has, but in a new manor. She now has something tangible she is reaching for. She finally discovers her intense desire for knowledge and gains a beautiful self-confidence and self-awareness that she has never had before. The end of the chapter was all of her hard work finally coming to fruition. I felt proud of her for writing her story, not only because she won, but because she was honest and true to herself. She no longer required their recognition or praise, and that is precisely when she received it.

I've never experienced these feelings of isolation because I have never had to live in poverty. Although, I do pay for my school and bills and rent, etc. I admire her courage and perseverance, because I can not even imagine having to endure the lifelong "otherness" she must have felt.

Foriveness

Reb Smolinsky spent his life studying the Torah while his wife and daughters saw to the financial needs of the family.  He never cared about their personal needs or saw reason to actually provide for them. When his wife became sick, he seemed to care little for her and is seemingly already courting his future wife.  After the funeral he made a huge scene out of rending his garments while Sara refused, claiming she needed her clothes for work.  But after his new wife spent all of his money he was eventually forced to live in the real world where he became sick.  Sara took pity on him and helped him, despite everything that had happened between them.  Do you think that she was right to take pity on him or should she have responded “so you have made your bed, now you must lie in it”?

The "American" Family

In "America and I" her first job she got was working as a servant for an "American" family. I like that she puts quotes on "American" when she describes them, because they were immigrants just like her, from the same type of village, but they have been "Americanized." They wore American clothes and had American jobs and lived in an American house. They treated her terribly and exploited her. What does that say about the relationship between an immigrant worker and an "American"? What is an "American" to an immigrant?

Bread Givers Ending

The ending of Bread Givers frustrated me. First of all, it was sickeningly sweet. After struggling for her entire life and hating her father, Sara lives happily ever after and invites the jerk to live with her. While nervous about the arrangement, she does her duty. This brings me to the second, most aggravating part of the ending. Though Sara fights to  earn an education and be independent, she proves her father right by only being happy after a man loves her. She works hard, graduates from college, wins a writing contest, has a nice room of her own, and loves her job, but only considers herself a whole person after a man loves her. Furthermore, Sara is only able to be fully happy after she cares for her elderly father. She chases men of authority her entire life, attempting to compensate with her poor paternal relationship. When Mr. Seelig loves her, she gets her wish. This is so anti-feminist, and I am angry with Yezierska for ending her novel this way.

I understand that Sara's father represents her homeland's values, and by accepting him, she is attempting to reconcile her Americanized and immigrant identities. At the same time, this presents a problematic model for Americanized immigrant woman. If a person tells you your whole life that you are not a person, that you are worthless, and you have the strength to gain independence from him, welcoming him back into your life and caring for him in your home doesn't make you a fulfilled person. It makes you a doormat.

Am I unjustified in my displeasure? Did I miss something? Did anyone interpret the ending differently?

The Jazz Singer (1927)

Jewish son--and a cantor's son, too--decides to become a Jazz Singer. Can you imagine how the cantor reacts?

Bread Givers

Sweatshop Cinderella


I was truly amazed by Anzia Yezierska's "Bread Givers". Especially by Sara Smolinsky character. How strong she was compare to her weak-willed sisters. She faced her father's tyranny and from the young age she is trying to seek a recognition for the accomplishments. As an example, when she was selling herrings on the street, she felt "richer than Rockefeller". As 10 year's old girl she already realizes that her father is expecting his daughters not only support him, but also to endure him preaching when they come home after hard work. Sara laments, "I began to see Father, in his innocent craziness to hold up the Light of the Law to his children, was a tyrant more terrible than the Tsar from Russia."
Therefore, I paid attention on his treatment of women. Her father has a personal belief that women need to have an allowance to admit into Heaven: "Only if they cooked for men, and washed for men, and didn't nag and curse the men out of their homes, only if they let the men study the Torah in peace, then, maybe, they could push themselves into heaven with the men, to wait on them there."
All this mean that he cannot accept different culture environment, he used to live with his old traditions and he obviously didn't want to change his cultural and religious treatment of women. Does it all mean that didn't want to "melt" into the new culture or he just being selfish and egotistical for his daughters?  

discrimination among immigrants

In Bread Givers the narrator emphasizes how poor the family was and how selfless the women were expected to be in the wake of their father's pursuit of righteousness. Their father uses the excuse of religion to shift the burdens of finance and home on his wife and children, making them feel guilty and materialistic when they go wanting. Bessie, Fania, and Masha all lose the possibility for love because of their father's pride and obstinate attitude. One of her father's arguments against his daughters' lovers is poverty. He begrudges Fania's poet, claiming he will never be rich and attempts to sell Bessie to her suitors, denying Bernstein when he refuses to support him. All the while, their father continually gives away their money to charities and lodges in order to earn his salvation while they starve. Our understanding of the father's cruelty is developing with the narrator's but much of what he says and does is counter-intuitive.  His simultaneous denial and exploitation of their status as poor confuses me throughout the novel, but it is not unheard of or even uncommon among narratives about people living in poverty.  Is it a projection of a socially constructed identity created by the ideal that if you have been working hard in America you shouldn't be poor? Is it projected self-hate? Why do you think their is so much pride and yet negativity between and among poor people?

Book I

In reading Book I, the character I found most interesting was Mashah. Before she loses her beloved and marries the fake diamond seller, she seems to be quite looked down upon by the rest of her family. She is described as beautiful, but also as vain, selfish, and empty-headed, even by the narrator. She takes her paycheck and spends money on herself first, even though her family is struggling to put food on the table. While her behavior is likened to that of the father, I couldn’t help seeing it in a different light. First of all, she went out and worked for the money that she spent, and was even willing to skip meals for it. The result is that, though her family gives her such a hard time, she genuinely seems to enjoy her life, even in the midst of terrible poverty. This is especially interesting in contrast to Bessie, who is looked up to in the family for her work ethic and selflessness, but herself ends up only being miserable because of it.

What about you? Did you find Mashah’s behavior (before the loss of the piano player) selfish or self-preserving?

America & I blog post

I really enjoyed reading America & I. I especially liked how the author described the hardships and how she overcomes each hardship to attain the American dream. “But my heart wastes away by such work. I think and I think, and my thoughts can’t come out.” This one sentence carries so much emotion and heart that its captivating. The earning of wanting to do something but not being able to do it. And later she achieves the things that she wanted to do is pretty amazing.  Do you think, as long as people persevere and live with positive attitude and hard work, each and every immigrants would be able to live a standard life or even achieve something that they loved to do?

The Home Life

When reading this book the character of the Father was really interesting to me.  We've been talking a lot in class about how America treated many immigrants badly, but it seems to me that a lot of immigrants faced worse oppression at home.  Whenever the Mother would get flustered, the Father only had to use Religion as his excuse and suddenly everything was okay.  This is the same with his treatment of his daughters, especially that with Bessie who feels so responsible for her Father that she gives up a pretty nice marriage opportunity in order to keep caring for him.

So my question is, do you think a lot of Immigrants found that their home lives were more oppressive than something like working at a factory all day?  Why do you think some immigrants held on to strict family/religious values while others didn't?

America & I

I found this piece to be particularly heartwarming. Obviously, we as a class know that Yiezierska becomes famous and popular, since she ends up writing things that we're reading, but to go into the beginning of her story as she's telling it, to ride with her, so to speak, on the emotional rollercoaster as she feels so hopefully and then subsequently let down about her adopted "Americanized" family not paying her after a month of work is rough. In fact, the whole time is basically her just trying to make a living and then being completely screwed over by whoever is employing her. Until she realizes she can be a writer at the end of it, it's a pretty miserable story - but, as we all know, she ends up being fairly famous and writing well past the point that she could actually write or see, via transcriptionists.

I don't so much have a question for you all, but rather a thought to ponder: In each of the instances we've studied so far, most of the immigrants we've dealt with have come over to America full of hope, only to have their hopes smashed to the ground by the harsh reality of the American system - but most of them push through and get their stuff together to the point that they become financially stable and end up doing what they like (or at least what makes them a living). A hundred years later, we're all struggling to make things work, but we've got a whole lot more opportunities to "work by what's in [us]" than most of these people ever did. How do you plan on using what you've learned from this class to motivate you to get what you need to get done, done?

Anzia and Sara

I decided to change my blog post. I wanted to ask what comparisons you all saw between Sara and Anzia? I saw a lot of comparisons between the two, especially with the way they were both struggling to break away from their family traditions. Both of them chose to break away from their families in one way or another and deny their culture (in some ways) in order to become more American. I was curious about which similarities or differences you all saw between the author and her character?

Hester Street_Film Adaptation of Cahan's novella Yekl

This is another iconic scene of "arrival"--in this case, the Jewish wife and boy join the husband and father in America. The scene points to the distance between the newly-arrived characters and the father--Yekl, formerly known as Yankel, who speaks English (albeit broken) and who dresses in a suit, had his beard and sidelocks shaved, and presents himself as an American. He would be Reb Smolinsky's opposite.

For some reason Youtube could not display the insert, but you can watch it by clicking on the link below:
http://youtu.be/qLQyNAu7dpY

The next scene presents the opposite of Yenkl, a pious man who reads the Torah and is a very religious man (but who, unlike Reb Smolinsky, works for a living in a sweatshop). The characters in this scene speak Yiddish (when they don't speak English, that is).

New York City Ghetto Fish Market (1903 film, dir. by Thomas Edison)

Bread Givers

When I first heard the title of the book, I didn't know what to expect. The names of the characters threw me off a bit but I think this will be a good read. My favorite character so far is Mashah even though she is kind of annoying and inconsiderate. I was suprised when it was stated that the oldest sister, Bessie was the primary source of income, when traditionally men are the primary source of everything dealing with the families, home etc. The Father really bothers me in this text for some reason. The fact that he lefs his family suffer in poverty when he has the option of working a "good" paying job seems unmanly in my eyes. I get that religion is the base of most peoples way of life but should that over shadow the well-being of them or their families?

Scenes from "Fiddler on the Roof"

3 iconic scenes from Fiddler on the Roof (1971), Oscar-winning film--you can read more about it here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067093/

Bread Givers

I found the first book really intriguing. The father's character is who stood out to me most, and probably everyone. He is so set in his ways and stuck on the idea of teaching the Torah that he doesn't believe he should work and help provide for himself and his family. I found it very interesting that he gives so much money to charity but refuses to provide a coat for his daughter for the winter, the same daughter who works all day and gives him all of her earnings while he sits at home. He is very frugal but to the point where he doesn't seem to be aware of the economic status of his family. He is so confused when the landlord comes to the house for rent, it's like he's oblivious of the conditions in which he's living.

Do you think that he believes that God is going to always provide for him and because of that sentiment, he doesn't seem to carry much concern for the obstacles him and his family face?

Bread Givers

Bread Givers is full of men and even women oppressing other women. This is the biggest theme of the novel and there is so much oppression towards women that they believe that oppression is an acceptable way of life. So far in "Book I" we are introduced to all of the characters and their personalities. Right off the bat, in the first chapter on pages 9 and 10, this caught my attention:

"The prayers of his daughters didn't count because God didn't listen to women. Heaven and the next world were only for men. Women could get into Heaven because they were wives and daughters of men. Women had no brain for the study of God's Torah, but they could be the servants of men who studied the Torah. Only i they cooked for the men, and washed for the men, and didn't nag or curse the men out of their homes; only if they let the men study the Torah in peace, then, maybe, they could push themselves into Heaven with the men, to wait on them there."  

Reading this made my jaw fall. I couldn't believe these were actual believes.  The injustice and oppression towards women, during this era, was horrible and truly shows when reading this passage. I understand that these believes are mainly religious but we also see the oppression towards women when Sara goes out to buy food and the seller gives her less than she would a man. The injustices are horrible and reading this made me open my eyes about what women had to go through in order to make money or become somewhat successful. 

I also noticed that the characters’ desire to live life to its full advantage without much worry is really the desire to escape into a new life, but this is no easy task. And we see this through all of the struggles the girls must face throughout the novel, especially with dealing with their father. 

Being a woman back then is way different than it is now, but there is still some oppression towards women in today's society. Can you think of any examples in which women are being oppressed today?

Thought you may enjoy this music (a friend just shared with me)

Not directly related to our discussions in the last couple of weeks, but certainly relevant, and from a contemporary perspective on immigration. You may recognize some of the early footage from silent films we watched in class.

Bread Givers

Even just after a chapter of Bread Givers, I came to an incredible dislike for the father. He has a wife and many daughters, all of whom are desperately trying to work and pay the rent and their other bills. Yet he won't even work himself – he just studies the Torah. He blames his wife for not giving him a son (his fault, last I checked), takes the best food, and just studies all day. After he was arrested for physically abusing his landlady, who was just trying to keep herself afloat and collect her money, he says, “Even butchers and bakers and common money-makers have sometimes their use in the world.” He is referring to the people who bailed him out of jail. I understand the importance of religion in the community and studying it as well. But his all-consuming desire to study the Torah has caused his family financial problems and has caused him great pride.

Do you feel that the father's faith and role in his community give him reason not to work?

Roosevelt's Americanization

Theodore Roosevelt’s view on immigrants and their Americanization was very intriguing. His belief was that  if one truly wants to become an American, one needs to let go of his previous heritage in order to attain a new one. “He must revere only our flag; not only must it come first, but no other flag should even come second.” As an immigrant, I belive that in order to become an American, I eventually would either forget or give up my  heritage as a Korean. I believe that being American is not necessarily about maintaining your heritage, but learning to welcome those who are from a different culture and being able to live in harmony without discrimination. Rigth now, I still have a strong sense of nationalism as a Korean, but I know that eventually as time passes, I would eventually lose the sense of Korean nationalism and begin to gain the sense of nationalism as an American. As I go into a workforce and have a family, I think I would be too busy to keep up with my Korean cultures or traditions.

"International Nation.

In Randolph Bourne's essay, he mentions that the U.S. has been unknowingly becoming "the first international nation," meaning that there is not necessarily a fixed American culture to which newcomers can strive to adhere. Nearly a hundred years later, the question of what or who represents a true America is still a subject of debate, particularly with the presidential election looming. But can anything represent American culture? Bourne questions the existence of a uniquely American culture, but has this changed in the past hundred years of U.S. history? Have the international conflicts since World War I forced the U.S. to develop a defend-able identity?

Tras-National America

"The early colonists came over with motives no less colonial than the later. They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting pot. They did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian. They had not the smallest intention of 'giving themselves without reservation' to the new country. They came to get freedom to live as they wanted to. They came to escape from the stifling air and chaos of the old world; they came to make their fortune in a new land."

"It is just this English-Americanconservatism that has been our chief obstacle to social advance. We have needed the new peoples—the order of the German and Scandinavian, the turbulence of the Slav and Hun—to save us from our own stagnation."

This text was very intriguing because the author talked about why people came to America and why it was so important for them to get away from the old world and find peace in the new world.  Immigrants came to America to live however it was they wanted to live like. For example the immigrants that came to practice their own religions freely without anyone telling them couldn't.  So, in no way, shape, or form did the early immigrants want to adapt to the ways of the Native American or melt into their culture. Instead they came with one goal in mind and that was to live freely as they please since they didn't have a ruler telling them exactly what to do anymore. Also, the author talks about how America is today is thanks to the ideas of the different ethnicities that immigrated from the old world to the new.  America would be now where how it is today if it wasn't for all the different kinds of peoples that immigrated here, which in the end, gave different ideals and ways in which America has grown to become today. In other words, if the immigrants of America had only been English, then our government and our ideals would be probably be different today, and there wouldn't be as much diversity as we luckily have now.  

American Ideals - Roosevelt

In Roosevelt's American Ideals he says that to be Americanized is to throw away immigrants old ways of life (the "old world") and that in order for America to be great they have to do this. He doesn't think that it is wrong to demand that people that immigrate to America strip themselves of their culture to be "Americans". As long as a person is acting "American" it doesn't matter where they were born, but the key is to not show where you were born. Now the modern idea is to embrace cultures that moved to America from elsewhere. These needs for strict "Americanization" is no longer needed. I guess my question is why do you think it was considered bad for America to celebrate the "Old World" as Roosevelt calls it? To me he wasn't very convincing with his "spirit, conviction, and purpose" making Americanism. America was built on many different groups and that is what I think of as the American "spirit". If you don't act like "proper white America" you should just go back from where you come from?

All the reading about Americanization reminded me of the West Side Story song "America".

Roosevelt

I was actually surprised to read about Roosevelt's views on immigrants. He expected them to conform to American ways and leave everything they came from behind. The quote about our flag really struck me, "He must revere only our flag; not only must it come first, but no other flag should even come second." Roosevelt felt that immigrants needed to shed their identity to become an American, to me what makes America is our unique mix of cultures from all over the world. America is unlike any other country because of that fact. I think Roosevelt thought we couldn't become a world power if we all weren't united as one distinct culture. But I think it's the contrary, what actually made America as powerful as it is today is our ability to accept everyone. 


Do you think Roosevelt felt this way because he thought it would make America a stronger country? 

Trans-national America

I really liked how Bourne said that we are all foreign born. No one in America has family that was been here from the beginning of the world. We are all technically on a level playing field and to say to someone else that they are foreign is wrong. Every person who came here wanted the same things: to get away from their mother country and begin anew in a world that will let them be who they want to be. I also like how Bourne said that if we did not have every culture we would not be the same America we are today. Every different culture represented in America has made it the way it is if one did not decide to come to America than we would have a totally different nation. It just is really cool how Bourne throws information about how these people needed to come to America to make it more predominate than other countries. Also to keep these different cultures and not become "a tasteless, colorless fluid of uniformity" (4). I love learning about my friends' different cultures and why they celebrate different things than I do. I feel that this sets this nation apart because many other countries do not do this.

How would you feel if the United States of America was assimilated and did not allow other cultural celebrations throughout the year?

Trans-national America

Bourne states that the original immigrants were not interested in assimilating into the Native American’s culture or intentionally creating a new one, but rather they simply continued English culture?  Do you believe this is true?  Do you believe that the War for Independence had no bearing on the chaining of policy in America?  I for one disagree with this.  Obviously the idea of expecting everyone to become essentially the same and ignore their roots is wrong.  But to assume that America was a solely Anglo-Saxon country propitiating old ideas from old England seems a bit of a stretch.  I do not believe that the founders came here to just continue ancient English traditions without having to answer to the monarchy, but rather with an idea of a new nation founded on a set of principles.  While Bourne makes some excellent points, I feel that he is a bit harsh and extreme.  Thoughts?

Theodore Roosevelt analysis of immigrants

While I found the readings intriguing, Theodore Roosevelt’s opinion and argument is interesting. While he does not oppose immigrants. He encourages them to loose their identity to become more “American.” Which itself is a threat to foreign born immigrants. As an American President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt had his own opinions on immigrants in the country. President Roosevelt believed that immigrants should assimilate. He states, “The mighty tide of immigration has brought in its train much of good and much of evil.” As a person growing in the twenty-first century, to hear President Roosevelt state that there is evil in immigrants is surprising. Roosevelt’s tone is not convincing. As a citizen of ethnic background I would feel threatened. After reading his speech, how would you feel?

Trans-national America

For this week's readings, I was most interested in Bourne's, "Trans-national America." I thought Bourne was excellent in defending immigrants in the fact that the pressure for them to become Americanized, made them able to find a balance between keeping their culuture while assimilating into American society. Here Bourne explains the situation well: "Assimilation, in other words, instead of washing out memories of Europe, made them more and more intensely real. Just as these clusters became more and more objectively American, did they become more and more German or Scandanavian or Bohemian or Polish." No one has applauded immigrants for maintaining their sense of identity while trying to take on another, and I think they deserve that.

So I guess my question would be, what do you think it meant to these immigrants when being forced to become Americanized? Looking at generations years (and years) after, do you think losing that bit of culture was worth it to them to become what society defined as "American"?

Americanization and the Native Americans

In his address to the American Historical Association, Frederick Jackson Turner speaks of the American frontiersman, saying that after being in the wilderness a short while "he has gone to planting Indian corn and plowing with a sharp stick, he shouts a war cry and takes the scalp in orthodox Indian fashion" (678). He describes this metamorphosis into a Native American as a movement away from the European ways and toward the American way.

His portrayal of Native Americans is inaccurate and disgraceful. I'm not sure if he is saying that Americans will adopt Native American ways as they are transformed by the frontier or that Americans must civilize the rest of the continent before it turns them to savages. Either way, Turner presents a highly problematic view of Native Americans and the frontier. To further confuse the situation, during his time, Americanization did not mean the adoption of other cultures, but the erasure of them. What does it mean that Americans would adopt negative aspects of the indigenous cultures?

How do the "Debates Over Americanization" portray Americans, particularly Native Americans? Are these portrayals accurate or problematic? Why?

Wednesday 9/19/2012 Campus event

http://wp.vcu.edu/vcucollege/dos-mujeres/

Please consider attending; if you do, please write a 2-page analysis of the talk and I'm happy to consider it for extra credit. You can summarize the event very briefly and then ANALYZE it, focusing on specific ideas/concepts that drew your attention.

How "American" should immigrants become?

For this week's readings, I was most interested in Trans-national America and the author's discussion of the melting pot and it's lack of appropriateness in our culture today. I appreciate the quote, "To face the fact that our aliens are already strong enough to take a share in the direction of their own destiny, and that the strong cultural movements represented by the foreign press, schools, and colonies are a challenge to our facile attempts, is not, however, to admit the failure of Americanization." Seldom are foreigners in America given credit for the fact that they've been brave enough to move to an entirely new place and attempt to integrate themselves.

I've attached a YouTube video of an ABC tv experiment. My professor in my religious service learning class showed it to us, and I found it relevant to this class as well. In many cases, the Spanish-speaking customers are rudely told to "speak English" despite the fact that their requests for coffee are simple and easily understood. How would you react if you had been present for the experiment? Does the cashier have any merit in saying that people should learn English before they come to America? Or is he encouraging that immigrants "melt" too much and lose their identity?

Roberto Benini-"Down By Law" (the "Buzz off" episode)

Enjoy!!

Kelsey Pape's Blog Post

The loveable K*A*P*L*A*N

Hyman Kaplan is an undeniably loveable and naïve character. I can only sympathize with him despite how frustrating his difficulty in learning English would be to deal with as a teacher.  Mr. Parkhill seems to handle Hyman’s struggle very well. I could not help but think of how annoyed most Americans get with people who struggle with English and in comparison Mr. Parkhill keeps his cool relatively well. It is clear that Hyman Kaplan feels that he has been treated well by Mr. Parkhill (despite his modest expressions of annoyance) as he states in the end of his final exam “ps. I don’t care if I pass. I love the class”. I think part of the reason that he wanted to please Mr. Parkhill so badly is because he shows little to no notice of Mr. Parkill’s frustration with him, usually responding to his frustrated remarks or questions with a smile on his face. This book tackles one of the major issues for immigrants that are new to the United States. From personal experience I can attest to how difficult it is to master a new language as I have been struggling with keeping straight French conjugations for years. I really enjoyed reading this book for the second time as it is such a fun and heartwarming way to express the struggles of coming to America.

Do you think that Hyman was aware of how much he frustrated Mr. Parkhill? Do you think that perhaps he is aware, but is understanding and does not let it upset him?

Hyman Kaplan and Education

The whole time I was reading Hyman Kaplan, I was repeatedly impressed by how Mr. Kaplan responded to the various questions that he was asked by Mr. Parkhill.  For example, he was asked to define the word 'vast' and he interpreted this as the direction 'west' on the cardinal rose.  Mr. Parkhill himself had an exemplary response to this interesting student by curtailing the curriculum to fit the needs of his student, a quality of flexibility that fewer and fewer teachers seem to possess in this day and age.  As English majors, whether or not you have aspirations towards becoming an educator, do Mr. Parkhills' techniques necessary in today's world or simply old fashioned.

The Undeterred Mr. H*Y*M*A*N* K*A*P*L*A*N*

                The persistence and optimism of the character of Mr. Hyman Kaplan in this book is unparallel to any other I have ever witnessed.  The main character was constantly being scrutinized, corrected, and “shot down,” but through it all he consistently had a gleaming smile on his face. The question arises as to whether his smile came out of sheer enjoyment or because he simply was not fully aware of his thoughts. Then again, it could be argued that Mr. Kaplan in fact knew he was wrong, but did not care. Nothing and no one, not even Mrs. Moskowitz could deter him from his pride and happiness. Although it seems as though Mr. Kaplan had a lot to learn, it stands true that a lot could be learned from Mr. Kaplan as well. Although often times wrong, his logic seemingly always backed up his incorrect statements.  Mr. Kaplan’s optimism is exemplified in his description of what he thinks is Julius Caesars, or in his case, “Julius Scissor,” He say’s life should be happy- so we should remember this is only a poem. Maybe is Shakespeare too passimistic”

                One thing that I really noticed in the book was how precise and “dry” the English language and American culture can be at times. A statement that Mr. Kaplan made pertaining to Jake Popper’s funeral stuck out in my mind; “Keplen, you in America, so tink like de Americans tink!’ So I tought, an’ I didn’t go. Becawss I thought dat dip American idea, Business before pleasure.” Could this possibly be a subtle comment on the American way of life? 

Mr. K*A*P*L*A*N

Hyman Kaplan turned out to be a lot smarter than I anticipated. When the book began I was not too fond of Hyman for many reasons. I found Hyman to be more than anything just comic relief, but by the end of the book I began to really admire the character. There is a lot to admire about the character of Hyman Kaplan one being his unbelievable resolve. Hyman clearly has a hard time grasping the finer points of the English language but his approach to learning the language is commendable. I really admire the way that he questions everything he is exposed to about the English language. Often times he has to argue a certain point to the entire class and he does so with great success, even though he is answer may be incorrect. Hyman I believe is just trying to hold on to a sense of individualism in a society that wants him to seamlessly assimilate with everyone else. Everything about Hyman is unique and over the top and it is clear that he is trying desperately to hold to that. So I admire Hyman because he clearly wants to learn about American culture and the English language but he also realizes how important it is to maintain his own individualistic beliefs.


Do you think it is possible to maintain your prior held beliefs but also at the same time learn and understand another culture?

Oh, Mr. Hyman Kaplan

As a couple fellow students have posted, I found the chapter named "Mr. K*A*P*L*A*N, the Comparative, and the Superlative" extremely interesting.  The opening page describes the assignment as "a composition of one hundred words, entitled 'My Job'" (11).  Through broken, horribly spelled English, Kaplan provides a one hundred word analysis of his working conditions.  However, at the end of the recitation, Mr. Parkhill declares that Mr. Kaplan did not complete the assignment; "'Y-yes.  No ideas, only-er-facts'" (15).  Mr. Parkhill consistently questions Mr. Kaplan's ability to move up to the next level of classes yet when he shows promise of critical thinking and analysis, Parkhill punishes him and forces Kaplan to re-write an assignment for basically being overly successful.  Honestly, I think Mr. Parkhill is an idiot and Mr. Kaplan is a diamond in the rough genius.  Due to my lack of faith in Parkhill's intelligence, I guess my question is do you think this is on purpose?  Is Parkhill deliberately attempting to stifle a critical thinking spirit?  Or, is Parkhill similarly disillusioned and believes Kaplan must be able to list facts before he can think critically (despite the fact that he can obviously already accomplish such thought)?  Is Parkhill fighting against any sort of problem-posing method of education or just brainwashed by the banking concept? 

Side note: One of my favorite lines in the book "Mr. Parkhill girded mental loins" (14)

Mr. K*A*P*L*A*N and Shakespeare

I found this book incredibly hilarious and quite subversive at the same time (like watching the Colbert Report or The Daily Show!). It put me very much in mind of our reading from the Pedagogy of the Oppressed (especially since the word "pedagogy" and variations thereof are used numerous times, I believe all in reference to Mr. Parkhill and some opportunity he sees). The part I found most demonstrative of the "banking concept of education" was on page 107, in the story about Mr. Kaplan and Shakespeare. Mr. Parkhill – who actually seems to be nothing if not a sympathetic, well meaning man – declares to the class that he will "introduce [them] to poetry." He does not say "English" poetry, he does not say "new," poetry, he simply says "poetry," as if he either assumes they don't have poetry in whatever their native languages are, or worse, that the only real poetry is that which he is about to share with them. In other words, Mr. Parkhill has the information, and the rest of the class will be blessed to receive it. However, Mr. Kaplan seems to prove how utterly wrong Mr. Parkhill is. In this story, he seems to know quite well who Shakespeare is – or at least he knows very well that Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar. It's also hard for me to believe that he didn't actually know full well that the passage Mr. Parkhill wrote was not only from Macbeth, but also exactly what it really meant.

What interests me most about the book, however, has nothing directly to do with its content: the fact that the author's name is not Leonard Q Ross, but instead Leo Rosten. I looked it up, and Rosten is a Jewish name, whereas Ross is English (if my searches are correct). I know that Stan Lee (yes, Marvel comic book writer and father of The Avengers, X-Men, etc….what do you want, I'm nerd!) was actually born Stanley Lieber, but changed it because it was Jewish and he was writing during a time of high anti-Semitism. I have no idea if Rosten's motivation was the same, but I find it especially interesting that he changed from a Jewish name to an English one given the subversive nature of stories in the book itself.

Thoughts?

Hyman Kaplan

This book reminded me of Carter G. Woodson's book The Miseducation of the Negro which I read in African American Lit last year. The book centers around education and cultural differences of blacks living in white dominated countries, rather than the education differences like Hyman Kaplan.

Hyman Kaplan

I more the read the book the more I started to feel like Kaplan was making fun of America and the way that it was structured during that time period.  In the book, Mr. Parkhill wonders several times if Kaplan wasn't some kind of genius, and I think that he was exactly that.  He is almost too smart and observant to learn English properly because points that he makes actually make sense, just not within the rules of America.  From the book, I get the impression that he has a better idea of what the rules are than he's letting on but at the same time I could be wrong.  I think the funniest example of this is the discussion with the substitute about "a so-and-so" vs. "so-and-so."  Kaplan deliberately makes the substitute explain "a so-and-so" and then uses "so-and-so" in his explanation of the context.  It's also fitting that he plays this game with someone who isn't used to his ways.  I think the mentioning of his endless smile paired with the last line of the book shows just how much Kaplan was enjoying himself.  The word that comes to mind to describe Kaplan is really informal, but he basically seems like he's trolling his teacher and his classmates.  I really liked this book!

So I guess my question is, do you think a lot of immigrants pretended to be less knowledgeable of American ways?  If so, why?