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?